We publish decisions as part of our commitment to being open and transparent.
Decision reports do not include residents’ names, but we name landlords. They date from December 2020, and we publish them 3 months after the final decision date.
In some cases, we will not publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest. Or if we will compromise the resident’s anonymity. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202316802 London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) 24 April 2025 Our approach The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the […]
The complaint is about: The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in his garden. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A balcony repair. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows in the property. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs including external repairs to the building, indoor and outdoor communal areas, mould on interior walls in the resident’s individual property, condensation in the window units, and cracks in the ceiling. Communal garden maintenance and window cleaning. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Rent account following a succession. Associated complaint, including her use of a representative. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022. It acknowledged her complaint the next day, which was positive. In the acknowledgement it advised it would respond within 10 working days. On 21 October 2022 it wrote to the resident advising it required a further 10 working days. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of the delay, in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). However, it would have been good practice to provide the notification before the date the response was due. The resident emailed the landlord for an update on the complaint on 31 October 2022. She said she was told the response would be issued on 3 November 2022. She contacted the landlord again on this date chasing the response. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022. It apologised for the delay but went on to say that due to workload it did not have the capacity to respond to the resident on a regular basis. In the context of the complaint, this comment was insensitive and likely frustrated the resident. In the same email the landlord said its response would be delayed until 17 November 2022. When this date arrived, it said it needed a further 10 working days, adding that it would contact her when it had an update. This open-ended update proposal was inappropriate. The resident asked for an update on 1 December 2022. The landlord responded on 5 December 2022, advising the complaint would be further delayed until 2 January 2023. It did not issue the response on this day and did not update the resident on any further delay until 27 January 2022. This was further evidence of poor communication that caused the resident ongoing time, trouble and frustration. The landlord’s complaint handler sent an internal email on 10 February 2023. They stated: “This complaint has been open for 89 days and I am no clearer where I stand on this. The delay and impact on the resident are poor and frustrating.” The complaint handler then emailed the resident apologising for the delay and stating that a further 10 working days was required. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 3 March 2023. However, it was incorrectly dated 23 February 2023. The delay in providing the complaint response was unreasonable, and significantly outside the requirements of both the Code and the landlord’s complaint handling policy. The stage 1 response was unclear and did not outline the errors or the cause of these. It was evident from the response that there was no coherent understanding of the issues amongst the landlord’s staff. Further, we consider that the compensation offered for the substantive element and complaint handling was insufficient for the detriment caused and failed to put things right for the resident. The resident called the landlord on 6 June 2023. She said she had been waiting 2 years for a resolution and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The call handler’s notes state: “I advised her she needs to put any complaint in writing – she said ‘so you can't help me’ I told her it is in her interest to put it in writing so that she can have a trail.” There is nothing in the landlord’s complaint policy or procedure that states an escalation request must be made in writing. The call handler’s response was unhelpful and added to the already significant delays for the resident. This was unacceptable. On 11 September 2023, the resident called the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. In this instance the call hander acted correctly and forwarded the escalation request to the complaints team. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023, which complied with the timeframes in its policy. The stage 2 response, while clearer than the stage 1 response, still contained inaccuracies. The account was not reduced to zero when the £4,000 was refunded to the resident (as stated). The rent statement shows there remained a £730.13 credit on the account. The response also said that the credit that had built up in the new account was because of the £20 overpayments and universal credit. While this may be somewhat correct, the main reason the credit built up was because the landlord had failed to take rent from any of the accounts for a period of at least 9 months. Further, the response stated at point 6 that the accounts “at the time were inaccurate”. It did not clarify what timeframe it was referring to, which was unclear and confusing. It also did not link clearly with the corresponding complaint point. In its decision, the landlord said that it upheld or partially upheld aspects of the complaint and so partially upheld the complaint overall. We do not agree with this decision. The errors and confusion were caused solely by the landlord, and, on the basis of the findings it made, we consider it should have upheld the resident’s complaint overall. Where a complaint is not fully upheld, we would expect a landlord to be clear which parts were not upheld and why. At stage 2 the landlord increased its compensation offer for complaint handling by £50. It advised this was the maximum that could be awarded in line with its policy. We have considered this aspect of the policy in the previous section and will not revisit it here. However, we consider the £150 for the complaint handling failures identified was insufficient. The landlord later acknowledged this and offered a further £200 for complaint handling in June 2024. As this offer was made 8 months after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, it cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes) for a substantial compensation offer to be made late in a protracted process with the intention of avoiding investigation, or a more severe finding, by our Service. In summary, the landlord’s complaints process did not operate as expected and did not put things right for the resident. There were unreasonable delays at stage 1 and poor communication throughout those delays, including barriers to the resident’s use of a representative. The stage 1 response failed to sufficiently address the complaint and constituted a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint in the first instance. The landlord then failed to escalate to stage 2 when first requested. The compensation offered at both stages was insufficient, as the landlord itself later recognised. The stage 2 response also failed to uphold the resident’s complaint, which was inconsistent with the evidence. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. A finding of severe maladministration has been avoided only because of the efforts of the stage 1 complaint handler pursuing the relevant information internally, and because the landlord more recently recognised the extent of its complaint handling failures. Due to the errors identified and the impact on the resident, we have made an award of £500 compensation (increasing the landlord’s offer by £150). The additional amount is in line with our remedies guidance and reflects the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s ultimate offer. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Report of a leak into her property, the associated repairs, and repairs to her windows. Complaint about the length of time that scaffolding was in place at the property. The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation in the home. Handling of the formal complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of the resident's: Reports of damp and mould. Request to be rehoused. Associated complaint.