London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202421535

REPORT COMPLAINT 202421535 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 case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings. The complaint The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the works to: The paving and an overgrown tree.

The garden boundary fence. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Background The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden. The resident lives in the property with her 4 children. On 1 August 2024 the resident called the landlord and raised a formal complaint. She reported that repairs to address uneven paving in both the front and back gardens had been outstanding for over a year.

The resident stated that 1 of her children had tripped over the uneven surface and sustained an injury. She requested the removal of a tree that was causing uneven paving in the front garden and the completion of works to level the front and back garden paving. On 2 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it first raised a repair related to the paving and the tree in the front garden on 26 August 2022. However, under its complaints policy, it could only investigate issues reported within the past 12 months.

The landlord noted that it raised the repair again on 17 July 2024 and said that it had contacted its maintenance supervisor for an update. The landlord said that this was because the resident had raised a concern that the contractor might only attend to take photographs, which happened in 2022, rather than carry out the repairs. The landlord agreed to update the resident once it received a response from its maintenance supervisor. On the same day that the landlord sent its stage 1 response the resident escalated the complaint.

She told the landlord that she was due to give birth soon and wanted it to complete the repairs promptly. On 7 August 2024 the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord about the paving repair and the works to the tree. She also complained about the time taken for the landlord to repair the garden fence which she said was a safety issue for her son. Following receipt of the complaint the landlord informed the resident that it would deal with the matter of the fence separately to the complaint.

On 21 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed an inspection took place on 15 August 2024 to assess the required work. The landlord confirmed that it could not complete the repairs before the resident’s baby was due and apologised for the inconvenience. It acknowledged that the repair had been outstanding since 2022 and that it failed to follow up on the repair after an inspection in October 2022. The landlord offered the resident £340 in compensation.

This comprised of £100 for its failure to recognise the impact of the repairs and £240 for the delay in completing the repair over a12 month period. The landlord reiterated that under its policy, it could only formally investigate complaints about issues reported within the last 12 months. Regarding the resident’s report of her son’s injury, the landlord advised her to pursue a claim through her home contents insurance or its insurance team. It confirmed that it would complete the back garden paving repair by 17 September 2024 and level the front paving after the tree’s removal, which it scheduled for completion by 15 October 2024.

On the same day the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the resident replied by email. She explained that her complaint that she sent to the landlord on 7 August 2024, included the repair to the garden fence. She stated that the repairs had caused her significant distress, and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer. The resident also raised concerns that, despite disclosing her mental health conditions, she felt this information had been used against her in the landlord’s complaint process and in its assessment of compensation.

She stated that the landlord’s failure to address the fence repair was a breach of its obligations. The resident referred her complaint to us for consideration. She said that as a resolution to the complaint she wanted: Compensation for each repair issue. For the landlord to complete the repairs. For the landlord to formally apologise and commit to provide support for vulnerable residents in the future. For the landlord to provide access to her records, specifically call recordings that she requested on 21 August 2024 and other relevant documentation.

Jurisdiction What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the works to the garden boundary fence is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints brought to us before the landlord’s complaints procedure has been completed, unless there is evidence of complaint handling failure, and we are satisfied that the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timeframe. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the garden boundary fence repair, there is evidence that she raised this with the landlord on 7 August 2024 after she had already complained about the paving and the overgrown tree.

As a result, the fence repair issue was not part of the original complaint. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would deal with the fence issue separately. It did not raise a separate a formal complaint about the fence repair. The landlord has not investigated the complaint about the fence repair. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the works to the garden boundary fence is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

However, as there is evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the fence, we will consider the landlord’s handling of the complaint itself in this report. Assessment and findings Scope of investigation Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The resident also said in her complaint that her child was injured due to the uneven paving slabs. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness.

This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the works to the paving and an overgrown tree The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to trip hazards in paths, paving, and driveways that provide access to a property. It is also responsible for work to trees where they are dead, diseased, or dangerous. The repair policy states that the landlord’s service standards for routine repairs is an average of 25 calendar days. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it failed to carry out the repairs after it raised the original repair order for the paving slabs on 26 August 2022.

Its repair records show that it raised another repair order for the paving and the tree on 1 August 2024. The landlord completed an inspection on 15 August 2024 and then it raised repair orders for the tree removal and the repair to the front and back garden paving. In the final response to the complaint the landlord said that by 17 September 2024, it would arrange an appointment for the works to address the back garden paving slabs. It noted that it would repair the front garden slabs after it removed the tree, which it was due to complete by 15 October 2024.

However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed through on this agreement. On 28 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that it had not completed any repairs yet. While there is a record of a missed appointment for the tree removal on 14 December 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this appointment in advance or followed up with her to rearrange another visit. Furthermore, there is no record of the landlord arranging an appointment with the resident for the work to the back garden paving slabs after its final response.

The landlord confirmed to us in April 2025 that its contractors would be attending before 14 May 2025 to repair the back garden paving slabs and the contractor would l be attending before 9 June 2025 to deal with the tree. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint response that it had failed to complete the work to the paving slabs and the tree since August 2022. While it recognised that the repairs had been outstanding since 2022, it explained that, in line with its complaints policy, it could only investigate issues raised within the previous 12 months.

The landlord offered the resident an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused, along with £100 compensation. It also offered £240 for a 12-month period of delay, calculated at £20 per month, making the total compensation it offered to the resident £340. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to award a single figure of compensation for multiple repair issues. However, in the context of this complaint, we find the landlord’s approach reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.

The policy states that it may consider compensation where its service failures cause distress, inconvenience, or require the resident to spend unnecessary time and effort to seek resolution. Although the repairs were separate, they were related and outstanding during the same period, as the tree roots contributed to the defects in the front garden slabs. Given this overlap, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a combined compensation award for the delays in completing both the tree and paving works.

However, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the overall delay or its impact on the resident. The landlord explained that it did not consider compensation for a period longer than 12 months due to its complaints policy, which excludes issues raised more than 12 months after they occurred. However, the policy also allows for older matters to be considered by the landlord in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that the repair had been outstanding since 28 August 2022 and had not been completed due to a failure in its service.

These factors amounted to exceptional circumstances and the landlord had evidence that it failed to complete the repair since 2022. It should have therefore considered offering redress for the entire delay as it had already acknowledged this in its findings. The resident informed the landlord that her child had been injured due to the uneven paving slabs. In response, the landlord advised her to submit a claim through its insurance team. This advice was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that personal injury claims may be referred to its insurance team.

Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the works to the paving and the tree. The landlord failed to offer proportionate redress for the full period of delay and the impact it caused. It also did not follow through on its commitment to complete the works by the dates provided in its final response. Furthermore, the landlord did not follow up with the resident after she raised the issue again in November 2024, nor did it act after reporting no access for tree removal in December 2024.

As of the date of this report, the repairs remain outstanding, over 2 years since they were first reported by the resident. In recognition of the maladministration finding, we have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £700 compensation. This amount is inclusive of the £340 that the landlord offered to the resident in its response to the complaint. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £360. Our remedies guidance considers awards of this amount where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

In this case the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter was the significant delay of more than 2 years for the landlord to complete the repair. The impact on the resident as a result of this is considered significant, taking into account the delay itself and the impact that this had on the resident and her children whose use of the garden was restricted due to the unsafe paving. We have also ordered that the landlord complete the repair works to the paving and the removal of the tree within 12 weeks of this report.

If it is unable to meet this deadline, the landlord must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay. The landlord’s complaint handling Following the resident’s submission of her stage 1 complaint on 1 August 2024 the landlord responded at both stages of its complaints procedure within the timeframes set out in its policy. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that additional issues may be added to a complaint up until the stage 1 response is issued.

After this point, any new issues should be logged as a separate complaint, unless it is reasonable to include them in the existing case. In the case of the resident’s complaint submitted on 7 August 2024, the landlord did not follow its procedure. It failed to log the issue concerning the garden fence as a complaint, despite the resident indicating her wish to raise a complaint about the time it had taken the landlord to complete the repair. In line with its policy, the landlord should have recorded this as a separate complaint and communicated this to the resident.

Although it stated that the fence repair would be dealt with separately, it was unreasonable not to formally log a new complaint. By failing to do so, the landlord missed the opportunity to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the fence repair and offer her a resolution through its complaints procedure. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling due to its failure to record and address the resident’s complaint regarding the fence.

We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the potential impact this failure may have had. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends such awards where there has been an adverse effect on the resident, but the impact is not considered permanent. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether she wishes to pursue a formal complaint regarding the fence repair. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the paving and the overgrown tree.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders and recommendations We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £850 in compensation within 4 weeks of this report, comprising: £700, which includes the £340 already credited to the resident’s rent account. The remaining £360 of the total must be paid directly to the resident. £150 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident resulting from the landlord’s failure in its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the repairs to the paving in both the front and back gardens and remove the tree. If it is unable to meet this deadline the landlord must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay. Once the work is complete, the landlord must provide evidence of completion to us. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm whether she wishes to raise a formal complaint regarding the fence repair.