London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202416768)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416768

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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:
1. the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof, the bedroom window, and associated remedial work.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began on 17 October 2022. The resident lives in a first floor, 1 bedroom flat with no other occupants. The resident said she has asthma and mental health conditions.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported issues with condensation between the glass panes of the bedroom window on 13 April 2023. The landlord raised a works order to inspect the issue on the same day and assigned the works to a specialist contractor.
During an inspection, the window contractor noticed that a roofing issue was causing a leak through the resident’s bedroom windows. On 13 July 2023 the landlord raised a works order to check the roof and guttering of the bedroom for a leak. The landlord assigned the works to a roofing contractor, who attended the resident’s property on 21 July 2023. The contractor cleaned the guttering but told the landlord that the problem may require scaffolding and an asbestos contractor, due to possible asbestos panels slipping into the guttering.
On 28 July 2023 the resident called the landlord to request an update on the roofing work. She said this needed to be completed before the window repair could be done, and that the window contractors were repeatedly calling her about the issue. The landlord said that it had raised a case for asbestos and a new roofing order, but that there would be delays in arranging the asbestos check with the contractors.
On 4 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the complaint was about the landlord’s customer service and the development of the roof and window repairs. She said:
1. she had already logged a complaint about the windows but had not heard anything from the complaints team despite emailing them a few times.
2. she called the landlord on the day of the complaint, who told her that it had cancelled the asbestos check as it needed to be authorised by a senior admin.
3. she felt that she was unable to get a clear answer from the landlord on who would be completing the check and when.
4. she would like the asbestos check booked as soon as possible so that the roof could be repaired and the bedroom window could be replaced.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 August 2023. It said:
1. it upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. the asbestos check was raised by the maintenance manager on 4 August 2023 as urgent, and the window repairs were put on hold until the asbestos check and roofing repairs were completed.
3. it expected to have an update on the repairs for the resident by 24 August 2023.
A contractor carried out the asbestos survey on 31 August 2023 and found a small amount of low-risk asbestos material in the cement roof panels. The landlord raised a follow-on works order to remove the panels on 5 September 2023. The work was completed on 15 December 2023.
On 5 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the leak into the bedroom had worsened. She said she had to remove belongings from her bedroom and that water was running down the walls. She also reported mould on the windows. She asked for action from the landlord on the same day or she would escalate the matter.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2024. She said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and that the repairs were still outstanding.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 June 2024 to ask for confirmation that the roofing work had been completed, along with the scaffolding removal date and the cost of damaged blinds and carpeting. The resident said she had already requested this information from the landlord multiple times. She said the landlord had not apologised for the leak on 5 January 2024 and that it had told a neighbour the scaffolding had been removed when it had not.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 5 June 2024. It said:
1. it had given the resident £360 compensation in a stage 1 response on 13 November 2023.
2. it would be closing the complaint as 2 staff members from the maintenance team had been actively working with the resident and had confirmed the roofing works had been completed.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 July 2024. She said that it took the landlord until 11 January 2024 to seal the roof. At the time of contact, the internal remedial work was still outstanding, however the resident said all work has now been completed. The resident said the length of time taken to complete the works and the frequent contact to the landlord caused her stress. She said she was seeking an apology and compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs caused her distress. Aspects of the resident’s complaint also relate to the impact the living conditions have had on her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord, including delays to remedial stain-blocking works after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been exhausted.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

Repairs to the roof and associated remedial work, including a repair to the bedroom window

The landlord raised a works order to inspect and repair the resident’s bedroom window on 13 April 2023. The contractor who attended the property noticed a leak through the window and recommended the landlord check the roof for the source of the leak. The landlord raised a works order to check the guttering and roof above the bedroom extension on 13 July 2023, which a contractor attended on 21 July 2023.
It is unclear from the landlord’s repair records when the window contractor attended the property. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine whether there was a delay in the landlord raising the roofing work after it was first made aware of the issue. The landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate.
The landlord was under a duty to repair the roof within a reasonable time of being given notice of the issue. This is set out in the implied terms in s.11(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs, which is available on our website.
What is a reasonable time will depend on all circumstances of a case. The landlord’s repairs policy (2023) says that it:
1. will aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
2. will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that its maintenance manager had raised an asbestos check as “urgent” on 4 August 2023. The resident said that during a phone call on the same day, the landlord told her the original contractor had been cancelled and internal maintenance staff would contact her. The contractor contacted the resident later that day and said it would speak to the landlord to confirm if the booking had been cancelled.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it expected to have an update for the resident by 24 August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord issued any further updates to the resident following its stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable and in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report on repairs, for the landlord to carry out and appropriately record any remedial action it took following its stage 1 response.
The asbestos check was carried out on 31 August 2023, 29 working days after the landlord became aware of the issue. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy. The evidence shows that the delay was likely caused by communication issues between the resident and its contractor. Given the landlord had considered the works as “urgent”, the delay was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs recommends that landlords should inform residents of any delays in completing a repair and explain why these delays are necessary. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the delay to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the delay.
The landlord raised a works order to remove the asbestos roof panels on 5 September 2023, which was in line with the response times set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
However, there was a delay of 3 months in the landlord actioning the works order to remove the roof panels. The landlord’s repair records show that a new works order was raised to erect scaffolding on 20 November 2023. A contractor confirmed it had erected the scaffolding on 13 December 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident of the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to explain the reasons for any delays in completing the works.
According to the documentary evidence available, the work to remove the asbestos roof panels was completed on 15 December 2023. This was 73 working days after the landlord first raised the works order. This was not in line with the timescales for routine repairs outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. As there was no explanation provided for the delay in completing the work or any evidence to show that an extension was agreed with the resident, this was not appropriate.
The landlord’s repair records show that the bedroom window works were completed by a contractor on 5 December 2023, 8 months after the landlord first raised the works order. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s routine repair timescales and was impacted by the delays in completing the roofing repair works. Given the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord communicated with the resident about the delays to the roofing repairs, this was unreasonable.
The resident reported a worsening leak situation to the landlord on 5 January 2024. In her contact to the Ombudsman, she said that the landlord attended to seal the roof on 11 January 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that this visit took place or what action it took to resolve the leak. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear contemporaneous repair records so that they can monitor repairs effectively and ensure they fulfil their responsibilities. The lack of clear records in this case would have made it more difficult for the landlord to monitor the repairs at the resident’s property and may have contributed to delays.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may offer compensation where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the resident is living in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had offered the resident £360 compensation at stage 1. There is no evidence of this amount being offered at stage 1 or paid in full to the resident at any point during the internal complaints process. However, the landlord has provided evidence of one £60 e-voucher sent to the resident on 31 October 2023. The resident confirmed in her contact to the Ombudsman that she received £150 on 21 March 2023.
While a compensation offer shows some attempt from the landlord to “put things right”, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the total compensation amount stated in its stage 2 response was issued to the resident, or what it was for.
In her contact to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord directed her to its insurance providers to claim for any belongings damaged by the leak. We cannot determine liability, or the causation of damage to property. This would usually be dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide its insurance details to the resident.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof, the bedroom window and the associated remedial work at the resident’s property because:
1. there were repeated delays throughout the duration of the issue which the landlord failed to explain or communicate to the resident. The length of time taken to resolve the issue along with the resident having to regularly contact the landlord for updates caused her distress, inconvenience, time and effort.
2. the landlord did not apologise or adequately compensate the resident for the delays and detriment caused, in line with its compensation policy or the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
3. the landlord failed to keep clear records of its repair activities relating to the resident’s roof, which likely contributed to the delays in completing the work.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance and the lack of clarity around the compensation already paid by the landlord, a fair amount of compensation for the above failures would be £300. The total compensation payable is therefore £660, in replacement of the offer mentioned in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord may deduct the £360 it has offered if this has already been paid. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in this case.
We have ordered the landlord to issue a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this case.

The associated complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
The resident made her initial complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 August 2023, which was in line with the timescales stated in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 8 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2024, which was 104 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was significantly outside of its complaints policy timescales. This was not appropriate.
The landlord did not apologise for or explain the delay in issuing its stage 2 response to the resident, which was not appropriate. The landlord should have recognised the delay in its stage 2 response and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident while she waited for a resolution to her complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the stage 1 response was provided on 13 November 2023. However, there is no evidence the landlord provided a stage 1 response on this date. It also said that it had provided £360 compensation to the resident at stage 1, split into two discretionary payments of £150 and one fixed payment of £60. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in the stage 1 response it provided to the Ombudsman. The stage 2 response provided was therefore unclear.
Paragraph 7.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delays that took place between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023 in its stage 2 response. It also said it was closing the complaint as all work had been completed, but the resident said internal remedial work was still outstanding. The response was therefore not appropriate.
The delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response caused time and effort to the resident who frequently contacted the landlord to request updates on her outstanding issues.
Furthermore, the resident said in her contact to the Ombudsman that distress and inconvenience was caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 as she then experienced further delays in getting the remedial work completed. The resident felt that the landlord did not show empathy to her situation.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint due to:
1. its failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code in providing its stage 2 response 104 working days after escalation.
2. its failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response.
3. its failure to provide a meaningful response to the substantive issue at stage 2 of its complaints process.
4. the inaccuracies present in its stage 2 response and lack of clarity around compensation payments.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof, the bedroom window, and associated remedial work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £810 compensation comprised of:
  1. £360 the landlord said it had already offered in its stage 2 response. The landlord may deduct this from the total compensation amount if it has already been paid.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays and communication failures in completing the repairs, as identified in this investigation.
  3. £150 for distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.