Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306386)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306386

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and heating repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has held a shared ownership lease with the landlord since 2019. The property is a top floor flat.
  2. From May 2022, the resident reported communal heating issues affecting her property to the landlord, which followed on from a previous related complaint that she had made to it. From June 2022, she reported a roof leak into her property. Over the remainder of the year, the landlord raised works, and the resident chased it for updates.
  3. On 19 January 2023, the resident made her complaint to the landlord about its handling of both matters and the water damage to her ceiling and walls. On 7 February 2023, it sent her its stage 1 complaint response. It advised her of further appointments for both her heating and roof. It provided her its insurance details and information to make a claim for damages. It apologised that its service had fallen “short of acceptable standards”. It offered her £385 total compensation. The resident expressed her unhappiness with its stage 1 response the same day.
  4. On 22 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was chasing its contractors for updates and would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She continued to report the worsening leak. In May 2023, it erected scaffolding at her property. In June 2023, it completed roof works. The resident told it that there was still a leak into her property when it rained and chased her complaint.
  5. On 29 June 2023, the landlord issued the resident its ‘revised stage 1 response’. It increased its compensation to £955. It agreed to cover her insurance excess cost as a goodwill gesture upon receipt of her proof of payment. She continued to chase it for a stage 2 complaint response.
  6. On 19 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said that her heating issues and the roof leak had been resolved in February and August 2023 respectively. It apologised for her “very stressful experience”. It increased its total compensation to £1470, of which it attributed £1020 to repairs matters and £450 to its complaint handling. It later confirmed that it would still cover her £350 insurance excess cost on receipt of her proof of payment. In November 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had not received its £350 cheque. It asked her to tell it if she had not received it by 5 December 2023, in which case it would reissue it as a priority.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that she felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation had not been sufficient “due to the stress and effort I had to put in regarding this issue”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s compensation request to the landlord referred to the time that she was signed off from work due to stress, for which she provided it her GP ‘fit note’. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim. The resident could consider taking independent legal advice to this regard. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.

Repairs handling

  1. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property’s common parts and structure. The landlord’s repairs policy also states this. The policy further states that it aims to provide an “effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable time”. It says it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. On 15 May 2022, the resident reported issues related to the building’s communal boiler, and the problems that this was causing to her own heating. On 27 June 2022, she reported the roof leak into her property. The landlord raised works and, in both instances, initially attended within the timeframe of its policy. However, from that point onwards, and as the landlord later acknowledged, the evidence shows multiple occasions of its poor service, and the distress caused to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s initial attendances for both matters identified the need for further investigation or works. As it later accepted, it was unable to show evidence that it had followed up on this in a timely or appropriate manner. Its repairs records over the remainder of the year showed that it raised various recalls and new jobs but provided little detail about the specific work done or required.
  4. On 9 January 2023, the landlord raised a further repair for the resident’s roof leak, which it scheduled for 16 March 2023. The resident chased it for an update 2 days later. It was understandable that she expressed her frustration and unhappiness with the 2 months before it attended.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 January 2023. She described her ongoing heating and roof leak issues that “aren’t being fixed or taken seriously”. She highlighted the insurance excess cost that she would have to pay “to fix the things gone wrong in the property that (the landlord) has caused”. The landlord raised heating works on 23 January 2023, which it attended within its repair timeframe the following month. The evidence showed that it attended heating issues a further 3 times, the last of which was on 23 February 2023.
  6. The landlord’s roofing contractor attended the resident’s property on 16 March 2023 and identified the works needed to resolve the leak. The resident chased the landlord for an update the following day. She again expressed her frustration that scaffolding would not be erected until 24 May 2023. She further highlighted the damage inside her property and issues with her electrics.
  7. The landlord undertook the resident’s roof works on 2 June 2023. She reported continuing leak issues to it over the following weeks and again needed to chase it for responses. Both the landlord and resident confirmed that the leak was finally resolved in August 2023.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 19 September 2023. It accepted the failures and significant delays in its handling of her complaint. It was appropriate for it to apologise and offer her £450 compensation for those failures. This award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range where there “was a failure which adversely affected the resident”.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident accepted that it had “failed in its service to you in carrying out the repairs in a timely manner”. It appropriately apologised for the significant time, effort, inconvenience, and distress that she had experienced. It increased its offer of compensation for this element of her complaint to £1020. That was again in line with the remedies guidance for “a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident” and its “failures accumulated over a significant period of time”.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 responses to the resident had provided appropriate information regarding her insurance claim for damage in her property and contact details for its insurance team. It highlighted that her insurance excess cost “is usually down to the resident to pay”. It was therefore reasonable for it to agree to cover this cost, as a further remedy to her complaint. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not refer to its previous offer to cover the resident’s insurance excess cost. However, it later confirmed that its offer still stood upon receipt of her proof of payment. She provided it proof of her £350 cost, on 24 October 2023.
  12. In line with the remedies guidance stated above, it is our view that the landlord’s offer to the resident represented reasonable redress for the failings in its handling of her repairs. This finding is based on the landlord’s total compensation of £1820, which includes its compensation and its offer to cover her insurance excess cost.
  13. The Ombudsman has undertaken a special investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49. of the Scheme. The outcome and action needed following the completion of the special investigation included a review of the landlord’s repairs policy to ensure assurances could be measured and reported. This was so that it could analyse and report on repair requests and complaints, quickly identify and address when its policy was not followed, and give regular performance updates. Many of the issues identified in this case are similar to those in our special investigation. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with the special investigation, so we have not made any orders as part of this investigation that would duplicate those already made to it. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and heating repairs.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident any part of its total £1820 award (£1470 compensation and £350 insurance cost) that it has not already done so.