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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202320090)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320090

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 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 leaseholder 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 repairs to fix leaks, damp and mould in the riser cupboards.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a non-resident leaseholder of the landlord under a long lease that started in March 2010, referred to throughout this report as ‘the leaseholder’. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor of a block of flats.
  2. On 24 April 2023 an operative attended the block and alerted the landlord to some follow-on work to repair leaks in the communal riser cupboards. The landlord’s operative had been twice for the same work and the landlord was advised that there were multiple leaks from the communal mains pipework. The landlord was advised that this needed to go to building services. The communal riser cupboards are located in the communal areas of the building.
  3. On 2 June 2023 the leaseholder raised a complaint. She advised that residents had reported an ongoing and worsening leak since April 2023 in the riser cupboards causing damp and mould. She said she had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to deal with this matter but it had failed to resolve the leaks despite saying that the leaks had been resolved. She advised that there continued to be small leaks from nuts and washers on the pipework. As an outcome she asked the landlord for an immediate response and to prioritise repairs to fix the leaks.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. The landlord advised that work had been approved on 25 May 2023 to insulate the entirety of the piping in the riser cupboards to prevent condensation and to provide a ventilation solution to mitigate the lack of air circulation. It would replace all the washers and nuts as the majority had failed. It would then redecorate. The landlord acknowledged there had been delay in fixing the leaks and that the level of service was inappropriate. It stated it was waiting for its contractor to provide an update.
  5. The leaseholder requested an escalation of her complaint on 18 June 2023 stating that she had not received an update as the landlord promised and that she had sent more than 20 emails concerning the leaks, damp and mould issues. She said that the issue was still unresolved.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 1 August 2023. It acknowledged that after stating the leaks were fixed, that on inspection this was not found to be the case. The landlord confirmed that it had checked the riser cupboards on 31 July 2023 it had not fixed all the leaks. It advised that the drying out process would follow along with remedial works. It apologised for the identified service failings and upheld the leaseholder’s complaint. It said it had reviewed learning from the complaint reporting this to senior managers. It awarded £330 compensation made up of £300 for the frustration, and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder by the delays in carrying out repairs and £30 for its delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  7. The leaseholder was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to us on 31 August 2023. As an outcome the leaseholder requested the immediate termination of the current housing managers and chief executive and for £3,000 compensation for the emotional distress and time and effort spent in dealing with the issues raised.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Issues that concern terms of employment or other personnel issues are not within our jurisdiction under paragraph 42.h of the Scheme. Therefore we will not consider the leaseholder’s request for the termination of employment of the landlord’s housing managers and Chief Executive.
  2. The leaseholder has referred to the impact of the damp and mould on her tenant’s health. We would not expect the landlord to pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience which the leaseholder’s tenants experienced. This is because the landlord does not have a contractual relationship with the tenants, so it does not have any responsibilities towards them. The landlord only has responsibilities towards the leaseholder.
  3. For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation focusses on the events that led to the complaint from 1 February 2023 until the date of the landlord’s final response of 1 August 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to fix leaks, damp and mould in the riser cupboards

  1. The landlord was under an obligation to complete the repairs to the communal areas as set out within the terms of the lease, together with its repairs policy to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 25 calendar days. The initial emergency works order was raised on 1 February 2023 to attend to heavy water leaking on the eighth floor communal riser cupboard. A further emergency works order was raised on 6 March 2023 to repair an uncontainable leak from the riser cupboard on the seventh floor. In the case of this later works order, the out of hours plumber could not gain access to the building as they did not have the keys. It is not clear from the evidence why the plumber was unable to access the keys to the building at the time, but this indicated a lack of appropriate communication when the repair was reported. Both works orders were marked as completed on the same day as raised in line with the landlord’s policy which according to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not the case. This indicates some record keeping issues described below.
  2. The evidence considered shows that the landlord raised further works orders between 29 March 2023 and 24 April 2023 for leaks in the water meter cupboards. The works order of 24 April 2023 stated that the leakage had caused black mould on the fourth-floor water cupboard. Internal emails of the same date describe that several operatives had attended and that there were multiple leaks in the block containing the leaseholder’s property.
  3. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 15 June 2023 that it had approved works to insulate the pipework, provide ventilation and to repair all the washers and nuts in the riser cupboards. This would fix the leaks and also prevent condensation that had occurred in the cupboards. It was reasonable for the landlord to take action not only to repair the leaks but to provide a lasting solution to an identified condensation issue to prevent damp and mould growth. The landlord recognised that the standard of service was not appropriate which was evident from the number of operative visits and the fact that the leaks were not resolved in line with its repairs policy. By this point five months had passed from the initial emergency repair that was completed on 1 February 2023 which was inappropriate. This would likely have caused unnecessary frustration to the leaseholder.
  4. The landlord’s update to residents in the block on 15 and 21 June 2023 stated that it had checked all of the riser cupboards in the block and there were no leaks. However, the leaseholder then provided three videos to the landlord in her email of 21 June 2023 that evidenced the leaks were continuing. The landlord did not dispute this evidence. The landlord stated in its internal email of 30 June 2023 that it could understand why the leaseholder was frustrated given that its update did not reflect the leaseholder’s experience that the leaks were ongoing. This evidenced poor knowledge and information management practice. These failings were also identified in our special investigation into the landlord from 2023 that recommended it should carry out a self-assessment against our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. This report has therefore made no individual orders in respect of the wider issues we have identified with the landlord’s processes.
  5. There was further evidence of poor knowledge and information practice in this case in a mix up that the leaseholder advised the landlord of on 23 June 2023. The leaseholder said that as the landlord instructed two separate contractors, one had insulated the pipework before the other contractor had resolved the leaks. This was inappropriate and the landlord needed to ensure it was aware of which contractor was attending so that the work could be properly sequenced. This likely caused further frustration to the resident, along with the additional time and trouble in chasing up the landlord as a result. The landlord recognised on 27 June 2023 that the insulation needed to be removed and yet the landlord told the resident on 19 July 2023 that the insulation was still on the pipework nearly a month later. This further contributed to delay in ensuring that all the leaks were resolved and was therefore unreasonable.
  6. The landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was primarily reactive rather than proactive. It responded to chase ups from the leaseholder, though it did not always respond causing additional frustration to her. It can be seen that the leaseholder contacted different members of staff to get a response to her requests for updates. It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to ensure it provided a point of contact at an early point and agree timeframes for these regular updates. This would have saved the leaseholder further time and trouble in reaching out to different staff members for an update.
  7. The leaseholder advised the landlord that her property, which was adjacent to one of the riser cupboards, was now affected by mould reiterating this in emails of 29 June 2023 and also on 7 and 8 August 2023. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 15 June 2023 that the leaseholder would need to contact her home contents insurer. However, it did provide the leaseholder with its own public liability insurance information which was appropriate. This would have assisted the leaseholder in considering whether she should claim on the landlord’s policy.
  8. The landlord inspected the block on 20 July 2023 and confirmed that the leaks were resolved and confirmed this was the case in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 August 2023. It took six months after the initial emergency repair to fix the leaks involving multiple operatives and visits which was unreasonable and considerably outside of the repairs policy timescales. There was also further work required to address the identified condensation issue that would need approval from the landlord’s fire safety team. It is not clear when the approval was provided from the landlord’s records. This again indicated issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
  9. There was a need for the cupboards to dry out before any redecoration or remedial work could be completed. The landlord said that dehumidifiers would be installed in its internal email of 3 July 2023 and 18 July 2023. However, it is not clear from the evidence whether dehumidifiers were provided and if so, when, to dry the cupboards out. A works order raised on 16 August 2023 to repair the riser cupboards and to clear mould on walls and redecorate was marked complete but no action. It is not clear from this whether any works were completed to clean the mould on the walls and to redecorate. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to undertake this work now, if it has not done so already.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary:
    1. The landlord failed to repair the ongoing leaks from the pipework in the riser cupboard that were initially reported in February 2023 for a 6-month period contrary to its policy. It failed to properly monitor completion of the works and its contractors to ensure that the leaks were resolved, and the promised lagging and ventilation works were completed in a timely manner.
    2. It did not have an effective communication plan with the leaseholder to mitigate the need for the leaseholder to constantly chase up the landlord for updates causing the leaseholder frustration along with the associated time and trouble. It provided incorrect information to the leaseholder that the leaks were fixed when this was not the case demonstrating issues with its knowledge and information management.
  2. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. In line with that guidance the landlord offered a fair level of compensation of £300. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble likely caused to the leaseholder by the landlord’s failings.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. In January 2023 we announced an investigation under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This allows us to conduct further investigations to establish whether the presenting evidence is indicative of systemic failing. Where systemic failings are identified, the landlord is referred to the Regulator of Social Housing. The report was published in July 2023 and the investigation was ongoing whilst the leaseholder’s complaint was progressing through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Some of the issues identified in the systemic investigation were evident in this case. We have been working closely with the landlord in ensuring our recommendations arising from the systemic investigation are implemented. The landlord has been positively engaging with this work.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging a complaint. It may extend the timescale by a further 10 working days and will write to explain why. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalation request being made. It may extend similar to stage one by a further 10 working days and will write to explain why. The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
  3. The Stage 2 response was delayed as it was not issued until 1 August 2023, however this was in agreement with the leaseholder and was therefore not unreasonable. This response was 23 working days from the landlord’s acknowledgement of 30 June 2023. It was appropriate to agree a short extension so it could provide a better update on the status of the repairs. It also awarded some compensation in its final response to acknowledge the small delay in the complaint response which was reasonable.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was otherwise a reasonable response. It identified that it had learnt lessons from the complaint and reported the learning to its senior management which was appropriate. This was in line with 7.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This 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”. However, the landlord did not state specifically what it had learnt in its stage 2 complaint, and it could have expanded upon this. The landlord awarded £30 compensation to reflect the short delay in its complaint handling at stage 2 of the complaints process. This reasonably reflected the short delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix leaks, damp and mould in the riser cupboards.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Provide the resident with a plan to complete the redecoration and remedial works (if it has not already done so).