London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202420503)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420503

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 June 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 roof and guttering repairs and the associated water damage.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder at the property, which is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
Before the resident’s complaint to the landlord in 2024, the landlord’s repairs logs show as follows:
1. In 2020 the resident said the guttering downpipe did not have a soakaway. It was draining directly onto paving, causing damage to the front of the property. The landlord subsequently removed the downpipe.
2. In 2022 the landlord noted in its internal records that removing the downpipe had led to water overflowing from the remining guttering.
3. In January 2023 the resident told the landlord a private contractor had advised the roof was sagging. There was damp in the property.
The resident made a complaint on 16 July 2024. She said the roof was sagging and there was water entering the spare room ceiling. She had reported the issue before and had been told there was no problem.
The landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to attended the property on 26 July 2022. The contractor found water marks on the loft rafters, a squirrel in the loft and the gutters were spilling.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 1 August 2024. It apologised and acknowledged the resident had raised concerns about the roof in 2022. It said work would be done in respect of all the repairs. It signposted her to its insurer for damaged items. It offered a total of £700 compensation for time, effort, distress and inconvenient for its failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day as she did not feel the compensation took into account the period of the roof issue. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 13 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged the guttering had been an ongoing issue but could not consider a period longer than 12 months. It had raised a job for this.
2. It signposted the resident to its insurer to make a claim for damaged items.
3. It offered a total of £780 compensation in respect of the repair issues and an additional £20 for complaint handling. The repairs compensation was made up as follows:
  1. £700 previously offered at stage 1.
  2. £50 distress.
  3. £30 time and effort.
The resident referred her case to us on 30 August 2024. She said as follows:
1. The landlord had not completed or contacted her about any of the works.
2. The landlord should have considered that the issues had been ongoing for longer than 12 months.
3. The landlord should cover the cost of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and staff involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for an investigation to be carried out and an informed decision to be made. It is our role to decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme, taking account of the evidence presented. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints brought to a landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe, that normally being 12 months.
When deciding the scope of this investigation we have considered the following points:
1. The landlord’s repairs logs and internal correspondence show the resident made it aware in 2020 there was an issue with the guttering downpipe. The records show the landlord was made aware by the resident again in 2022 of further issues with the guttering. The landlord acknowledged this issue had been ongoing in its complaint response.
2. The landlord’s records show the resident informed it in January 2023 that she was concerned about the roof sagging and damp in the property. Within its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had raised concerns to the landlord about the roof in 2022.
Based on the landlord’s acknowledgment that it had been made aware of the issues prior to the resident’s formal complaint, we have exercised our discretion. We consider it appropriate and in the interests of fairness for this investigation to refer to when the landlord was first made aware of the issues by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of roof and guttering repairs and the associated water damage

It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, eaves and guttering. Its responsibility for such repairs is outlined in the resident’s lease.
The landlord’s repairs records show that in 2020 the resident reported the guttering downpipe was draining directly onto paving, which was causing damage to the front of the property. The landlord subsequently removed the downpipe. In 2022 the landlord’s repairs logs noted the removal of this downpipe had led to water overflowing from the remining guttering. It is not clear what, if any action was taken at the time.
The resident told the landlord in January 2023 that a private contractor had advised part of the roof was sagging. She also told the landlord there was damp in the property. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair log what action it took following this report. However, the resident told us the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof from the outside and said there was no issue.
There was a gap in the correspondence we have been provided with until 16 July 2024 when the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said the roof was sagging and there was water entering via the ceiling. This had spread over the last few days.
The landlord raised a job that same day for the roof to be inspected. It chased the roofing contractor on 22 July 2024 and asked if the matter could be prioritised. It told the roofing contractor the resident was worried the ceiling could collapse and the water stain had spread.
A roofing contractor attended the property on 26 July 2022. It told the landlord there were water marks on the loft rafters and there had been a squirrel in the loft. The gutters were overspilling as they were not aligned correctly. The landlord made an internal note on 30 July 2024 that the roof work was a “potential section 20”. This is based on Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that where a repair is expected to cost more than £250 per property, the landlord will ensure consultation is carried out. The landlord raised jobs for the roof and pest proofing.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 1 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged the resident had raised concerns about the roof in 2022.
2. Following the report on 16 July 2024 a roofing contractor had inspected the roof on 26 July 2024. Scaffolding would be put up and works would be completed. It apologised for the inconvenience, distress and disruption caused.
3. Damage to the external paintwork would be assessed once the guttering repairs had been done.
4. Its pest control contractor would arrange an appointment to attend.
5. It signposted the resident to its insurance team in respect of internal damage caused to personal items.
6. It offered a total of £700 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £300 distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  2. £300 inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  3. £100 time and effort spent getting the complaint resolved.
Although the landlord’s complaint response advised works would take place, it failed to provide a timeframe for when scaffolding would be put up or when any of the works were expected to start. It is clear the landlord was aware water was entering the property, however it failed to demonstrate consideration of the impact the associated damp could have on the property.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. The HHSRS states damp in a property could be a hazard.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
Whilst it is noted scaffolding was needed to repair the roof, there is no evidence the landlord considered if a temporary repair to the roof hole could be carried out from within the internal loft space. We have also not seen evidence the landlord tried to reduce the impact of damp, such as by supplying a dehumidifier. This was a missed opportunity to improve the situation for the resident whilst the root cause was still to be tackled.
The resident escalated the complaint on 1 August 2024 as the repairs had not been resolved and the water had penetrated multiple levels of the property. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 13 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged the guttering issue had been ongoing. However, it could not compensate for issues occurring more than 12 months ago.
2. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. It reiterated its advise on how to make a claim via its insurer for damaged personal items.
4. It offered a total of £780 compensation for the repair issues. It also made an offer of compensation for complaint handling. We have not considered the landlord’s complaint handling as there is no evidence of a failure or a complaint about this. The compensation for the repair issues was made up as follows:
  1. £700 previously offered at stage 1.
  2. £50 distress.
  3. £30 time and effort.
Within this response, the landlord again failed to provide a timeframe for the repairs. Despite having been aware of the resident’s concerns of the roof sagging since 2022, the landlord failed to be transparent with the resident about how it would put things right. It also failed to use its discretion when considering compensation for the time the repair issue had been ongoing.
The landlord’s pests policy says it is responsible for squirrel infestations within all “units”. It says where access holes are identified, these should be blocked. At the time of the completion of the complaints procedure, the landlord had not blocked off the hole in the roof to prevent pest access. As such, it did not deal with the pest issue appropriately. We have not seen any evidence the landlord tried to repair any damage caused by the squirrel. As such, the landlord failed to put things right for the resident.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The amount of compensation offered in respect of the repair issues was £780. This was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. However, the landlord failed to use its discretion to consider the impact on the resident over the timeframe it was aware the issues had been ongoing. Although we cannot determine the resident experienced continuous issues with the guttering or roof prior to the formal complaint, we can conclude the landlord had been made aware of these issues and had not taken steps to permanently address them. As such, the offer of compensation was not sufficient.
At the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord had not completed any of the works. Its repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. Major works, which can involve roofing works can take longer. It is not clear if the landlord considered the roof repair to be major works and it failed to communicate this to the resident. Even if the roof work could not be completed as a routine repair, the landlord failed to consider any interim repair.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it was considering if the roofing repair would require a Section 20 consultation with residents. Its repairs policy says where a repair is expected to cost more than £250 per property, it will ensure consultation is carried out in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We have not seen any evidence the landlord made the resident aware of how it proposed to finance the roof repair and if a consultation was needed. This lack of clarity caused distress to the resident.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord took some further action as outlined below.
Pests- a pest contractor attended on 3 occasions in September 2024. They told the landlord the hole in the roof needed to be fixed to stop the squirrel entering the property. At the time of this investigation, we have not seen any evidence the landlord had blocked this access hole.
Roof- scaffolding was installed on 31 January 2025 and roof works were arranged for 4 February 2025. We have not seen any evidence roof work was carried out. Scaffolding was subsequently removed in May 2025. The resident said this was without work being completed. At the time of this investigation, around 11 months have passed since the resident reported the issue with the roof. We have not seen any evidence the landlord carried out any roof work during this time.
Guttering- a contractor attended on 6 September 2024. It is not clear from the landlord’s repairs records if work was carried out on this occasion. However, the resident told the landlord in January 2025 that its contractor had installed a downpipe but it had no soakaway and water ran straight onto the cement path. This work therefore put the resident back in the same position she had been in 2020, when the property had a downpipe with no soakaway. The landlord failed to realise the work carried out was the same action it had tried in 2022, which was not successful. As such, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had sought a permanent fix for the guttering issue. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence of having arranged to redecorate the damaged exterior of the property.
Our investigation has identified some of the steps taken by the landlord were reasonable. These were as follows:
1. Following the resident’s report in July 2024 the landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to attend within 10 days. This was a reasonable timeframe.
2. It appropriately signposted the resident to it insurer and advised her how to make a claim in respect of personal items which had been damaged.
However, our investigation has identified the following failures of the landlord:
1. The landlord failed to complete the works required in line with the timeframe of its repairs policy.
2. It had been aware there were issues with the roof and guttering going back to 2022 and 2023. Despite this, it unreasonably limited its consideration of the impact of the issues to 12 months.
3. It failed to demonstrate consideration for the possible hazard caused by damp to the resident or the fabric of the property.
4. It failed to consider any interim measures to reduce the impact of the damp or make the situation better for the resident.
5. It failed to carry out any temporary repair to the roof to reduce the impact of the leak and limit the entry point for pests.
6. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It did not provide a proposed schedule of when works would be completed. It did not explain how the repairs would be paid for and if the roof work would require a consultation.
7. It failed to consider what work it had previously done to the guttering and if this had been effective.
8. Its offer of compensation for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities was not explained as it had no vulnerabilities recorded.
9. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient.
The failures in this case amount to maladministration. Had the landlord not have offered the amount of compensation it did during its internal complaints process, we would have made a determination of severe maladministration in this case. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £720. This brings the total compensation for the repairs to £1,500. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were significant failures which adversely affected a resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof and guttering repairs and the associated water damage.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1,500 compensation to the resident in respect of the repair issues. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £780 compensation for the repair issues. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid.
3. Provide an action plan in respect of the roof repair. This should set out as follows:
  1. Whether the roof work requires a Section 20 consultation. If so, it must outline a plan for progressing this with a proposed timeframe.
  2. If the roof work does not require a Section 20 consultation, the action plan must confirm works required. Any necessary works must commence no later than 8 weeks from the date of this report.
4. Confirm if the hole, which was the entry point for pests, is a separate issue from the repair required to the roof. If it is not related to the roof repair, the hole is to be repaired no later than 8 weeks from the date of this report. If it is related to the roof repair this must be carried out alongside the roof works.
5. Instruct a surveyor to attend the property and provide a report on the following:
  1. Whether the work done to the guttering provides appropriate drainage for the property.
  2. Whether any damage was caused in the loft area by the squirrel. If damage is identified, work is to be completed within 8 weeks of the date of the surveyor’s report.
6. Confirm how the repairs will be paid for. This should include confirmation as to who is responsibility for paying for the scaffolding in place between January and May 2025.