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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202326939)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326939

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 May 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 repairs and redecoration works to the resident’s property following a leak, including: the balcony doors, the decking, as well as the ceiling and flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property where she has lived since 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom upper floor flat. The resident lives with her son. The resident has dyslexia which can affect a person’s reading, writing and spelling. The landlord said it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. In November 2018 the resident reported a suspected leak which was causing her balcony doors to swell when it rained. She reported the same issue in May 2020 when she also reported the decking on her balcony was rotten and loose. The landlord raised the repair again in November 2021 as part of its COVID-19 recovery project. It said it attempted visits in January 2022, March 2022 and May 2022 which its contractor marked as no access.
  3. On 2 September 2022 the resident complained that there was still water coming into her property from her balcony doors. She said the issue had been ongoing following a leak from the roof before the COVID-19 pandemic. The resident said the landlord had cancelled the repair and she had not received any updates or communication about it. The landlord said it had closed the job because the contractor notes said there was no access or no contact from the resident.
  4. On 18 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord confirmed it had raised a repair for the balcony doors with the developer, as the landlord’s contractor, who would manage the repair until completion. In relation to the replacement of the resident’s flooring, which the water leak had damaged, it said the resident should contact its insurance team to discuss this and provided the insurance team’s email address. The landlord explained that because its maintenance team was not completing the repairs it had assigned the complaint to its aftercare special projects team.
  5. On 1 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy because the landlord had cancelled an appointment arranged for 2 December 2022 to complete dye tests to hers and other affected properties. The resident said the other properties had nothing to do with her. She said the repairs were causing her to feel stressed.
  6. On 28 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed it had recently inspected the resident’s property and noted a recurrence of the water leak. It said its contractor would attend on 3 October 2023 to investigate the problem affecting the timber baton above the balcony door. When it had completed the repair to the balcony doors it would assess the internal and external repairs, which the leak had caused. It confirmed it would replace the flooring to the affected areas, which included the living room and kitchen because it was part of an open-plan layout.
  7. The landlord completed the repair to the decking and the waterproofing of the threshold to the doors around the middle of July 2023. It completed a final repair to the balcony doors and realigned them around January 2024. And it completed the redecoration to the ceiling and replacement of the flooring around the beginning of May 2024.
  8. On 4 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident with an offer of £1300 compensation for the failures identified in this case, which it broke down as follows:
    1. £600 – for the distress caused between September 2022 and May 2024 (20 months at £30 per month)
    2. £600 – for the inconvenience caused between September 2022 and May 2024 (20 months at £30 per month)
    3. £100 – for 3 missed appointments
  9. In communication with this Service the resident said the water was coming from a leak in the roof and from the bottom of the balcony doors. The water had caused the timber on the balcony to become rotten, causing the decking to sink. She said she found the situation to be extremely stressful because she had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and had to escalate her concerns to the landlord’s Chief Executive. The resident found this more difficult because of her dyslexia. Although the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation in July 2024 she did not feel this appropriately recognised the impact the repairs, delays and poor communication had upon her. As an outcome she would like the landlord to increase the compensation offered to acknowledge its failures and recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This report will focus on events from September 2021 onwards and whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. We may describe events from earlier than this where they provide important context.
  2. In this case we can see the resident first reported a suspected leak from her balcony doors in 2018, which she reported again, together with the rotten decking, in 2020. However she did not raise these issues as a formal complaint until 2 September 2022. This means that we can only look at the landlord’s actions after September 2021, which is 12 months before the resident made her complaint. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The balcony doors

  1. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  2. The evidence indicates that other properties in the resident’s building were affected by similar issues and the landlord was operating a repair project at the resident’s building at the time of her complaint. The landlord has provided very little information in relation to this project or the works it was completing. Where there are works such as a roof repair or repairs which affect multiple properties it is good practice for landlords to schedule such works so that it can complete the repairs to multiple properties at the same time. However, landlords are expected to carry out urgent works outside such arrangements if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property and to ensure the property is in a safe and habitable condition.
  3. In November 2021 the landlord rebooked a repair appointment to inspect the resident’s balcony doors, which it had originally logged in May 2020. It made an appointment with the resident for 20 January 2022. The repair records show the landlord closed the repair on 15 March 2022 and marked it as no access.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2022 for an update on the repair. She said the contractor had cancelled the appointment in January 2022 and again in March 2022 and she asked the landlord to rebook the repair. The repair records indicate that the landlord made a further appointment for 12 May 2022. Again the closed the repair and the contractor notes stated this was due to no access and no contact from the resident. The resident disputes this.
  5. Where a contractor is unable to gain access to a property, we would expect the landlord to make reasonable attempts to contact the resident at the time of the repair, leave a no access card or follow it up with a no access letter, before it closed down the repair. This would have prompted the resident to make contact and would have shown that the landlord had made all reasonable attempts to complete the repair. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
  6. There was then a period of approximately 6 months until the resident reported the issue again. We do not know if the leak was affecting the resident during this time or not. There is no evidence to show that she raised the issue with the landlord during this time and therefore we cannot say that the landlord was responsible for this delay. This is because the landlord can only respond to repairs which it is aware of.
  7. Following the resident’s complaint on 2 September 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the balcony doors and to make good the ceiling after the leak.
  8. We can see the landlord appropriately completed an inspection on 6 September 2022, following which it updated its repair records to confirm that there was water damage to the living room ceiling due to a leak. It suspected the leak was from the roof and it would require scaffolding to inspect and repair. The landlord noted that it could not repair the damage to the ceiling until it had rectified the leak. It also noted the balcony door was swollen due to the leak.
  9. The landlord’s contractor attended on 26 September 2022 to repair the balcony doors. This was 24 days after the resident’s report. The landlord’s repair policy states it will deal with day-to-day routine repairs within 25 days. Therefore the landlord’s response to this repair was reasonable because it was within its repair timescales.
  10. However, in January 2023 and May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that water was still coming in through the balcony doors each time it rained. This indicated that the repairs which the landlord had completed in September 2022 had not been effective in stopping the leak.
  11. With regards to the suspected roof leak, we can see that the landlord arranged to inspect and repair the roof on 28 July 2023, which it later changed to 15 September 2023 due to a delay with the scaffolding. However, there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the roof, what it found and what repairs were required, if any. This was a failure.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would visit on 3 October 2023 to investigate and it would email the resident after this visit setting out next steps. There is no evidence to show that this visit went ahead or what repairs the landlord identified. There is also no evidence that the landlord emailed the resident to set out next steps. This was a failure.
  13. We can see that the landlord raised a new repair to overhaul and repair the balcony doors on 7 November 2023 following further reports of a water leak. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the final repairs to the balcony doors on 15 January 2024. On 14 April 2024 the resident confirmed no water had come into her property since this date.
  14. While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur when trying to locate and repair complex leaks, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of water ingress are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
  15. The evidence shows that separate teams deal with repairs and planned works. This is a common approach, but landlords must ensure that their specialist teams do not work in silos and that there is collaboration and co‑ordination in managing cases that span across specialisms. The evidence in this case suggests that there was a lack of joined up working between teams because there was a lack of clarity and lack of information given to the resident, particularly during the periods of delay. This frustrated the resident and made her feel that her concerns were not being listened to. Landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed throughout.
  16. The repair to the balcony doors was outstanding from at least September 2022 to at least January 2024. While the landlord attempted to repair the door in September 2022 the evidence shows that these repairs were not effective and the rainwater continued to come into the resident’s flat each time it rained.
  17. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delay in the landlord repairing the balcony doors was reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.

The decking

  1. In November 2021 the landlord rebooked the repair from May 2020, when the resident reported the decking boards were rotting and loose. As outlined above the landlord made attempts to complete the repair in January 2022. March 2022 and May 2022. All of which it closed due to no access. The resident disputes this and states that the contractor cancelled the appointments in January 2022 and March 2022. As outlined above, due to lack of adequate records, we are unable to reach a decision on this point.
  2. In September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the previous uncompleted repair to the decking. On 5 October 2022, following the landlord’s attendance to repair the balcony doors, the resident asked it for an update on the repairs to the decking.
  3. We can see the landlord sent updates to the resident and her neighbours in November 2022 and December 2022 in relation to the works it was overseeing with the developer, which included waterproofing of the threshold outside the balcony doors. However, there were periods of time when the resident was waiting for updates from the landlord concerning her own repairs which added to her frustration. For example, it took the landlord until 17 November 2022 to respond to the resident’s contact from 5 October 2022. This was a failure. It then took the landlord until 9 March 2023 to inspect the decking. This was another failure.
  4. The inspection confirmed the water had damaged the decking. On 29 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident it would replace the decking and would be in touch to arrange a convenient appointment.
  5. The landlord attended on 26 April 2023 to replace the damaged decking on the resident’s balcony. The landlord said the resident refused it access to complete the work. The resident disputed that she refused access. She said the reason she would not accept the work was because the contractor who had inspected the decking had told her it would replace the timber decking with composite decking to meet building regulations. When the contractor attended on 26 April 2023 it was replacing the existing decking with timber decking and she was concerned that this may be a fire risk. The resident told the landlord she would accept the works if the landlord could provide written evidence that the materials used met the legal standard.
  6. We have seen an internal email dated 27 April 2023 in which the landlord confirmed the contractor had commented during the inspection that the renewal of the decking should be upgraded to composite material to comply with building regulations. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations sooner and set out clearly its intension was to replace the timber decking with ‘like for like’ to make good as an urgent repair. It should have explained that it needed to complete this repair to progress the waterproofing works, which were part of the major works it was undertaking to stop further leaks. There is no evidence that it did this before its attendance on 26 April 2023, which was a failure. Based on this, it was understandable that the resident had expected the landlord to upgrade the decking and reasonable of her to request it assure her that the materials used met legal standards.
  7. On 31 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about the decking. It accepted that it would need to ensure it achieved the full standard under the current regulations if it was completing a full replacement programme. However, it did not need to meet this standard in this case because the repair was to existing timber decking. The landlord said its contractors were currently completing works to the thresholds of properties to resolve the water ingress and it needed to lift decking to complete this work. The landlord was happy to replace the affected areas of the resident’s decking with timber decking prior to the contractor attending to rectify the water ingress issue. It went on to explain that discussions were underway about replacement of the decking to all properties as part of planned works. However, this was in the very early stages and it was unable to provide any firm dates or information at that time.
  8. Following receipt of the landlord’s letter the resident agreed for the works to go ahead which the landlord completed on 27 June 2023. The landlord then arranged for the contractor to attend on 17 July 2023 to complete the waterproofing works to the threshold of the balcony door.
  9. While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur when trying to complete complex repairs, landlords should ensure that they respond to repairs within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, the repair to the decking was outstanding from at least September 2022 to at least June 2023. While we can see there was a repair project ongoing at the resident’s building which included the waterproofing of the balconies, the landlord had agreed to complete the repair of the decking as a responsive repair. It should therefore have completed this within its repair timescales which it failed to do. There is no available evidence upon which we can be satisfied that the delay in completing the repair to the decking was reasonable.

The ceiling and flooring

  1. In her complaint the resident said that the water leak had damaged the ceiling above her balcony doors and the flooring in her living room. The landlord’s repair policy states it will aim to make good when undertaking day-to-day repairs in a property. In this case, the water leaking into the property had caused the damage to the ceiling and the flooring. As outlined above, there were significant delays in the landlord completing the repairs. Therefore it was appropriate that the landlord ‘make good’ the damage to the ceiling and replace the flooring.
  2. Following the landlord’s inspection in September 2022 it said it could not complete the plastering work until it had rectified the leak. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord referred the resident to its insurance team to discuss a claim for the damage to her flooring. It said this was because it had not completed the repair to the balcony doors. It was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance team because it had not identified if it was responsible for any service failure at that time.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to make good the ceiling and replace the resident’s flooring when it had completed all the repairs to stop the leak. This was appropriate and inline with its repair policy.
  5. The landlord completed the repairs in January 2024. It completed the redecoration work to the ceiling and replaced the flooring in June 2024. While there was a delay in the landlord completing the redecoration work, it was reasonable that the landlord waited until it had completed the final repairs before starting this work. However, there was an impact on the resident due to the overall time taken to put her back into a position before the leak occurred.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
    1. Unreasonably delayed in repairing the balcony doors.
    2. Unreasonably delayed in repairing the decking.
    3. Raised the resident’s expectations incorrectly telling her it would replace the timber decking with composite.
    4. Failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates.
  2. The Ombudsman considers these failures to collectively amount to maladministration.
  3. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repairs to the balcony doors, replacing the decking, replacing the flooring in the resident’s property and redecorating the affected area of the ceiling.
  5. The landlord sent a letter to the resident in July 2024 offering compensation of £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This offer is likely to have been reasonable – but it was made almost 2 years after the resident’s initial complaint and one year after the resident had completed the complaint procedure. It is not unreasonable to update an offer of redress in some cases where, after a complaint procedure, works are completed or delayed to recognise that. However this offer was still delayed by around 6 months after the works had been completed in late 2023 and early 2024.
  6. The landlord failed to properly recognise the impact the delays had on the resident. It failed to consider the difficulty the resident faced in having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates, especially given her dyslexia. It is concerning that the landlord has no record of the resident’s vulnerability, especially considering the resident informed it of this in her application for housing. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord update its records to reflect this.
  7. The landlord also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Where a landlord does not undertake learning, it can be bound to make the same mistakes. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take from it.
  8. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fair level of compensation would be £1,500, which is an increase of £200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted her initial complaint on 2 September 2022. We can see the landlord contacted the resident by telephone on the same date to discuss the complaint. Calling residents to understand their complaints is positive complaint handling. In this case, there is no information about what was discussed during that call.
  2. The landlord then sent an acknowledgement email, which it also entitled stage 1 decision, on 5 September 2022. The acknowledgement email did not set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint or the outcome the resident was seeking. This did not meet paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022).
  3. The landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 18 November 2022. The content of this response also lacked detail. There was background to this complaint which went back to at least November 2021. Where something has gone wrong such as where a landlord has not completed a repair within its published timescales, it 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 this and failed to explain why it had not dealt with the repairs sooner. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
  4. On 1 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. We can see that the resident chased the landlord for a response to her request on 12 December 2022, 19 December 2022 and 4 January 2023. After the resident’s third contact the landlord found that it had sent the resident’s contact to the wrong department. It had outlined in its stage 1 response that it had assigned the resident’s complaint to its aftercare specialist project team to manage because they were delivering the repairs. While paragraph 3.2 of the Code allows the complaint officer to allocate complaint handling to another person, it must ensure that the allocated person is trained to manage the complaint. The landlord must also ensure the allocated person ensures the complaint receives the necessary attention.
  5. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her request to escalate the complaint nor did it set out its understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcome the resident was looking for. This was not appropriate because it was not in line with the landlord’s policy and a breach of paragraph 5.10 for the Code.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 September 2023. This was a year after the resident’s initial complaint. Although there was some contact during this period regarding the ongoing repairs, there is no evidence to show that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident, or that it provided a clear explanation and timeframes for when it would send the response. This was a failure because it was not in line with the landlord’s policy and paragraph 5.14 of the Code.
  7. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Failed to set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint at stage 1 and the outcome the resident was seeking.
    2. Sent 2 stage 1 responses, both of which lacked detail.
    3. Failed to contact the resident to discuss her stage 2 escalation.
    4. Delayed in providing its stage 2 response.
  8. We consider the failures identified to collectively amount to maladministration. The landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs and redecoration works to the resident’s property following a leak, including: the balcony doors, the decking, as well as the ceiling and flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,750 which is comprised of:
      1. £1,500 (an extra £200 to the landlord’s offer) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs and redecoration works
      2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord for the issues investigated in this complaint. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

  1. Carry out a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take from it. The landlord must draft a summary of its findings and share the review with us and the resident – noting anything it will do differently moving forward.
  2. Update its systems to record the resident’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident’s consent.
  1. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.