London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202405994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405994

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 July 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 the resident’s report of a leak from the property above.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated 28 August 1994. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. It is occupied by the resident, her husband and their son. The landlord has a record of neurodevelopmental vulnerabilities in the property.
On 2 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak in her property coming from a neighbour’s flat above her. The leak was affecting her hallway and a wall between the bathroom and the resident’s son’s bedroom. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s flat on the same day and said that the area required an asbestos test. The asbestos results came back clear on 22 April 2024.
On 25 April 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she was concerned that the leak was coming from where a sewage pipe was located.
2. her autistic son was suffering anxiety at the possibility of sewage leaking into his room.
3. black mould had appeared around the leak in her son’s room, and after trying to clean it, the paint was now peeling away.
4. the wall was soaking wet, and the laminate floor had started to bow.
5. she had to hire a dehumidifier, and the property now had drain worms and a damp smell.
6. that 4 weeks after she had reported the leak, the landlord had failed to:
  1. find the source of leak.
  2. identify the liquid leaking into property.
  3. demonstrate any sense of urgency.
  4. keep her informed.
  5. understand the mental distress caused to her son.
  6. it had also delayed in visiting her property to assess the damage.
7. she wanted the landlord to address the points raised and to provide a plan to resolve the issues.
On 17 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord upheld the complaint and said that:
1. it apologised for the issues and inconvenience caused by leak.
2. it was limited in the information it could provide to the resident as it had logged the repairs and investigations on her neighbour’s account.
3. after an inspection, it had not identified the leak to be coming from the neighbour’s property.
4. a contractor would attend the resident’s property on 30 May 2024 to inspect the source of the leak.
5. it would follow up with an outcome and a plan of action once it had completed the inspection.
On 9 August 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she was unhappy that the leak had been ongoing since 2 April 2024 and the neighbours in the flat above were now away for a month. She said that she was worried about how the stressful situation was affecting her family, with her son recently diagnosed with a stress related illness. She said her husband was also trying to limit stress due to a cardiac condition. The resident had also raised concerns about the dehumidifier costs prior to the escalation request.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2024. It said:
1. as the resident had hired her own dehumidifier without prior agreement from the landlord, it was unable to reimburse the costs.
2. it had identified that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s kitchen sink in May 2024.
3. it had raised repairs, however the neighbours in the flat above were due to go away for 4 weeks so the landlord had no access to the property.
4. a contractor would attend on 9 September 2024 to rectify the leak in the flat above.
5. it would review any outstanding works until completion and would update the resident with any progress or follow on works needed.
6. it apologised for the distress caused to the resident’s son.
7. it offered the resident compensation of £800, comprising of:
  1. £400 for distress.
  2. £400 for inconvenience.
In October 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that she was unhappy that 6 months after reporting the leak, the landlord had not completed any repairs in her property. She said that she did not feel adequately compensated for the distress over her son’s health or the inconvenience at having to chase the landlord for updates. The resident later told us that as an outcome, she wanted to have the damage to her flat thoroughly assessed and repairs carried out. If this was not possible, she wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the issues in the property had impacted her son’s health. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. We have however, considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the handling of her reports of a leak.
The resident indicated that if the landlord was unable to resolve the issues within her flat, she wished to be moved to an alternative property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident informed us that a month after the landlord completed the repairs in the flat above, the leak resumed. The resident believed the source of this leak to be from the neighbour’s washing machine as opposed to the kitchen sink where the previous leak started. This matter did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and although the resident said that she reported the new leak to the landlord, it is unclear whether the resident raised this as a separate complaint.
Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2024. 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. Therefore, this issue has not been assessed in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the property above

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to keep its properties free from category 1 hazards, including protection from damp and mould.
The resident’s Occupancy Agreement states that the landlord’s repair obligations include repairing and maintaining walls, floors and water pipes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that across all its homes, it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for water and sanitation and repairs to pipework (when leaking). It says that once a property is let, it will undertake repairs to items it is responsible for that have become defective to the point that non repair would cause further damage to the home. It gives the following time scales for repairs:
1. routine day to day repairs: 25 calendar days.
2. emergency works: attend within 24 hours.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will be clear about the circumstances in which it will and will not pay statutory and discretionary compensation.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported the leak in her property on 2 April 2024. She said that the leak was coming from the flat above hers. On the same day, the landlord inspected the flat above the resident to locate the source of the leak. This was a reasonable response and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
During the inspection, the landlord identified that it required an asbestos test before it could shut off the water. The records show that the test results came back showing no presence of asbestos on 22 April 2024. The landlord visited the resident’s property that same day, 14 working days after the resident had reported the leak. Whilst the landlord was unable to carry out repairs in the flat above before receiving the results of the asbestos test, there is no evidence to show why it delayed in assessing the leak in the resident’s property. This was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress.
The resident called the landlord asking for an update on the leak 3 times between 25 April and 16 May 2024. A maintenance record on 1 May 2024 shows that after visiting the flat above and failing to identify the source of the leak, a contractor knocked on the resident’s door to assess the leak in her flat but there was no answer.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs highlights the importance of clear communication and updating residents. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated with the resident to provide updates or to check her availability for the 1 May 2024. The lack of communication was unreasonable.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2024. She raised various points of concern and asked for the landlord to address them and to provide her with its plan to resolve the leak. Within her complaint, the resident reported that because of the leak, her property had black mould, drain worms and a damp smell.
In its stage 1 response issued on 17 May 2024, the landlord said that a contractor would attend the resident’s property on 30 May 2024 to investigate the leak. The landlord failed to acknowledge or inspect the resident’s reports of mould, worms or the damp smell. This was not in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS. This was inappropriate.
In her complaint, the resident also mentioned that she had hired her own dehumidifier to try and control the issue. She said it was costing her £488 per week. Whilst the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident, it failed to acknowledge the extra expenses she incurred. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered supplying the resident with a dehumidifier to address the damp reported. That it did not, was unreasonable.
The resident also raised concerns in her complaint about what type of liquid was leaking into her property. She said that the leak was near a sewage pipe and that the idea of sewage leaking into her son’s room was causing him distress. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that exposure to sewage or its products may result in illnesses which include gastroenteritis and skin infections. Considering the resident’s son’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed these concerns or tested the liquid leaking into the property. That it did not was inappropriate.
On 30 May 2024 a maintenance report shows that the landlord inspected the flat above and identified the source of the leak. The report stated that an eroded copper pipe located under the neighbour’s sink had caused the leak. The landlord sent an update to the resident on 3 June 2024. It stated that the flat above required follow on repairs to the pipework, and that once it had booked the repair job, it would confirm the date to the resident. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair obligations.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that she was concerned that the cost of hiring her dehumidifier had reached £3,904. On 12 June 2024 the landlord replied to the resident. It said that it was chasing up the repairs and would seek advice on providing the resident with a dehumidifier. If authorised, the landlord said that it would reimburse the resident for electrical usage over an agreed period.
The resident replied to the landlord on 13 June 2024. She said that it had previously told her that it would reimburse the costs of the dehumidifier. On 14 June 2024 the landlord told the resident that as she had hired the dehumidifier without agreement from the landlord, it was unable to reimburse the costs. It reiterated that if one was provided by the landlord, it would address reimbursement of the electrical usage.
The evidence shows that on 16 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that to reimburse her for the costs of the dehumidifier, it would need to see her bills for its period of use. Though it was reasonable to require proof of expenditure, in the letter, the landlord did not specify which costs it was referring to or that it would only reimburse costs for dehumidifiers authorised by the landlord. The landlord’s responses were unclear and likely caused the resident distress and confusion. This was not in line with its compensation policy, which was inappropriate.
On 1 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it had booked repairs to the flat above for 10 July 2024. The landlord asked the resident for pictures of the damage in her flat so that it could assess any remedial works required. The resident responded on 7 July 2024 asking the landlord to send a surveyor to assess the damage, as she felt photographs would not suffice. The resident explained that due to how long the leak had been soaking the wall, floor and timbers, she was concerned about their stability. She also raised that the landlord had still not offered her a dehumidifier.
A maintenance report from 10 July 2024 shows that the landlord completed an inspection in the flat above and found no sign of a leak. It stated that a contractor then attempted to inspect the leak in the resident’s flat but was unable to gain access. There is no evidence that the landlord checked the resident’s availability to provide access that day or that it responded to her concerns from 7 July 2024. The landlord also failed to come back to the resident about supplying a dehumidifier. The communication from the landlord was poor and likely caused the resident distress, which was unreasonable.
On 18 July 2024 the landlord was notified that the neighbours in the flat above were going away for a month. A repair log from 23 July 2024 shows that the leak was entering the resident’s boiler. On 2 August 2024 the resident called the landlord asking for the water to be switched off. The records state that she was upset at the suffering caused to her son by the leak in his room and because her boiler might have to be switched off.
The landlord’s records on 2 August 2024 show that it became aware that some of the neighbour’s family had remained in the flat. The landlord stated that it would attempt to gain access on 7 August 2024, and if unsuccessful, it would call the fire brigade to force entry and turn the water off. On 9 August 2024 the landlord updated the resident. It apologised that the leak was not resolved and for the damage caused, and said it was waiting for an update on attempts made to access the flat above.
The landlord updated the resident 5 working days after making its plan to stop the leak. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident before the events took place. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether a forced entry took place. Considering the ongoing distress caused to the resident and the vulnerabilities of her son, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether to move the family into temporary accommodation until the leak was resolved. That it did not, was unreasonable.
On 9 August 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the leak had been ongoing since 2 April 2024 and because the stress of the situation was impacting on her son and husband’s health.
On 29 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It stated that it had identified the source of the leak in May 2024, but had been unable to carry out repairs due to having no access whilst the neighbours were away. The resident disputed this on 31 August 2024, stating that the neighbours did not leave until August 2024. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that a lack of access to a property can delay repairs, at the time the stage 2 response was issued, the leak had been ongoing for 105 working days. This was inappropriate, and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
On 9 September 2024 a maintenance report showed that a contractor attended the flat above the resident and found no signs of a leak. It said that it inspected the pipework which was all dry. On 4 October 2024 the landlord’s records show that the resident called to chase an inspection of the ongoing leak that the landlord had promised her 2 weeks prior. On 9 October 2024 the landlord re-raised the work order to attend both flats and inspect the leak. It is not clear from the evidence provided if the landlord repaired the eroded pipe, which is a failing in its record keeping.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident informed us that the landlord completed its repairs in the property above hers on 23 May 2025. She said that there had been no inspection of the damage in her own flat to assess if any remedial work was required. However, the resident stated that the landlord had offered for a plasterer to attend, and a carpenter was due to visit the resident’s property in August 2025.
There is a significant gap between the landlord re-raising the work orders on 9 October 2024 to completing the repairs 157 working days later. This Service has not seen any evidence to explain why there was a delay in carrying out the repairs. However, we can conclude that the landlord did not complete the repairs within the times set out in its repairs policy. This was inappropriate.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of a post-works survey or copies of its repair records to confirm:
1. what works it completed in line with the agreed works set out in its stage 2 response.
2. what works are still outstanding.
3. whether the repairs have resolved all the issues the resident complained of.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord has completed all the repairs to a good standard, and whether the repairs have resolved the issues the resident has complained of.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord faced issues accessing the source of leak which were somewhat outside of its control. However, this investigation has identified failures in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak and a finding of maladministration has been made. This is because the landlord:
1. delayed in assessing the leak in the resident’s property.
2. failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
3. failed to acknowledge or inspect the resident’s reports of mould, drain worms and a damp smell.
4. failed to offer to supply the resident with a dehumidifier.
5. failed to address the resident’s concerns about the type of liquid leaking into the property.
6. failed to demonstrate clarity regarding the reimbursement of costs for the dehumidifier.
7. failed to assess whether to move the family into temporary accommodation until it completed the repairs.
8. failed to complete repairs in line with the timeframes set out in its policy.
The above failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord attempted to ‘put things right’ and offered the resident compensation of £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s compensation proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident and in line with our remedies guidance. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to re-offer the resident £800 compensation if it has not been paid already.
Due to the lack of evidence available, an order has also been made for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property to assess the damage caused by the leak. The inspection must address the outstanding issues raised by the resident and copies of the inspection report must be provided to all parties.
As the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding reimbursement of the costs of the dehumidifier was unclear, we have made the following order. The landlord should reimburse the resident any increase in electrical charges caused by using the dehumidifier, providing the resident can evidence the costs for its period of use as per the landlord’s letter dated 16 May 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging the complaint, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Code, which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s Complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 15 working days later, on 17 May 2024. This was a failure in service to the resident and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
On the same day it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
On 9 August 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request 1 working day later, on 12 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 29 August 2024. This was 13 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, and in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord issued its complaint responses in line with the Code but failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with the times set out in its policy. The delay in acknowledging the complaint likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report.
2. re-offer the resident £800 compensation if this has not been paid already.
3. pay the resident £50 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
4. arrange an inspection of the resident’s property by a suitably qualified surveyor to assess the damage caused by the leak. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident, and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must also address the resident’s concerns about:
  1. the floorboards and wall.
  2. the presence of any damp, mould and drain worms.
  3. the report must set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding, which should then be adhered to.
5. reimburse any increase in electrical charges caused by using the dehumidifier, providing the resident can provide bills for its period of use as per the landlord’s letter dated 16 May 2024.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns about a new leak which started in June 2025, if it hasn’t already.