From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202313879)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313879

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 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 response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the carpark which caused damage to his possessions.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a flat within a block. The resident has use of a parking space within a communal carpark located in the basement of the block (the carpark). The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 20 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to report the carpark had flooded. He also sent an email to ask what it was going to do and raised a stage 1 complaint that day, which was about:
    1. A wastewater pipe having burst on Saturday 18 March 2023 flooding the carpark and communal basement corridor with wastewater. He had called its out of hours service and it had taken more than 4 hours for it to attend and stop the leak.
    2. There was wastewater in the carpark, and it had soaked the communal corridor carpet, which he wanted it to clean. It had also damaged his shoes and car mats for which he wanted compensation.
  3. The following day the landlord emailed the resident and said it was sending a specialist contractor that day to investigate a blockage to the drains. It also provided its stage 1 response that day, in which it:
    1. Said it upheld the complaint and apologised for any trouble caused.
    2. Confirmed it had attended on 18 March 2023 to remove a blockage, and it was going to carry out further investigation.
    3. Advised him to make a claim against its insurers for damage to his possessions.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint that day. He said the stage 1 response had failed to provide any resolutions, or information about the landlord’s next steps to deal with the drains, the wastewater or the communal carpet. On 23 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged escalation. It also said it had raised an emergency job to remove wastewater from the carpark, which it did the following day. On 31 March 2023 it cleared the drains and surveyed them with CCTV. It sent a text message to all residents on 5 April 2023 to advise it was going to remove the communal carpet that day and clean the area. It also said it would clean and sanitise the carpark on 14 April 2023. The resident chased the landlord on 12 April 2023 to carry out the cleaning and for a response to his stage 2 complaint. It replied it had a backlog of stage 2 complaints.
  5. On 15 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase his complaint response. He said it had poorly cleaned the carpark at the end of April 2023. The landlord replied there was a group complaint and backlog of stage 2 complaints. He chased it again on 22 May 2023. It completed a further clean and sanitisation of the carpark on 16 June 2023. He emailed it for an update on 11 June 2023. It called him, sent an email and a letter to him, on 17 July 2023. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 2 October 2023. It re-acknowledged the complaint that day, and provided its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023, in which it:
    1. Confirmed it had cleaned and sanitised the carpark twice, prior to which it had sucked up the water and cleared the drains. It said it had also replaced the carpet in the communal corridor.
    2. Accepted the tone and clarity of its communication was “not conducive to resolving the issues” and apologised for this.
    3. Explained claims for damage to possessions fell outside of its complaints process, and noted the resident had made a claim to its insurers.
    4. Apologised for its delay in escalating and providing a stage 2 response.
    5. Offered £105 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It also offered £120 compensation for its complaint delays. Its total offer was £225.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2023 and said he was not satisfied with its response. He said its compensation offer did not reflect the level of inconvenience caused as he had not been able to use the carpark for 4 months. It replied the following day and apologised for an omission within its stage 2 response. It said it would refund his monthly parking charges totalling £44.20. The landlord raised cheques for both compensation payments.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the carpark which caused damage to his possessions

  1. The resident’s lease is silent on the landlord’s repairing obligations. However, under its repairs policy the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas, corridors, and estate grounds. It is also responsible for repairing fixtures and fittings for sanitation, which includes drains and wastewater pipework.
  2. The resident said, within his stage 1 complaint, that it took several hours for him to be able to contact the landlord, and for it to repair the leaking pipe. Under its repairs policy the landlord classes repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours) or routine (complete within 25 days). It also says it will make safe out of hours emergencies within 4 hours. The policy does not state whether these timeframes apply to communal repairs. The landlord raised an out of hours emergency repair, and attended the same day to stop the leak, albeit outside of its timeframe according to the resident. It has not provided any records of the call or its attendance that day to this Service.
  3. When the resident contacted it 2 days later, on the following Monday, he made his stage 1 complaint. The landlord said it arranged for a contractor to attend the following day, although it is not clear if this took place. The evidence shows it removed wastewater from the carpark on 24 March 2023, which was within 5 working days of the flood, although could have been done sooner considering the potential safety hazards of having standing wastewater in the carpark. Positively, it also cleared the drains completely within 9 working days, removed the communal carpet and cleaned the areas within 11 working days. These repairs were completed within the landlord’s routine repairs timeframes.
  4. There is conflicting evidence on when the landlord cleaned the car park. Its message to residents said it would do this on 14 April 2023, but the resident said it took place at the end of April 2023. As the landlord has not provided evidence of this clean the Ombudsman cannot determine when it took place. The landlord undertook a second clean in June 2023. It is not clear whether this was due to the first clean having been insufficient, or because of resident feedback.
  5. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its communication had been poor, and its tone had been “not conducive”. It offered £105 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. The Ombudsman understands that the situation caused inconvenience to the resident. He chose not to use the carpark between the end of March 2023 and 16 June 2023, for which the landlord appropriately refunded him. The landlord initially acted promptly. It stopped the leak, cleared the drains, removed the carpet and cleaned the communal corridor. It took longer to clean the car park but did this in April 2023, which was within a reasonable time. It is also positive that it completed a second clean in June 2023. It also correctly accepted its communication failings and apologised. However, if it had acted quicker, or communicated more clearly and in a more professional tone, the resident would not have needed to have chased it several times for updates. Therefore, there was service failure. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it the following day. This was in line with its complaints policy timeframe. It also provided its stage 1 response within its policy timeframe and that set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It correctly signposted the resident towards its liability insurers for his damaged possessions claim, in line with its policy. However, it failed to fully address the complaint in breach of paragraph 5.8 of the Code. The landlord’s response was so prompt that it failed to fully investigate the complaint or the actions it would need to take to resolve the situation, before providing its response. It upheld the complaint, but at that point it had not established whether it had actually done anything wrong.
  2. Following the resident’s equally prompt escalation request the landlord acknowledged this. It also cautioned that it had a backlog of stage 2 complaints, to help manage his expectations, but this did not exempt it from following its complaints policy or the Code. He had to chase it several times and then contact the Ombudsman for help to obtain a stage 2 response. The landlord had the ability to agree an extension of time for a response under its policy, and the Code, but failed to do so. It provided its stage 2 response after 202 working days, or over 6 months. This was an unacceptable delay in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted, apologised, and offered compensation for its delay in response. This was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and our guidance on remedies. However, the landlord failed to recognise its failings at stage 1 and so there was service failure. To reflect the additional time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 additional compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the carpark which caused damage to his possessions.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £175 made up of:
      1. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in its response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the carpark.
      2. £75 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included residents “having to chase the landlord to act on what should at times be straightforward requests, leading to them raising complaints…and often being met with inaction”. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before, during, and just after the time the report was published, no orders about complaint handling have been made in addition to those made within the special report.