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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202440293)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440293

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the complaints about a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second and third floor within a converted terraced house.
  2. The landlord’s records show reports of recurring roof leaks at the property since 2007. On 18 September 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She was unhappy that it had not yet booked a follow-up appointment to resolve the leak into her flat after its last visit. She said that she could not use her cooker as the leak affected the electrics.
  3. On 19 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It said it had inspected the property between February and September 2024 following the reports of a roof leak and the electrics. It said it did not have any further information about the next steps to resolve the leak. It said it would ask its roofing team for an urgent update and then relay this to her.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 4 November 2024. She was unhappy as she felt it had not done anything to resolve the roof leak.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 22 November 2024. It acknowledged that the “extensive” roof leak affected multiple properties. It said it had repaired the electrics in February 2024 but given her concerns it would check the electrics again. It said it did not own the building and so the delays in completing the roof repairs were due to it liaising with the managing agent. It recognised the delays impacted her significantly and apologised for not resolving the leak sooner, as well as its poor communication. It said it would continue to chase the repairs with the managing agent, and it would arrange a mould wash to the property in the interim. It offered her £900 compensation. This consisted of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £300 for the time and effort put into chasing for updates.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the ongoing roof leak and that she was unable to use the cooker in the property.
  7. Following this, the resident instructed a solicitor to raise a legal disrepair claim on her behalf against the landlord. Her solicitor initiated the pre-action protocol for the claim on 1 April 2025. An expert witness report was produced on 29 May 2025 as part of the pre-action process. The report noted the outstanding repairs at the property. This included the roof leak, and related repairs needed to the hallway, kitchen, living room, gutters, and downpipes.
  8. On 26 June 2025, the landlord and the resident’s solicitor reached a settlement on the pre-action matter. The settlement outlined that the landlord would pay the resident damages of £6,000. It also would complete the repairs outlined in the expert witness report within 120 days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us that she is concerned about what might happen if the landlord does not follow the settlement terms which it has agreed to do. The landlord currently remains within the 120-day period set out in the agreement to complete the necessary repairs at the property. We cannot investigate something that has not yet happened and which has not exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore we have not addressed this point.
  2. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required. She could also seek advice from her solicitor about the options available to her if the landlord did not follow the settlement terms.

The complaint about a roof leak

  1. The resident has accepted a settlement to the pre-action process about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak. In doing so, she sought and received legal advice on the terms of the settlement.
  2. Part of the settlement included that the landlord pays £6,000 compensation to the resident. While it is unclear how it calculated this, by agreeing to the settlement, the resident was understandably satisfied with the proposed resolution. Therefore, we have not ordered further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of reports of a roof leak.
  3. It is positive that the landlord has now made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident. However, it made this offer 7 months after its stage 2 response. It also seemingly only did so after the resident spent time and trouble in instructing a solicitor to act on her behalf. Therefore, it failed to effectively put things right during the complaints process. It also missed an opportunity to learn lessons at the time of its original investigation.
  4. The landlord’s complaint procedure must be a route to resolve the complaint and not part of a wider process or an earlier stage to pre-action processes. Our code sets out the expectation on landlords and how any resolution must resolve the complaint and be followed through. That did not happen in this case, which is why we have found fault on the part of the landlord.
  5. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns appropriately through its complaints process. If it had, it could have reasonably avoided the impact, and time and trouble, later caused to her. It also could have resolved the issues with the roof leak much sooner. As such, the landlord did not act in line with our dispute resolution principles. Due to this, the resident has understandably lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in its handling of the complaints about a roof leak.
  6. Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor investigation into the reports of a roof leak. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had an adverse impact on the resident. We have also made a relevant order below to help the landlord learn lessons from this complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaints about a roof leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation. This is for the time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of a roof leak. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
    3. Complete a case review of its handling of this complaint. Within this, it should consider what it could have done to reasonably prevent the resident having to initiate the pre-action protocol. It should then consider how it could learn from this to prevent similar issues occurring in the future. It should provide us with a summary of its findings in writing.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.