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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202432377)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432377

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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 resident’s report of a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides at the property with her 2 young children. It is aware that the resident has mental health issues.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 September 2024. She said there were several leaks throughout the property. She reported the property was cold and damp with mould present in the bathroom and due to this she requested to be permanently rehoused.
  3. On 24 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that the living room ceiling had collapsed due to water ingress, and she was unable to stay in the property with her children.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 September 2024. It said that it had identified repair work required to the roof and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange attendance. It gave contact details for the member of its staff who could arrange emergency accommodation for the resident.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 October 2024. She was unhappy it had not completed repair work and said her living conditions had worsened.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 18 November 2024. It confirmed works were complete and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation. It offered her £230 in compensation broken down as:
    1. £100 for inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to consider her vulnerabilities.
    2. £100 for distress caused by its failure to recognise the impact of the situation on the resident.
    3. £30 for the resident’s time and effort.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She is seeking increased compensation and to be permanently rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident said hers and her children’s health conditions were affected by the conditions in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. We are aware that following the completion of works discussed in this investigation, the resident told the landlord mould is present throughout the property. As this was reported to the landlord after it issued its final response to this complaint, we cannot investigate it at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this. Therefore, the resident has been advised she can raise a separate complaint with the landlord to get this matter resolved.  

 Roof Leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of homes including the roof. It also states it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. On 27 August 2024 the resident told the landlord a damp patch and crack had appeared on the living room ceiling. Although the landlord’s records are not comprehensive and thus do not allow us to ascertain what action it took to address this, its response was timely. The repair is logged as completed on 3 September 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 September 2023 and said there were several leaks present in the property with water “coming down the walls.” She said the property was cold and damp and mould had appeared in the bathroom. She told the landlord that she was worried that conditions in the property would affect hers and her children’s welfare and due to this wanted it to permanently rehouse her.
  4. The following day, on 24 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the living room ceiling had collapsed due to water ingress. Its records show it acted in line with the timescales set out in its policy by attending the same day to make the ceiling safe, check the electrics and carry out a test for the presence of asbestos.
  5. Upon contacting the landlord on 25 September 2024 for an update, the resident told the landlord that she had left the property on 23 September 2024 and was staying with family until it was safe to return home. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had inspected the roof earlier that day and works were commencing on 30 September 2024, dependent on suitable weather conditions. It appropriately offered emergency accommodation to the resident should she require it, whilst it carried out the necessary repair work.
  6. The landlord has provided us with limited information about its actions during the time the resident was unable to return home and was staying with family. The resident has informed us that it provided financial assistance based on her loss of facilities while she was away from the property, but neither of the parties has specified how much this amounted to. This is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
  7. As part of our special investigation report published on the landlord in July 2023 we made recommendations for it to include in its action plan with respect to record keeping. The landlord has not done this in this case. It is important that landlords keep detailed records around contact, repairs, and services provided. Clear records assist them in understanding the condition of a property, monitoring outstanding works and providing accurate information to residents. They also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in. It should ensure that it considers the learning set out in its action plan around this issue.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the trouble the matter had caused to the resident. It said its contractor completing the roof repair would confirm attendance with her. It provided contact details to use should she require emergency accommodation from it in the interim.
  9. Although we understand that the roof repair took priority due to its urgency, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to all points raised in the resident’s complaint. The fact it did not address her request for permanent rehousing or set out how it would respond to reports of mould, were shortcomings on its part. Although the events in this case do not indicate that permanent rehousing was warranted, we have made relevant recommendations with respect to her request.
  10. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2024 to say that she had returned home to collect items and found mould on her baby’s bed. She said that due to this her baby had nothing to sleep in. Although the resident has told us that the landlord was providing financial support to her during this time, as highlighted earlier, the lack of records means we have been unable to ascertain if it responded appropriately to her report regarding the baby’s bed. However, we note that this was only 4 days after the leak and the landlord’s actions had been timely up to this point. 
  11. On 19 October 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had returned to the property and there was a further leak from the roof. As a result of this she requested escalation of her complaint. It was appropriate that due to this contact it inspected the recent repair work that its contractor had carried out. It found that it needed to conduct additional work to rectify the leak, which it completed on 28 October 2024. It took further action at this time such as setting up a dehumidifier in the property, redecorating the walls and replacing the living room ceiling. It confirmed on 4 November 2024 that the property was safe for the resident to return to with all works to the ceiling completed on 16 November 2024.
  12. Although we are aware that the resident was frustrated with the length of time repair work was taking, we recognise that roof repairs can often be complex. The landlord responded in a timely fashion to issues that arose during the works and its responses were in line with its repairs policy. Given that it is apparent extensive work was necessary to rectify the roof leak and damage to the property, it is our opinion that its completion of this within 8 weeks of receiving the original report, was reasonable.
  13. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed all work was complete. It was appropriate that it called the resident as part of its stage 2 investigation to confirm that this was the case. It was positive that it acknowledged that the matter had caused the resident considerable concern and that it recognised that the effects of this were compounded by her vulnerabilities. It apologised and offered redress to the resident for its failure to recognise this sooner.
  14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. The landlord made a total offer of £230 in compensation to the resident in recognition of failures relating to the issue. Its breakdown of its compensation offer apportioned redress for distress and inconvenience, along with the resident’s time and trouble. This offer is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. It is our opinion that this offer was therefore reasonable and along with the other steps taken, amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Contacts the resident to discuss her options in seeking alternative accommodation.
    2. Inspects the bathroom for mould and if present treats it accordingly.
    3. Pays the resident the £230 which it has offered to pay in its complaint response if it has not done so already.