London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202445877)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445877

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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 reports of repairs to her windows.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived in the property, a third floor 1–bedroom flat, since 2016. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In June, July and October 2023 the resident reported to her landlord that her bedroom window leaked when it rained and that there was suspected mould in the property. The landlord inspected and found that there was a latent defect to the window design throughout the block of flats. It found the issue was not ‘serious’ in the resident’s flat on inspection. The works order was closed as the job was referred to a different team.
In September 2024 the resident raised the issue again and the landlord informed her that the repair had been passed to its developer. On 22 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed the problem.
On 29 October 2024 the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. the resident was unhappy because she had reported a leaking window and had not received a response. She had reported that her blinds and carpets had been “soaked”.
2. the landlord had attended the property on several occasions since July 2023 to repair the issue.
3. several windows in the block required replacement. It said there was a design fault with the laminated panels in the windows. A team was in the process of completing surveys, sourcing new window panels and gaining appropriate permissions to resolve the issue. It said it would provide timescales for window replacement to the resident once the above steps had been completed.
4. in recognition of the resident’s time, effort, distress and inconvenience, it offered her £150 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint sometime between November and December 2024. On 17 January 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the resident had told the landlord that the repair was reported in 2018. It could only consider incidents dating back 12 months, in line with its complaints policy.
2. it maintained its position at stage 1. It was in the process of putting together a report to get approval for major window replacement works. It was roughly 6-8 months away from getting approval and work started at the block of flats.
3. in response to the complaint, it had asked the responsive repairs team to complete temporary remedial work as appropriate. It said the team would be in touch with the resident to book an appointment.
4. it apologised for the inconvenience it had caused, and the time taken. It said it had tried to temporarily repair windows throughout the block, but these attempts had been unsuccessful. It said the solution was to go through major works and build an application for funding.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She told this Service that the bedroom windows continue to leak. She reported that her bedroom and some of her clothes smelt of damp. She said she was worried about the impact on her health and that she was embarrassed to invite people to her home. She would like the landlord to repair/replace the windows, or for it to offer her alternative permanent housing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said she had complained to the landlord about the windows leaking since 2018. There is evidence of 1 service request in 2018 and then a gap of 5 years before it was raised again. Taking into account the passage of time, availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has therefore focussed on events from 2023 onwards when the resident reported that the window was leaking.
The resident said the issues in the property have worsened her 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. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs required to her windows.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different 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.

Relevant policy and procedure

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates. Where age, and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programme of work.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend within 24 hours when there is an immediate danger. Repair works may make safe and lower the immediate risk, with follow on repairs required.
2. aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, published in 2019, recommends that where complex or extensive work is required, landlords should acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs, explain what action it will take and provide timescales, even if these are provisional. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, it is reasonable for landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
Under the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which it introduced on 22 May 2023, residents are asked to report damp and mould immediately, even if the problem is small. The landlord will consider a range of interventions, including:
1. giving practical and tailored advice to residents.
2. clean and shield treatments (mould washes) where appropriate.
3. adjusting heating controls to help perform better or prevent mould in future.
4. installation of humidity and temperature sensors to remotely monitor.
5. installation and/or upgrading of fans to improve ventilation.
6. undertaking repairs in accordance with repairs policy.
7. regularly monitoring the situation with follow up calls and if required, additional visits.
The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 10 of the Scheme obliges landlords to provide information requested by this Service. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows

On 19 June 2023 the resident reported a leak from her bedroom window when it rained. Although the landlord listed the job as having a 20-day repair completion target, there is no evidence it made an appointment with the resident in response to this service request. This was a failing when assessed against its repairs policy.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord raised a second works order about the same issue and booked a same day appointment. The resident cancelled the appointment, and the landlord closed the repair. The repair logs provided by the landlord do not show whether the resident wanted to retract the service request or re-book the appointment. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the communication between the landlord and the resident relating to the repair requests. This was a record keeping failure. It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies in its responses to the resident.
On 24 July 2023 the repair records show the resident again raised the issue of a leak in her bedroom windows when it rained. The landlord attended on this date and found water ingress from the window of a flat above. The operative raised a follow-on investigation to inspect the flat above. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, in line with its repairs policy.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord raised a redecoration works order to address damage caused by a leak from the flat above. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether this leak and the leak related to the resident’s bedroom windows were related or separate issues. The landlord assigned a target date of 24 October 2023, 60 calendar days, to complete plasterboard redecoration. It closed the repair as completed on 11 September 2023. It identified required works and completed them within the timeframe provided, which was reasonable.
However, the landlord had not put the substantive issue of the bedroom window leaking when it rained right for the resident. She raised it again on 20 October 2023. The landlord provided a repair target of 60 calendar days and attended on 7 December 2023. The inspection found that gaps around the window were causing damp and drafts. The records note that an email was sent to a surveyor. There is no further information relating to this email. It did not evidence that it undertook any successful repair work as a result of this visit. There was no clarity on follow-on works. It had not resolved the issue, which was a failing.
On 20 October 2023 the resident had also reported damp and mould in her bedroom. The landlord attended to inspect on 15 November 2023, 2 days before the target date provided. It found damp staining to the head of the window frame and to the rear bedroom. It identified the problem as a latent defect to the windows in most of the flats in the block. It noted the issue at the resident’s property as ‘not serious.’
The repair records indicate that there was an ongoing referral to a different team. However, there is no record of what this referral entailed or whether any temporary or follow-on works were being considered to address reports of a leak or the damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated the cause of the problem, its position on how it categorised the repair, nor a course of action to put things right to the resident. This was not reasonable, not in line with its repairs policy, and likely led to a breakdown in trust between the resident and the landlord.
Though the landlord did not find a leak on 15 November 2023, it did find signs of damp and mould. There is no evidence that any repair or redecoration work was completed in response to this finding. It did not consider any of the interventions outlined in the damp and mould policy, nor did it undertake a HHSRS inspection to establish the extent of the issue. There is no evidence of its communication with the resident in respect of an action plan. This was unreasonable.
The resident did not raise the leaking bedroom window again until 18 September 2024, 10 months later. In this case, the gap in reporting can be partly attributed to seasonal changes in weather. The landlord was aware that the window would leak during heavy rainfall.
It is not unreasonable for a landlord to adjust the priority of a repair based on the impact/urgency of the issue. However, it was unreasonable to fail to communicate a decision about a repair to the resident. The landlord was on notice of the faulty windows since June 2023. It had not put the issue right for the resident in 2023. That she had to raise it again because the landlord had not undertaken any successful repairs was a failing.
The landlord set itself a target of 20 days to address the window repair raised on 18 September 2024. However, the repair log shows it closed the job as ‘abandoned’ on 1 October 2024. The note says that it informed the tenant that the repair had been passed to a developer. There is no corresponding evidence proving that the landlord communicated this information to the resident, nor evidence that it discussed timescales for planned works with the resident. This was a failing.
On 22 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint on the basis that she had not heard from the landlord in response to her service request.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained the cause of the leak and said it wanted to undertake window replacement for several windows in the block. It outlined the steps required to progress the window replacement and said once these steps had been completed, it would be in touch with the resident to confirm a schedule and provide timescales. It also offered the resident £150 compensation.
It was reasonable that the landlord communicated its position on the repair to the resident, acknowledged its failings and outlined the challenges posed by the extensive window repair. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have communicated this to the resident sooner, as it may have prevented her from wanting to raise a complaint.
Given the length of time that had already passed, it would have been fairer to the resident for the landlord to have provided her with an estimated schedule of works or a date that it would update her by. This would have managed her expectations, involved her in the repair process and may have increased trust between the resident and landlord.
It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as replacing multiple windows in a property to manage their budgets. However, it is not reasonable to leave windows in a state of disrepair in the interim period. It was not until the stage 2 response on 17 January 2025 that the landlord agreed to arrange an appointment to complete temporary remedial work to the resident’s windows. The landlord was on notice of the leaking windows since June 2023. That it took until January 2025 to agree to temporary repairs was inappropriate and significantly outside the timescales set out in the repairs policy.
The landlord’s repair records show that it replaced the double glazing in 2 of the resident’s bedroom windows in April 2025. The resident told this Service in July 2025 that her windows continue to leak when it rains. The landlord has not provided any repair records or inspection notes to confirm it has completed any effective temporary repair works. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord has carried out the repairs it was obliged to.
In the stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it was 6-8 months away from getting approval and work started to replace the windows in her block. It has been 6 months since it issued the stage 2 response in January 2025 and there is no evidence that the landlord has updated the resident on status of the window replacement programme. That it has not kept the resident informed is unreasonable when assessed against the landlord’s repairs policy and falls short of the good practice guidance outlined in our spotlight report on repairs.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had reported damp walls, wet carpets and damaged blinds. There is no evidence of the resident’s reports of these issues outside the landlord’s complaint response. The poor record keeping has made it difficult for this Service to ascertain whether the resident was seeking specific action from the landlord for example replacing or providing compensation for her belongings. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the reported damage to her belongings and to clarify its position on what it can do to put things right in response to this aspect of the complaint.
This Service recognises that the landlord tried to put things right for the resident by offering her £150 compensation in recognition of her time, effort, distress and inconvenience. The resident told this Service that she feels hopeless about the situation. She said her bedroom and clothes smell of damp and that she worries about the impact of mould growth on her health. She said she is too embarrassed to host guests owing to the issue. We do not consider the compensation offered by the landlord to be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Overall we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows because:
1. it has been over 24 months since the resident reported the repair, and the landlord has not undertaken any effective repair work to stop the window leaking when it rains.
2. the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on its decisions, or the progress of the repair. This led to her having to spend time and effort chasing it.
3. its record keeping was poor in respect of its communication with the resident. This has led to a lack of clarity in what the resident requested and what information the landlord has provided.
4. it failed to apply its damp and mould policy in response to evidence of signs of damp in the resident’s property.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. The landlord can deduct the £150 already offered to the resident if it can evidence it has already paid this.
The landlord is also ordered to inspect the property and issue the resident with an action plan to address the window repairs and associated damp in the property. This must include reference to its position on temporary repairs and a schedule of works for the major repairs. The landlord must provide timescales for the actions agreed, even if these are estimates. The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the repairs are completed within the timescales.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Code. It states that a landlord should:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The resident raised a complaint on 22 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 October 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales set out in the complaints policy.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records what date the resident escalated her complaint, as there is no record of the correspondence itself. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement email on 13 December 2024 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2025. This was 35 working days after the acknowledgement, 15 working days outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. This was inappropriate.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint because:
1. the record keeping in respect of the complaint and escalation was poor.
2. there was a minor delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2.
3. the landlord did not acknowledge the delay, apologise or offer redress of any kind. Without acknowledgement, landlords cannot put things right for residents or learn from the outcomes of its failings.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £850 in replacement of the offer made during the complaint procedure. This is comprised of:
  1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
  3. The landlord may deduct the £150 offered in its complaint responses from the total amount if this has already been paid. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. undertake an inspection of the property. The landlord must then provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the resident which must set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding. This report must include:
  1. clarification on its position on temporary repairs.
  2. a schedule of works for the planned repairs.
  3. an assessment and action plan to address the reported damp at the property, in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the reported damage to her belongings, including clarification on whether it will provide compensation.