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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202312902)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312902

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs as a result of a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. He has owned a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of the building since 2017. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report a repair on 4 April 2022 after he discovered water leaking into his property. There is evidence the resident chased up the repair at least 7 times over 12 months.
  3. The resident complained in April 2023 about the landlord’s lack of action to repair the communal roof which was still leaking. Due to the length of time taken by the landlord to arrange the repair, there had been further damage to his property. Discolouration, damage to plaster and wall coverings, and damp areas to the ceiling and walls in multiple rooms had appeared as a result. The resident wanted the roof repaired, to receive regular communication from the landlord until the work was completed, and for any damage to his property to be rectified.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it had raised multiple works orders but the roof was not yet repaired. The landlord apologised for the delay and stated that it would get the work completed as soon as possible. It directed the resident to claim for internal damage to his property by contacting its insurance team.
  5. The resident said he remained frustrated at the lack of commitment from the landlord to repair the roof or his property and requested escalation of his complaint on 10 April 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response 4 months later apologised for the delay and poor communication when handling the original reports and complaint. It advised that the repair was complex because of the presence of solar panels on the roof, and therefore the repairs would be organised by its major works team. The landlord explained the process of making an insurance claim for damage to his property in more depth and awarded compensation of £2000.
  6. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident wanted the landlord to replace the roof and repair the damage to his property. He also wanted to receive further compensation for his time and trouble caused by the landlord’s lack of action concerning these issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In bringing his complaint to this Service, the resident said he is seeking compensation from the landlord for loss of value to his property as a result of the damage caused by the leak. This Service cannot determine whether there has been a loss in value of a property nor that the landlord should accept liability for any losses incurred. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about liability and financial losses. Also, this Service cannot intervene with, or alter, any outcomes of an insurance claim should one be made. While the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for financial losses relating to this complaint, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. This Service can only assess the events brought to us that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, it is helpful to note that the resident experienced a comparable situation in 2018 that was managed differently by the landlord. On that occasion, the roof leaked and caused damage to the resident’s property, after which the landlord repaired the roof and made good the resident’s property by redecorating.
  3. The resident has informed this Service that since bringing the complaint to us, the landlord has replaced the roof but the damage to the resident’s property had not been repaired.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs as a result of a roof leak.

  1. The resident’s lease states that the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the structural parts of the building, including the roof. The landlord’s repair policy also confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the roofs of all its properties. The landlord’s responsibility to repair the roof is not in question.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it wants to provide residents with repairs to a good standard in a reasonable time. Routine repairs should be completed within 25 calendar days.
  3. The resident first reported the repair to the landlord on 4 April 2022, after being woken in the night from water coming through the ceiling activating his smoke alarm. The resident had not heard from the landlord in response to his report so he reported the issue again on 25 May 2022. By this time the water staining on his ceiling had got worse, with water also dripping down the walls. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 June 2022 to request an update on the repair.
  4. The landlord completed a survey with a drone on 14 July 2022. The resident requested an update 2 weeks later and sent in photographs of the damage to his property. In response the landlord visited the resident’s property to review the damage nearly a month later. There were 2 further inspections of the property, on 6 September 2022 and 3 November 2022. The resident sent 3 more requests for an update before putting in a formal complaint on 3 April 2023.
  5. The complaint was submitted 1 year after the roof began leaking and the resident stated that the landlord was in breach of its repairing obligations under the lease. The resident also complained that the landlord’s delay to repair the roof had caused increased damage to the inside of his property. He wanted the following outcomes from the landlord:

a) The repairs to the roof completed within 3 months.

b) Regular communication on the status of the roof repairs.

c) An independent assessment of the damage that had been caused.

d) The repair of any damage to the interior to be fixed within 6 months.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted that it had carried out multiple visits to repair the roof and it remained in disrepair. It apologised for the inconvenience and stated that it was working with another contractor to get the repair completed as quickly as possible.
  2. In his complaint the resident had asked the landlord to confirm what an acceptable timescale to repair a leaking roof would be in accordance with its service standards. The landlord responded that it would have 20 days to attend to the repair, dependant on weather, resources, and availability of materials. Allowing for factors outside of its control, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request was not in line with its service standards.
  3. The resident did not feel that the landlord had responded to the 4 requested outcomes from his complaint. Therefore, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 10 April 2023.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 August 2023 apologised that the repair and associated communication was not dealt with more effectively, and for the delay to the stage 2 response. For this reason, it awarded the resident compensation of £2000 broken down as follows:
    1. £50 Complaint handling – stage 1 failure to communicate and keep the resident updated.
    2. £50 Complaint handling – delay to stage 2 response.
    3. £900 distress.
    4. £900 Inconvenience.
    5. £100 Time and effort.
  5. The resident informed this Service that the roof was repaired between January and July 2024. Despite admitted failings in its stage 2 response, it took a further 5 months for the landlord to begin repair works. For this reason, the landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 response was not proportionate, since the resident experienced further distress, inconvenience, time, and effort until the repair was completed.
  6. The stage 2 response also advised that the major works team would contact the resident with further updates about the repair once it had reviewed the surveyor’s report. However, the outcomes specified in the stage 2 response were unmeasurable because it did not set out clear timescales. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code says when a landlord offers a remedy in its complaint responses, the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Therefore, the landlord’s response was unable to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses directed the resident to its insurance team to make a claim for any internal damage to his property. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained in more depth the process of making a claim and the information that would be required. This included “Estimates / Invoices / Receipts of costs incurred”.
  8. In his complaint the resident wanted the landlord to pay for an independent assessment of the damage that had been caused to the inside of his property, and to repair it within 6 months. In correspondence to this Service, the resident indicated he believed that he would need to get the repair works completed before claiming back the cost through an insurance claim.
  9. Although the resident had previously experienced the landlord making good his property following a leak, the landlord’s repairs policy states that this is entirely at its discretion. The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents should make a claim for damages through their own insurance policy, or against the landlord’s policy if appropriate. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord directed the resident to submit a claim on its own insurance policy to cover the cost of repairs.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out that an estimate of the costs could be submitted. This indicated that a claim could be submitted to the insurer before works were completed, which would enable the resident to know if his claim would be successful before committing to the work. This was a reasonable response, so that the resident did not bear the financial risk of completing the works before knowing if the claim would cover the cost.
  11. Following completion of the roof repair, the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team on 9 March 2025 to start the process of making a claim. The resident provided relevant information and included an estimate for works to repair the damage to his property.
  12. In response, the landlord sent a summary of the insurance cover and contact information for the insurer so that the resident could progress his claim directly. The landlord’s ‘make a claim’ webpage sets out that it aims to establish liability to progress a claim within 40 working days of contact by the resident. This Service understands that the resident has not yet progressed his claim directly with the insurer but intends to do so.
  13. In his correspondence to this Service, the resident advised that there is an excess on the insurance of £350 that he would be liable for even if the claim is accepted. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may refund an insurance excess as discretionary compensation if it has been negligent in the handling of a repair that it is responsible for. We have made a recommendation concerning this.
  14. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs as a result of a roof leak. We order the landlord to pay further compensation of £450 to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay to repair the roof which the resident had reported caused increased damage to his property. This amount is within the parameters set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Special Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman published a report in July 2023 about the landlord following a special wider investigation. It found multiple systemic failings that were impacting its residents. These included that the landlord was failing to take effective ownership and management of repairs leading to delays and poorly communicating with residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of repairs, complaints and how it kept records. The failings identified by this complaint largely mirror those identified by the special investigation that are part of the ongoing improvement work ordered, for which this Service remains in liaison with the landlord. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, we have therefore not made any similar orders.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs as a result of a roof leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2450 compensation made up as follows:
    1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience he likely incurred because of the landlord’s handling of the roof repair. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to his service charge account.
    2. The £2000 previously offered to the resident if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If the resident completes a claim for damage to his property with the landlord’s insurer and the claim is accepted, the landlord should consider refunding the insurance excess of £350 as discretionary compensation in accordance with its policy.