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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202234258)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234258

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 March 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 an ongoing roof leak causing damp and mould and issues with the extractor fans.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy at the property, a top floor flat in a purpose-built block. The tenancy began in June 2022. The roof above the property is a living roof.
  2. The resident first reported a leak coming into the property through the bathroom extractor fan to the landlord on 26 September 2022. The resident continued to report the leak in November and December 2022 and made a complaint to the landlord on 4 January 2023.
  3. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had been unable to repair the roof to date and wanted this resolved urgently. He also wanted confirmation that the extractor fans were safe. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 January 2023. It apologised to the resident that it had failed to repair the roof. It said it had chased the contractor for an appointment and confirmed the resident did not want a mould wash completed until the landlord had completed the roof repairs.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 27 February 2023 and confirmed he had asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said this was because the leak was still ongoing despite him chasing the repair on several occasions. The resident approached this Service for help in March 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. In its response, the landlord confirmed there had been various issues completing the repairs. These included contractors being unable to work with the living roof and missed appointments. The landlord confirmed again that the resident did not want an interim mould wash. It offered £370 compensation, comprising:
    1. £30 for the delay in correctly raising the initial repair.
    2. £20 for a missed appointment.
    3. £30 for the delay in starting the repair work.
    4. £40 for failing to fully complete the repair to date.
    5. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repair.
    6. £100 for the delayed complaint escalation.
    7. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and this Service accepted the resident’s complaint in October 2023. The resident wanted the roof repairs completed and all the damage to the property put right. He also wanted compensation to acknowledge the disruption to his life and the impact on the enjoyment of his home.
  6. It is relevant to note that, as of the date of this report, the resident has informed us that the landlord has repaired the leak affecting the bathroom but the leak affecting the kitchen is ongoing. The resident said that during 1 attempted repair, the landlord’s contractor caused further damage to the roof which worsened the leak in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

The ongoing roof leak causing damp and mould and issues with the extractor fans.

  1. The resident first reported the roof leak on 26 September 2022 and, as of the date of this report, the evidence suggests the issue remains ongoing. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete repairs within 25 calendar days. It does not specify if it has an extended timescale for more complex repairs such as roof repairs. However, it is reasonable to conclude that, even if the policy allowed for extended timeframes, these should be agreed with the resident. This Service would also expect the landlord to put interim measures in place to mitigate the impact on the resident. The landlord has failed to act in line with this. It is therefore inappropriate that this repair has been outstanding for 2 and a half years and, to date, no lasting solution has been found.
  2. It is also unreasonable that the landlord only offered the resident £40 in its stage 2 response for its failure to fully repair the leak. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it will consider paying compensation where:
    1. It has failed to complete repairs for which it is responsible to agreed response times and not advised residents of any exceptions such as structural or supply chain issues.
    2. It has failed to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the resident is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
  3. This Service’s remedies guidance outlines awards in the range of £600 are proportionate for significant failures where the landlord has failed to put things right. For this reason, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £560 in recognition of the significant delays in finding a full and lasting solution to this repair. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm, in writing, an action plan for repairing completing a lasting repair to the leak. This action plan must include realistic timescales for completion and any interim measures it can offer the resident in the meantime, for example temporary repairs and mould washes.
  4. The landlord’s repair records are lacking details of any actions taken following the resident’s reports of leaks. The landlord partially detailed the history of the repair in its stage 2 response as follows:
    1. The resident initially reported the repair to the landlord on 26 September 2022. The contractor it was assigned to was not able to work on the living roof.
    2. The landlord cancelled the repair by mistake on 19 October 2022.
    3. The landlord raised a new order on 23 November 2022. The landlord booked an appointment for 5 December 2022 but did not attend.
    4. The landlord raised a new order on 21 December 2022 and its contractor inspected the roof on 5 January 2023.
    5. The contractor sent a quote to the landlord on 19 January 2023 and the landlord approved the quote a few days later.
    6. The contractor informed the resident that it was no longer working for the landlord on 24 February 2023 and the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint.
  5. There is no evidence of the landlord then taking any further action until July 2023, when it pursued an update from the contractor without success. The landlord’s internal emails show the case was then passed back and forth between departments with no ownership for a number of months. This continued even after issuing the stage 2 response. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for an update on at least 5 occasions between July 2023 and October 2023. And although the landlord did respond on each occasion, these responses did not provide the resident with any tangible actions the landlord had taken. On the contrary, on some occasions the resident was better informed than the landlord. For example by informing the landlord that the “new” contractor the job had been passed to in October 2023 had already been given the job in January 2023 but had never made contact or attended.
  6. The landlord’s failure to manage the repair and keep the resident updated was unreasonable. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the repair in its stage 2 response and offered £100 in recognition of this. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the significant distress and inconvenience that was likely caused to the resident as a result of the length of time over which the property was impacted by the leak. Although the leak does not appear to have limited the resident’s use of the property, the extractor fans were disconnected, the leaks were damaging the ceilings and floors and mould was present in the property. This would have understandably caused the resident a great deal of distress. We therefore order that the landlord issue a written apology to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. We also order the landlord to pay an additional £150 in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures where the landlord missed the opportunity to put things right.
  7. The landlord’s contractor told the resident, in January 2023, that it was no longer completing works for the landlord. It said this was due to an outstanding balance on its account. The landlord’s internal emails show that the landlord struggled to source another contractor and even described the situation as a “total shambles”. There is no evidence of the landlord sharing the difficulties it was having sourcing a contractor with the resident. On the contrary, it repeatedly told the resident it was resolving the matter imminently.
  8. In December 2023 the landlord also confirmed internally that it could not justify the cost it had been quoted to complete a temporary repair while awaiting a permanent solution. It is understandable that the landlord needed to ensure it was using appropriately qualified contractors and it also aimed to achieve value for money in its repairs service. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer even a temporary solution, given the leak had already been impacting the resident for 15 months at that point.
  9. As well as the impact from the ongoing leak, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about damp and mould affecting the areas directly surrounding the leaks. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 in which we made a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations encouraged landlords to ensure they are working with residents to mitigate the impact of damp and mould on residents where structural repairs are not feasible. In this case, if the landlord knew it was unable to repair the roof in a timely manner, it should have discussed this openly with the resident. Had it done so, it could have agreed a plan to manage the impact on the property in the meantime. The landlord failed to do so and this was unreasonable.
  10. It is unclear from the evidence when any of the contractors completed works to the roof, however both the landlord and resident agree that some repairs were carried out in early 2023. However, the resident reported that the roof continued to leak. The evidence shows that, in November 2023, the contractor suggested stripping the entire roof and completing tests to find any other areas of the roof that might be leaking. The landlord noted this again in April 2024, however it never completed these tests. The evidence does not explain why the landlord did not follow the contractor’s recommendation. There is no evidence of it seeking other options.
  11. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not undertake the work suggested by the contractor to locate all potential sources of leaks into the property. This is of particular note given the resident has informed this Service that the leak is ongoing as of the date of this report. Had the landlord acted on its contractor’s advice sooner, it could have resolved the issue 16 months earlier. We have therefore ordered the landlord to confirm if it will now be taking these steps to fully repair the roof.
  12. In conclusion, the landlord took too long to complete the repair, failed to complete even a temporary repair or offer any other interim measures to minimise the impact on the resident. The landlord also missed the opportunity through its complaint responses to proportionately put things right considering the length of time the leak had impacted the resident. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair and we have made orders below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as well as in issuing the stage 2 response. It acknowledged these delays had meant nobody was progressing the repair and apologised for this. It offered £150 in recognition of this failure. Although it is positive that the landlord apologised and offered compensation, it did not go far enough to put things right. Its failure to respond to the complaint had a significant impact in this case, contributing to a period of 6 months where the landlord failed to update the resident about the complaint or the roof repair. For this reason, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. This is in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience this failure likely caused the resident.
  2. In line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure complaint responses detail what steps will be taken to complete any outstanding actions. Landlords must also demonstrate learning from complaints. The landlord’s responses in this case are lacking in any commitment to a plan to fully repair the roof. There is also a lack of any learning identified, despite the landlord identifying multiple failures in its responses, and this is a failure in line with the Code. We have already ordered the landlord to commit to an action plan to repair the roof, as outlined earlier in this report. We have therefore also ordered the landlord to explain to the resident, in writing, what steps they have taken or will be taking to ensure similar failures do not occur in future.
  3. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged it took too long to respond to the resident at stage 2, however it failed to use the complaints process to commit to a solution or identify any learning. This investigation has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Special investigation

  1. This Service completed a special investigation into the landlord which we published in July 2023. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes to improve its complaint handling and repairs service. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by this investigation. The landlord has since been working actively with this Service to implement the recommendations. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing roof leak causing damp and mould and issues with the extractor fans.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Confirm, in writing, an action plan for repairing the roof leak. This action plan must include:
      1. Timescales for inspecting the roof.
      2. Timescales for completing the identified repairs.
      3. Interim measures it can offer the resident to mitigate the impact in the meantime, such as mould washes or temporary repairs.
      4. Confirmation as to whether it will be following the contractor’s advice to strip the roof and complete appropriate tests to identify any further leaks.
    3. Pay the resident the £370 offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
    4. Pay the resident an additional £810 comprising:
      1. £710 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to handle the roof repairs.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
    5. Confirm, in writing to the resident and this Service, what learning has been identified as a result of this case and what steps have been taken or will be taken to prevent similar failures occurring in future.
  2. All monies ordered by this Service must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies owed by the resident to the landlord.