From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202234914)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234914

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of flooding from the balcony, which he said was caused by the new build property having been sold with defective or missing balcony drainage.
    2. Formal complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, fourth floor, new build flat. The landlord is a housing association. The lease started on 30 June 2021.
  2. On 26 July 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that the property had flooded from the balcony, and it advised him to contact his insurers as a homeowner. The following day he called it again and said the developer had decanted him and his daughter to a hotel. On 29 July 2021 the resident asked for assistance and the landlord told him it would find a new decant for him and noted his preferences. On unknown dates it decanted him to 2 further hotels. Its records say it chased the developer for an update on the repairs on 10 August 2021. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 August 2021, which was about:
    1. The property having been flooded after he had lived in it for only 3 weeks.
    2. The property not having been fit to live in when it was sold, as the balcony drainage had not been installed properly or checked.
    3. Having been decanted and waiting for the repairs to be completed, which was traumatic and stressful.
    4. Believing he should not have been paying rent or service charges as he could not live in the property.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It called the resident on 2 September 2021 and said it would offer a new decant, with cooking and washing facilities. It also said it would calculate compensation once the repairs were completed. On an unknown date the resident moved to the decant property, but after a number of weeks he asked to find his own temporary accommodation and for the landlord to pay for this, which it agreed. He said the distance was too far from his work and the property. He also said he was having to drive for hours each day. He emailed it on 22 December 2021 and explained how the situation had affected him and his daughter. It emailed him on 9 March 2022 to offer £800 compensation for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble. The resident rejected the offer and said it did not include his loss of earnings or reflect he had been away from the property for 5 months. The landlord said it would escalate his complaint on 18 May 2022.
  4. On 29 May 2023 the resident emailed the Ombudsman. He said he had spoken to the landlord about his complaint, and it said it had sent him a response which he could not find. He said the landlord miss-sold the property, had not checked the drainage on the balcony, and he wanted compensation for this. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023 and asked for a copy of its stage 1 and 2 responses. In internal emails between 3 and 7 August 2023 the landlord said it did not have a stage 1 or 2 response, and these had not been sent. It said it had reimbursed the resident £10,066 but had not paid any compensation.
  5. The landlord opened and acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 9 August 2023 and called the resident on 14 August 2023 to discuss it. He reiterated that the missing part of the drainage system caused the flood. It provided its stage 2 response on 22 August 2023, in which it:
    1. Admitted it had not provided a stage 1 response in 2021 and apologised. It said the member of staff responsible no longer worked for the landlord.
    2. Said it had decanted him but he said the property was not suitable and found his own, which it agreed to pay for, but there was a delay in reimbursement.
    3. Explained the flood took place during a period of unprecedented rainfall and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused by having to be decanted for 5 months.
    4. Said it had paid £998 compensation for damaged possessions in 2021 and repairs to the property were completed in December 2021.
    5. Explained it could not compensate for loss of earnings and could not consider liability under its complaints process. It said he could make a claim through its insurers if he wished.
    6. Offered £3,780 compensation for inconvenience and distress, time and trouble, and service failure. It also offered £250 for complaint handling failings. Its total offer was £4,030 in compensation.
  6. On 24 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to reject its compensation offer. He said its response had not addressed his complaint that the flood was caused by a missing part from the drainage system on the balcony. He said he had a video of the developer inspecting, finding the part missing and installing it. He said he was decanted by the developer, and then by the landlord to hotels for 6 weeks, before being offered a property miles away from his which was not suitable. He said he was also concerned that he would need to disclose the flood when he goes on to sell the property at a later date, which might devalue it.
  7. In an internal email on 30 May 2024 the landlord said it did not have any records of communications with the resident before 2023. It also said staff involved at the time no longer worked for it. It explained the property was within the developer’s liability period when it flooded, and the developer completed the survey and repairs. The resident has told the Ombudsman only some of the flats within his block flooded. He said he had sent the landlord hundreds of emails throughout the period and its communication was very poor. He said he had to return to the property regularly to empty the dehumidifiers and the landlord appeared to have taken no responsibility. He also said the flood was caused by the missing drainage part. He had asked the developer and the landlord for copies of the pre-sale checks paperwork but had not been provided with any documents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the Ombudsman that his desired outcomes are for the landlord to compensate him for loss of earnings, and for reimbursement of rent and service charges. He has also asked for a proportion of the purchase price of his share to be refunded. He said he is seeking these remedies due to the landlord’s negligence.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot determine causation, liability, or negligence like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a negligence claim, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. For this reason, and following our guidance on remedies, the Ombudsman cannot grant the remedies the resident is seeking. This Service can, however, consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident and the level of distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding from the balcony, which he said was caused by the new build property having been sold with defective or missing balcony drainage

  1. Under the lease the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building, and ‘service media’ which includes drains, gutters, gullies and pipework. Under its defects policy, it says the developer is responsible to repair defects within the first 2 years after the property was completed. The policy also provides a 2-year warranty for homeowners from the date of purchase.
  2. The resident reported that the property had flooded due to rainwater entering via the balcony, during a period of heavy rainfall. Initially the developer decanted him, as he had not been able to contact the landlord by telephone. However, the landlord further decanted him to hotels once he asked it to assist him. This was in line with its decant policy. It correctly tried to identify an alternative decant property, but the distance from the property was too great for the resident to remain living there for a long period of time. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its efforts to find a suitable or other decant properties which is a failing. Positively, and in line with its decant policy regarding homeowners, it agreed an individual approach by agreeing to the resident finding his own decant and paying for it by reimbursement. However, the resident told the Ombudsman this caused financial strain as it took a long period to get the money back from the landlord, which was a failing.
  3. It is not clear why the repairs to the property took 5 months, and no records have been provided. Following the resident reporting the issue to the landlord it asked the developer for an update on 10 August 2021. There are no records of the landlord having contacted or chased the developer after this date. There is also no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident, and he said it did not take any ownership of the situation, which was a significant failing.
  4. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly apologised for the inconvenience of the flood and decant period. It also accepted it had delayed in reimbursing the resident. It offered £3,780 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  5. Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to address the resident’s main complaint element, the cause of the flood. While he accepted there had been heavy rainfall, the resident explained to the landlord that only some flats had been affected. He has also provided a video of what appears to be the developer’s contractors removing stones or gravel from the drainage pipe under the balcony. He says a part was missing, which caused the drain to block and resulted in the flood. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this element of the complaint, or asked the developer about this issue, which was a failing. It also did not provide any documents to him when he requested these about pre-sale checks. While the Ombudsman cannot make a finding on causation, it is not clear that the landlord investigated the issue, which was a failing.
  6. While the landlord’s offer of compensation is compatible with our guidance on remedies, the landlord’s failure to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction means there cannot be reasonable redress. There was maladministration, which caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. As the landlord’s offer was appropriate, an order has been made that it pay the £3,780 compensation it previously offered.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint

  1. When the resident made his stage 1 complaint in 2021 the landlord acknowledged it within one day, in line with its complaints policy timeframe at the time. However, it failed to provide a stage 1 response in breach of its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It also inappropriately agreed to escalate the complaint, without having provided a response, in breach of the Code.
  2. Following the Ombudsman’s email the landlord correctly admitted it had not provided a stage 1 response. It acknowledged a stage 2 complaint and provided its response within 9 working days, in compliance with its policy and the Code. Within its response it apologised and offered £250 compensation for its complaint handling failings. By the date of its stage 2 response, 2 years had passed since the resident made his stage 1 complaint. This was an inexcusable delay in resolving a complaint and so there was severe maladministration. To reflect the impact on the resident, of additional inconvenience, time, trouble, and the feeling of having been ignored, an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. Throughout this investigation we have been hampered by a lack of evidence and records which have not been retained or provided by the landlord. This lack of records has also hampered the landlord’s investigation and response at stage 2 of its complaints process. It admitted it did not have any records of communication with the resident prior to 2023, being a one-and-a-half-year period, which was a significant failing. In addition, it had failed to retain or provide:
    1. Evidence of any contact with the developer about the flood or repairs.
    2. Records or evidence of its attempts to find suitable decants for the resident.
    3. Paperwork, or pre-sale records, of inspections of the property condition or of any inspections following the flood.
    4. Records of how it handled the resident’s reimbursement of costs incurred.
    5. Evidence of its investigation into the stage 1 complaint, or copies of emails sent to and received from the resident.
  3. The lack of records and poor quality of knowledge and information management delayed the resident’s complaint through the landlord’s complaints process, as it did not realise it had not resolved it. It caused further distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had to point out his previous communications with the landlord. Overall, there was severe maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s formal complaint.
    2. Knowledge and information management.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding from the balcony, which he said was caused by the new build property having been sold with defective or missing balcony drainage.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £4,280 made up of:
      1. £3,780 for the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in its response to the flood.
      2. £500 for the additional inconvenience, time, trouble, and the feeling of having been ignored caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included residents “having to chase the landlord to act on what should at times be straightforward requests, leading to them raising complaints, repeatedly trying to get the landlord to understand the seriousness of the situation and often being met with inaction”. We also found that “parts of the organisation did not prioritise listening to residents and acting on their concerns.”
  2. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time the report was published, no orders or recommendations about complaint handling have been made in addition to those made within the special report.