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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202311793)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311793

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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:
    1. Reports of water ingress through the wall, which caused internal water damage.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, fourth floor flat within a block. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 10 March 2023 the resident reported water ingress which she believed was being caused by defective guttering. The landlord raised a repair but then decided to use an external contractor on 15 March 2023. She emailed it on 30 March 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint about its delay in repairing the guttering. She called it on 3 April 2023 to chase the repairs and said the water ingress was damaging her wall and underfloor. The landlord provided it stage 1 response on 13 April 2023, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged and upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the repair.
    2. Said it would not normally book a communal repair with a resident but said it had booked an appointment for the contractor to inspect on 18 April 2023.
    3. Confirmed it would consider offering compensation for inconvenience once it had completed the repair.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 April 2023 and said the contractor inspected that day. She said she was expecting a baby soon, and needed the repair completed so she could use her second bedroom, where the water was entering. Between 24 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 the resident, and her MP, chased the landlord for an update. It replied it had agreed a quote for the works and provided information on how she could make a claim against its insurers for damage inside the property. She asked to escalate her complaint on 26 May 2023 as the water damage was ongoing and she did not have a date or timeframe for the repairs. The landlord acknowledged escalation the same day. Between 8 June 2023 and 8 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord for updates and emailed a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
  4. On 26 September 2023 the senior member of staff sent internal emails to chase the repair. He detailed the impact the water ingress was having on the resident, who had a new baby but was not able to use the second bedroom. He said there was a “major damp ingress issue” and questioned the landlord’s competence. The landlord said it had chased the contractor who replied that it would look to attend the following week with scaffolding to complete the repair. It said it would also need the contractor to inspect the external wall. It also emailed the resident to update her.
  5. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a complaint response on 28 September 2023. It called her on 29 September 2023 to discuss the complaint, and provided its stage 2 response on 4 October 2023, in which it:
    1. Said she had explained it had not given her any date for the repair, and she had not been able to make an insurance claim as the damage was ongoing.
    2. Explained the contractor had inspected and submitted 2 quotes in May 2023 which it had approved. It had chased the contractor and received a date of 4 October 2023 for the scaffolding and repair. It said its surveyor would also inspect the external wall.
    3. Apologised its response was late, which it said was due to a backlog of stage 2 complaints.
    4. Advised that claims for damage to possessions was outside of the complaints process and that she could claim on her home contents insurance or make a claim against the landlord’s insurance.
    5. Accepted it should have completed repairs quicker and provided better communication and apologised. It offered £840 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and £400 for its complaint handling failings, totalling £1,240.

 

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 October 2023 and said it had completed the repairs by unblocking the drainpipe at the hopper and had inspected the wall. It advised no further repairs were needed. Its contractor provided its completion report with photographs on 15 October 2023, showing the drainpipe had been blocked by a plastic bottle. However, on that date the resident reported further water ingress. The landlord inspected the property on 24 October 2023 and advised her that the wall needed to dry out over several weeks. Between 31 October 2023 and 17 November 2023 the resident continued to report water ingress. She arranged for an independent surveyor who produced a report, which she provided to the landlord on 22 December 2023. The report said “an assessment of the rainwater goods noted continuous water running down face of the downpipe…the downpipe remains defective and there is water penetration during rainfall. The brickwork near the downpipe remains wet”.
  2. On 2 January 2024, in an internal email, the landlord said the independent surveyor’s report was not conclusive, and that the resident needed to complete internal repairs as she was a leaseholder. However, it agreed to reinspect the drainpipe and told the resident that it had not found any blockages on 12 January 2024. She emailed it photographs of the water ingress, and it raised a repair to check for a plumbing leak. The resident replied that the ingress was due to the guttering or drainpipe as per her surveyor and photographs. After taking advice from the Ombudsman, the resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2024 to ask it if it disagreed with her surveyor, and if so, what investigations it had completed and what its next steps were. It called her on 24 January 2024, and she emailed it with her notes from the call. She said it had said the water ingress was due to a leak from a neighbouring flat but would not tell her which one and did not provide any evidence of this.
  3. The resident told the landlord, on 7 February 2024, that she had spoken to her neighbour who told her there was no water supply the other side of where she was experiencing water ingress. She contacted her MP, who emailed the landlord on 22 February 2024. It replied to the MP on 4 March 2024 to say it had resolved the water ingress. The resident has told the Ombudsman, at the date of this report, that she still has water ingress when it rains, but not during dry weather. She said the external wall is visibly wet and her internal bedroom wall, skirting board, carpet gripper and underlay have been damaged. Her carpet has not been damaged as she had rolled it back out of the way. She said the landlord has refused to investigate this further. She also said she has not been given any survey reports by the landlord and no longer trusts its surveyors.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the wall, which caused internal water damage

  1. Under the lease the landlord covenants, or agrees to, maintain and repair the structure of the building, including the external walls, gutters, gullies, pipework and drainage. The resident covenants to report any repairs to the external parts of the building to the landlord and to keep in repair the inside of the property. Under its repairs policy the landlord classes repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours) or routine (complete within 25 days). The policy does not state whether these timeframes apply to communal repairs.
  2. When the resident first reported water ingress caused by defective guttering in March 2023 the landlord correctly accepted it was responsible for the repair. It chose to use an external roofing contractor for the repair as permitted under its repairs policy and promptly raised the job. However, having not received any update, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about its delay in repair. Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly accepted it had delayed, apologised and said it had arranged an appointment for an inspection. However, by the date of the inspection, 18 April 2023, 39 days had passed. This was in breach of its 25-day routine repairs timeframe if this applied.
  3. Although the landlord’s contractor did inspect on the appointment date, it then delayed in completing the repairs. The contractor provided 2 quotes in May 2023 which the landlord correctly approved. It explained the contractor had wanted to use a ‘cherry picker’ to complete the repair but then discovered it had to use scaffolding. However, despite the resident, and her MP, chasing it the landlord failed to chase the contractor sufficiently to obtain a date for repairs. This was a significant failing which prolonged the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
  4. Only after the resident contacted a senior member of the landlord’s staff did it start to robustly chase the contractor for an appointment for the repairs. By this time, 200 days, or over 6 months, had passed since the resident reported the issue. Within its stage 2 response it provided the date for repairs and correctly accepted its failings and offered £840 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. The landlord accepted its delays, and poor communication, had been failings and correctly apologised for these. It also offered reasonable compensation. However, there were further failings. Firstly, regarding its approach to the water damage caused to the property. It is correct that under the lease the resident is responsible for internal repairs. If it had repaired the guttering within a reasonable timeframe then the resident could have been expected to complete internal repairs. However, the damage was prolonged by the landlord’s inaction and so responsibility cannot remain with the resident. It was not fair or reasonable for the landlord to have taken this position. The landlord also gave conflicting information about whether she should claim against her own contents insurance or its liability insurance, which was a further failing.
  6. Secondly, following the resident having reported that the water ingress was still ongoing, after the guttering repair, the landlord failed to investigate this. While it is positive that it inspected the wall when the repair took place it has not provided a report of this inspection. When the resident provided an independent report, produced by a surveyor who was a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the landlord dismissed its findings. It said water ingress was from an internal plumbing leak in a neighbouring property but failed to say which one. It failed to provide any evidence to the resident, or this Service, of its investigations to have been able to reach this conclusion. The landlord appears to have taken the position that, as the residents of the block are leaseholders, it is not responsible for the water ingress. This is not correct, and the landlord has an obligation to identify the source of the ingress, and if it is from an external source, or internal pipework within its control, to repair this.
  7. The resident reported the issue when she first discovered it. She chased the landlord consistently to repair it. She explained the impact the ingress was having on her wall and underflooring. She also explained the distress, inconvenience and frustration it caused, and remains causing. During the period she was pregnant and then had a newborn baby, while having a second bedroom which was affected by water ingress and damp, which she has been unable to decorate as a nursery. The landlord failed to resolve the ongoing issue. There was severe maladministration. To reflect the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord failed to acknowledge it within its 5 working day timeframe within its complaints policy. It provided it stage 1 response within its 10-working day policy timeframe. It failed to offer any redress within its response but said it would consider this once it had completed the repair. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint the landlord correctly acknowledged escalation the same day.
  2. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 response until after the Ombudsman asked it to. It provided it after 92 working days. This was in breach of its 20-working day policy timeframe. This was also in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. The landlord explained the delay was due to a backlog, but this was not a reasonable excuse. It also had the opportunity, under its policy and the Code, to have asked for an extension of time but it had failed to do so.
  3. Within it stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its complaint handling failings, apologised, and offered £400 compensation. This amount was in line with our guidance on remedies, and taking into account the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, there was reasonable redress. As the landlord has already paid the compensation offered no recommendation has been made regarding this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the wall, which caused internal water damage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

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 failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,000 compensation for the substantial distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its severe maladministration.
    3. Appoint an external surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the guttering, drainpipe, external and internal walls where the resident is reporting water ingress, and any other areas necessary. The surveyor is to produce a report, with relevant photographs, and provide a copy to the resident and this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Carry out any repairs or recommendations as detailed in the surveyor’s report ordered above. The landlord is to provide proof of these works to the resident and this Service.
    2. Complete any internal repairs to the water damaged wall, skirting board, and floor as affected. The landlord may claim from its own liability insurance for the cost of these repairs but must not require the resident to make an insurance claim.
    3. Replace the water damaged underlay and damaged carpet grippers.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

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.