London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202315612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315612

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 May 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:
1. Repairs in the bathroom to the tiling, sink, bath panel, light and extractor fan.
2. A leak from the bath which damaged the ceiling below.
3. The resident’s request for a new bathroom.
4. The formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord at the time of the complaint was a housing association, but it has since passed ownership of the property to a different housing association. The resident’s daughter has autism.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord raised repairs for the bathroom ceiling light and for a leak from the bath. Its records marked both repairs as completed but does not provide a date or notes. It raised a job for an asbestos test on 13 June 2022 marked as completed without a date. It also raised a repair for a blocked bathroom sink on 24 June 2022 but said it was a no access on an unknown date. On 9 July 2022 it raised a repair for a leak coming through the ceiling from the bathroom. The resident made a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint) on 11 July 2022 about the delay until the next appointment on 28 October 2022 for follow-on works. She said every time she used the bath or shower it leaked down into her living room and the landlord advised her not to use the bath. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 2 days later and said that was the earliest appointment it could offer. The resident replied she was not happy with its response, and that she had to be able to bathe her 2 children, one of whom had autism.
The landlord raised a repair for a broken bath panel on 23 September 2022 and marked this as a no access on an unknown date. The resident called it about her repairs appointment on 28 October 2022 and the landlord told her it had brought it forward, but it had been a no access. It completed repairs to reapply sealant to the bath and around the bathroom on 21 October 2022. Its contractor reported further repairs were needed to the sink, bath panel, and light. On 22 October 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint (the second complaint), which was about:
1. Her bathroom light not having worked for 6 months and the extractor fan did not work.
2. Her sink being chipped, had a rusted plug hole, and did not drain properly.
3. The bath had been sealed around but was still leaking and had chips and cracks. The bath panel was also damaged.
4. Some tiles needed to be replaced but the landlord would not colour match tiles to the existing ones.
5. The bathroom was old and needed to be replaced.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord called the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It provided its stage 1 response the same day and upheld the complaint. It said it would send its supervisor to inspect the outstanding repairs and would contact her with a date for this. Between 3 November 2022 and 16 January 2023, the landlord asked internally 3 times for an appointment for its supervisor. It emailed the resident on 16 January 2023 to say it was still trying to arrange this and she emailed it on 8 March 2023 to chase it. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord provided a second stage 1 response (to the second complaint) the next day in which it:
1. Said there had been staff changes and accepted its level of service had been poor. It accepted there had been long delays. It offered £150 compensation for this and its poor communication.
2. Confirmed it had raised repairs for the outstanding issues in the bathroom for 28 July 2023.
3. Offered £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 28 June 2023, and said the situation had not been fair on her daughter who had autism. It attended the appointment on 28 July 2023 and the resident called it after. She said it had only raised repairs for the light and extractor fan, but its contractor said the bathroom needed to be replace, however, when she called it had denied this. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. The following day it raised a repair for the light and extractor fan, which it marked as completed on an unknown date. It also exchanged emails with the resident. She asked again to escalate her complaint, as it had told her it had inspected the bathroom, and it did not need to be replaced. She said it had not sent a surveyor to inspect.
On 15 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she felt like it was ignoring her. She called it on 25 September 2023 to chase her stage 2 response and on 9 October 2023 to ask for a surveyor’s inspection. It acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 12 October 2023. It exchanged internal emails, and emails with the resident, on 19 October 2023 about recording her daughter’s disability and offering support. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 30 October 2023 to give it a final chance to provide a stage 2 response. It provided its stage 2 response on 6 November 2023, in which it:
1. Said it had raised a repair for 5 December 2023 to assess and complete repairs. It accepted it should not have taken this long to complete repairs and upheld this element of the complaint.
2. Confirmed it had repaired the bathroom light and extractor fan on 21 September 2023 but that it had taken too long to do this. It upheld this element of the complaint.
3. Said a surveyor had attended and raised repairs but the resident said she was told by him she needed a new bathroom. The surveyor did not feel a new bathroom was needed. It had scheduled another inspection but did not uphold this element of the complaint.
4. Apologised that a leak from the bathroom had caused a hole in the ceiling below and had requested a repair for this. However, it said this was not part of the complaint she had raised.
5. Accepted it had delayed, its service was not to standard, and its communication had been poor and apologised for this. It offered £1,080 for distress, loss of amenity, inconvenience, time and trouble. It also offered £200 for poor complaint handling. Its total compensation offer was £1,280.
The resident called the landlord, and they exchanged emails on 7 November 2023. The resident said it had lied in its response and had never sent a surveyor to inspect the bathroom. She asked who would be inspecting on 5 December 2023 and the landlord said its contractor. The resident asked for a surveyor to inspect.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised within her complaint the negative impact the condition of the bathroom had on her household’s health and wellbeing. This Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident and any distress or inconvenience caused. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for injury, or effects on health, 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 personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the bathroom to the tiling, sink, bath panel, light and extractor fan

The landlord has provided an incomplete tenancy agreement for the resident. However, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 inserts into all tenancies a clause that the landlord is responsible for maintaining installations for the supply of services, including water, sanitation and electricity. Under its repairs policy the landlord is responsible for repairing sinks, baths, bathroom tiles, bath panels, bathroom lights and extractor fans. Its policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 25 calendar days.
The landlord correctly raised a repair for the ceiling light in January 2022, in line with its repairing obligations. The Ombudsman does not know on which date it completed this repair, as its records do not state this, which is a significant knowledge and information management failing. It also raised a repair for the blocked sink in June 2022 but said it was a no access. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it having confirmed the appointment with the resident, of the no access, or the date it occurred all of which are failings. Although the landlord did attend a repairs appointment in July 2022, it offered a follow-on appointment 3 and a half months later, which was not in line with its policy timeframe or any notion of a reasonable timeframe. It is also not clear which repairs were to be completed on this appointment. At this time the resident also told it her daughter had autism, but it failed to consider or record this.
In line with its policy the landlord raised a repair for the bath panel in September 2022. However, it again said it was a no access and has not provided any evidence which is a failing. It brought forward the resident’s October 2022 follow-on appointment, which would have been positive, and solution focused, had it informed her. It told her after the event and that it had been a no access, which was a significant failing. Again, the landlord has not provided evidence.
The landlord had notice of all outstanding repairs from 21 October 2021. It was appropriate for it to decide to send a supervisor to inspect within its stage 1 response (to the second complaint). This was also in line with its component renewals policy. However, it failed to do so. The evidence shows it chased the supervisor, but its efforts were poor. It should have been more proactive, not left long periods of time between emails and should have escalated the matter internally. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated. These were significant failings.
Positively, the landlord admitted its failings and apologised for them, within its second stage 1 response and offered compensation. It attended its booked appointment, but this was nearly a month after its response, causing further delay. It also failed to raise all the outstanding repairs. It completed repairs to the light and extractor fan, on unknown dates, well in excess of its repairs policy timeframes.
There was clear confusion between the resident and the landlord about inspections. The resident asked repeatedly for a surveyor to inspect, and the landlord said it would send a supervisor. The landlord failed to explain its approach or policy to her. Considering the complaints, and escalated complaint, it would have been helpful if it had arranged a surveyor to inspect. This may have helped to repair the landlord and resident’s relationship and made her feel heard. Within its delayed stage 2 response the landlord positively gave a date for inspection and repairs. It said in error that its surveyor had previously inspected, which further frustrated the resident who had been consistently asking for this. It does not appear from the evidence that the appointment went ahead before the property was transferred to a new landlord in January 2024.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it had delayed in inspecting the bathroom, and in raising and completing repairs. It apologised for this and offered £1,080 for distress, loss of amenity, inconvenience, time and trouble. 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.
There were significant failings in how the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for repairs and inspections. It delayed and its communication was poor. From the evidence it did not resolve the outstanding repairs before it transferred ownership of the property. However, it did accept its failings and offered compensation for these. Due to this there was maladministration, as opposed to severe maladministration, to reflect the landlord’s attempts to put things right. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused over the 2-year period, an order has been made that the landlord pay £800 additional compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a leak from the bath which damaged the ceiling below

Under its repairing obligations, as set out above, the landlord is responsible for installations for the supply of water and sanitation. It correctly raised repairs for a leak from the bath in January 2022, in line with its repairing obligations. Its records say it raised a new repair for a leak in July 2022. The resident has said consistently that the leak was from the bath and there is no evidence the landlord repaired it prior to raising the second repair, which was a failing. Its initial reply when the resident made the first complaint, that she should not use the bath until 28 October 2022, was unreasonable and unhelpful.
The landlord’s repair records do not contain any information on the source of the leak, although the resident thought it was due to defective sealant around the bath. Positively the landlord repaired this in October 2022, but it took significantly longer than its 25-day repairs policy timeframe to do so. She raised within her stage 1 complaint that the bath had been leaking. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly apologised for the leak and said it had raised a repair for the ceiling below, which was positive. However, it said this was not part of her complaint which was incorrect. The resident had been consistently complaining about the leak and had informed it about the damage being caused and the leak through the ceiling below.
The landlord failed to complete the repair to stop the leak within its policy timeframe. It was inappropriate for it to tell the resident and her 2 children, one of whom had a disability, not to use the shower or bath for an unreasonable period of time. There was maladministration, which caused distress and inconvenience, time and trouble. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom

The resident said she needed a new bathroom within her second stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2022. In its response the landlord said it would arrange for its supervisor to inspect. This was in line with its component renewals policy, which only required a contractor to inspect. However, it took 9 months to inspect, which was not within a reasonable time and was a failing.
Following the inspection the resident said the landlord said she needed a new bathroom, but it denied this. As the landlord has not provided any evidence from the inspection, which is a failing, the Ombudsman cannot determine this point. It would have been helpful if it had taken photographs and produced an inspection report or record. It also said incorrectly in its stage 2 response that a surveyor had inspected.
The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s bathroom should have been replaced. However, the landlord did not handle the resident’s request properly, as it delayed in inspecting, cannot evidence its inspection, and gave the resident incorrect information. There was service failure, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

When the resident made the first complaint the landlord acknowledged and responded to it within its complaints policy timeframes. However, when the resident told it she was not satisfied with the outcome, it failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. This was a failing and breach of paragraph 5.9 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint for the second complaint the landlord acknowledged and responded to it within its complaints policy timeframes. Although it upheld the complaint, it failed to offer any redress. Although the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 May 2023, the landlord failed to do so. Instead, it provided a second stage 1 response, which was not in line with its policy or the Code. This approach also delayed escalation which was a further failing. Despite the resident asking to escalate a further 2 times, and the Ombudsman asking the landlord to respond twice, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 6 November 2023. This was 114 working days after the resident’s first escalation request. This was in breach of the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe, in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code, and an inexcusable delay.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its delayed response was a failing and apologised for this. However, it incorrectly stated the resident asked to escalate her complaint on the date of her second request and not her first. It offered £200 compensation. It also said, within its response, that damage to her ceiling caused by a leak was not part of the complaint she had raised. The resident had consistently raised concerns about the leak, had told the landlord about the damage it was causing, and had made a previous complaint about this which it failed to escalate. It was incorrect for the landlord to have excluded this element of her complaint.
In relation to the failures identified, the landlord made an attempt to be fair and put things right. However, it did not recognise all its failings. There was maladministration, which caused additional distress, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that it pay £200 additional compensation to her.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

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.
The landlord failed to record the resident’s daughter’s disability when she first told it on 11 July 2022. In addition, its repairs records provided lack the detail and information needed to be helpful to the Ombudsman’s investigation. The records lack appointment dates, full outcomes or contractor notes. It is not clear from them when repairs were attended, completed, or how no accesses were managed or recorded. Additionally, the landlord did not produce, or failed to provide, copies of job sheets, records, or inspection reports for all relevant repairs. These failings have been identified throughout this report.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs in the bathroom to the tiling, sink, bath panel, light and extractor fan.
2. Handling of a leak from the bath which damaged the ceiling below.
3. Handling of the formal complaint.
4. Knowledge and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,400 additional compensation made up of:
  1. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its maladministration in handling of repairs in the bathroom.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused by its maladministration in its handling of the leak.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, by its service failure in handling the resident’s request for a new bathroom.
  4. £200 for the additional distress, frustration, time and trouble, caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Pay the £1,280 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

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.”
The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before, during, and just after 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.