London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202426266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426266

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 July 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. the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated December 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor of a purpose-built block. The resident lives with his 2 children. The resident had previously reported a leak and damp and mould in his property going back to 2022. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response regarding this on 29 January 2024. It said it had repaired the leak.
The landlord raised repairs for 2 down pipes and guttering above the resident’s property on 4 April 2024. Its records show that it completed a repair for the down pipes on 4 April 2024. However, it cancelled the repair for the guttering on 4 April 2024 as it said it should have raised this as a communal repair. The landlord’s records show its contractor attended the guttering job on 9 April 2024 and sent a quote to the landlord for the required works.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2024. He said:
1. it had been over 10 days since he had reported the leak, and he had not heard back from the landlord.
2. he was unhappy as the landlord had provided conflicting information regarding timeframes from what it had previously provided.
3. he wanted evidence of contractors attending on 9 April 2024 as they would need to access his property to see the guttering.
The landlord emailed its contractor to arrange an appointment and update the resident on 15 April 2024. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024. The landlord said:
1. it raised a repair for its maintenance team to attend on 4 April 2024. However, it could not see a completion report to confirm if it did attend.
2. it had incorrectly raised a repair under the resident’s property rather than as a communal repair, but it had rectified this.
3. its specialist repairs contractor aimed to attend on 16 April 2024 and report back. Should it need to complete follow-on repairs, a panel would assess the quotation to consider details of repairs and the corresponding quote to ensure accuracy and adherence to its standards.
4. its contractor would contact the resident should it need to however as it was a communal repair it may not make contact.
5. it was sorry for any inconvenience caused and thanked the resident for his patience whilst it put this right.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 18 April 2024. He said:
1. when he reported the leak on 4 April 2024, he made it clear that the leak had damaged the bedroom ceiling and wall, so he needed an internal inspection.
2. the landlord had provided contradictory information regarding when contractors had attended, and quotes received for required repairs.
3. the landlord or its contractors had not contacted him, and the stage 1 response did not mention how it would update him on the progress of repairs.
4. it had been 14 days since he reported the leak, and water was still coming into his property whenever it rained.
The landlord’s records show that it completed further work to repair 2 down pipes on 23 April 2024. The landlord attended to inspect the guttering on 13 May 2024. The resident repeated his concerns about the leak in the roof. The landlord confirmed the hopper at the top of the guttering was clear. However, it recommended that a roofer attended to assess the roof and complete any necessary repairs due to signs of water ingress. The landlord completed work to repair the guttering on 18 May and 3 June 2024.
On 26 March 2025 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response, or a written explanation as to why it would not escalate his complaint, to the resident by 2 April 2025. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 April 2025. It said:
1. it raised a repair for the roof in April 2024. However, it had to find a specialist which caused significant delays.
2. it had now sourced a specialist team to conduct a thorough inspection of the green roof system for any damage. It would contact the resident that week and was hoping to attend on 4 April 2025.
3. it had also raised a job for a surveyor to attend once it had assessed the roof to assess the condition of the affected bedroom and the extent of any damage and required repairs.
4. it understood the inconvenience caused and regretted that it had taken longer than expected to instruct the necessary works to investigate and resolve the matter.
5. it was sorry for the delay and inconvenience this had caused the resident and his family. It should have managed the repairs and their supervision more effectively.
6. it had considered compensation in line with its policies and awarded £1,070 as follows:
  1. right to repair: £250
  2. inconvenience for delays: £240
  3. distress for delays: £240
  4. time and effort: £100
  5. poor complaint handling: £240
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 April 2025. He said nobody had contacted him or attended his property on 4 April 2025 as promised in the stage 2 response. Additionally, the resident said that the leak had been ongoing for a year and was a continuation of a previous leak from 2022 which the landlord said it repaired. He said it was affecting his family as they were unable to use the whole of the property, he was sleeping in the living room, and the landlord had not taken any action or even contacted him.
The landlord’s records from 27 May 2025 show that it had taken action to treat mould in the resident’s bedroom. However, water marks remained, and it was still to repair the leak from the ceiling. The resident has since told this Service that there had been confusion over jobs raised by the landlord, he does not have a green roof system and he had approached his MP because of the lack of communication from the landlord. He said he wanted the landlord to fix the leak, complete the repairs inside the property and pay additional compensation for the loss of a room.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of his complaint, the resident said that the issues had impacted his health and his children’s health. We are unable to determine the cause of any health conditions or the liability for this. These matters are better suited to consideration as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from hazards and to be fit for human habitation.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters, external pipes and the roof. The landlord is also responsible for internal ceilings and walls.
The landlord’s repairs policy supports this. It says that it aimed to complete routine day to day repairs within 25 calendar days. For emergency works where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public the landlord would attend within 24 hours.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that:
1. following a report of damp and mould, it would establish if it needed to complete an immediate repair such as a leak and act in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. it would agree to assess the property at a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem and underlying cause.
3. it would record and raise remedial works identified to its internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment.
4. it would be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. right to repair costs must be less than £250. The prescribed period to repair a leaking roof was 7 working days.
2. where there a resident is unable to use a room in their home because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility it will consider a partial refund of rent.
3. when assessing the level of discretionary compensation, it would consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, seriousness of any other unfair impact and how it communicated with the resident.
The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident reported the leak or any details of this. However, the documentary evidence provided indicates that it was 4 April 2024. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. This includes ensuring there are records of when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
Additionally, based on the documentary evidence available it would be reasonable to consider that the resident reported damage inside his property and that the landlord would have been aware of the possibility of damp and mould due to the leak. This is because he had previously reported this, the landlord had previously handled this as a complaint and the resident refers to this in later correspondence. However, the landlord did not assess the property within 20 working days or raise any remedial repairs such as a mould wash. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it would do this.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, treat it as a high priority and ensure they identify complex cases at an early stage and ensure that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
The landlord completed a repair to the down pipes on 4 April 2024 and raised a repair for the guttering. Its contractor attended on 9 April 2024 to assess the required work and provide a quote to the landlord. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aimed to complete routine day to day repairs within 25 calendar days. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy states that the prescribed period to repair a leaking roof was 7 working days. Therefore, this was appropriate.
The resident called the landlord on 15 April 2024. He raised a complaint as he said it had been over 10 days since he reported the leak and nobody had contacted him. He said the landlord had provided contradictory information about timescales. The landlord explained that it had not been 10 working days and the latest it would book an appointment was 18 or 19 April 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it would raise identified remedial works within 10 working days of an assessment. However, it had not completed an assessment. Therefore, it is unclear what the landlord was referring to.
The resident said the contractor would need access and asked for evidence of a contractor attending on 9 April 2024. The landlord explained that as it was a communal repair, its contractor may not contact the resident as it would not require access. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident. The landlord emailed its contractor on 15 April 2024 to contact the resident and arrange an appointment. The contractor said it would call the resident that day. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask its contractor to do this.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024. It said it was unable to see if its maintenance team attended the job raised for 4 April 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to obtain this information before providing its response. Additionally, the landlord did not provide evidence that its contractor had attended on 9 April 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to at least confirm this. It said a contractor was due to attend on 16 August 2024 and would provide a quote for any required follow-on works. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused. This was reasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 April 2024 as he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. He said when called the landlord and reported the leak on 4 April 2024, he made it clear the leak had damaged the bedroom wall and ceiling. Additionally, he said the landlord had provided contradictory information regarding contractors attending his property and providing quotes to the landlord. He said the stage 1 response did not explain how the landlord would update him on the progress of repairs.
The landlord did not respond to this email. This was inappropriate as its damp and mould policy states that it would keep residents updated. Additionally, the landlord did not agree to assess the property within 20 working days. Its damp and mould policy states that it would agree to assess the property within 20 working days following a report of damp and mould. Therefore, this was inappropriate.
The landlord’s records show that it completed work to repair the down pipes on 23 April 2024. This was in line with the timescales stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy and was appropriate. It attended the resident’s property on 13 May 2024 and completed a repair to the guttering. However, the landlord’s operative noted that there were cracks in the seal of the roof and possible areas for water ingress. They recommended that a roofer attended to assess the roof. However, the landlord did not take any action.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. Its compensation policy states that the prescribed period to repair a leaking roof was 7 working days. Considering the resident had first reported the leak on 4 April 2024 the landlord’s continued lack of action to assess the roof was inappropriate.
The landlord’s records show that it completed repairs to the guttering on 18 May and 3 June 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aimed to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. Therefore, the time taken to complete these repairs was inappropriate.
The next records provided by the landlord show that it called the resident on 26 March 2025 to discuss his stage 2 complaint. The resident said the leak in the roof was ongoing and there was “bad” damp and mould in one of the bedrooms. He said the landlord had still not dealt with the issues almost a year after he had reported them. The landlord had gone well beyond the timescales stipulated in its repairs policy and compensation policy to repair the leaking roof. Therefore, this was inappropriate.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action regarding the damp and mould during this time. For example, it did not evidence that it had completed an assessment of the property or considered any interim repairs, or that it had kept the resident informed during this time. It had gone well beyond the timescales stipulated in its damp and mould policy to assess the property and arrange repairs. The HHSRS classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires that properties were free from hazards and to be fit for human habitation. Therefore, this lack of action was inappropriate.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 April 2025. It said its contractor was hoping to attend on 4 April 2025 to assess the roof and it would contact the resident. It also said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend after its contractor had assessed the roof to determine the extent of the internal damage and required repairs. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience and offered £830 compensation for the repairs issues.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 4 April 2025 or contacted the resident. This was inappropriate as the landlord had not acted as it said it would in its stage 2 response. The resident contacted the landlord to chase this on 7, 15 and 16 April 2025. He said the leak was getting worse and he was scared the roof may collapse. The landlord responded on 15 and 17 April 2024 and said it would contact him. However, there is no evidence that it has done so. Considering the length of time the issue had been ongoing. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord through his MP on 22 April 2025 and said the property was uninhabitable. The landlord’s records also show that the resident has told it he is unable to sleep in the bedroom. The landlord’s decant policy states that it could offer an emergency move if a resident’s home was uninhabitable or if it could not complete repair works with the resident living there. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has completed any assessment to ascertain if this is required. This was not appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed a mould clean and shield on 27 May 2025. However, it noted that the water marks remained in the main bedroom and the ceiling had a leak that required repair. Considering the resident reported the leak on 4 April 2024 this was inappropriate.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, initially the landlord acted appropriately in raising repairs and completing some work within the timescales stipulated in its repairs policy after the resident reported the leak. It also provided some reasonable explanations during the resident’s telephone call of 15 April 2024.
However, the landlord:
1. failed to maintain records of the resident’s initial report of the leak on 4 April 2024 including any details provided such as internal damage.
2. did not provide evidence or confirm that its contractor had attended on 9 April 2024 in its stage 1 response as requested by the resident when he raised his complaint.
3. did not respond to the resident’s queries regarding it providing contradictory information or how it would update him on the progress of repairs in his email of 18 April 2024.
4. delayed in completing some repairs to the guttering in accordance with the timescales stipulated in its repairs policy.
5. failed to take any action in accordance with its damp and mould policy after the resident reported this in April 2024. It is still to carry out a damp and mould assessment over a year later.
6. failed to take any action to assess and the repair the leaking roof after the resident reported this on 4 April 2024. This is despite other operatives recommending that a roofer attended as there were signs of water ingress. The landlord’s records show that it is still to repair the leak over a year later.
7. did not arrange for a contractor to assess the resident’s roof on 4 April 2024 or contact the resident as promised in its stage 2 response. It then failed to contact the resident and provide information as promised when the resident chased this.
8. failed to evidence that it had considered interim solutions, such as a temporary accommodation or mould washes, to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage 2 response and offered £830 compensation for the repairs issues. However, the landlord did not acknowledge all the above failures especially its lack of action regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould due to the leak.
Additionally, the landlord did not arrange for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 4 April 2025 or contact the resident as stated in its stage 2 response. Other operatives recommended to the landlord that a roofer assessed the roof due to possible water ingress. However, the landlord took no action, and its records of 28 May 2025 show that it had still not repaired the leak. The resident has told this Service that he is unable to sleep in the affected bedroom.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs.
The resident expressed the distress and upset this was causing him in his correspondence with the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted him. There was a significant loss of enjoyment to the resident and his children in their home due to the leak going into the bedroom and resulting damage.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a partial deduction in rent if a resident is unable to use a room because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility. As such, we have applied a 10% amenity loss calculation. It is reasonable for us to consider 4 April 2024 as the first report of the leak and the landlord’s records show it was still to repair this on 28 May 2025. A total of approximately 14 months.
To achieve the amenity loss calculation, we have considered the monthly rent for the property at £1,269.04. While we recognise that this is not the precise monthly average across the account years, it is a reasonable sum for us to use in the circumstances. Therefore, we have calculated the loss of amenity as follows:
1. 10% of the £1,269.04 monthly rent multiplied by 14 months = £1,776.66
Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,776.66 compensation. The resident has confirmed that he has received the payment of £830 offered in the stage 2 response. The landlord can therefore deduct this from the overall total meaning it should pay the resident an additional £946.66 compensation. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs.
As the landlord has still not repaired the leak and the resulting internal repairs including damp and mould are still outstanding, orders have been made for the landlord to complete the outstanding works.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that:
1. it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
2. it would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
The resident raised a complaint on 15 April 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response the following day. This was appropriate as it was within the 10 working days stipulated in its complaint policy.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 18 April 2024. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint until 26 March 2025 after the Ombudsman asked it to provide a stage 2 response by 2 April 2025. The Code sets out that landlords should be able to identify and respond to resident’s complaints without the intervention of this Service. Therefore, this was inappropriate. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 April 2025. It acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered £240 compensation for this.
After careful consideration of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. We consider that the landlord has offered reasonable redress of £240. The resident has confirmed he has received this payment. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of the report the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the additional failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £946.66 compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial repairs.
3. arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and comment on the cause.
  2. address the resident’s concerns about the leaking roof, including whether this has contributed to the damp and mould.
  3. confirm whether the property is habitable and/or whether a temporary move is required.
  4. comment on whether the roof requires urgent repair.
  5. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this report.