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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202210519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210519

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 October 2023


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:
    1. Handling of reports of roof leaks at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared owner of a flat. The flat is in a larger block. On 17 May 2021, the resident reported a leak into her property, causing damage to internal walls, furnishings, and electrical appliances. The resident complained the following day about the damage. She was unhappy because the leak had occurred previously in 2018.
  2. The landlord responded on 18 May 2021, stating that all internal repairs were the residents responsibility, to be claimed on the building insurance she pays. It added that an order to repair the roof had been made. The resident escalated her complaint because she felt it had not been properly responded to; she reiterated that she was unhappy because the damage was caused by the landlord failing to adequately repair the previous leaks.
  3. Over the course of 2021, the resident chased the repair on several occasions, explaining frequently that “the leak is causing more damage by the day”. On 23 December 2021, the resident made a new formal complaint.
  4. On 5 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, stating that a roof inspection would take place that day. A further visit took place on 7 February 2022. On 10 February 2022, a different neighbour reported a leak.
  5. On 20 February 2022, the resident chased the landlord, saying “I’m not sure you are aware of the impact… Every time it rains, further damage is caused to my carpet and furnishings. The recent storms have caused considerable damage.” Over the next six months, the resident continued to chase both a response to her complaint (requesting that this be escalated on 25 March 2022), and the repair. More neighbours reported leaks during this time. The resident approached this service on 16 August 2022 and continued to chase the landlord. On 23 August 2022, the landlord lifted the paving slabs on the roof but could not locate the source of any leaks. Another neighbour reported a leak on 13 September 2022.
  6. In late September the resident chased the landlord again, adding that her ceiling now had a hole in it, that the lights in the living room could not be used and that buckets were needed to collect water. The resident was noted as being “very upset and crying” during the call. On 1 October 2022 the resident contacted this service. She stated that she wanted the leak to be permanently fixed and to receive compensation for the damage to her property. More leaks were reported by neighbours that same month. On 27 October 2022, this service instructed the landlord to issue a stage 2 response.
  7. On 3 November 2022, the resident’s ceiling collapsed. She reported this to the landlord, which attended to “make safe” the ceiling. The landlord issued its stage 2 response the same day. It acknowledged that the resident had been reporting issues with the roof for 4 years, which remained unresolved. It stated that it had carried out investigations on the roof, including surveyor’s inspections and dye tests, however further investigations were needed. It now needed to “lift the slabs on the roof and remove cladding”, which required scaffolding to be erected. No date was set for this work to take place. The landlord declined to pay compensation to fix internal damage, stating that this should be claimed for through its public liability insurance. It gave the resident instructions to do this. It offered £110 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and a further £25 for “complaint escalation delays”. It gave the resident the contact details of a designated person who would be overseeing the water ingress issues.
  8.  Over the following months, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, which the landlord was unable to provide. On 21 February 2023, the landlord advised the resident that works were complete and that it was now “waiting on heavy rain” to test the repairs. It stated that once it was satisfied, the scaffolding would be removed. The resident replied the same day, stating that the scaffolding had already been removed. She was unhappy that there had been “no opportunity to test if the roof was leakproof”. The resident asked for a “full report of what works had taken place”; she did not want to initiate an insurance claim without confirmation that the leak had been fixed. The landlord sent the resident a breakdown of works on 2 March 2023.
  9. On 1 May 2023, the resident reported that the leak had come back. On 9 May 2023, the resident reported that a new crack had appeared and that buckets needed to be changed “every few hours”; this requirement to be at home was impacting her ability to go about her “day to day life”. On 30 May 2023, the landlord marked the repair as “fixed”, stating that the source of the leak had been the door to access the roof, which was not shutting properly. On 16 June 2023, the resident reported that the leak had recurred.
  10. The resident was in contact with this service frequently from August 2022 to October 2023. She explained that she wanted the damage to be fixed and to be given assurances that the repair would last. The resident was concerned that repairing the internal damage would leave her out of pocket, feeling that this was unfair because she felt the damage was caused by the landlord’s failings. The resident wanted compensation to reflect her experience, including “the constant chasing, admin, anxiety, time taken off work and overall disruption to her life”.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that part of the resident’s complaint is that the roof issues reported had happened previously at the property, in 2018. However, the resident acknowledged that after this, no new leaks were reported until May 2021, where this investigation begins. This is because paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member within a reasonable period, which is normally within 6 months of the matters arising. Events prior to May 2021 are included as important context, but are not factored into the remedies ordered or the overall finding.

The landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks at the property

  1. The shared ownership lease agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities. It states that the landlord is responsible for “the inspection, cleaning, maintenance and repairs of the building”, including but not limited to “the roof, roof structures, external parts and balconies…”. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours of being reported. All other repairs should be addressed “at the first mutually convenient appointment”. When the resident reported a leak on 17 May 2021, it was not repaired by the landlord until 16 February 2023. The landlord therefore exceeded the timescales set out in its own policies by a significant margin, and as noted above, the resident went on to report a recurrence of the leak.
  2. This investigation highlights some factors which contributed to the delays in this case, such as instances where information or action from contractors was not forthcoming, or areas of concern in the landlord’s own actions and practices. There are also instances of short delays which may have been outside of the landlord’s control, such as short periods of poor weather in February 2022 and December 2022. However, despite large amounts of evidence being submitted to this investigation, including extensive repairs logs and communications, the reasons for the majority of delays the resident experienced remain largely unclear.
  3. The landlord’s own staff were also unaware of the reasons for many delays, demonstrated when the landlord held an internal meeting on 1 November 2022. This was to establish the reasons for the delays, after initial investigations had been inconclusive. No records from that meeting have been shared with this service. Afterwards, it was unable to provide an update to the resident in its stage 2 response of 3 November 2022, beyond informing her that “more investigations were required”, that “scaffolding would need to be erected” and that “there is no set date for investigations to begin”.
  4. The are multiple examples in the evidence available of the landlord’s record keeping practices impacting repairs, such as after the resident’s initial report of 17 May 2021, which resulted in several jobs raised. All of these were marked as either “cancelled” or “complete with no action”, with no reasons given. Throughout the wider period of investigation, staff appeared not to have access to information they required, and had to “ask around” for updates and information. Staff were unclear who to ask for these updates, and so often emailed multiple staff members, departments, and contractors, before often being directed elsewhere. This caused delays which were often compounded when staff were on annual leave. Internal emails in October of 2022 for example, show that the staff member dealing with the resident’s request for an update had to go to significant lengths to request information, which was only eventually provided when another staff member “came off annual leave to provide a briefing”. The landlord has a duty to maintain and upkeep accurate records; it should have been able to provide information about ongoing repairs to the resident. Processes should have ensured that records were accessible and repairs could be progressed during staff absences.
  5. The record keeping also means that it is unclear why the landlord took certain actions when it did. For example, the resident informed the landlord she had approached this service on 19 August 2022. In response, the landlord lifted the roof slabs to search for a leak on 23 August 2022; no leaks were found. It is unclear why the landlord did this, as it had already lifted the slabs to search for a leak on 27 July 2022. The landlord promised to lift the slabs again in its stage 2 response of 3 November 2022. This brings into question the landlord’s own ability to not only maintain and upkeep records, but to scrutinize them. This contributed to what the resident described as the landlords “casual, relaxed approach” to the repairs. By 27 October 2021, the landlord had received reports that roof leaks had affected at least 12 different flats in the block in a little over a 2 year period, notwithstanding communal areas which also appeared to be affected. Many of these residents, and the block’s caretaker, had made multiple reports. Despite this, there is no evidence in internal communications that staff were actively aware of this, instead raising isolated jobs or jobs to “make safe” leaks. Another example of the landlord failing to scrutinize its own records occurred in February 2023, when it informed the resident that repairs had been completed and that it was “waiting for heavy rain [to test the repair] before removing the scaffold”. The scaffold however had already been removed. It is unclear if the repair had been tested; the resident reported a new leak on 1 May 2023.
  6. The landlord’s internal communications also contributed to periods of inaction, unnecessary delays, and confusion. For example, the repair records show that the landlord was often unable to organise investigations in a timely manner, such as on 6 January 2022, when the landlord asked for the resident’s availability to organise a visit. She provided this on the same day, but was then obliged to chase on two more occasions, until the landlord was able to provide an appointment slot on 3 February 2022. However, this appointment was for the following day, which the resident could not accommodate, causing further delays and frustration. It is unclear why the landlord experienced difficulties arranging this site visit.
  7. The combination of unclear internal communications and poor record keeping, meant that the landlord only appeared to take action in response to chasers or reports of fresh leaks. For example, following the visit on 7 February 2022, the resident chased frequently for further updates, while other residents in the block were also reporting leaks from the roof at this time. The evidence shows that the landlord chased the contractor for updates and chased outstanding internal tasks until 24 February 2022, but stopped until the resident chased again on 16 March 2022. In response to the resident’s escalation request on 25 March 2022, the landlord created an internal memo stating that it had received “no update on why the contractor have placed the works on hold”. After this, the landlord did not take any further action in response to the resident’s chasers. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was experiencing difficulty in contacting and evoking action from its contractors at this time. However, it chased infrequently and could have done more than it did. Regardless of the landlord’s actions, it is responsible for the performance and conduct of contractors it chooses to use.
  8. Overall, the records show very few instances which demonstrate the landlord being proactive in overseeing the works, despite the resident frequently informing the landlord that the issues were getting worse. On 27 July 2022, the landlord inspected the roof for a leak. However, this was not in response to the resident’s chasers, but to a neighbour’s report of a new leak on 17 May 2022. It is unclear if a leak was found, or why there was a delay between the neighbour’s report and the landlord’s inspection. A lack of decisive action from the landlord eventually resulted in the resident’s ceiling collapsing on 3 November 2022.
  9. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction at the communication she received from the landlord. On the occasions the landlord responded to the resident’s chasers, she was often told that updates were “not available”. Again, record keeping practices were of concern, because after each email it sent the landlord marked outstanding tasks to update the resident as “complete” on its internal systems. This meant that the resident was rarely given a further update unless she chased again, despite having been given no useful information. The resident explained to this service how this had caused repeated, long-term frustration, a loss of faith in the landlord and caused anxiety that as a shared owner, she was not aware of the condition of her property or progress of necessary repairs.
  10. In conclusion, when the resident received the landlord’s stage 2 response on 3 November 2022, the leak had not been fixed for approximately 18 months since first being reported in 2021. During this period, the evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble to chase the landlord. The resident explained that she had suffered long periods of distress and inconvenience, such as managing water ingress into the property with buckets, leaving her unable to go away for large periods of time and unable to use her living room as intended. The resident was unable to replace damaged furnishings, light fittings, or decorations, because the water ingress issue remained ongoing. This impacted her use and enjoyment of her living room. The resident also explained feeling “tied” to the property, which she has been unable to sell until the damage has been fixed, therefore putting her life plans “on hold”. The landlord’s poor communication with the resident caused distress, anxiety, and a loss of faith. The resident’s ceiling collapsing caused the resident further distress. As a result, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks at the property. It is unclear whether a permanent fix has been provided to date.
  11. In July 2023, the Housing Ombudsman produced a ‘special report’ into the landlord. The report highlighted themes which also appear in this report, including but not limited to “excessive and unexplained delays” in attending repairs, “poor record management leading to confusion of how to approach repair issues”, “residents not being kept informed of the progress of repairs”, and further complaint handling and record keeping failures. The special report contains several recommendations, which the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord will need further time to implement. As such, it has not been deemed necessary to make any orders or recommendations which aim to improve performance in these areas, as a part of this report. Instead, orders are made in the interest of being ‘fair’ and ‘putting things right’ for the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where severe maladministration has occurred, where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service over a significant period of time, and where it has failed to demonstrate that it has put things right and learned from outcomes, a minimum of £1,000 compensation is due.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The resident first escalated her complaint on 25 March 2022. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 3 November 2022, after this service instructed it to do so and after it had received reports that the resident’s roof had collapsed earlier in the day. The landlord explained in its stage 2 acknowledgement that it was experiencing delays due to “a new approach it was taking to complaints, which now required thorough investigation”. This service has seen no evidence however that the landlord made attempts to investigate, for the purposes of responding to the resident at stage 2, until 28 October 2022, following instructions from this service.
  2. This delay of over 6 months prevented the resident from seeking a resolution through this service sooner. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where a failure has adversely affected the resident, up to £600 compensation is due, with a minimum of £100 being paid. Despite this, the landlord offered only £25 compensation for the complaint handling delays experienced at stage 2. The landlord therefore failed to use the internal complaints procedure to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’. There is also no evidence it attempted to ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord also offered only £110 for its handling of leaks, which as assessed above, was not reflective of the experience the resident had.
  3. The resident was also confused by the landlord’s instructions regarding making an insurance claim for the damage. The resident reported being deterred from making a claim due to a “mandatory excess”, which she felt was unfair. This is because, in the landlord’s initial stage 1 response to an earlier complaint on 18 May 2021, the landlord stated that “following the leak you will need to (arrange works) yourself or claim through your building insurance”. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP’s) regarding insurance claims guide that “a landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a complainant’s property/belongings and not refer them straight to an insurer”. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this before directing the resident to her insurer, even though the focus of the resident’s complaint was that she felt the landlord was responsible for the damage. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the response, but the landlord failed to escalate her complaint.
  4. The landlord’s own insurance claims procedure also states that “where damage (to property or possessions) occurs because of our or our contractor’s negligence, we will refer the issue to the Insurance Team.” There is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy in this instance. This may be because the same procedure, which staff are required to follow, states that “if [staff members] are contacted by telephone by a claimant, your first response should always be that the claimant should claim on their own insurance. If they insist on claiming against L&Q, you should ask them to put their claim in writing to the insurance team.” This procedure causes confusion to both staff and residents, and conflicts with both the Ombudsman’s DRP’s and its own insurance procedure to “make the referral on the resident’s behalf”. Recommendations are made below in this regard. The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it gave instructions for the resident to claim against the landlord’s insurance, rather than her own. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord initially at least considered whether there is any evidence that it had been at fault for any claimed damage.
  5. Similar failings are reflected in the Ombudsman’s special report, which found that the landlord was not consistently awarding compensation in a fair, reasonable or consistent way, and a recommendation made to the landlord in this regard.
  6. In conclusion, the resident was subjected to unreasonable and unexplained delays in the complaint handling process. The stage 2 response failed to acknowledge or ‘put right’ the adverse effect the resident experienced. Evidence of repeated failings after the stage 2 response suggest that the landlord failed to ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord repeatedly failed to follow its own policies and procedures. As a result, the resident went to significant time and trouble and experienced distress and inconvenience; there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders are made below to remedy this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of leaks at the property and communication.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of today’s date, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £2,500 compensation, made up of:
      1. £750 for time and trouble;
      2. £750 for distress and inconvenience;
      3. £750 for the impact on the resident’s use of her living room;
      4. £250 for the failings in complaint handling. If the £135 already offered has been paid to the resident, it may be deducted from this amount.
    2. Provide the resident with a detailed breakdown of the works conducted.
    3. Produce an action plan to address the repeated issues with the roof of the block. If the landlord is confident that the issues have been resolved, it should provide evidence of the tests it has carried out which demonstrate this to both the resident and this service.
    4. Provide the resident with clarity over the arrangements for any insurance claims the resident may wish to make going forward. This may be in the form of confirming that the arrangements described in its stage 2 response still stand, if appropriate.
    5. Provide the resident with a written apology from its Chief Executive for its handling of her reports of leaks at the property and communication.

Recommendations

  1. If it hasn’t already done so via its response to the special report, review the insurance procedure, in line with the concerns highlighted in this report and the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on complaints involving insurance’, available online.