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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202213634)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213634

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into their property from the flat above.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy with the landlord began in 1997. The property is a basement flat. The flat above the resident’s is also owned by the landlord. For the purposes of this report, the resident of the flat above is referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  2. On 13 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to attend their neighbour’s boiler issue. They complained that the boiler had been leaking for a few months. They said that the boiler had now suffered a “total breakdown” and was leaking into their property. The following day the landlord attended the neighbour’s boiler and acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  3. On 23 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It asked that the resident report emergency repairs via its 24 hour call line rather than by email. It stated that their complaint had been the first report it had received of an issue with the neighbour’s boiler. It confirmed that it had completed a repair to the neighbour’s boiler on 14 February 2023. It provided contact details for its insurance team.
  4. During June and July 2023, the resident contacted the Service and asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2. They did not provide any new information.
  5. On 13 September 2023 we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. Over the following days the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and made unsuccessful attempts to contact them.
  6. On 20 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It reiterated that it had attended the neighbour’s boiler leak the same day that it had received the resident’s report. It said that it could find no service failure. It explained its insurance process and how the resident could make a claim if necessary. It apologised for the delay in its stage 2 handling and offered the resident £60 compensation for this.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matter above.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its complaint policy states that it will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that landlord’s must seek clarification from the resident if any aspect of their complaint is unclear.
  2. The evidence that we have seen shows that the landlord attended the neighbour’s boiler on 14 February 2023, which was within 24 hours of receiving the resident’s emailed report. It therefore acted in line with its policy. The evidence does not show any previous reports of leaks from the neighbour’s boiler that affected the resident’s property. The landlord explained this in the stage 1 response that it sent to the resident on 23 February 2023.
  3. The landlord also raised an emergency repair for the resident’s property on 14 February 2023. Its record stated that the job was cancelled after the resident “said that electrics not affected”. The landlord’s contacts with the resident over the remainder of the month caused some confusion about its timeframes for responding to repairs and complaints. However, it did respond in a timely manner to them with clarifications.
  4. The following month the resident expressed their ongoing unhappiness to both us and the landlord. The landlord’s contacts with the resident later in the month established that they were referring to roof and gutter issues, which it told them that it was handling separately.
  5. During June and July 2023, we received further contact from the resident. We queried the status of their complaint with the landlord. The landlord provided us a copy of its stage 1 response and referred to the resident’s separate “damp and mould” complaint. It is unclear how the resident’s separate complaint progressed, nor whether it completed the landlord’s process, but it has not been considered as part of this investigation.
  6. On 25 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 and resend its stage 1 response from 23 February 2023. It was a failing that it was only after further contact from us that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. Our contact to the landlord noted that it was unclear what aspect of the resident’s complaint they wished to escalate.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident stated that it understood their complaint to be about its handling of the neighbour’s boiler leak into their property. As it had also done at stage 1, the landlord asked the resident to confirm its understanding of their complaint. It has also demonstrated its further reasonable efforts to contact them to discuss their complaint and clarify its understanding. As such, while the landlord received no response from the resident, its actions were in line with the Code.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint on 20 September 2023. This was 22 working days beyond the timeframe of its own policy. It was appropriate for it to apologise to the resident and offer £60 compensation for its delayed response. This award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range where there was a failure that “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident” but that caused them time and trouble.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident provided comprehensive advice about its insurance process. This would have given the resident a means to make a claim if any of their personal possessions were damaged by the leak. The landlord’s response also reiterated its findings from stage 1, which were in line with the evidence that we have seen that it attended the neighbour’s boiler in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into their property from the flat above.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident its £60 compensation offer for its delayed complaint handling if it has not already done so.