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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221860)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221860

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 November 2024


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 repairs to the loft area following a roof leak.
    2. Decision not to repair or replace the worn roofing felt.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property owned by the landlord.
  2. On 27 September 2022, the resident experienced a leak from the roof, which caused water damage to the roof timbers and loft insulation. The landlord repaired the leak on 3 October 2022, which was caused by missing/slipped roof tiles. It did not address the water damage in the loft area. The resident chased the landlord for the completion of the works which remained outstanding following a couple of visits.
  3. When, on 14 November 2022, the resident had heard nothing further from the landlord, he made a formal complaint. He said he was unhappy with the time it was taking the landlord to repair the water damage in the loft and the longer he waited, the more the damage was increasing.
  4. In its response of 16 November 2022, the landlord apologised for its delay in getting the works completed. It advised that following the contractor’s attendance, it had submitted a quotation, which was awaiting approval by the landlord’s surveyor. As soon as the surveyor approved it, the contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. It offered a £20 shopping voucher as a gesture of goodwill for the delay.
  5. The resident was not happy with this outcome and requested his complaint be escalated the same day. He was concerned that the landlord had not addressed a hole in the roofing felt, which was getting bigger. He said dirt and debris were falling from the hole into the loft and it caused a draught. The landlord did not respond to his request to escalate the complaint, so in April 2023, the resident approached this Service for assistance.
  6. Following instructions from this Service to provide the resident with a stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to him 20 April 2023. It said that, having liaised with the surveyor who attended in February 2023, the landlord would not be undertaking any repair to the roof felt.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman because he did not think it was acceptable for the landlord to refuse to repair the roofing felt. He felt it was only a matter of time before the roof tiles failed again and water may penetrate through the hole.

Assessment and findings

Loft repairs

  1. The landlord has statutory repairing obligations for its rented properties, which are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It requires that landlords must keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The landlord re-iterates its repairing obligations in its repairs policy, which states that, across all its homes, it maintains the structure and exterior of the home. This includes walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates.
  3. Its repairs policy also commits to responding to repairs in a reasonable timeframe. For routine day-to-day repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
  4. The resident reported that his roof was leaking on 27 September 2022. In response, the landlord sent its roofing contractor on 3 October 2022. They fixed a problem with the roof tiles. This was completed within 5 working days, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. Once the landlord had completed the roof repair, the resident contacted it again. This was because he was concerned about the water damage to the loft area, which the landlord’s contractor had not addressed. 
  6. The landlord sent its roofing contractor back to the resident’s property on 18 October 2022. The contractor did not complete any work because they were the wrong trade for the job, thus they did not replace loft insulation. While this was inconvenient for the resident and not reasonable, the landlord apologised and raised a further order with a higher priority for the correct trade to attend. The landlord’s actions were appropriate.
  7. On 26 October 2022, another contractor attended. They looked at the loft area took photos and left advising the resident that he would need to clear the loft area. However, the resident heard nothing from the landlord, for a further 2 weeks, which was not reasonable.
  8. On 14 November 2022, he made a formal complaint about the delay to the internal repairs. The landlord responded 2 days later. It explained that the contractor had attended on 26 October 2022, to assess the work required and provide a quote for it. This was now with a surveyor awaiting approval to progress with the work.
  9. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the process to the resident when he reported the repair. This would have given him an understanding of the next steps and managed his expectation. Had it done so it could have prevented the resident from making a formal complaint.
  10. In the landlord’s complaint response, 16 November 2022, it acknowledged that it had not carried out the loft repairs in a reasonable timeframe. It apologised for this and offered the resident a £20 voucher for the delay as a gesture of goodwill.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 November 2022 because he had still not been provided with a date for repair. He said he had removed his belongings from the loft as advised on 26 October 2022. They were taking up room all around the house. The loft was becoming mouldy, and the upstairs electrics had started to fail because of the wet loft. The landlord had advised him the electrics could not be repaired until the loft work was completed.
  12. It was evident that the resident continued to inform the landlord that conditions in the loft were deteriorating. He chased the loft work 4 times between 17 November 2022 and 5 Jan 2023. This was inconvenient and could have been avoided; the landlord had not adhered to its repairs policy target timescale of 25 working days.
  13. The loft insulation was eventually replaced on 11 Jan 2023. This was 56 working days since the 10-day priority repair order was raised. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s policy response time, which was a service failing by the landlord.
  14. On 13 April 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide the resident with a response to his stage 2 escalation request of 16 November 2022. The landlord’s complaint handling policy commits to responding to complaints within 20 working days. It also states that if it needs longer to investigate it will explain why and respond within a further 10 days. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s published Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  15. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 April 2023, which is a response time of 108 working days. There was also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident there would be a delay. The landlord’s actions did not comply with its complaint handling policy, it significantly exceeded the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response timescale and was not code compliant.
  16. The landlord however, acknowledged several service failings in its stage 2 response, which included the delay in complaint handling. It apologised for the poor service and communication. It attributed the failings to staff changes in the customer relations team and advised it had provided feedback and a reminder of the complaint handling policy to the team concerned. This was appropriate as it demonstrated that it had considered why the service failings occurred and looked to improve the service going forward.
  17. It offered the resident a total of £320 compensation. This sum was calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. It took into account that the resident had been put to the time and trouble of reporting and chasing repairs £80. Communication had been poor, and it offered him £40 for this. In recognition for the delays in completing the loft repairs which it reasoned caused him distress and inconvenience, it offered him £150 (this did include delay for 2 radiator valves which did not form part of this complaint). Its policy also recommends a £10 award for delayed complaint responses and in this instance, it awarded £50.
  18. The offer of redress aligned with the landlord’s compensation policy. This was also within the range the Ombudsman would recommend where there had been service failure that had an adverse impact on a resident for a limited duration of time.
  19. Overall, it was evident the landlord provided the urgent response required to address the leaking roof. Service failure occurred in the follow-up response to address the resident’s concerns about the resulting damage of mould on beams and wet loft insulation, communication was poor, and the response was slow. However, the landlord’s efforts to put this matter right amounted to providing a sincere apology, putting in a plan of action that led to the works taking place and offering compensation of £340 (including the voucher). The landlord’s combined actions and offer of compensation have been considered in this report to be reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Roofing felt

  1. On 3 January 2023, the landlord recalled the roofing contractors to inspect 2 holes in the roofing felt in the loft. Repairs records provided by the landlord show they attended 13 January 2023, but there were no details on the repair records of the outcome.
  2. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the roofing company said that the holes in the felt were not detrimental to the roof covering as the tiles were in good condition and made the roof watertight. It had also said the felt was the old bitumen type, which does become brittle. While this Service does not dispute what the landlord’s contractor concluded, it has not provided evidence of this outcome.
  3. The resident was still concerned about the 2 holes in the felt where dirt debris and air were coming into the loft area. The landlord’s repair records show it raised an order for a surveyor to inspect the loft on 25 January 2023. The repairs records did not note the outcome of the inspection.
  4. The stage 2 response said that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the loft area on 1 February 2023. He advised that the felt was in reasonably good condition, there was a hole where it was breaking down through fair wear and tear, but it was watertight. He said the membrane itself was not designed to prevent heat loss, but there was loft insulation which provided an insulating barrier between the roof and the resident’s living area and the roof remains watertight. As a result, it said the surveyor was not of the view that it should be replaced.
  5. Again, while this Service does not dispute the landlord’s information on the outcome of the loft/felt inspection, it has not provided evidence, such as repair records, file notes or a technical inspection report to support this.
  6. Nevertheless, the landlord does have the right in matters of maintenance and repair to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors. Both the roofing contractor and the landlord’s surveyor concluded that, although the roof felt was showing signs of wear, it did not need to be replaced at this time.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy states where age, wear and tear affect key components of a property these will be replaced through a planned programme of works. This is usually at a time when the component, in this instance the roof, has reached the end of its life expectancy and or is completely failing.
  8. To re-felt a roof involves extensive work and cost. The landlord is permitted to take this into account in making its decisions as it is obliged to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents. If the roof was no longer leaking and the property was insulated between the roof and the resident’s living space, the landlord was within its rights to decide not to take any further action with the roofing felt.
  9. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about holes in the roofing felt. It sent a roofer and a surveyor to inspect, in accordance with its statutory repairing obligations. It took the advice of both, who were qualified to advise, that the felt did not need replacing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s delay in completing repairs to the loft area following a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to repair or replace the worn roofing felt.

Recommendations

  1. In light of the resident’s concern about draughts from the loft area, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers investigating whether anything can be done to draft proof the loft hatch.