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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230344)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230344

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

5 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 handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, this Service has determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. On 24 November 2022, after reporting an issue with water ingress for a few years, the resident reported that rainwater had come into property through the walls and ceiling. She believed it had come from the balcony above.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 December 2022. The key points were as follows:
    1. She had first reported issues with water ingress following rain in 2019 following which different contractors had attended who said the issue needed assessing by a surveyor.
    2. The resident had since paid for her own surveyor to attend who had said there was an issue with the second floor balcony of the neighbour’s property. But had also found other contributory factors which may have also been causing the water ingress.
    3. She asked the landlord to treat the situation as urgent and arrange for a full survey of the property in order that the problem could be rectified.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 December 2022. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed it currently had 2 outstandings jobs open for the resident, one was for a roof repair, the other was a communal repair. It did not specify if these were in relation to the water ingress.
    2. It confirmed an inspection would take place following which works would be scheduled, as necessary.
    3. As the resident had reported damp and mould, the landlord had arranged for its contractor to undertake an inspection of the issue.
    4. It confirmed it was unable to reimburse the resident for damages to carpet and personal items and directed the resident to its liability insurance.
    5. It confirmed her case would be assigned to its healthy homes team.
  4. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 13 March 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of this request.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
    1. It gave a history of the water ingress and a chronology of key dates in relation to the issue.
    2. It said its surveyor had found no evidence of water ingress at floor level and a follow on job was raised where it was found the condition of the upstairs balcony was poor and in need of repair.
    3. The resident’s surveyor had advised of works needed to the upstairs balcony; however, its own contractor had not authorised that work as it would involve replacing the doorframes of the above flat. The landlord said that would only be considered if its initial repairs were unsuccessful.
    4. In relation to the damp and mould, its contractor had recommended that as the outstanding repairs may be a contributing factor, the repairs should be carried out before any assessment is undertaken.
    5. It offered compensation for its breakdown in communication, delays in completing repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation offered totally £575.
    6. It confirmed an appointment was scheduled for 5 April 2023 for its contractor to carry out its initial repairs to her balcony and that of her upstairs neighbour.
  6. The resident lodged a legal disrepair claim on 9 February 2024. This was in relation to the issues raised as part of this complaint.

Reasons

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme notes as follows:
    1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  3. The resident lodged a legal disrepair case with the landlord on 9 February 2024. The issues of concern raised in the case were as follows:
    1. The rotten door threshold and structural cracking to the balcony above had allowed rainwater to enter the area causing damage to the ceiling and wall plaster.
    2. The leak had caused the walls to become saturated.
    3. The effect on the resident because of the disrepair including the overall distress and inconvenience and damage to her personal items.
  4. On 10 June 2024, the landlord made an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the resident accepted an out of Court offer in the sum of £1,500. The landlord agreed to complete the works identified in the Scott schedule.
  5. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the water ingress is outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction.