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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303275)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303275

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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house. The property was a new build at the time he moved in, on 11 February 2021.
  2. The developer carried out an ‘end of defects’ inspection on 14 November 2022. It identified issues, including the following, which the resident was dissatisfied with:
    1. The large flush button on the toilet was not working.
    2. Kitchen laminate floorboards were lifting.
    3. Hallway vinyl was bubbling.
    4. A crack to a bathroom floor tile and missing grout.
  3. The resident reported an issue with the bath on 14 January 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of this correspondence. The developer attended and concluded the issue reported about the bath  was “impact damage”. The developer completed works to the laminate flooring and toilet flush button.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 27 March 2023 about the property having repair issues. He asked to be compensated for having experienced issues for 16 months. Following the complaint, the landlord asked the developer to attend again. The developer subsequently carried out work to the kitchen floor, and the bathroom floor files. The developer told the landlord the bubbling to the vinyl flooring was due to excess water being used during cleaning.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 6 April 2023. It apologised for the repair issues experienced in the property. It told the resident it had arranged for the developer to carry out further work. The landlord did not specify what further work the developer would carry out.It said, in future, it would ask residents to sign off works to make sure nothing was missed.
  6. The developer completed further works on 12 April 2023 to the kitchen floor, bathroom grouting and the toilet flush. It told the landlord the resident’s partner had seemed satisfied and said they would sign the works off once the bath was sorted. The developer told the landlord it had asked the resident to provide a copy of the independent plumber’s report about the bath damage and floor tiles. The developer said it could then consider the issues further.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 September 2023. He said he remained unhappy with the repair issues at the property. He also raised other repair issues, namely the bathroom wall bowing, having had no hot water from the shower in 2021, an issue with bathroom tiles and the condition of a soffit.
  8. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 28 November 2023. It summarised the works which had been completed by the developer. It reiterated the developer’s conclusions about how the bath and vinyl flooring had been damaged. It noted the resident had not provided the independent plumber’s report as requested. It signposted the resident to make a claim on his home and contents insurance in respect of the damage. It advised thatif he believed the landlord was at fault, he could make a claim on its insurance. It advised him how to do so. It acknowledged there had been complaint handling failures and offered a total of £720 compensation for its complaint handling.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 23 January 2024. He said the compensation should be increased and his son had injured himself on the bath. He also reported the property’s shared driveway was sinking.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within his communication, the resident said that his son had been injured by the condition of the bath. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
  2. During his correspondence, the resident raised other issues of concern. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord being considered, these cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failings have occurred. For clarity, the matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
    1. The bathroom wall bowing.
    2. Having had no hot water from the shower in 2021.
    3. Bathroom tiles.
    4. An issue with the soffit.
    5. Shared driveway was sinking
  3. With a new build property, during the initial defects period, the developer is responsible for any defects with the building or the workmanship. During this time, the landlord would be expected to raise and pursue any issues reported by the resident with the developer. As housing developers are not members of our Scheme, we cannot in this case make a determination on their actions or the works it did or did not carry out. We will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about defects.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property

  1. There was a 2 year developer’s warranty on the property which was in place between 19 November 2020 to 18 November 2022. In addition, there was a 2 year defect warranty on the property provided by the landlord between 11 February 2021 and 10 February 2023. These warranties do not cover general ‘wear and tear’ to the property. The overarching responsibility for repairs are set out in the lease.
  2. The lease says:
    1. The resident has the normal responsibilities of a full owner. The resident will be obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings relating to the property and to keep the property in good repair and condition.
    2. The resident is responsible for floor coverings.
  3. For clarity the repair issues complained about have been considered separately below.

Bathroom repairs

  1. The developer’s end of defects inspection in November 2022 identified the large flush button on the toilet was not working. Following this inspection, the resident told the landlord on 14 January 2023 the bath panel was damaged. The landlord asked the developer for its advice on 1 February 2023 in respect of the bath. The developer told the landlord the damage had not been there during the end of defects inspection.
  2. The landlord subsequently asked the developer to carry out an inspection. The developer did so on 23 March 2023. It told both the landlord and resident that the damage to the bath was “impact damage” and as such, was not covered by the warranty and it was not responsible for a repair..
  3. During the inspection on 23 March 2023, the developer repaired the toilet flush button. It reattended on 3 April 2023 to replace a bathroom floor tile. It told the landlord the bathroom floor tile grout was coming away slightly.
  4. The resident disputed the developer’s conclusion about the cause of the damage to the bath panel. He told the landlord on 6 April 2023, an independent plumber had confirmed the bath was rusting from the inside and the bathroom floor had been laid incorrectly. The landlord passed this information to the developer.
  5. Following receipt of the information from the landlord, the developer spoke to the resident on 12 April 2023. It said that if the resident provided the independent plumber’s report he had commissioned, it could send any relevant findings to the manufacturer for consideration. During this visit, the developer regrouted the bathroom floor tiles. The developer advised the landlord that the resident’s partner, who had been present, had seemed happy with the work it had conducted. The developer said the resident’s partner had indicated they would sign off the works once the bath had been sorted.
  6. There was a gap in the correspondence we have been provided with until November 2023. The resident told the landlord on 16 November 2023 that tile grout had come away and the large toilet flush button had broken. By this point both the developer’s and landlord’s warranty periods had ended.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 November 2023 it reiterated the finding of the developer. It said that damage had been caused to the bath by an impact, and this was not a defect. The landlord told the resident neither it nor the developer were liable for the repair to the bath. It noted the developer was open to discussing the matter with the manufacturer if the resident provided the evidence from his independent inspection. However, the resident had not provided the independent plumber’s report the developer had requested. In respect of the damage to the bath, the landlord signposted the resident to his home contents. It also advised, if contrary to its opinion, if he believed the landlord was at fault, he could make a claim on its insurance. It advised him how to do so.
  8. The landlord also addressed the issues of the bathroom flooring and toilet flush button in its stage 2 response. It said the developer had carried out these repairs in April 2023. It explained, as its warranty period had ended in February 2023, it would not repair the tile grout or toilet flush reported by the resident in November 2023.

Kitchen flooring

  1. The developer’s end of defects inspection on 14 November 2022 recorded the kitchen laminate was lifting. The landlord’s internal repair records show it had recorded the developer as having completed this repair on 23 January 2023.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint on 27 March 2023, the landlord asked the developer to attend again. The developer did so on 3 April 2023. The developer told the landlord that although it had fixed the kitchen flooring, it would look into providing a permanent fix for the issue. The developer subsequently completed the works to the kitchen flooring on 12 April 2023.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 16 November 2023 the kitchen floor “bounced”. This was around 9 months after the landlord’s warranty period had ended. The landlord explained to the resident, the developer had previously repaired the flooring. The landlord said, as its warranty period had ended in February 2023, it was no longer responsible for flooring repairs.

Hallway flooring

  1. The resident reported to the landlord on 16 April 2021 that a floor board was lifting in the hallway. The landlord asked the developer to attend, which it did. The developer told the landlord it was likely damaged by the resident.
  2. We have not seen any further report of an issue with the hallway flooring until the developer’s end of defects inspection on 14 November 2022. During this, the developer noted the vinyl flooring was bubbling. The developer told the landlord this was likely caused by excess water from cleaning and was not a defect. The landlord explained the developer’s conclusion to the resident within its stage 2 response. No works were conducted by the landlord or developer in relation to this issue.

Conclusion

  1. From the correspondence we have been provided, the evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the issues reported. The key events that lead to this decision are:
    1. During the time period the developer was carrying out repairs, the landlord kept in contact with both the resident and developer about the ongoing works. The landlord recorded the action taken by the developer to resolve the issues on its internal repairs log.
    2. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s reports about the repair issues seriously. It arranged for the developer to re-inspect the repair issues and carry out works as required and covered by the warranty in place.
    3. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the conclusion of the developer as to how the damage to the bath and vinyl flooring had been caused. It’s advice to the resident about him being responsible for these issues was in line with the lease.
    4. The landlord appropriately liaised with the developer and resident about having the resident’s independent plumber’s report considered. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord was ever provided with this evidence.
    5. The landlord’s conclusion that repair issues reported in November 2023 were no longer subject to the warranty were reasonable and appropriate.
    6. The landlord advised the resident to consult his contents insurer in respect to the issue with the bath. The landlord gave details of its liability insurer for the resident to pursue a claim if he believed the landlord retained a responsibility to repair the bath. This was a reasonable action to take given the resident was in dispute about who was responsible for the repair.
  2. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord appropriately responded to the matters raised by the resident. This leads to a determination that there was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed, it will keep the resident informed.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 27 March 2023. The landlord  acknowledged this within 2 days, on 29 March 2023. It responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 6 April 2023. Despite being within its stated response timeframe, the stage 1 response was poor. It lacked detail and did not address the individual repairs the resident had outlined.
  3. The stage 1 complaint response is an opportunity for landlords to tell residents whether something has gone wrong and why. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had undertaken any investigation. Instead, it apologised for the issues and said the developer was booked to attend. This was not appropriate. Although the landlord did commit to ask residents to sign works off in the future, it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s specific concerns.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 September 2023. He chased the landlord for a response on 10 October 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 November 2023. This was 56 working days after the escalation request. This was almost 3 times as long as its stated stage 2 response timeframe.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response showed that it had investigated his concerns and addressed each of the resident’s repair concerns. The landlord also acknowledged its stage 1 response had been poor and the stage 2 response had been delayed. It offered a total of £720 compensation for its complaint handling. This was made up as follows:
    1. £200 distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    2. £200 inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    3. £160 time and effort in having the complaint resolved.
    4. £50 poor complaint handling at stage 1.
    5. £50 lack of communication at stage 1.
    6. £60 delay in responding at stage 2 (3 months x £20).
  6. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the  offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  7. We have not been provided with information from the landlord detailing any household vulnerabilities. However, it was appropriate for it to consider how its failures impacted the resident given any known vulnerabilities.
  8. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord in this case was within a range we would expect where there have been failures in the landlord’s complaint handling which had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures at both stages of its procedure. Given the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failures and its offer of a reasonable amount of compensation, the landlord made an offer which put things right for the resident. This amounts to a determination of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £720 compensation to the resident if this has not already been paid.