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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202308080)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308080

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 January 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:
    1. Reports of leaks into the kitchen.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat in a block of flats (the building). The landlord is a housing association. The resident told the landlord at around the time of these events that he suffers from asthma.
  2. The resident reported several leaks into the property from the flat above (the upstairs flat) during 2023, which he said caused damp and mould. The landlord took some steps to address the reports, but with each leak the issues worsened. On each occasion, the landlord had to wait for the property to dry out before treating the damp and mould.
  3. After a leak in March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to take action and, again, it said it would wait for the property to dry out. A further leak occurred on 28 April 2023, through the property’s kitchen ceiling and light fitting, and into the flat below (the downstairs flat). The landlord was notified and its contractor attended the same day but was unable to gain access to the upstairs flat. They disconnected the resident’s kitchen ceiling light and the leak was stopped some time later.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about its failure to deal with the ongoing leaks within days of the 28 April 2023 leak. In its response of 2 May 2023 the landlord said the leak came from another property in the building, so data protection legislation prevented it from discussing the matter with the resident. It also said that the resident of the downstairs flat had reported the leak on 28 April 2023, so it could not discuss that with him either. The landlord said it would only address the issue insofar as it related to the property. It would reconnect the kitchen light, deal with the damp and mould once the property had dried out and offer compensation once the issue was resolved. 
  5. In the resident’s response of 4 May 2023 he said the landlord had not properly understood his complaint. His concern was not about data protection but the landlord not treating the leak as a priority or advising that it had booked a priority repair. He said if it did not deal with his complaint, he would contact the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 June 2023 saying it would reconnect the kitchen light in late July 2023 and offering £185 compensation for distress, inconvenience, and time and effort. The resident refused this offer on the basis that it was too low and contacted the Ombudsman the same day, stating:
    1. The landlord had not treated the floor of the property and the mould there was affecting his health.
    2. The kitchen light was not due to be reconnected until 26 July 2023.
    3. He had been eating takeaways since March 2023 as he could not use the kitchen
  7. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in October 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 November 2023. It said that it would reconnect the kitchen light on 28 November 2023 (having not been completed in July 2023 as planned) and apologised for the delay in carrying out the required works. It offered £820 compensation for distress, inconvenience, and poor complaint handling (which has since been paid to the resident). It also approved a £250 redecoration voucher for the resident (although no evidence has been provided of this being issued).
  8. The resident then referred his complaint to us, stating that the landlord’s compensation offer was insufficient to remedy its failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident says the damp and mould has affected his health as he suffers from asthma. We do not doubt his comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He may wish to seek advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure of the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of leaks into the kitchen

  1. The tenancy agreement states that problems with leaking pipes, tanks and cisterns are the landlord’s responsibility and should be classed as emergency repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete routine repairs within 28 days. It says it will always “make good” after repairs but will not redecorate unless obliged to do so and only in special circumstances.
  2. The resident had been reporting intermittent leaks from the upstairs flat for some time, and their periodic nature meant the property never fully dried out. This understandably made it difficult for the landlord to effectively treat the damp and mould, but it did respond appropriately by visiting the property and committing to carry out works when it was feasible. It replaced an extractor fan and addressed another leak into the living room.
  3. While the resident and downstairs neighbour both reported the leak on 28 April 2023, the landlord’s records only noted the report as coming from the downstairs neighbour. As a result, it refused to discuss the broader context of the leak with the resident when he telephoned or emailed (despite it sending someone to disconnect the kitchen light). Given the resident’s clear involvement with the issues, the landlord should have been more helpful and co–operative. Internal emails show that it considered that issues at all flats should be investigated jointly, but it still failed to address his concerns. This was a clear communication failure on the landlord’s part.
  4. The resident clarified that he did not want any information about the upstairs neighbour’s involvement with the leaks, but rather simply wanted the landlord to take his concerns seriously by scheduling repairs. On the evidence, the landlord did not feel it could arrange the necessary works at the time, but it failed to communicate this or any plan of action to the resident effectively. This represents a failure in service and a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. In fact, due to an oversight, the landlord did not reconnect the kitchen light or treat the kitchen until 28 November 2023, 211 days after the leak. It is accepted that the landlord had to wait for a month or so for the property to dry out, but this delay was unacceptable and amounts to maladministration. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident, provided any updates, or took any steps to deal with the issue during this time.
  6. Where the landlord fails to comply with its repairs policy, it says it will pay discretionary compensation where its mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. In its stage 2 response the landlord recognised that there had been service failures and rightly offered compensation, as per its policy. It offered £640 in relation to the leak repairs (including a £100 good will gesture for increased expenditure on food).
  7. The repairs and compensation policy does not set out what levels of compensation the landlord will pay for repairs failures. However, our remedies guidance states that compensation for a finding of maladministration may be between £100 and £1,000, dependant on a variety of contributing factors. The length of the delay in this case and the landlord’s communication failures throughout indicate that an award at the higher end of this bracket would be appropriate. This would not include the sum paid for actual expenditure, such as the increased food costs.
  8. The landlord made separate awards for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble and we endorse this approach. The award for time and trouble (£180) was appropriate as the evidence does not show that the resident contacted the landlord frequently. However, the awards for distress (£180) and inconvenience (£180) are low given that the situation lasted for 7 months, during which time the kitchen was reportedly in a poor state. Therefore, we have increased these compensation awards to £400 for distress and £290 for inconvenience (inclusive of the original awards).
  9. The landlord’s offer of a £100 “good will gesture” for the resident’s increased expenditure on food was also not appropriate. The resident told the landlord in late May 2023 that he had to eat out or get takeaways on a regular basis. He sent the landlord bank statements for March and April 2023 showing that he was spending approximately £600 per month on these services. For that reason, if the landlord was seeking to recompense the resident for increased food costs over 7 months, the offer was far too low.
  10. It would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to pay for all the resident’s food costs during this period, as he did have a functioning kitchen with the means to prepare and cook meals. Further, we have not seen evidence of his expenditure on eating out prior to the leak occurring, and he would inevitably have incurred some costs on groceries had the leak not occurred. However, it is accepted that the kitchen did not have a functioning ceiling light and this would have impacted on the use of the kitchen to a degree over a prolonged period. As a result, an uplifted award for the resident’s food costs is made in the sum of £350 (£50 per month for 7 months).
  11. In terms of calling the payment a “good will gesture”, this was not appropriate as it suggests the payment was not linked to a service failure, but was merely an act of generosity. We have established that there were failings by the landlord which needed remedying, so this description of the compensation offer is misleading. Finally, the resident has informed us that he has not received the redecoration voucher offered by the landlord, so an order is made for this to be issued now.

The associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days where possible and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 May 2023, within the target timescale, but said it would calculate any compensation once the repairs had been completed. However, on 5 June 2023 it wrote to the resident again, before any repairs had begun, offering £180 for its failings. This was not in line with its commitment to complete repairs before calculating compensation.
  3. The resident did not ask to escalate his complaint to stage 2 but contacted the Ombudsman instead. As a result, the landlord was not at fault for not escalating the complaint. Once it received the request for a stage 2, it provided its response in approximately 10 working days, well within its service standard.
  4. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that, after the resident had disputed its compensation offer in June 2023, it should have treated that as an escalation request. Although it does not say so explicitly, it is reasonable to assume that it is on this basis that the landlord paid £180 compensation for complaint handling errors.
  5. This payment was an appropriate acknowledgment of its failures which provided the resident with reasonable redress for any complaint handling errors. This figure is in the region of what we would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not already done so. As it has already paid this sum in recognition of this service failure, we make a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its complaints handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings in its handling of his reports of leaks.
    2. Pay the resident £1,220 compensation for its handling of the reports of leaks (inclusive of the £640 already paid in relation to this point) as follows:
      1. £870 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
      2. £350 for increased food costs.
    3. Send the resident the £250 redecoration voucher it approved in November 2023, if it has not already done so.