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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313842)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313842

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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:
    1. repairs to the communal roof.
    2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. She owns a 2–bedroom flat located on the top floor of a 2-storey building. The landlord is the freeholder. She has told this service that she has 2 young children living in the property and that the landlord is aware of this.
  2. On 24 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord of a leak coming from the ceiling in the storage cupboard in her children’s bedroom. She explained that as her property was located directly beneath the building’s roof, she believed the leak originated from the roof. On 6 June 2023, the resident hired a plumber to identify the source of the leak, who confirmed that it was caused by moveable platforms on the building’s roof.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 June 2023. She submitted photos of the leak causing damage to her property and requested repair of her property immediately.
  4. On 16 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It explained that its contractor managed its own appointment scheduling, and therefore, it could not control when an appointment would be offered to address the leak. However, the landlord informed the resident that it had emailed its contractor to request an appointment at the earliest possible date. Additionally, it offered the resident a £30 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused.
  5. The landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s property on 20 June 2023 and confirmed the presence of an active leak. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She emphasised that each day the leak remained unresolved, further damage was being caused to her property. Additionally, she requested reimbursement of the service charge she had been paying since she first reported the leak.
  6. Between 30 June 2023 and 14 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak was worsening, causing damp and mould in her children’s newly renovated bedroom. She also informed the landlord that the leak had spread through the wall into the built–in wardrobe in the adjacent room. On 21 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that she would need to contact the building insurer if she wished to claim for any internal damage to her property because of the leak.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 August 2023. It confirmed that roof repair works had been authorised; however, due to its contractor being closed until the end of August 2023, the landlord was awaiting confirmation of an appointment to begin the works. The landlord assured the resident that she would be notified as soon as an appointment was scheduled. It also apologised for the time taken to resolve her complaint and offered £170 in compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 3 September 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the building’s roof.
  2. The resident informed this service on 23 May 2024, that the leak had expanded across the entire length of the storage cupboard ceiling in her children’s bedroom. On 21 June 2024, she reported to the landlord that the leak had spread into the kitchen, affecting the electrical circuit breakers. As of 21 November 2024, the resident advised that the landlord had still not completed repairs to the building’s roof. She explained to us that she has been forced to keep an electrical heater running constantly in the storage cupboard in her children’s bedroom to minimise the damp and mould. Additionally, since reporting the issue, she has had to redecorate the affected walls and ceilings monthly to prevent irreversible damage to the property. The resident is seeking compensation from the landlord for the damage caused by the leak and has reiterated her request for reimbursement of the service charges she has paid since reporting the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident would like the landlord to refund the service charges she has paid since 24 May 2023, due to the ongoing leak and the landlord’s delay to repair the building’s roof. Paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which can be found on our website, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better suited to consider the reasonableness of, or liability, to pay service charges. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further. She can seek free independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.
  2. While the Ombudsman will not consider the amount or increase of service charges, nor whether the amount charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs to the building’s roof, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has acted fairly, given all the circumstances of the case, whether it has put things right and identified service failures, and where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint so as to improve its overall service delivery.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the external main structural parts of the building, including the roof and external walls. The resident is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair, including the internal plasterwork and decoration of walls.
  2. The landlord is also responsible for insuring the building from loss or damage from fire or any other insured risk. The resident pays service charges to the landlord, which contribute to the cost of building insurance.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to complete routine day–to–day repairs within 25 calendar days. Where a repair presents an immediate danger to the resident, it will attend within 24 hours to address the emergency.
  4. In line with general industry practice, large scale roof repairs or replacements are classified as major works, for which specific timeframes for completion are not typically defined. The duration of such projects can vary due to factors such as project complexity, weather conditions, and the building’s structure. Landlords are also often required to carry out a consultation with leaseholders if the cost of the works is expected to exceed £250 per household. However, landlords are expected to act diligently, maintain clear communication with residents, and ensure that necessary repairs are completed as promptly as possible.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal roof.

  1. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for detailed records relating to its handling of repairs to the building’s roof, such as copies of inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, and an explanation of any work carried out. Very little of this has been provided, and if this information does exist, the landlord’s records appear to be incomplete. For example, on several occasions there are records stating that the landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s property. However, there is no information explaining what was investigated, what repairs were recommended to address any identified issues, and there are no assessments to demonstrate the competency of the landlord’s decision to log the reported leak as resolved. The landlord’s poor record-keeping has led the Ombudsman to question the integrity of its records and whether they can be relied on.
  2. This service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, confirms that good record-keeping is a core function of a repairs service. It not only enables a landlord to provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also supports the landlord in fulfilling its repairs obligations. Comprehensive records enable the landlord to fully understand the issue at hand, and explain any actions taken (or not taken), and the reasons behind those decisions. Poor or incomplete records hinders the landlord’s ability to answer questions about outstanding repairs, negatively affecting its credibility and relationships with residents. The gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping, as highlighted throughout this report, demonstrate the need for improvement.
  3. On 24 May 2023, the landlord was notified of a leak potentially originating from the building’s roof. The landlord was expected to promptly investigate the source of the leak, to determine its responsibility for repairs and assess the required work. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord’s contractor initially offered to inspect the resident’s property on 6 July 2023. This timeframe was inappropriate, as it significantly exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s policy for both emergency and routine repairs. Understandably, the resident expressed frustration with this delay, as it would have left her managing a leak causing damage to her property for 43 days, before the landlord took any action to address it.
  4. While there is evidence that the landlord attempted to secure an earlier appointment for the resident, these attempts were only made after the resident contacted the landlord on 4 separate occasions requesting an earlier appointment. On each occasion, the landlord was unable to reach its contractor directly and asked the resident to call back for an update. Consequently, the resident had to make significant efforts to secure an earlier appointment herself, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord should have escalated the matter internally or with the contractor, to prioritise securing an earlier appointment, and it should have established timely communication to update the resident once it made contact with the contractor. This would have demonstrated a proactive approach rather than a reactive one and shown responsiveness to the resident’s needs.
  5. It is positive that the landlord’s contractor ultimately managed to bring the resident’s appointment forward to 20 June 2023. While this appointment was 2 days beyond the landlord’s agreed timescales for routine repairs, this minor delay did not appear to significantly impact the landlord’s overall management of the resident’s concerns at this stage. That said, the Ombudsman acknowledges that living with an unresolved leak for any length of time would have been distressing for the resident.
  6. The landlord has not provided an inspection report from its contractor’s visit to the resident’s property on 20 June 2023. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot confirm whether the contractor identified the source of the leak, determined whether the leak was active or intermittent, or recommended specific repairs. However, the resident informed us that during the inspection, the contractor stated that an emergency repair was needed and assured her that the necessary works would be raised. While we cannot verify the severity with which the landlord viewed the resident’s case, its records show that the resident followed up on 28 June 2023, 30 June 2023, 6 July 2023 and 14 July 2023, emphasising that the leak was worsening and requesting updates on the timeline for repairs. The resident’s persistent efforts to seek resolution suggest that the leak was of significant concern. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s lack of urgency in addressing the matter, combined with its poor communication, to be unacceptable.
  7. Following the contractor’s inspection of the resident’s property, 10 weeks passed before the contractor returned to the building to undertake any roof repairs. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that the delay was due to its contractor being closed throughout August 2023. The Ombudsman finds this explanation both inappropriate and unreasonable, as the landlord’s repair obligations should have taken priority. While delays can occur due to unforeseen circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to demonstrate that they have explored all possible solutions before concluding that a delay is unavoidable. Landlords are expected to engage reliable and flexible contractors capable of completing work promptly, to assist it with meeting its obligations within a reasonable timeframe. If a contractor is unable to fulfil this expectation, landlords should seek an alternative contractor. As such, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude, that the landlord went far enough to proactively mitigate the delay to conduct repairs to the building’s roof.  
  8. Furthermore, although the landlord’s records indicate that temporary roof repairs were completed on 3 September 2023, the evidence provided to denote this, is inadequate. We have seen a copy of a completion report, along with photographs presumed to be of the building’s roof, however, the report fails to clearly outline the work undertaken to address the leak. Additionally, the photographs are not accompanied by descriptions or explanations to clarify what they depict or the nature of the work performed. Consequently, the quality of the landlord’s records has prevented the Ombudsman from verifying whether the temporary repair to the building’s roof was completed to a satisfactory standard, or whether the repair did anything to mitigate further damage to the resident’s property.
  9. The landlord’s records indicate that the building’s roof has still not been repaired. This means that the resident has likely experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a period of 18 months. What’s more, on 21 June 2024, the landlord instructed a contractor to attend the resident’s property, after reports that the leak had spread to her kitchen, causing further damage to the decoration of her property. While the Ombudsman understands that resolving a roof leak can be complex and time-consuming, the landlord is expected to carry out interim repairs, to keep the roof watertight, preventing further damage to the resident’s property. If the initial repair was unsuccessful, the landlord should have attempted further temporary repairs to make the roof watertight whilst it was awaiting replacement. We have seen no evidence that such repairs were undertaken, or if they were, these were unsuccessful, resulting in a prolonged delay in resolving the issue.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to make a claim through her building insurance policy or pay for the repairs to her property herself. Under the terms of her lease, she was responsible for repairing and decorating the internal walls within her property. However, the landlord should have also explored other practical ways to support the resident, such as offering dehumidifiers to mitigate the impact of the leak. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord considered such measures, and instead, the resident has spent significant time and money on attempting to manage the effects of the leak herself, including running an electric heater continuously to limit damp and mould. The lack of proactive support from the landlord was unreasonable and has further exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  11. Based on the failings identified throughout this investigation, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal roof. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has acted fairly, reasonably, or in a timely manner in addressing the leak and mitigating its impact on the resident. While the landlord offered £170 compensation during its complaints process, reflecting an attempt to put things right for the resident, this amount does not adequately reflect the prolonged distress, inconvenience, and additional costs she incurred due to the landlord’s delays and inadequate handling of repairs. Furthermore, following the conclusion of its complaints process, the landlord’s records indicate that it is considering replacement of the building’s roof. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has kept the resident informed of its plans, provided a clear strategy, or communicated an estimated timeframe for completing the work. As a result, the resident continues to experience distress and uncertainty regarding resolution of the matter, suggesting that the landlord has not fully learned from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint, or taken steps to prevent future communication issues.
  12. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of maladministration which has had a significant impact on the resident, the guidance states that in order to put things right, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £600 to £1000. In this instance, the landlord should pay the resident a further £430 compensation, bringing the total to £600 compensation, for its handling of repairs to the building’s roof. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £170, which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
  13. If it has not done so already, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the resident’s property and the building’s roof, to assess whether temporary repairs can be carried out to slow the progress of the leak and ensure the roof is watertight. Following this, the landlord should provide the resident with a written update outlining the issues identified with the roof, the steps it intends to take to address them, and a clear timeline for each step.
  14. The landlord should explore alternative measures to mitigate the damp and mould caused by the leak and clearly communicate these options to the resident. The Ombudsman will also recommend that the landlord consider providing the resident with a dehumidifier and reimbursing any additional electricity costs incurred from its use. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord is not strictly obliged to cover the cost of a dehumidifier as the resident is a leaseholder and would usually be responsible for this cost.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord aims to issue a response to a complaint within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord is unable to respond within these timescales, it will write to the resident to explain why and provide the response within a further 10 working.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 7 June 2023, and in accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days later. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also acknowledged the urgency of the resident’s need for an earlier appointment and stated that it would assist in bringing her appointment forward. As a good will gesture for the inconvenience caused, the landlord offered the resident a voucher. This demonstrated the landlord’s recognition of the resident’s concerns and an attempt to address the inconvenience caused.
  3. However, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 20 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 57 working days later. This was significantly outside the expected timeframes outlined in its complaints policy and demonstrated a failure to handle the resident’s escalation in a timely manner, which likely caused additional frustration and inconvenience to the resident. That said, we acknowledge that the landlord informed the resident that there would be a delay in responding to her complaint due to a backlog, demonstrating an attempt to manage her expectations.
  4. Given the significant delay to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the Ombudsman has determined service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where there has been a determination of service failure that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord should pay the resident £100 in recognition of the delay to respond to her complaint.

The landlord’s record-keeping.

  1. Paragraph 49 of the Scheme allows the Ombudsman to conduct further investigations to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of a systematic failing. In January 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation under paragraph 49, in relation to the landlord’s handling of complaints and disrepair issues. We found a theme in several cases we had determined that we had repeatedly ordered or recommended the landlord to review its record management practices. The landlord pledged to implement mandatory record-keeping training to all staff. Additionally, it said it was in the process of implementing a new housing management system ready for April 2024, which would improve its ability to capture and record information. In view of this, we will not make any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. However, the landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that requires further action with regards to record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident:
    1. a further £430 compensation, bringing the total to £600, for its poor handling of repairs to the communal roof. This amount is in addition to the £170 compensation it has already offered to pay the resident in its final complaint response, which can be deducted from this total if it has already been paid.
    2. £100 compensation in recognition of the delay to respond to the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s property and the building’s roof, to assess whether temporary repairs can be carried out to slow the progress of the leak and ensure the roof is watertight, if it has not done so already. Following this, the landlord should provide the resident with a written update outlining the issues identified with the roof, the steps it intends to take to address them, and a clear timeline for each step.
    2. Carry out an inspection of the interior of the resident’s property to explore alternative measures to mitigate the damp and mould caused by the leak and clearly communicate these options in writing to the resident.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 5 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider providing the resident with a dehumidifier and reimbursing any additional electricity costs incurred from its use.