London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319737

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 March 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 reported leak.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. He lived in his 2 bedroom flat from August 2020 to the end of January 2023.
4. On 9 January 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak in his flat, emanating from the bathroom. He chased the landlord for an update over the subsequent days. He also provided photos showing that the carpets were becoming increasingly damp and the matter was getting worse. The landlord attended on 13 January 2023. It noted that the work was partially completed and follow up works were required.
5. On 16 January 2023 the resident told the landlord he considered the property was uninhabitable. He was due to move out of the property in February 2023. However, because of the condition of the property he had started to move his belongings to his new home. The resident has told this Service that he moved out of the flat on 21 January 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out the follow up works after the resident had moved out.
6. On 6 February 2023 the resident made a complaint. He said:
   1. he reported the leak a number of times over several days. However, the landlord took 4 days to respond. During that period, the water penetration through the carpets became worse. The landlord had not apologised for its delayed response.
   2. he had to move out of the property earlier than expected because the leak had made the flat uninhabitable.
   3. the landlord had failed to meet “basic accommodation standards”. The flat was “unpleasant” and “hazardous” to his health following the leak.
7. On 9 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had raised an order on 9 January 2023 and attended on 13 January 2023. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused in completing the repairs.
8. On 7 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his complaint and stated that he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered.
9. On 17 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It increased its compensation stage 1 complaint offer from £100 to £220. It also offered the resident £125 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final compensation offer and the inconvenience caused by its handling of his reported leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident has explained that the condition of the property following the leak affected his health. While the resident’s comments are noted, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.   Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the reported leak

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing leaks. It states that it would attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It also states that emergency repairs are where “there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
13. It is noted that the resident raised concerns that the property was uninhabitable following the leak. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide whether the property was inhabitable. However, it is our role to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
14. The resident reported a leak coming from his bathroom to the landlord by email on 9 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it raised a work order on the same day. While the landlord’s comments are noted, this is not evident from the repair logs. This is indicative of poor record keeping practices. When responding to the complaint, the landlord failed to explain when it had planned to attend. While it explained that a works order was raised on the same day, it is unclear when the landlord had booked the repair for. This is not evident from the repairs logs either.
15. There is also no evidence that it responded to the resident’s email on 9 January. Its lack of response would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, by failing to acknowledge the resident’s report, the landlord missed an opportunity to ask further information about the leak, such as how it was affecting the property.  On receipt of the resident’s report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to triage the repair and determine whether it was an emergency, urgent or routine repair. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. Triaging the repair would have helped to ensure that any investigations and remedial works were carried out appropriately. This would have also ensured that it was taking steps to mitigate any future unavoidable distress and inconvenience. That there is no evidence that it did is unreasonable.
16. On 11 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. He explained that leak was spreading onto his bedroom carpet and was getting worse. He explained that he could smell damp and provided the landlord with photographic and video evidence of the affected areas. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord responded. That was a further failing.  Given the ongoing leak, and that the resident had advised that the situation was worsening, the landlord’s failure to respond to or act on the resident’s further report would have exacerbated his distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to address this when responding to the resident’s complaint. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to address the lack of response and to provide some explanation as to why the report was no dealt with appropriately.
17. Following the resident’s third report on the issue on 12 January 2023, the landlord attended on 13 January 2023. Given the nature of the resident’s reported repair, the reason that the landlord did not raise and attend to the leak sooner is unclear. However, that it took 4 days to do so is unreasonable. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it failed to assess its handling of the repair and provide an explanation as to why it did not attend sooner. While the landlord appropriately offered compensation, it did not outline what it considered the failings to have been. This was a missed opportunity.    
18. Following the visit, the landlord stated that the works were “partially completed and follow up works [were] needed”. However, it is unclear whether the landlord reasonably assessed the condition of the property at the visit. The resident raised concerns about damp and the condition of the carpets in his reports to the landlord. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether any action was warranted to remedy those issues at that time. This could have included whether it needed to provide the resident with a dehumidifier. Given the lack of detail in its visit report, it is unclear whether such an assessment was carried out. Therefore the landlord has not satisfied the Ombudsman that it reasonably considered the condition of the property to mitigate any further distress and inconvenience caused by the leak at this time.
19. The available evidence shows that on 16 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that the flat was uninhabitable. The parties discussed the matter in relation to the resident’s concerns about his end of tenancy matters. For example he raised concerns that the landlord would not refund his February 2023 rent payment as he was looking to move out early due to the condition of the property. He also raised concerns that the landlord would not return his deposit. It is noted that the resident has confirmed to this Service that the landlord responded to these concerns and do not form part of this complaint.
20. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord explained to the resident that it could investigate his concerns that the flat was uninhabitable during that conversation. If it had done so, it may have reassured him that he may not need to move out of the flat early if he did not wish to do so. It would have also demonstrated that it was taking reasonable steps to ensure the property was in a habitable condition while the resident remained in the flat. This would have also satisfied itself that it took steps to fully consider the circumstances and what steps it could reasonably take to support the resident with his concerns.
21. In his formal complaints the resident raised his concerns that the property was uninhabitable and “hazardous” to his health following the leak. He stated that he had to leave the property earlier than expected because of this.  The landlord failed to address these specific concerns in its responses. There is also no evidence that it investigated these concerns. That is unreasonable. In addition, it was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions made. Subsequently the resident’s concerns remained unanswered.
22. It is unclear what factors the landlord took into consideration when it made its £220 compensation offer. As above, the landlord did not assess its response to the leak or provide any comment on whether it considered it had dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately or not. For that reason, and given the failings we have identified, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances.
23. In addition, the landlord failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. This has meant that it has been unable to satisfy itself and the Ombudsman that it took reasonable steps to ensure that the resident’s flat was in satisfactory condition following the leak.
24. Given the landlord’s failings highlighted in this case, we have found that there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reported leak and in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.
25. We have found that the landlord failed to record or appropriately log the resident’s report of repairs on 9 January 2023. This is indicative of a record keeping issue, or poor record keeping practices.  In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £300 compensation, which is comprised of:
       1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reported leak.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint response, if it has not already done so.