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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323467)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323467

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the property’s porch and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of intermittent water leaks from the property above.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom basement flat. The tenancy started in August 1993. The landlord, which is a housing association, is the freeholder of the property. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident described to us having a significant back problem, a heart condition, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord’s Chief Executive (CEO) on 3 November 2022. He said water had leaked into the property’s porch for “many years.” He reminded the landlord he had already written to its CEO on 22 September 2021 and said the repair remained outstanding. As such, he had purchased a heater and a dehumidifier to minimise the effects of damp and mould. He sought compensation for the running costs of these units.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022, the landlord apologised for the repair delays. It explained it had completed repairs to the main entrance stairs over the resident’s flat. Though, a leaking downpipe from the building’s guttering required an asbestos survey before further work started. It raised the survey request, explained that its contractor was extremely busy, and said it would complete necessary plastering and painting repairs to the porch once it completed the repair. On 1 February 2023 it offered compensation of £413.78. This comprised £119.99 to reimburse for the dehumidifier, £54.99 for the heater, and a further £238.80 towards 30 days of electricity costs.
  4. On 21 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP). He said while the landlord had started repair work it had missed appointments, failed to communicate with him, and its progress was slow. He said he had moved his belongings with difficulty due to his disability and these items remained in his way while waiting for it to complete the repair.
  5. In its stage 2 final response on 14 November 2023, the landlord apologised for the delays and level of service he had received. It acknowledged that damp proofing work to the porch had taken it 18 months and work remained outstanding. Its response acknowledged he had experienced “numerous leaks” which affected the porch and kitchen and bedroom ceilings, and that there had been delays with other historical repairs at this time. It apologised that he had experienced a wait of almost 2 years for it to put things right. It said it had faced a back log of work following the Covid-19 pandemic.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response summarised its actions, raised orders for outstanding work, identified learning, and offered an additional £1,150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused over approximately 2 years.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said the landlord had failed to consider that he had raised complaints for “more than 12 years.” He said he had purchased the heater and dehumidifier in 2017 and it should pay him a “more realistic figure” to compensate for his electricity use.
  8. As of November 2023, the resident confirmed the landlord completed repairs to the property’s porch which resolved the reported damp and mould. However, he said the landlord had boxed in the mains water stopcock and he could no longer access it. Also, it had failed to fully resolve a leak to the flat roof above the property’s main entrance. As such, he remained concerned that the leak was going behind the installed damp proofing membrane and would result in a repeat problem in time. He also disputed that it had identified and resolved an intermittent leak from the property above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We note the resident’s correspondence said that the landlord’s poor handling of his repairs and complaints left him feeling “stressed out.” In this, we understand the resident considers the experience affected his health.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health.
  3. The resident said that he had reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of leak and damp repairs to the property’s porch, dating back more than 12 years. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence dating back this far. Also, it is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman when they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. Normally within 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s ICP. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which we can now investigate.
  4. Our role is to assess the events that led to the resident’s complaint of 3 November 2022. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve his complaint within its 2 stage process, up to its stage 2 final response on 14 November 2023. Given there is evidence the resident raised this matter with the landlord in September 2021, it is fair and reasonable to all parties that we consider events form this date. Any reference made to events prior to this will be to provide context.
  5. We note correspondence where the resident informed the landlord of his intentions to send it bills for his water damaged possessions. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s home and or possessions. This requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice and or ask the landlord to provide him its insurance details if he would like to pursue a claim.
  6. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the property’s porch and subsequent damp and mould

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutter, drains and pipes. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in paragraph 4.1 of its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy in operation in 2022 said that it would attend an emergency repair within 24 hours, and a routine repair at a “mutually convenient appointment”. The landlord amended its policy in May 2023. In which, it said it would aim to complete a routine repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which came into force in May 2023, states that when a resident reports damp and mould it will inspect the property within 20 working days to identify the underlying cause of the problem.
  4. Between 5 August 2021 to 21 October 2021 there is evidence that the landlord attended the property due to the resident’s reports that water was leaking in to the property’s porch. The landlord’s records show that it raised and completed work on 5 August 2021. An emergency appointment was appropriate and in line with its published repair timescales.
  5. During this time, there is further evidence that the landlord completed a CCTV inspection of the property’s roof and pipework. This demonstrated the landlord took steps to identify the root cause. That said, there is no evidence of communication to the resident or any action plan of the work it intended to take or when.
  6. The resident says the landlord’s actions were ineffective and the porch continued to experience damp. The landlord wrote to him on 18 October 2021 and said its contractor would contact him to arrange a survey. It is therefore unclear why the landlord recorded this job as closed with no completion date. This did not demonstrate effective record keeping or monitoring of the outstanding issue.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it completed a dye test of the property’s roof and water outlets on 11 March 2022. While this was a reasonable step to trace the cause of the damage to the property’s porch, we have again been unable to identify any evidence of communication with the resident. As such, it is reasonable that he says he experienced distress and inconvenience as the landlord left him without a remedy or any reassurance that matters were in hand.
  8. It was unreasonable that the resident needed to complain about this outstanding issue on 3 November 2022. It is clear from the evidence that he had at this stage waited at least a year for the landlord to provide a permanent remedy. The lack of evidence of any communication with him is unreasonable and did not demonstrate the landlord showing due regard for how the matter may have been affecting him.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022 apologised and explained that it had raised an asbestos survey for the roof and downpipe. We note that it said its contractor was extremely busy. Given that it was aware of the already delayed repair and its knowledge of resource capacity issues, it is unclear why it did not take steps to consider appointing an alternative contractor. Had it done so, it may have prevented further distress to the resident and resolved the matter sooner. That it did not evidence considering this option, further demonstrates the landlord’s failure to learn from previous outcomes.
  10. Within the same response, the landlord states it would reimburse the resident 30 days of electricity for the running costs of the heater and dehumidifier. This was based on 8 hours use per day. This demonstrates the landlord acknowledged the resident’s additional expense and took steps to offer redress. We have identified no evidence at this stage where the resident considered this offer inadequate.
  11. However, it was unreasonable that the resident found it necessary to chase the landlord for repair updates on 31 January 2023. There is no evidence it provided him any communication updates since its stage 1 response. He explained the porch repairs remained outstanding and questioned the landlord’s lack of resolution regarding the running costs of the heater and dehumidifier.
  12. The landlord responded the next day, 1 February 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and agreed to reimburse the resident for both units along with its promise of 30 days electricity, totalling £413.78. While the reason for the delay to pay its stage 1 offer is unclear, reimbursing the purchase price for the units, along with the promised 30 days running costs, was reasonable in the circumstances. We have identified no evidence of the resident’s dissatisfaction with this proposal at this stage.
  13. While we note the resident’s correspondence to us in January 2024 expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s November 2023 offer, it is reasonable to have expected him to have raised this directly with the landlord sooner. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine what additional utility costs the resident may have incurred. Our role is to assess what is fair in the circumstances. Therefore, we will consider whether the landlord’s stage 2 final response provided proportionate redress in line with the remedies guidance available to us.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 final response acknowledged that it had also failed to offer the resident an apology for a window repair around the same time as his porch reports. It recognised it had received his report on 24 September 2019 but due to the resident’s availability, staff sickness, and delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, it did not complete the repair until 15 October 2021. It said this was unacceptable and its offer of compensation would reflect this failure.
  15. The first Covid-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only completing emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020 the Government issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still complete repairs and safety inspections, if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021.
  16. The dates of this repair precede the complaint brought to us. That said, while there is no evidence to indicate this repair was an emergency, it is unreasonable that it has been unable to evidence how it monitored or communicated with the resident. The delay of almost 2 years was unacceptable. It was therefore appropriate to acknowledge and apologise for this failure alongside similar delays to complete the repairs to the porch.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 final response acknowledged delays and offered an additional £1,080 specifically for its repair failings. The total sum offered in the stage 1 and 2 responses, less £70 specifically for complaint handling failures, being £1,493.78. Given the repeat communication failures and failures to meet its repair timescales, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the detriment caused.
  18. The landlord does not dispute that it poorly managed the resident’s repairs. We would therefore have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. We find that the £1,493.78 compensation in line with the remedies guidance available to us. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.
  19. We note that the resident disputes that the work to remedy the porch issues were fully complete. He says a leak to the flat roof above his property’s entrance remained outstanding. Also, he remained uncertain if the landlord had resolved a leaking gutter, and issues with access to pipework. While the resident confirms the landlord resolved the reported damp and mould, he is concerned issues will return. We encourage the landlord to complete a follow up inspection to discuss his concerns. This may offer him reassurance that it has fully resolved this long standing issue.

Response to intermittent water leaks from the property above

  1. While not raised in his original complaint of 3 November 2022, nor responded to in its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022, the landlord chose to respond to the resident’s reports of a 2021 leak from the property above in its stage 2 final response.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that it responded as an emergency on 22 September 2021 to reports of a leak through the property’s bedroom ceiling. It recorded its operative replacing an isolating nut and leaving all in working order. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord responded in line with the expectations of its responsive repair timescales.
  3. However, we note the resident disputes the landlord’s assessment and states it took him 4 attempts for the landlord to address his concerns at this time. We have been unable to identify any record of multiple call outs. However, the resident’s correspondence to us confirmed that the last time he had experienced a leak was “in 2021 and that there had not been any water leaks for a while.”
  4. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded in line with its responsive repair timescales at this time. Therefore, its stage 2 response was reasonable and addressed the matter from 2021 and confirms the leak was not active. While we note the resident refers to other historic occurrences, he did not bring these matters to us within a reasonable time. They are therefore outside of the original complaint and did not part of the landlord’s ICP for us to consider.
  5. Within later correspondence to us, the resident describes experiencing further leaks from the property above in July 2023, August 2023, October 2023, and April 2024. Upon which, his kitchen ceiling experienced water damage.
  6. We acknowledge the distress recurring leaks can cause. That said, we do not have the construction expertise to determine a link to events from 2021. These are separate matters which required new service requests and or a new complaint.
  7. Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to intermittent water leaks from the property above.
  8. We note there is evidence that the resident raised a new complaint and received an offer of compensation. This is outside of the original complaint brought to us. Therefore, it will not form part of this investigation.
  9. That said, given the resident’s concerns that the matter is recurring, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact him to ensure it has addressed all matters within its separate complaint responses.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. The relevant policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint and a stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. We are satisfied that the landlord’s relevant policy was appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022.
  2. The resident raised his complaint via the landlord’s CEO on 3 November 2022. It was therefore reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 10 November 2022 and a stage 1 response by 17 November 2022. The landlord provided an acknowledgement on 3 November 2022 and a response on 4 November 2022. Its response times were appropriate and in line with its complaint handling policy and expectations of the Code.
  3. That said, there is evidence the resident raised an identical complaint on 22 September 2021. While the landlord’s records demonstrate it raised some repair works, we have been unable to identify any formal responses which acknowledged and or addressed the resident’s complaint at this stage. It is therefore reasonable that the resident describes experiencing distress and inconvenience as he repeated his concerns a year later in hope of a remedy.
  4. The stage 1 complaint response apologised and acknowledged the resident had experienced delays. It summarised outstanding work and the actions it would take to put things right. While this demonstrated the landlord recognised service failings, it did not demonstrate how it would improve to prevent similar failings happening again.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 21 May 2023. As such, it was reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 27 May 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 20 June 2023. It is therefore unclear why the landlord failed to achieve either of these dates. This was not appropriate. It did not demonstrate the landlord had learned from previous outcomes nor that it was achieving the expectations of the Code.
  6. Between June 2023 to October 2023 the resident chased the landlord for complaint updates. He also raised dissatisfaction about other repairs. Some repairs formed part of the resident’s original complaint of 3 November 2022, while others related to intermittent and historical leaks affecting other areas of the property. We note that the landlord’s stage 2 final response briefly summarised all of the resident’s concerns.
  7. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code (1 April 2022) says where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, it should incorporate them into the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint.
  8. As the landlord had issued its stage 1 response before the additional service requests and reports, it should have acknowledged and responded to any dissatisfaction separately. That it did not, has caused confusion during our investigation and demonstrates a complaint handling training need at the time of the resident’s complaint.
  9. On 6 November 2023 we issued a letter requesting action from the landlord no later than 27 November 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had needed to use further time and trouble to bring this matter to us. The landlord’s failure to provide him with an acknowledgement or final response did not demonstrate that it was effectively monitoring outstanding complaints. This indicates a record keeping failure.
  10. Following our intervention, the landlord acknowledged the landlord’s escalation request on 7 November 2023 and provided a stage 2 final response on 14 November 2023. These actions were 115 and 120 working days, respectively, beyond its relevant complaint policy response timescales. This did nothing to improve his confidence in the landlord’s services.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 final response apologised for its delays and identified failings. It acknowledged its communication had been poor and it had failed to manage a backlog of work effectively. The landlord said it had briefed senior managers regarding the resident’s case, interviewed staff involved, and identified training. This demonstrated the landlord took steps to learn from outcomes to minimise similar situations happening again.
  12. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. The resident repeated his complaint in September 2021 and November 2022, and required our assistance to ensure the landlord completed its ICP. Its complaint handling delays caused him distress and inconvenience waiting for a resolution. Also, the landlord’s inaction caused him time and trouble having to seek our assistance to progress his complaint.
  13. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. In situations of maladministration our guidance on remedies recommends that a compensation payment should be £100 to £600 where there has been failure that has adversely affected the resident.
  14. Therefore, we find that the landlord’s offer of £70 redress failed to adequately recognise the detriment to him and we order it to pay a total sum of £200 to put things right.

Special investigation

  1. In July 2023 the Ombudsman completed a special investigation into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. Findings included issues with:
    1. the landlord missing appointments or duplicating them as it had insufficient records of who had visited properties
    2. the landlord raising the same repairs on multiple occasions, often closing an issue as resolved only to reopen it when the resident reported it remaining unresolved
    3. it failing to keep residents informed of the progress of their repairs leading them to chase and raise complaints
  2. Our special investigation also identified systemic failings in the landlord’s complaint handling which included not responding to all aspects of the complaint, not identifying all failings, and not showing appropriate learning.
  3. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling and approach to repairs. In this investigation, we have identified failures similar to those identified in the special report. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with previous wider orders. Therefore, we have not made any new orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the property’s porch and subsequent damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to intermittent water leaks from the property above.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
      1. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord can deduct the sum of £70 offered at stage 2, if already paid.
    2. We order the landlord to contact the resident and ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect his current circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident the £1,493.78 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to his reports of outstanding repairs to the property’s porch and subsequent damp and mould, if not already paid.
  2. We recommend the landlord completes a follow up inspection of the areas reported to have been affecting the resident’s porch. This may go some way to further improve the resident and landlord relationship and provide opportunity for the landlord to explain its position and reassure the resident on this matter.
  3. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident regarding his reports of intermittent leaks from the property above. It may benefit from reviewing the actions it has taken to remedy his 2023 and 2024 reports. We encourage the landlord to complete a further property inspection if it has not done so already, following the resident’s more recent complaints.