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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202324352)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324352

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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. A leak from the roof into the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 7 September 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom, second floor, flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 to report that their roof was leaking. After several attempts to agree a mutually convenient appointment, a repair was booked in for 24 October 2022.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord that day, as the roofer failed to attend the agreed appointment.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. It apologised for the missed appointment and said it had escalated the repair to its internal planning team. It offered the resident a £20 shopping voucher as a gesture of goodwill and an apology.
  5. The landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022. It said the job was scheduled to be attended on 24 October 2022 by two operatives, however, the roofer was on leave. The other operative was unable to complete the repairs without the appropriate tradesperson. This meant the job was aborted. It apologised that the resident was not made aware of the change to the appointment in advance. It said that a new appointment could be arranged for 23 November 2022 and compensation would be considered on completion of the repair.
  6. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 15 August 2023. It apologised for the delays and miscommunication. It said it had fallen short of its repairs commitments and it offered the resident £520 compensation. This amount was for the delays in the repairs, distress and inconvenience, time and effort, and complaint handling failures.
  7. The landlord sent a further stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. It said it could confirm that a roof repair had been raised with one of its external contractors. It said they would contact the resident directly to schedule an appointment. It offered the resident increased compensation of £750 for delays to the repair, distress and inconvenience, time and effort, and complaint handling failures.
  8. The landlord offered the resident a further £100 compensation on 5 October 2023, for further identified failings in relation to the roof repairs. It also offered £310.00 compensation on 9 October 2023. However, this was retracted on 10 October 2023 on the basis that the complaint had been duplicated. A further £50 voucher was offered due to the admin error.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on their child’s health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

A leak from the roof into the resident’s property

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 to report that their roof was leaking and dripping through into the living room. They asked for an appointment after 3:30pm due to their work commitments. The landlord said that it could request a late appointment, however, it could not make any promises. The landlord sent the resident an appointment letter on the same day. The appointment was for 28 April 2022 between 8am and 1pm.
  2. The landlord’s service standards in place at the time were unclear. They said the landlord aimed to complete routine day to day repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. However, under common law, a landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time once it has been notified of the problem. As the initial repair appointment given to the resident was over 8 weeks from the date they first reported the issue, it would be fair to conclude that the repair would not be carried out within a reasonable period of time. By providing an appointment date to take place 8 weeks after the initial report of the roof leak, the landlord did not act in accordance with its obligations under the common law. Its actions were, therefore, inappropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The resident cancelled the appointment on 27 April as they were unable to take time off work. The landlord re-arranged the appointment for 13 July 2022. This was then rebooked for 24 August 2024, as the resident could not make the appointment due to work commitments. This was rebooked again for 24 October 2022, due to the availability of the roofer. It is unclear from the information provided why the provision of roofing appointments was so limited. The resident was available in school holidays. This gave the landlord a reasonably wide scope to arrange a suitable appointment. However, the shortage of appointments meant that it was more difficult than it should have been to accommodate the needs of both the resident and the landlord.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 October 2022 at 1pm as she had been expecting a roofer to attend between 8am and 1pm. The landlord informed the resident that 2 operatives would be attending at 3pm. However, no one attended, so the resident contacted the landlord again. She was told that the operatives had already attended and that they had booked a follow-up appointment.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 October 2022. She told the landlord that she had waited in all day. She said that the operatives would not have been able to view the roof from the ground as it was a flat roof, and it was very high up. The resident said she had waited months for the appointment due to her work commitments and the landlord’s cancellation of the August appointment. The landlord logged the complaint. It also logged another duplicate formal complaint on 25 October 2022 in relation to the same issue.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 25 October 2022 in relation to the duplicate complaint. It apologised for the missed appointment. It also recognised that there were communication failures as it had not informed the resident in advance that the appointment would not be going ahead. It said it had escalated the repair so that a new appointment could be booked as soon as possible. It said it had arranged to send out a £20 shopping voucher as a gesture of goodwill and an apology.
  7. It is unclear from the information provided why the landlord logged another formal complaint for the same issues. However, it would be reasonable to conclude that this was an internal communication and/or systems issue. This was unreasonable and would have caused confusion for the resident.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 October 2022. It said that there was a shortage of roofers in the area, however, it had been able to allocate the repair to another contractor. Although the new contractor did not have any available appointments until the following week, when the resident would be back at work. The resident responded on the same day and expressed concern as she had dealt with the contractors previously and did not want them to attend their property again. The landlord said it would reallocate the repair to a different contractor. It also confirmed that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
  9. The resident chased the landlord for confirmation of the repair appointment on 6 November 2022. They said there had been a lot of rain, the ceiling was getting worse, and it was leaking onto their belongings. They chased the landlord again between 14 November 2022 and 16 November 2022, as the ceiling was continuing to deteriorate and the black mould around the leak “was starting to smell”.
  10. The landlord responded on 18 November 2022. It said that there was some confusion as to the cause of the water ingress, as it was thought that it could be condensation. The resident responded on the same day. They said it was not condensation, it was a leak. They also told the landlord that the mould was growing a fur like coating. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report of the mould that had formed around the area of the leak. This was unreasonable. Although it was not a large area at the time of the report, the landlord should have at the very least, offered to complete a mould wash of the affected area. This would have ensured it had taken a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould in its properties.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a second stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022 in relation to the original complaint dated 24 October 2022. It said it had logged the request for a roofing repair for a containable leak coming through the roof on 1 August 2022. The appointment was booked in for 24 August 2022, but was moved back due to staff leave. The job should have been attended by 2 operatives, however, the roofer was on leave. This meant that the other operative (who was not a roofer) was unable to complete the repairs, and the job was cancelled. The landlord said it was sorry that the resident was not made aware of the cancellation in advance. It said its contractors attended the resident’s property on 23 November 2022 to complete an initial inspection. It also confirmed that the contractor was in the process of arranging for scaffolding to be erected. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to arrange the repair, and it apologised for the delay in the stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that compensation would be considered following the completion of the repair.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 December 2022 to ask for an update. They told the landlord that the water ingress, and the black mould, were getting worse. The landlord responded on 6 December 2022. It offered to raise a job to complete a mould wash of the affected areas. Although this was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances, it was only a short term fix for the mould. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had managed to arrange a date for the outstanding roof repairs. Common law dictates that the landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time once it has been notified of the problem. As it was 9 months from the date the resident first reported the leak at this point, the landlord did not act in accordance with its obligations under the common law. Its actions were, therefore, inappropriate in the circumstances.
  13. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on the progress of the repair. On 29 December 2022, the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould had spread over a larger area of the ceiling. They said their son had an awful cough, and the mould was “not helping his chest”. They also explained that they had had to cancel a family Christmas because of the embarrassment of the state of the ceiling. The landlord responded on 3 January 2023. It re-iterated that it could raise a job for a mould wash to the affected areas. It also put the delays to the erection of the scaffolding and roof works down to the weather. The resident declined the mould wash. The resident has told this Service that they kept on top of the mould growth themselves.
  14. The scaffolding was erected on 3 February 2023. However, on 8 February 2023, the landlord was unable to confirm a date for the completion of the repair. It told the resident that once the works were booked in, they would be notified. The landlord also asked the resident to stop sending duplicate emails for the same issue, and to stop continuously calling the contractors, as it would not “speed up the process”. It also told the resident that they could escalate their complaint to stage 2, even though they had already escalated their complaint. The resident responded on the same day and told the landlord that they had not once contacted the contractors.
  15. The landlord’s response was confusing, heavy handed, and lacked empathy. The resident had been living with buckets in their living room catching rainwater, a damp ceiling, and mould growth for 11 months at this point. There had been little progress in completing the repair, and the resident was understandably concerned by the delays.
  16. The landlord was still unable to provide the resident with a date for the completion of the works to the roof on 20 March 2023. However, it did re-iterate that they could contact the repairs team to raise a job for a mould wash if required. This was reasonable in some respects, in relation to ensuring that the mould growth was treated. However, it was not an overall solution to the problem given that the resident had been living with a leak through their ceiling for over 12 months.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 April 2023 as there was water pouring into their property. The landlord responded on 17 April 2023 citing “weather conditions” as the reason for the delay to the repairs. It contacted the resident again on 18 April 2023 and said that its contractors were aiming to arrange an appointment within the next 2 weeks. The contractors did not contact the resident until 17 May 2023, when they offered an appointment for the following day. The resident was unable to make the appointment due to work commitments and the short notice given. A mutually convenient appointment was arranged for the end of May 2023.
  18. The landlord was fully aware of the resident’s work commitments, and although it is not always possible to factor in work commitments when arranging repairs, it was aware that they were not available at short notice. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to inform that contractor of this, so that sufficient notice of the appointment could have been given.
  19. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 June 2023 to advise that further investigations were required to determine the cause of the roof leak. It said the scaffolding needed to be extended so that the roof panels could be removed. The resident was not informed when the investigations would take place.
  20. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2023 as they had returned home from work to find that the scaffolding had been taken down. The landlord responded on 10 August 2023. It said it was looking to allocate the works to a different contractor, so the scaffolding had to be taken down. It told the resident that once it had assigned a contractor, the contractor would contact the resident directly. The landlord confirmed that the additional delay would be considered within the compensation assessment once the work was completed.
  21. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident, the delays to the repairs, and the miscommunication. It said the appointment had been cancelled by the resident, which it appreciated was down to their availability. It asked the resident to arrange a further appointment. It acknowledged that it had fallen short of its repair commitments and its communication requirements. It offered compensation of £420.00. This was based on £150 for the delay in the repair, £120 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for time and effort.
  22. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and acknowledged its failures in relation to the repairs and delays, it did not offer any meaningful solution. It also said that the resident had cancelled the appointment, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the new contractor had made an appointment.
  23. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 August 2023 to inform it that an appointment made for September 2023 was unsuitable due to work commitments. The landlord gave the resident the direct number for the contractor. This was reasonable in the circumstances, given that the resident would be able to arrange a suitable appointment directly with the contractor.
  24. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. It said it had reviewed the initial stage 2 response and the compensation awarded. It concluded that the resident’s enquiries could have been managed more effectively. It said there were also delays in responses due to a backlog, for which it apologised. It confirmed that a roof repair had been raised with an external contractor, who would make contact directly with the resident to schedule an appointment. It offered increased compensation of £500. This was based on £150 for time and effort, £150 for delays in the repair, and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  25. Although within the stage 2 review response the landlord increased the compensation to £500, apologised, and acknowledged its failings, there was still no conclusion to the roof leak. It also did not show any learning, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  26. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 October 2023 to complete the roof repair. They did not have an appointment with the resident, so the resident was not at home whilst the repairs were carried out. When they returned home from work, they found debris from the repair within their living room.
  27. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 October 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the contractor not having an appointment arranged so that they could clean up the mess caused by the repair. It offered a further £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. This increased the overall compensation to £550.
  28. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 October 2023 to report that the roof was still leaking. They said it was now a heavy drip and it had filled a bucket within 15 minutes. The resident made further attempts to contact the landlord on 15 October 2023 and 16 October 2023 as the leak had deteriorated and water was pouring in. The landlord responded on 16 October 2023 and said it would ask the contractor to reattend.
  29. The leak was resolved on 17 February 2024. Almost 2 years from the date the leak was first reported. Follow on works to make good following the repair were scheduled for 2 April 2024. The resident has informed this Service that, although subject to delay, the follow on works are now complete.
  30. In summary, the landlord took an unreasonable length of time to complete the required repairs to the resident’s roof. This was contrary to both common law and its own service standards for repairs. At times the landlord’s responses were confusing, heavy handed, and lacked empathy. Although the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation, this was insufficient to provide reasonable redress, given that the leak took almost 2 years to repair. During this time the resident had to live with water dripping into buckets within their living room every time it rained, a damp ceiling and mould growth.
  31. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 October 2022. The complaint was duplicated and logged under 2 separate references.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 31 October 2022.
  4. However, the landlord sent a second stage 1 complaint response, in relation to the duplicate complaint, to the resident on 24 November 2022. This was 23 days from the date the complaint was first made and outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. From the information provided, it does not appear that this complaint was escalated to stage 2.
  5. As the resident had already received a response at stage 1, it would have been confusing for the resident to receive a second stage 1 response. It is also concerning that the landlord was not able to see on its systems that it was dealing with 2 complaints for the same resident about the same subject matter.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. This was over 9 months from the date of escalation to stage 2 and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. Within the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered the resident £100 compensation. This amount was increased to £250 on 29 September 2023, following a review of the stage 2 response. The amount was increased again on 5 October 2023, to £300, as the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to emails sent by the resident on 29 September 2023 and 3 October 2023.
  7. Given the significant delay at stage 2, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed the resident’s escalation to this Service.
  8. However, on 9 October 2023, the landlord sent the resident an email offering £310 compensation. Based on the evidence provided, it would be reasonable to conclude that this response related to the duplicate stage 1 complaint. This is because the original response, dated 24 November 2022, said the landlord would look into compensation following the completion of the repairs. Once the landlord was made aware of the duplication, and the offers made at stage 2, it retracted the offer of £310 and arranged for a £50 e-voucher to be sent to the resident for the admin error.
  9. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation, a £50 e-voucher, and its acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  10. In summary, although there was confusion around the duplicate complaint and a delay in the stage 2 response, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £300, plus the £50 e-voucher, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak from the roof into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid in relation to the repair) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a leak from the roof into the resident’s property.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Improve its service in relation to the provision of roofing repairs so that it can meet its obligations under its service standards. The landlord should show how it will achieve this by providing this Service with a summary of its action plan, including the actions required and dates for implementation.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £300 compensation, plus the £50 e-voucher, it offered in its stage 2 response for complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.