London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202327478)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327478

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 April 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in his garden.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident and his partner hold a joint assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property was newly–built in early 2022 and the tenancy began on 18 May 2022. The couple have a young daughter.
3. It is unclear when the resident first reported to the landlord drainage issues in his garden. The evidence shows he sent an email to the landlord about the issue on 17 August 2023, but we have not seen the content of this. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this email and he chased it for a reply on 10 September.
4. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 21 September. He said he was unable to use his garden, especially after it had rained, due to “flooding”. He wanted the landlord to resolve the drainage issues. The landlord responded on 26 September 2023. It said the resident was given an opportunity to report any defects during the property’s 12-month warranty period, which had ended on 8 April. It said the resident had not raised any issues during this time, nor during the final inspection in March. It said its repairs team had inspected the garden, and concluded that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain it.
5. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 4 October 2023. He said “water stagnated in his garden”, and it was at times unusable. He said that his daughter had been unable to play in the garden because of its condition. He disputed the landlord’s explanation that this was a maintenance issue, and argued it was about the lack of drainage.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s escalated complaint on 1 November 2023. It reiterated its previous position, that his property had been inspected when he moved in, and at the end of the defect warranty period. It said it had been responsible for resolving any repairs or defects that the resident raised during this timeframe, but the resident had not reported any. It said that its Repairs Surveyor had also inspected his garden and found it to be in a “satisfactory condition”. It said the resident was responsible for maintaining the grass to “establish its natural drainage”.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Service. He alleged that the landlord was discriminating against him, because it had carried out works to his neighbour’s lawn, but not his. He also complained about the time it had taken the landlord to respond to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident raised new issues about the garden, such as objects and debris buried underground. These issues were not part of his original complaint to the landlord. Even though these issues may be linked, the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to them prior to the involvement of the Service. The resident should report them to the landlord and then make a new complaint to it if he is dissatisfied with its response. If he remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s responses to this complaint, he has the option of asking us to investigate his concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in his garden.

9. The landlord’s internal emails show that both its “Aftercare and Repairs” teams had been involved with inspecting the resident’s garden. It said the Aftercare team had confirmed they were “happy with the condition of the garden and the amount of flooding”. It said that because the property’s warranty period had expired, the Aftercare team were no longer responsible. It said its repairs team were not responsible either, because the developers had confirmed they were satisfied with the garden’s condition.
10. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that inspections had taken place at the start and end of the 12-month defect warranty period. It also said its repairs team had inspected his property on 1 September 2023. However, no clear evidence of these inspections has been provided for this investigation. Therefore, it is not possible to see what the inspections actually considered or concluded, or that the landlord’s explanations and decision were reasonable.  
11. Other evidence provided by the landlord shows it was aware there had been problems with the drainage within some of the other gardens on the same development as the resident. In an undated internal communication, the landlord noted that there were “no land drains on the build drawings, so none had been installed on the development”. It said “we did have some complaints of some particularly bad garden drainage on a few plots”. It confirmed the developer had installed land drains on approximately “5 or 6” of the properties within the development, where issues were raised during the defect period.
12. While investigating the resident’s complaint the landlord checked with the developer whether the resident’s garden had any drainage installed. In an email on 28 September 2023, the landlord said the developer had clarified that it had not installed drainage strips on the resident’s plot.
13. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord was aware there were issues with garden drainage on several of the plots within the same development as the resident’s, and that there was at least some form of drainage absent from his garden. It explained it had undertaken at least 3 inspections of the garden, but has not provided any of them for this investigation. The evidence about the other properties may not be relevant to the resident’s situation. Nonetheless, based on those facts it is not possible to conclude the landlord’s responses to his concerns and complaints were robust or reasonable. This leaves the complaint unresolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

14. The resident complained that the landlord had not followed its formal process when handling his complaint, this included its delayed response. While there is evidence of the resident corresponding with the landlord about the garden previously, there is no clear evidence of him complaining to it until 21 September 2023. It sent its response to this on 26 September, which was well within the 10-day timescale set out in its complaint policy.
15. The resident complained that the landlord had not given him a complaint reference number. The evidence shows this was the case and that he had to chase the landlord for this on 3 November 2023. During this phone conversation, the landlord record’s show it told the resident that it did not normally provide reference numbers. However, this was contrary to its policy at the time which said when responding to a complaint “The letter must be clearly labelled ‘Stage 1 Decision’ in the subject line and the complaint reference included”. There is no apparent direct impact from this omission, but it was clearly not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in his garden.
17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

18. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £450 to the resident. This amount is comprised of:
    1. £400 in recognition of the failings identified in this report.
    2. £50 in recognition of the failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
19. Within 10 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to inspect the resident’s garden to identify whether there are any underlying problems with the drainage. It must provide a copy of the inspection and its findings to the resident and to the Ombudsman. If the inspection finds problems with the drainage beyond what could reasonably be considered basic garden maintenance issues, the landlord must explain how it intends to address them in a reasonable timescale. If the resident subsequently has concerns about the landlord’s handling of any remedial actions it commits to undertake following the inspection, he has the option of raising a new complaint with it.
20. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with these orders by their respective deadlines.