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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202335641)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335641

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 December 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 reported leaks in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 2 bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block with his wife and 3 sons. The resident has rheumatoid arthritis and his wife has severe asthma, psoriasis and eczema.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 February 2020 to acknowledge his repair request relating to ‘rain leaking into living room’. The letter indicates that the landlord’s roofing contractor will arrange the appointment. The resident raised a complaint about the leak and the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 17 February 2022. It confirmed that it had raised a job with its contractors to inspect the window and they would contact the resident directly to arrange the appointment.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2022 to request a ‘thorough investigation to be carried out as to why the repair hasn’t been completed’. He highlighted that his previous repair request was closed in July 2020 with no attempt to repair the leak. The resident explained that the leak was causing damage to the wooden flooring and dampness in the living room. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s escalation request on 1 March 2022.
  4. On 27 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that a repair to fix a leak in a window frame, which had been letting in water whenever it rained, had been declined. It explained that this was due to the need for scaffolding, which meant the original scope of the work was being reviewed.
  5. On 27 April 2023 the landlord also emailed a stage 2 complaint response to the resident (although it was noted as a stage 1 response). It stated that it had called the resident and apologised for a complaint that was 14 months old. The landlord confirms that it had referred the window repair and the damp and mould issues to separate contactors who manage their own diaries. It provided the telephone number for each of the contractors. The landlord noted that the resident had accepted a compensation offer of £300. This amount was made up of:
    1. £100 Complaint handling errors.
    2. £100 Time and effort.
    3. £100 Distress.
  6. On 20 September 2023 the landlord raised the need for scaffolding at the property. A quote was provided on 1 November 2023. It was declined by the landlord on 27 November 2023 on the basis that a surveyor’s inspection was first needed. A surveyor attended on 4 December 2023, where they commented that “there is water coming in above the window” but that they “cannot inspect outside without scaffolding”.
  7. On 11 December 2023 the resident complained. He said that he had raised the repair repeatedly over a 4 year period, however he “kept being told that scaffolding was needed” which then never materialised.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It stated that its “Repairs Panel” declined the works, but that this would now be reviewed. It apologised, upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a £20 “eVoucher” as compensation.
  9. On 15 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate his complaint. He reiterated that the issue had been ongoing for “a number of years” and resulted in damage to his property and belongings. He said that the scaffolding should have been erected and that communication should have been better.
  10. On 19 February 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for help progressing his complaint. The Ombudsman subsequently sent a request for action to the landlord, which it chased on 28 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 February 2024 and contacted the resident.
  11. On 6 March 2024 it issued its stage 2 response. It noted that scaffolding had not yet been erected, which was “essential for the repair to go ahead”. It advised that the request for scaffolding would now go back to its “reviews panel”. It advised that the damage cited by the resident should be claimed for either on the resident’s own contents insurance, or against the landlord’s insurance. It stated that the repair would now be completed, but did not provide a timescale. It offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £90 compensation for delays in complaint handling.
  12. On 7 March 2024 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He said the leak remained ongoing and that the compensation offered was not reflective of the time and stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue. He contacted the Ombudsman again on 26 April 2024 to advise that the issue remained ongoing and that he was regularly needing to mop water up from the site of the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the window leak has been present in his property for approximately 5 years. He raised a formal complaint with the landlord in 2021/2022. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response in April 2023. The resident first contacted this Service in January 2024. The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response in March 2024. The resident referred the matter to this Service in March 2024. As the resident referred both complaints to this Service within 12 months of the stage 2 response date, the Ombudsman has determined that both complaints are inside jurisdiction for investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reported leaks in the property

  1. Within its policies and procedures, the landlord has a document which sets out its obligations in respect of the timescales in which it should complete certain types of repairs. Although a leaking window is not specifically cited, a leaking roof is expected to be resolved within 7 working days. Given that both repairs are likely to result in water ingress when it rains, a 7 working day timescale should have been applied to this repair. As scaffolding was required for access, it would be reasonable to expect some minor delays. In the period assessed by this investigation, the Ombudsman can see the landlord had been aware of its responsibility to complete this repair in April 2023, however the resident reported that it remains outstanding at the time of this determination.
  2. The evidence suggests that the reason for this is poor internal communication. The landlord explained that its policy, where repairs require scaffolding, is to send the request for scaffolding to its “repairs review panel” (the panel). The panel first declined to erect scaffolding at the property on 27 April 2023 in order to “review the original scope of work”, however it is unclear what this meant, or if the scope of work was reviewed. The panel declined the request to erect scaffolding on a second occasion on 27 November 2023, because “an inspection was first needed”. A surveyor attended on 4 December 2023 but commented that the leak “could not be inspected without scaffolding”. An internal email on 13 December 2023 asked the panel to reassess its decision regarding the scaffolding on this basis. It is unclear however if this decision was ever reassessed by the panel.
  3. These issues were exacerbated by delays in arranging a quote in the first instance. After scaffolding was first deemed necessary on 20 September 2023 (and a quote received on 1 November 2023), a decision was not made until 27 November 2023. It is unclear why it took so long to both retrieve and consider this quote.
  4. Despite suggesting in internal emails that the panel should reassess its decision, the landlord appeared to take no further action in relation to the repair after this point. In its stage 2 response of 6 March 2024, the landlord stated that a new repair would be raised. There is no evidence it did this. The landlord marked the outstanding repair as “complete” on 8 March 2024, however the resident later stated that no repair took place. There is no evidence that the scaffolding required to complete the repair was requested or erected. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the repair was completed.
  5. During this time, the resident repeatedly stated that he and his family have had to deal with water ingress “whenever it rains”. The resident later told the Ombudsman that it is not uncommon to need to “wake up in the night to mop”, and that damp and mould had formed as a result of the unattended repair. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it could not deal with any internal repairs until the cause of the leak was rectified. It failed however to rectify the cause of the leak, increasing the resident’s distress and frustration during this time. The resident also explained that he has been advised to open the windows in order to improve ventilation to prevent mould forming, which he has done “even when it has been extremely cold”. He explained that this has left his home “uncomfortable and inadequate” to live in. He has also reported that in spite of his efforts, “spots of black mould” have formed in parts of the property.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This was not reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused by the water ingress for the period in question. It also offered no compensation in respect of the time and trouble the resident went to chase and report the repair. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that this had caused further frustration and distrust of the landlord. The landlord was asked by the Ombudsman to provide records of all contact it had with the resident regarding this repair, however this was not forthcoming. The resident has explained that he has frequently contacted the landlord, which is likely to be true as the landlord has on occasion raised repairs in response to this, though they have not been completed.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on the resident over a long period, and where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, compensation of over £1,000 should be considered. This is the appropriate bracket to apply in this instance due to the extensive time period (since February 2020) in question. Compensation of £1,600 is awarded below, made up of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the roof leak, and a further £600 for the resident’s time and trouble. The compensation awards already offered may be deducted from this amount, if already paid. An order has also been made for the landlord to take the necessary steps to complete this repair, and put right any internal damage caused by the long-term water ingress at the property.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DPRs) are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’. Although the landlord appeared to be fair in its complaint responses, it ultimately failed to put things right. There is no evidence that it attempted to learn from outcomes. As such, there was maladministration in its handling of reports of a leak at the property. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord complete a senior review of the failings in this case, in line with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported leaks in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,600 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience experienced since February 2020 (the landlord can deduct the £100 offered in April 2023 and the £200 offered in March 2024, if these amounts have already been paid).
      2. £600 for the time and trouble experienced since February 2020 (the landlord can deduct the £100 offered in April 2023, if this amount has already been paid).
    2. Contact the resident to discuss the vulnerabilities in the household and to update its records accordingly.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must repair the leak to the resident’s window.
  3. Within 2 weeks of the repair being made, the landlord must instruct a surveyor to inspect for damp, mould, and any other internal damage caused by the leak at the property. It should then act upon any recommendations made by the surveyor to resolve any issues identified, in line with the timescales set out in its policies and procedures.
  4. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must complete a senior review of the failings highlighted in this case. It must then send the findings of this review to the Ombudsman. This must include, as a minimum:
    1. An explanation of how the failings occurred.
    2. What steps it has/will take to ensure the failings do not happen again.