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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202337502)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337502

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 May 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:
    1. Reports of a roof leak.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat which he sub-lets to his own tenant. The freehold of the building is owned by a third party. The landlord, a housing association, has a lease for multiple properties in the building, as does another third party.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 October 2023. He said that he reported a leak coming from the communal flat roof in September 2023. This was affecting the wall in his flat and it had failed to resolve the matter. He set out the dates and detail of his communications leading up to his complaint. He asked for its insurance information to enable him to make a claim for the damage to his property.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 3 December 2023 as he received no response. He said he paid for a plumber to attend and confirm that the water was coming from a communal area. He added that it had taken no action nor communicated any timeframes.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023. It said that its legal team had confirmed that another organisation was responsible for the external repairs to the building. The resident would need to contact them to report the issue directly. It confirmed that it was closing the complaint.
  5. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 19 December 2023. He received no response and approached this Service to assist in resolving the matter.
  6. Following our intervention, the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024. It explained that its stage 1 decision was based on advice from its legal team, but since investigating further it found it was responsible. It apologised for the confusion and delay in completing repairs and said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof. It explained that the interior of the property remained the resident’s responsibility and advised him about how he could make a claim for any damages. It offered £575.45 compensation comprising £50 for time and effort, £150 for poor complaint handling at stage 1, £80 for inconvenience, £95.45 reimbursement for his expenses, and £200 for the delay in carrying out the repairs.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wanted it to complete the repairs and compensate him.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a roof leak

  1. In the resident’s complaint he explained that he had reported a roof leak on 18 September 2023. He was advised on 26 September 2023 that an order had been raised for roofers to attend within 20 days. He enquired on 5 October 2023 to see if the process could be fast–tracked as the problem was getting worse but received no response. On 16 October 2023 he was told that the repair order had been cancelled as the roof was not the landlord’s responsibility. In further correspondence between 17 and 19 October 2023 he asked for a repair to be booked urgently. He raised his concerns again on 27 and 30 October 2023 but received no response which led to his complaint.
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in completing repairs to the roof. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the evidence shows that the landlord was communicating internally in November 2023 about its responsibility to repair the roof. Its records show that it believed a third party was responsible, as it only owned 10 flats in the block and did not own the building. The third party had communicated that it was not their responsibility. It noted that there was confusion about repair responsibilities and said its surveyor and legal team would need to confirm this.
  4. While we appreciate that the landlord would need to clarify its position in relation to repairing obligations, it failed to effectively communicate with the resident in the meantime. This was not appropriate and would likely have added to his frustration.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request he said that he had paid for his own plumber to clarify the source of the leak. His own tenant had reported having a cough for 4 weeks which they believed was exacerbated by the damp and mould in the bedroom. He added that the situation was unacceptable.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised the resident that its legal team had confirmed that the third party was responsible for external repairs. It directed him to make contact with them directly to report the issue as it was not its responsibility. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its legal team, its response was not appropriate as the resident had no relationship with the third party. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken ownership of the issue and liaised with the third party if it believed they were responsible to complete the repair.
  7. The resident responded the same day expressing his dissatisfaction. He said he was not a customer of the third party and having previously contacted them, they refused to take any action. He confirmed that he paid service charges to the landlord for the management of the building. He asked it to provide contact details for the third party or a letter from its legal team confirming their responsibility.
  8. The resident received no response and approached us to assist in resolving the matter. Following our intervention the landlord’s records show that it carried out further investigations regarding its repairing obligations.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained that at the time it sent its stage 1 decision, it believed that the third party was his landlord and therefore responsible for the repairs. It said that following further investigation, the third party identified documentation that showed that it was the landlord and had responsibility for repairs. It should have been aware from its own records that it was the resident’s landlord given it received his service charge payments.
  10. The landlord appropriately apologised for the confusion, delay in carrying out repairs, and said it would arrange for a surveyor to carry out an inspection and raise any required repairs. Its explanation regarding insurance claims was also reasonable.
  11. The landlord offered compensation of £425.45 which included £95.45 reimbursement of out–of–pocket expenses for the survey, £50 for time and effort, £80 for inconvenience, and £200 for the delay in completing repairs. Its offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance which says that sums between £100 and £600 are appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  12. Following the landlord’s final response the evidence shows that it completed an inspection of the roof in May 2024. There is no evidence to suggest that the repairs are not complete. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.
  13. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure that it is aware of its responsibilities and obligations under the terms and conditions of any lease agreements to prevent any future failings.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. Its responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 31 October 2023. It responded at stage 1 of its process 34 working days later, and 24 working days outside its complaint policy timescale. Its response failed to apologise for the delay. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate his complaint.
  3. That said, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised for its failings and offered £150 compensation. While it stated that its offer was for its failings at stage 1, its offer was in line with our remedies guidance as outlined above. We have, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord had made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £575.45 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it is aware of its repairing responsibilities and obligations under the terms of any lease agreements to prevent any future failings.