London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202345330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345330

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of a roof leak and associated internal property damage;
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began in April 2011. The property is a 2 bedroom house, where the resident lives with her daughter. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2023. The landlord called and issued her its stage 1 complaint response the same day. The key points were:
1. The resident explained that the landlord’s contractor had completed a damp and mould inspection of her property in mid-2021, which had identified a possible roof leak.
2. She complained that the landlord’s letter in late 2021 had advised her that her property had been added to its ‘roofing programme’, but that it had provided no further information or progress since. She said that this was despite the numerous emails that she had sent it (not seen by the Ombudsman). She said that she had continued to experience some property issues, including occasional mould on her ceilings, which she attributed to the roof issues.
3. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had upheld her complaint and apologised that its works had taken “much longer than we had hoped”. It committed to providing her an update later in the week once it had discussed the matter with a surveyor.
From mid-August to mid-September 2023, the resident chased the landlord for updates and progress. In mid-September 2023, the landlord raised works for a roofing specialist to attend, and it cancelled an attendance by a damp and mould specialist after the resident confirmed she did not currently have a mould issue. In late September 2023, the resident provided the landlord details of recent internal property damage being caused by the roof issue and described how overwhelmed she was feeling.
From October to December 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord with increasing urgency. In mid-December 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident for its delays and lack of contact and advised her of its works intentions. From January to March 2024, the resident chased the landlord. She said that her bathroom ceiling had collapsed, damp and mould had formed, and she described her property as “uninhabitable”. In mid-March 2024, the landlord apologised for its lack of contact and advised that a contractor would attend the following day. The contractor did not attend. On 14 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord said that it completed works to the resident’s roof on 27 March 2024.
On 11 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. The landlord post-inspected and “water tested” the resident’s roof later the same month. It said that it had found no trace of leaks, which the resident disputed. It said that it would raise works for the internal damage. The resident continued to chase the landlord for progress. It issued her its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. The key points were:
1. It confirmed that it would complete internal works including the plastering of her bedroom walls and renewal of her collapsed bathroom ceiling.
2. It apologised to the resident for “the below-usual standard of service you received”. It offered her £760 compensation, which it said would be offset against her arrears, and was broken down as follows:
  1. £280 – delay at stage 2;
  2. £60 – poor complaint handling;
  3. £20 – missed appointment;
  4. £200 – inconvenience;
  5. £200 – distress.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on her internal works up to and beyond when its repairs log said that they were carried out on 19 June 2024. The landlord provided us its repairs records in December 2024. The records stated that works to the resident’s bedroom and bathroom were raised on 7 August 2024, which noted “water damaged due to previous leaks”. It stated that works for a roof leak “affecting bathroom ceiling and bedroom wall” were raised on 1 October 2024. The records noted that both jobs were still “outstanding”, and so we asked the landlord to provide an update. It told us that the resident’s roof works were completed in December 2024, and the internal works during the week commencing 13 January 2025.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the events described above. She confirmed that her roof leak was resolved by the works completed in December 2024, and that internal works were undertaken during the week commencing 13 January 2025. She stated that the internal works were “substandard”, which at the time of this investigation she was struggling to resolve with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it aimed to provide an effective repairs service that undertakes repairs to a good standard in a reasonable time. It said it would aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord did not dispute the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated issues. It was appropriate for it to apologise to the resident, and to offer her compensation. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that its offer was in no way proportionate to the extent and duration of its failings, nor to their significant impact on the resident. A finding of severe maladministration has therefore been made.
The resident told us that, following the landlord’s addition of her property to its planned roofing programme in late 2021, she had accepted that COVID-19 backlogs had delayed the works. The landlord did not provide any contact records prior to July 2023, when the resident made her complaint to it. She told us that, before that time, she had asked it for roof work updates multiple times but had not received a response. She explained to us that her property issues were far less severe at the time that she had made her complaint. She said that she had nevertheless made it, as she had been concerned by the landlord’s unresponsiveness, and that the internal issues would worsen if her roof was left much longer.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2023. The landlord initially responded promptly by calling her the same day. It told her that it would discuss her concerns with a surveyor and provide her with an update later that week.
However, from that point onwards the landlord’s communications were poor and would have significantly added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress. While it did contact the resident several times during August 2023, it was only to advise her that it was struggling to get hold of its own surveyor. It was over a month after the resident had made her complaint before she was able to speak to the surveyor, on 22 August 2023.
The same day, the resident expressed her concern to the landlord that it had still not engaged a roof specialist. It was unreasonable that she found it necessary to chase the landlord 3 weeks later to get a response, on 15 September 2023. It was only then that the landlord raised a job for its roofing contractor to check the resident’s roof.
Over the following days, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould contractor to attend the resident’s property. The resident highlighted to the landlord that she had a faulty roof, not a mould issue, and the attendance was cancelled on 20 September 2023.
However, on 25 September 2023, the resident provided the landlord details of the internal damage to her property, which she said had occurred over the previous 5 days. She asked it to escalate the matter to an urgent priority, and described the distress and anxiety it was causing to her.
On 3 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update following the attendance of its roofing contractor the previous day. She said that the contractor had told her that it had raised an urgent report to the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to her. She further chased it on 12 and 20 October 2023 and highlighted the extent of the wall cracks and internal damage that was occurring.
The landlord did respond to the resident on the second of those occasions, but it was only to advise that it had been unable to get a response from its contractor. The resident further chased the landlord without response on 9 and 30 November, and 14 December 2023. She expressed her increasing frustration, anxiety, and distress at the landlord’s unreasonable lack of contact.
The landlord’s repairs log stated that the roofing inspection it had raised on 15 September was completed 91 calendar days later, on 15 December 2023. It therefore failed to act in line with either the stated aims or timeframes of its own policy, which was largely the case throughout. The landlord apologised to the resident the same day and advised her of the further works that it had raised. Its contractor attended on 4 January 2024. The contractor reported back to the landlord that tiles had slipped on the resident’s roof. The landlord raised further works for the tiles on 9 January 2024. Its repairs record stated that this job was completed a wholly unreasonable 121 calendar days later, on 9 May 2024.
In the meantime, the resident continued to chase the landlord for responses and progress and expressed the significant distress and detriment that she was experiencing. Her contacts to the landlord on 31 January and 9 February 2024 described her property as “uninhabitable” and urged the landlord to act. She repeated this on 14 February 2024 and told it that her bathroom ceiling was starting to collapse. It was again wholly unreasonable that she received no response from the landlord until she asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2, on 14 March 2024.
On 15 March 2024, the landlord apologised to the resident for its lack of contact and progress. It advised her that a contractor would be attending her property the following morning. On 16 March 2024, the resident told the landlord that the contractor had not attended. She chased this again 3 days later after the landlord failed to respond. She emphasised her significantly worsening living conditions and the “severe stress” being caused to her. The landlord apologised again to her for the delays on 22 March 2024, and advised that its contractor would be contacting her.
It was not apparent from the landlord’s repairs records, but it subsequently stated that its contractor undertook works to the resident’s roof on 27 March 2024, and the resident has since confirmed this. The resident expressed her ongoing concerns to the landlord the same day and stated that “I now I have no ceiling in the bathroom”. On 2 April 2024, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s living conditions.
It was unreasonable that the resident again found it necessary to chase the landlord for a response on 10 April 2024. She said that, despite the roof works 2 weeks earlier, she was still experiencing leaks into her property. She highlighted that she was living with extensive internal property damage, and still had no bathroom ceiling. The landlord responded to her the following day and also acknowledged her stage 2 complaint escalation request.
The landlord post-inspected the resident’s roof works from the previous month on 22 April 2024. Its internal email the following day stated that it had ‘water tested’ her roof and inspected her collapsed bathroom ceiling. It stated that “it was all dry and no trace of water leaks through”. It said that it would raise internal works including the renewal of her collapsed bathroom ceiling, and the preparation and skimming of walls on both the ground and first floors. It subsequently identified that it needed an asbestos survey ahead of the works, which it completed on 9 May 2024. This was the same day that it issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response.
However, the landlord’s records stated that it did not raise the resident’s internal works until 20 May 2024, almost one month after its post-inspection, and the job notes only referred to works in her ground floor rooms. Before this, on 14 May 2024, the landlord replied to the MP’s enquiry from 2 April 2024. It advised the MP that the resident’s roof had been successfully repaired, and that it was awaiting the asbestos survey (completed 5 days earlier) before booking in her internal works. The landlord’s confused and delayed handling of the resident’s repairs would have further added to her already significant time, trouble, and distress, and this continued in the months following her complaint.
The landlord’s repairs records stated that the resident’s internal works raised on 20 May 2024, were completed on 19 June 2024. However, the resident told the landlord the same day that, on their arrival, its operatives had told her that they had not been allocated sufficient time to complete the works and so had left. She described how she had booked 3 days off work to allow for the works to take place and had been unable to get any answers from her calls to it.
The resident emailed us 5 days later and expressed her understandable distress and frustration that her internal works had still not begun. During this investigation, the resident told us that the operatives had completed a temporary repair to her collapsed bathroom ceiling on 19 June 2024, but that no other work had been done.
The landlord’s repairs records stated that the resident’s internal works, this time for the bedroom and bathroom as well as the ground floor, were raised on 7 August 2024. This was a wholly unreasonable 107 calendar days after the works had been identified at its April 2024 post-inspection.
On 13 September 2024, the resident reported that there were further leaks from her roof. The landlord told her that it would attend an emergency appointment and raise a recall for its roofing contractor. On 1 October 2024, it raised a new job for the resident’s roof leak, which its job notes stated was affecting her bathroom ceiling and bedroom walls.
As above, the resident’s internal works raised on 7 August 2024, and roof works raised on 1 October 2024, both showed as ‘outstanding’ on the repairs records it provided to us in December 2024. As such, it was asked to provide us with an update. It told us that it had tried to recall the contractor that had completed the resident’s previous roof works but had had “no luck”. It said that it had therefore engaged a different contractor, which had completed the roof works in December 2024. The resident confirmed to us that this was also her understanding and that the more substantial roof works, completed the week before Christmas 2024, appeared to have been successful.
Both the landlord and resident confirmed that her internal works had been undertaken during the week commencing 13 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged to us that the resident was unhappy with the workmanship, which it said that its subcontractor was trying to resolve.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident a total of £760 compensation, of which £340 was attributed to its complaint handling delays and failures (separately assessed below). Of the remaining £420, it awarded £20 for its contractor’s missed appointment on 16 March 2024, and £400 for her stress and inconvenience. As above, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this was not proportionate to the significant and lengthy time, trouble, and distress that she experienced as a result of the landlord’s identified failings.
The Ombudsman has therefore made a further compensation order of £2,000 for the severe maladministration identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated internal property damage. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which have occurred over a significant period.
We have ordered the landlord’s senior executive to issue a further apology to the resident. The landlord is also to complete a post inspection of the resident’s internal works and write to her and us with its findings and intentions.
The Ombudsman has undertaken a special investigation into the landlord. This was conducted under paragraph 49. of the Scheme, which allows us to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The outcome and action needed following the completion of the special investigation included a review of the landlord’s repairs policy to ensure assurances could be measured and reported. This was so that it could analyse and report on repair requests and complaints, quickly identify and address when its policy was not followed, and give regular performance updates. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to those in our special investigation. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with the special investigation, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process, with responses sent within 10 and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2, respectively.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) also required the above complaint response timescales and explained the information that a landlord must include in its stage 1 response to the resident. This included “details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer”.
The landlord did not dispute the failings and delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate for it to apologise and offer her £340 compensation for those failures. This award was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer to the resident represented reasonable redress for the failings in its handling of her associated complaint.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023, which was the same day that she had made her complaint. While the landlord’s initial handling of her complaint was very timely, it did not represent effective complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident appropriately apologised for the delay in addressing her roof concerns and upheld her complaint. However, its advice that it would get back to her following its discussion with a surveyor did little to resolve her complaint and would have been more appropriately included in an acknowledgement. Had the landlord done this, it could then have used its stage 1 response to explain the outcome of its surveyor discussion, and its intended actions to resolve her complaint, while still meeting the timeframes of its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did appropriately advise the resident of her right to discuss her case at any time with the Service. However, it failed to advise of her right, or how, to request that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of its process. As such, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was neither reasonable, nor in line with the Code.
As above, from August 2023 the resident regularly chased the landlord and expressed her increasing frustration and distress. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise her contacts as a complaint escalation request, or to at least ask the resident if she wished it to be treated as such.
The resident specifically asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 March 2024. As the landlord subsequently accepted, it was a failing that she found it necessary to chase her escalation request several times before it acknowledged it on 11 April 2024.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. This was in line with the 20 working day timeframe of its policy from the date of its acknowledgement the previous month, albeit 38 working days after she had first made her escalation request.
As above, the landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failures and delays, and it is the view of the Ombudsman that its £340 offer of compensation to her represented reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated internal property damage.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks:
1. The landlord’s senior executive writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord completes a post-inspection of the internal works and writes to the resident and the Service with its findings and, if necessary, details of its further works including timescales for these.
3. The landlord pays the resident £2,000 further compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of her roof leak and associated internal property damage.
4. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s own compensation award of £420 and that award should be paid to the resident if it has not been already.
5. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its own complaint handling compensation award of £340 if it has not been paid already.