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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202411689)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411689

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 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 the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a flat in a building owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the roof entering his kitchen to the landlord on 23 February 2024. He chased it for a response on 29 February 2024. It replied on 12 March 2024 advising that it had raised works.
  3. On 27 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord as it had made no further contact with him and the leak remained outstanding. It had now spread further along his ceiling and was close to the light fitting which was becoming an electrical and fire hazard.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It apologised for not contacting him and agreed that it should have handled things better. It requested a manager investigate why it had not contacted him and book an appointment for the works. It signposted him to its insurance team for damages and offered £90 compensation.
  5. The resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on the 2 April 2024 because he could not consider the complaint fully addressed until it completed repairs to the roof. He reiterated his concerns over the leak reaching his light fitting and stated that it had not yet provided a date for when the inspection or works would begin.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 June 2024. It confirmed that an operative had attended and formed the opinion that blocked guttering had caused the leak. It apologised for the operative failing to visit his property to assess the location of the leak. It advised that it had raised a new works order to inspect the roof tiles but the earliest appointment for this was 24 December 2024, which it would bring forward once it contracted new roofing companies if it could. It offered compensation of £210, inclusive of its stage 1 offer of £90.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied as the leak remained outstanding and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine day-to-day repairs within 25 calendar days. It does not specify how it would categorise a roof repair, but works it raised during the period of this complaint had a completion timeframe of 20 working days.
  2. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. In its complaint responses it stated that it would arrange for inspections or works, and it apologised for repair delays and the inconvenience he had experienced. It offered compensation totalling £210 across both responses.
  3. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether its offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. In correspondence with this Service on 17 December 2024, the resident confirmed that the landlord repaired the roof on 25 September 2024. This was 7 months since he first reported the problem, which exceeded the 20-working day target it gave itself when it first logged the works on 23 February 2024. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay.
  5. When the resident complained to the landlord on 27 March 2024 as it had not acted on his report, it responded the next day, 28 March 2024. It apologised for not booking an appointment. It did not explain its inaction but offered compensation of £90 to put things right, broken down as follows:
    1. £20 for 1 month of inconvenience.
    2. £20 for 1 month of distress.
    3. £50 towards decorative costs as a goodwill gesture.
  6. While the landlord’s stage 1 compensation offer was reasonable, it could not offer the resident any meaningful information about how and when it intended to resolve the roof leak. As such, he requested that it escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 3 April 2024, explaining that he would not consider his complaint fully addressed until it fixed the roof. If it had offered a plan for resolution in its stage 1 complaint response, it may have avoided his escalated complaint.
  7. The landlord visited the building to inspect the leak on 12 April 2024. Its operative determined that guttering issues were the cause of the leak, but it did not visit the resident’s property to inspect the location internally, as agreed. The resident had not witnessed the operative attend as the entry hatch for the roof was outside his flat and he phoned it about this on the same day. He advised it that the leak was not near the guttering and that it would have seen this if it had visited his property. Its approach to inspecting the leak was basic and failed to identify the cause of the issue.
  8. On 26 April 2024, the landlord emailed the resident asking if the leak remained ongoing and advised him to organise his own plumber to attend to the leak. It advised that if his plumber determined it was a building issue, it would need to see their report. It further advised that it had booked the gutter clean for 21 November 2024. This email was not appropriate. While the resident is a leaseholder and is therefore responsible for repairs within his property, the property is a flat and any leak entering from above the ceiling would be from outside of his area of responsibility.
  9. The landlord raised works on 16 May 2024 to inspect the roof and find the location of the leak. It raised this with a 20-working day priority and a target completion date of 14 June 2024. While this was a positive step, the evidence provided in this case demonstrates that the inspection remained outstanding on 12 July 2024. It has not provided any reasonable explanation for this delay.
  10. On 23 May 2024, the resident reported several missing ridge tiles on the roof above his flat. He believed that this was likely to be the cause of the leak and asked the landlord for a reference number for works to rectify this, if its operative had identified this during the inspection in April 2024. It provided him with the reference number it had raised following his complaint escalation, not the one earlier raised for guttering works. This demonstrated that it had not identified the missing tiles during its previous inspection.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 June 2024. This was 42 working days after his escalation request. Its complaint policy states that it will provide a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of an escalation request and was a clear failing. It offered £20 compensation for this delay which was in line with its compensation policy when considering the minimal impact of the delay as the repair delay was the greater issue.
  12. Also in its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for not visiting the resident’s property when it investigated the leak in April 2024. He had advised it of missing ridge tiles on the roof and it confirmed that it had raised a new works order for inspection and repair of this but that it would not complete until 24 December 2024, unless it could contract a new roofing company and bring works forward. It provided details of its insurance company so that he could make a claim for damages. It offered compensation of £190 for its handling of the leak, broken down as follows:
    1. £20 for time and effort.
    2. £80 for inconvenience.
    3. £90 previously offered at stage 1.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak was poor. It did not adhere to its own policy timescale for a routine repair or scheduled timescale of 20 working days specifically for a roof repair. When it originally inspected, it was not thorough and neglected to inspect his property to confirm the location of the leak. While the leak itself was only present during rainfall, its response was not timely and did not consider the stress placed upon the resident who was in fear of increased damage to his property.
  14. The landlord’s overall compensation offer to the resident at stage 2 was £210. However, only £100 of this was additional for the substantive issue of the roof leak. This was not sufficient for the impact the matter had on him or how often he had to chase it about the works. He was also left to advise it of the suspected cause of the leak after its operative failed to thoroughly inspect the area and it raised works based on his information. This Service will make an order for additional compensation using the landlord’s compensation guidance in the orders section below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £420, (inclusive of the £210 it previously offered as part of its stage 2 response), comprising:
    1. £70 for the time and effort the resident used chasing repairs.
    2. £70 for distress for the time the resident waited for repairs.
    3. £70 for the inconvenience experienced by the resident while repairs remained outstanding.
    4. £210 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not paid this already.
  2. The landlord must write to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for its failures in this case and how it intends to learn from these.
  3. The landlord must provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.