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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202414763)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414763

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 March 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 reports of ongoing leaks from the roof.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom third floor flat in a building owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 June 2024, stating that she had been reporting leaks for almost 10 years. It told her that the damage to her home and electrics was her responsibility. This was despite its conclusion that there were issues with the roof construction. She asked when it would repair or replace the roof.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 June 2024. It said it had raised a job to its contractor to quote for the work. Its panel had declined the quote in May 2024 due to bringing the work back in-house to complete. It had asked its planners to reschedule the work and would update the resident when it heard back from the relevant team.
  4. The landlord wrote further on 3 July 2024, stating that a Section 20 consultation process would need to take place before it could complete repairs to the roof. It offered £250 compensation comprising £50 for time and effort and £200 for inconvenience.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 July 2024. She said that it had told her previously that due to the urgency of the repair, it did not require a Section 20 consultation. She asked what had changed and why it was not using the sinking fund. She said that had it investigated her concerns properly when she first raised it 12 years prior, it may have fallen into the 10 year new build warranty. It had shown a lack of concern for her welfare and mental health.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024, apologising for its late response. It said that it needed to complete a Section 20 consultation due to the costs and leaseholders living in the building. A roofing contractor was attending the following day to conduct a drone survey to get a second quote. Once it had assigned a contractor it would be in touch. It offered £250 compensation comprising £50 for its delayed complaint response and £200 offered in its stage 1 response.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to resolve the leaks to her home and increase its compensation offer to include decorating costs, extractor fans, and her time and trouble. She told us that she has not heard from the landlord since its stage 2 response in August 2024 and has not received the compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord had failed to consider her welfare and mental health. She told us that over the period of time she had been experiencing the leaks, she was diagnosed with cancer. She believed that the stress of the situation had been a contributing factor.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s inaction had a detrimental effect on her health is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  3. The resident said she has been reporting her concerns for almost 10 years. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence enabling us to complete a reliable and thorough investigation of its response at the time. It is essential that residents raise complaints with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They can then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which we can now investigate.
  4. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint to ascertain whether it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. This investigation has focussed on the events leading up to its final response on 6 August 2024.

Reports of ongoing roof leaks

  1. The landlord’s complete guide to home ownership on its website states that it will keep common parts in a good state of repair and redecoration. It explains that a sinking fund is a long-term savings plan that leaseholders contribute to every month through their service charge. It uses the sinking fund for major work such as replacing a roof. It will consult for any single item of work that would cost more than £250 via a consultation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that between 2013 and 2017 the resident reported concerns about water ingress into her lounge and bathroom. Its records from 2020 show that between 18 June and 4 July it raised orders to erect scaffold and fit breather vents through the flat roof. It said that the “decking” was soft in places but the felt was sound. This suggested “bad condensation problems”. It raised an order to investigate a suspected roof leak.
  3. The landlord’s records for January 2021 show that it raised an order to inspect the roof following the resident’s report that water ingress was affecting her lounge and kitchen. Its contractor found no evidence of a leak. It updated the resident in April 2021. She responded stating she was confused as its previous message said it had raised a new repair. She asked if it were authorising her to rip down all ceilings to remove the polythene from the plasterboard. She asked it to confirm that she could arrange her own roofer to fit new air vents as suggested previously by its contractor. The landlord apologised for the confusion and said its area surveyor would contact her to discuss this.
  4. In May 2021 the landlord’s records referred to whether it could fit air vents and remove the polythene sheeting from the rear of the plasterboard. Its contractor notes stated there was no roof leak. This was the same problem as before with condensation in the roof space due to the plastic sheeting. It raised a job in June 2021 for a plasterer to attend and pull back insulation above the kitchen and lounge ceilings. This was to decide whether to remove the polythene backing or advise what the required works were to resolve the issue with condensation causing staining in the property. Its records of August 2021 repeated the problem and said it needed to decide next steps.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2022 asking for an update. It had attended in August 2021 but was unable to complete the instructed work. Its surveyor attended in September/October 2021 but she had heard nothing since. It responded asking if the leak had got worse and if she could remember the name of the surveyor. It apologised in February 2022 that no one had come back to her and said it had chased its surveyor.
  6. The landlord should have been aware from its own records who attended the resident’s home rather than relying on her for this information. It failed to keep her informed of any actions it was considering or update her on the progress of its proposed resolution or timescales.
  7. The landlord’s records of 25 February 2022 referred again to raising a job for its plasterer to pull back the insulation in the kitchen, lounge, and bathroom. This was to see whether it could remove the plastic sheeting from the plasterboard or whether it would do something else. This was the same work it had requested in June 2021 which, according to the resident, did not take place. There was no evidence provided to suggest that it completed this work in February 2022.
  8. On 14 June 2022 the landlord again raised an order to remove the polythene backing on the plasterboard in the loft space. Its records referred to gaining access via the affected ceiling. It said to finish and paint once complete. There was no evidence provided to show that it completed this work.
  9. In the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2024, she said that she had been reporting her concerns for 10 years. She said she had staining and damage in her home including damaged electrics. The landlord told her that this was her responsibility despite the fact it acknowledged the roof had not been constructed properly. She had been passed from “pillar to post” for years and it was still happening. She asked when it would repair or replace the roof. She was constantly chasing and the stress was “unreal”. She was getting nowhere and asked who would cover the cost of her repairs for the last 10 years.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 June 2024 said that its contractor’s quote had been declined and it was bringing the work back in-house. It would reschedule the work and contact her once it had a response from the relevant team. It would reassess her complaint for any compensation which might be due in line with its complaints policy.
  11. The landlord’s response lacked empathy and did not acknowledge the length of time the situation had been ongoing. This does not demonstrate that it carried out a thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns or its repairs records. It did not explain what work would be completed or provide any timescales. It also failed to respond to her questions about costs of repairs to her home.
  12. The resident responded to the landlord the following day, asking why she had not been informed that it had declined the quote. She asked what the scope of the work was and if it would replace her bathroom extractor fan. This was due to it having “blown” more than 10 times due to water coming in. She also asked if she would be liable for decorating again or if it would do this due to its negligence.
  13. The landlord responded on 3 July 2024 stating that, due to the cost of the roof repairs, a Section 20 consultation would need to take place. This involved obtaining 2 quotes for the repairs. Once it received these, its Section 20 department would prepare notices and send to leaseholders within 10 days of the request. There was a 35 day consultation period for leaseholders to raise any observations. It would send a second notice (statement of estimates) advising residents of the contractors and likely cost of the work. There would be a further 30 day consultation period. Its roofing team would arrange any repairs once this was agreed. It recognised the inconvenience caused by the delays and offered £250 compensation. It also offered its insurance details should the resident wish to pursue a claim.
  14. This communication was contradictory to the landlord’s stage 1 response which led the resident to believe that it was scheduling the repairs. This would likely have added to her frustration and caused further distress.
  15. In the resident’s escalation request she said that she had been told on 2 occasions that the landlord did not require a Section 20 consultation due to the urgency of the repair. She asked what had changed in the past couple of months. She commented that, with the timescales it had stated, the work was unlikely to be started that year which concerned her. She asked why it was not using the sinking fund, something which all residents of the block contributed to, which she believed covered repairs such as the roof. She asked if someone rejected the work if she would be left to live with water coming into sockets and switches. Had it investigated her concerns properly 12 years ago, the repair work may have been covered by the warranty and would have saved a lot of unnecessary stress.
  16. The resident said that the landlord had shown no concern for her welfare or mental health. It had not properly investigated over the past 18 months despite her concerns. She had between 10 and 12 people attend over several months the previous year looking at the same thing. There had been no communication between it and its contractors. It had only created access holes last year to investigate to find rotten timber, mould, and mushrooms in the loft space.
  17. The resident said that she had paid for electricians each year to investigate water ingress into sockets and light fittings to ensure they were safe to use. She had purchased at least 1 bathroom extractor fan each year for the last 10 years. Each one had “blown up” due to the amount of water coming in. She had paid for decorators to attend and stain block each year to cover up the water stains. She felt its compensation offer of £250 did not reflect her costs or the stress, time and trouble she had experienced over the years. Her contents insurance had become too expensive due to claiming each year to carry out repairs. The roof was not her responsibility and she did not see why she should cover the repair costs for the landlord’s failings.
  18. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had advised in its stage 1 response that a Section 20 process would need to be initiated due to the extent of the costs. It repeated that its panel had requested this in adherence with its financial policy. It said it was standard practice to obtain 2 quotes where it exceeded anticipated costs. A roofing contractor was attending the following day to carry out a drone survey to procure a second quote. Once a contractor was assigned it would be in touch, but the process might take some time due to the required consultation. It understood that this might not be the outcome she was expecting and apologised for the inconvenience. It had assigned a complaint action task to monitor progress of the repair. It offered £250 compensation comprising £50 for its complaint response delay and £200 offered at stage 1.
  19. 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.
  20. The landlord’s response lacked empathy for the resident’s situation. Its stage 1 response did not explain that a Section 20 consultation was needed. This was explained in further correspondence in July 2024 after stating it would schedule the repairs. It failed to respond to the issues she raised, such as why it was not using the sinking fund, who would cover the cost of her repairs, and whether it would replace her extractor fan. It did not acknowledge her assertion that the situation was causing distress or consider how it could support her while the issue remained ongoing.
  21. The landlord referred to offering £200 in its stage 1 response, and an additional £50 for its late stage 2 response. However, no compensation offer was made in its stage 1 response. Its response said it would consider compensation which may be due. It offered compensation in its correspondence on 3 July 2024 of £50 for time and effort and £200 for inconvenience. This made its responses and compensation offers confusing. Furthermore, its offer was not proportionate to the significant period of time the matter had been ongoing and failed to consider any detriment to the resident.
  22. The landlord could have considered applying to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for a dispensation from the need to consult. This can be done where the work is urgent and it is not possible to wait the 2 months for a consultation to take place. Landlords can also seek a dispensation if, for some reason, they have failed to consult fully. An application can be made prior to the work being carried out, or even sometimes retrospectively. That said, no evidence was provided to suggest that the landlord completed its Section 20 consultation following its stage 2 response or that it has progressed the work.
  23. Following the landlord’s final response its records show that the resident continued to chase for updates. On 2 February 2025 she chased the compensation payment and repeated that she had been dealing with leaks for 10 years. She had water coming through light switches and ceilings and her walls were covered in damp marks. The resident told us that she has not heard from the landlord since its final response in August 2024. The matter remains outstanding with leaks affecting her lounge, hallway and bathroom.
  24. In summary, the landlord’s failure to provide a resolution accumulated over a significant period of time from at least January 2021 to date. It failed to complete work and the matter remains outstanding. These amount to serious failings by the landlord. Its compensation offer was not proportionate as it does not recognise that works remain outstanding and have for some four years later. This is likely to have caused some significant distress, frustration,  inconvenience, and impact on the enjoyment of the home. The landlord did not demonstrate learning from the complaint. We have, therefore made a finding of severe maladministration. We have increased the compensation by an additional £2,000 to reflect the likely distress caused by the significant delay with the outstanding works for 4 years.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the sum of £2,250 broken down as follows:
      1. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of her reports of ongoing leaks from the roof.
      2. £250 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must instruct a suitably qualified external surveyor to inspect the roof and determine the root cause of the issue. It must provide a copy of the report to the resident and us.
    1. Within 4 weeks of receiving the external surveyor’s report the landlord must:
      1. Confirm to the resident when the identified repairs will be undertaken.
      2. Confirm whether it will complete a Section 20 consultation, use the sinking fund, or apply for dispensation.
      3. Confirm to the resident its proposal to make good any decorations in her home once work is complete. This should include the bathroom extractor fan and checking of electrics.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider:
    1. Paying additional compensation from the date of this report to the date when it completes repairs.
    2. Reimbursing the resident for any out of pocket expenses incurred due to the roof leaks, subject to her providing suitable evidence.