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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202419554)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419554

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 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:
    1. Reports of a leak and damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the property above hers to the landlord in September 2022. Its contractors investigated, and informed it there was no leak, but her kitchen ceiling required repair works.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 May 2023. She said its contractor told her it fixed the leak and to let it dry out, but the leak had grown, developed mould and brown water was leaking into her kitchen. She was concerned about the impact on her health.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 May 2023. It said during the initial investigation it had not found a leak, and it had raised works to attend the neighbour’s property to investigate.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 July 2023. She stated the leak was unresolved and no repairs had taken place.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It said there had been delays in it completing the repairs to the leak. It had completed the repairs in July 2023. It offered compensation of £1,550 for delays, distress and inconvenience, service failures, time and effort and complaint handling.
  7. The resident made a new complaint on 17 July 2024. She said the leak was reoccurring and since reporting it in May 2024 it had failed to send the correct operatives to manage the repair.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 July 2024 under the previous stage 2 reference number. It informed her it would send an operative to investigate the leak. It offered an additional £120 compensation. This made the total offer of compensation offered by the landlord to £1,670.
  9. In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said she wants a full and permanent resolution to the leak, adequate compensation, and the landlord to acknowledge its failings and commit to improving its handling of similar cases.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the damp and mould affected her mental and physical health. 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 injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the effects of the damp and mould on her health is better dealt with via the court.

The repairs to the leak and damp and mould

  1. When the resident reported the leak from the flat above hers on 22 September 2022, the landlord raised a works order to investigate on 3 October 2022. Its records show on 31 October 2022 it noted there was no leak, but her kitchen ceiling needed a stain blocker and painting. Its records however are not clear on what investigations or works took place during that time in reaching its conclusions. It again raised works to repair the kitchen ceiling on 22 November 2022. Its records are not clear why it took that long to raise those repairs.
  2. There is no evidence of the outcome of those works or further contact between the landlord and the resident until 18 April 2023. Its records at that time noted its contractor advised she had requested they held off the works until the weather became warmer. It needed to cancel the jobs in the interim, and she could recontact it when she was ready to reraise the works.
  3. In her complaint of 11 May 2023, the resident said the leak had become 4 times the size it was since September 2022. Mould had developed, there was a hole in it and brown water was dripping down the wall. She said she had contacted the landlord many times via phone and email but received no reply. As a disabled person, she was concerned about the impact on her health and the physical hazard if the ceiling fell through. She wanted it to fix the source of the leak.
  4. In the absence of clarity in the landlord’s repairs records, the Ombudsman cannot establish the investigations taken when the resident initially reported the leak or if any works did take place. However, it is clear she was reporting the leak was getting bigger in her ceiling indicating the issue remained unresolved.
  5. In its stage 1 decision of 12 May 2023 the landlord said it had found no leaks when it visited the property. However, the resident had recontacted it on 9 May 2023 stating there was still a leak in the kitchen. As she wanted it to wait for warmer weather to complete the works it had had closed the works temporarily. Although it upheld the complaint it did not offer any redress to her.
  6. The resident responded the same day. She expressed disappointment in the contradiction of the landlord’s response. She said she was told in November 2022 that the job had been done but its explanation at stage 1 was the contractor did not find any leak when they attended the flat above. She said if they were not able to find a leak, it did not negate the fact there was water dripping from her ceiling. She said had she been told it had not found the leak rather than the job was done she would have insisted it attend her property to find the source of the problem. She added that everything in the property felt wet, she had spent a fortune on electricity bills due to running a dehumidifier each day to keep the damp at bay. The repeated that it affected her health as she was disabled and spent most of her time in the same room as the damp. She did not wish for it to close the complaint and wanted it open until it could confirm it had fixed the issue.
  7. The landlord’s repairs records do show it raised works to investigate the leak and again to make good the resident’s ceiling on 20 May 2023. Although its records show it conducted some works in the neighbour’s property, its records are not clear on the scope of the works it completed.
  8. On 11 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said since the landlord’s stage 1 response, the leak continued in her kitchen. Its plumber who attended assured her a full investigation would take place to identify and fix the source of the leak at her neighbours’ property. Her neighbour had informed her no such works had taken place and foul-smelling water continued to stream down her kitchen ceiling and wall. She repeated her concerns that the mould was affecting her health and wellbeing. She was concerned the ceiling may collapse. She was housebound and had no choice but to remain in the property. As a diabetic she needed to prepare food despite the kitchen being unsanitary. The damp had extended to the entire property, and it had not resolved the issue.
  9. The landlord’s records of 12 June 2023 noted it was having difficulties accessing the neighbour’s property. It also noted that although there were no signs of a leak at the neighbour’s property, the water was still coming through into the resident’s property. It raised further works for the neighbour’s property on 16 June 2023 noting the leak was possibly from a wet room or kitchen.
  10. The landlord’s repairs records are again unclear regarding the depth of the investigations it conducted or that it was keeping the resident regularly informed of its progress. There is also no evidence it was providing her with any advice or support regarding the reported damp and mould in the property. This was despite her stating the effects on her health conditions on multiple occasions.
  11. The resident chased the landlord on the issue on 4 and 10 July 2023. She reiterated how the difficulties it was causing her and that she had received no communication from it. On various occasions, plumbers did not turn up to her or her neighbour’s property despite reassurances from it that it had made appointments. That happened on 3 occasions in June 2023 and on 4 July 2023. She said 2 of its staff told her explicitly that, after a plumber failed to appear on 26 June 2023, the issue would be urgently dealt with on 4 July 2023, confirming that they had spoken to her neighbour about the appointment. Her neighbour informed her they were not aware of any appointment, and instead were told a contractor would attend on 18 July 2023.
  12. The landlord’s records again lack sufficient details on the works it had raised and the outcome of those works. However, there is no evidence it disputed the resident’s accounts of events. At that stage, at least 10 months after she reported the leak, it remained unresolved. Its repairs policy states it will aim to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. At this stage, it had already significantly exceeded this timescale.
  13. Furthermore, section 4.2 of the landlord’s damp and mould policy states following a report of damp and mould, it will establish if an immediate repair is required and act in accordance with its repairs policy. Following the report an assessment of the property would be agreed within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem and identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It will provide the resident with guidance on managing mould within the property. It will record any remedial works identified and raise to its internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment.
  14. There is no evidence the landlord followed that policy. It has not demonstrated it had conducted a damp and mould assessment at the resident’s property at that point. There was also no evidence it considered her concerns about health and safety due to the type of water reported to be leaking. It has also not evidenced it considered her concerns about her reports of mould and the effects on her health conditions.
  15. On 13 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she had spoken with her neighbour who said the plumber had attended for 5 mins and arranged for further works on 11 August 2023. A gap had opened between her kitchen wall and ceiling and water was gushing out. She did not accept she should wait another month for the repair to take place. She asked for an earlier appointment as she had already waited for 11 months.
  16. The landlord’s records regarding these appointments did not provide any clarity on the visits that took place and lack sufficient information for the Ombudsman to determine the scope of investigations or works completed. This is reflective of the poor record keeping regarding the repairs identified throughout this investigation.
  17. On the same day, the resident sent another email to the landlord stating she had spoken with her neighbour, they had just used the shower, and water was flowing down her kitchen wall, and newly from her bathroom ceiling. She was confident the source of the leak was their wet room/bathroom. She asked it to ensure that its plumber and operatives were aware so they could look for the source in the right place when they attended. Its records do show it added that information on 21 July 2023 to the works order it had previously raised.
  18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. It provided a lengthy response that is summarised as follows:
    1. The resident had requested an update on the appointment scheduled for the neighbour’s property. It could confirm it had booked an appointment but would be unable to discuss the details due to GDPR.
    2. Its operatives found after inspecting the ceiling there was minimal damage and no structural issues. It required a plasterer to make good her kitchen ceiling and it raised a follow-on appointment for a plasterer to attend on 20 June 2023. However, it suspended that due to the leak still ongoing.
    3. It acknowledged she had contacted it throughout June 2023 and July 2023 for updates, that the leak was unresolved, there were signs of damp in her property, and she felt that was taking a toll on her health and well-being.
    4. It stated it completed the repair in July 2023. It scheduled follow-on works for 5 August 2023, however, upon attendance the operative reported the leak was not fixed. It said it had fixed the repair and that it was a service failure to cancel the follow-on works.
    5. It was a service failing that it did not assign her complaint case until 21 August 2023 therefore delaying it sending her an acknowledgement email.
    6. It understood the repair to her kitchen ceiling/wall was reraised and its contractor attended on 21 August 2023. She instructed the contractor to not continue with their work unless they were removing and replacing the part of the ceiling affected by the leak. It agreed that its contractor would contact her to schedule an appointment.
    7. It offered £1,550 compensation consisting of £100 for delay in repairs, £600 for inconvenience, £600 for distress, £100 for Service failures, £100 for time and effort and £50 for complaint handling.
  19. The landlord’s complaint response did recognise the delays in it investigating the leak. Although it stated it had resolved the leak, its records are not sufficiently clear to establish that was the case.
  20. Following the stage 2 response the landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. However, this took place on 30 August 2023 and was significantly beyond when she first reported her concerns about damp and mould. The inspection found a historic leak from above had caused damp damage in the kitchen requiring repair and it was unable to get a moisture reading. It noted there was visible mould.
  21. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord stating she had not received any contact from the contractor regarding the outstanding kitchen repair works. It responded the next day and informed her it had approved the quote and asked the contractor to contact her as soon as possible. She recontacted it on 6 September 2023 as she had still not received contact.
  22. The landlord’s records indicate it completed the kitchen repair works in November 2023. However as with its previous repair records, the evidence is not clear on the extent of works it conducted.
  23. In her new complaint to the landlord on 17 July 2024 the resident repeated that the origin of the leak was the wet room in the property above. She reported that on 27 May 2024 a plumber attended both properties and informed her that it would be a big job involving redoing the neighbour’s wet room. She said a different plumber attended on 15 July 2024 who had not received any information about the work required. Instead, they attended her property to search for a leaking pipe and did not have the equipment to do the work needed to fix the leak from the flat above. She said due to its poor communication, the leak continued to grow. Thus, her neighbour’s bathroom water was dripping into her kitchen, causing black mould. She said if it had done a better job of the repair the previous year, there would not be a leak again with more suffering for her.
  24. The reoccurrence of the leak, in the same place as previously reported, casts doubt on the adequacy of the repairs that originally took place. Due to the poor record keeping by the landlord, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine when or if it had fixed the leak previously and what actions it had taken in doing so to establish the appropriateness of those repairs.
  25. In response to that complaint, the landlord did not raise a new stage 1 complaint. Its response to the resident on 22 July 2024 was under the previous stage 2 reference number from August 2023. It said it requested a contractor attend the neighbour’s property that week. Once it had completed the works it would arrange a mould wash. It assessed her request for additional compensation since reporting the issue in May 2024 and offered an additional £120. This consisted of £80 for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities and £40 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  26. The landlord in its complaint response did not reference any investigation into the leak or consider statements about her previous reports regarding the leak.
  27. After that response, the resident continued to report the leak to the landlord including on 26 August 2024. She said its contractor attended on 12 August 2024 and the only work they had done was regrouting the tiles. She expected that it needed a full renovation and the use of aqua panels to prevent water coming through. The contractor stated that the landlord was unwilling to pay for that type of work. In its latest complaint response, it said a contractor would attend the neighbour’s property the same week. However, any work undertaken (which her neighbour said was removing some tiles) had not been successful as the leak in her kitchen had become significantly worse. Prior to that, contractors attended several times but without any significant repairs taking place. She repeated her concerns about the effects on her health and disabilities due to the black mould.
  28. On 18 September 2024, the landlord’s repairs records referred to works needed in the neighbour’s property including works to the wet room floor. This was approximately 2 years after the resident first reported the leak. The time taken to reach this stage was excessive and there was no reasonable evidence provided for such a delay.
  29. The resident has stated to the Ombudsman the leak continued until unrelated refurbishment kitchen and bathroom works took place in the neighbour’s property in early 2025. When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for an update on the works it stated it repaired the leak, completed a mould wash in September 2023, and kitchen redecoration works in November 2023. Its repairs records and the evidence provided however do not substantiate those statements.
  30. Overall, the landlord has not evidenced it took appropriate or sufficient steps to investigate the cause of the leak and complete the required works. Its communication with the resident during this time was not sufficient and this resulted in her constantly having to chase it for updates or to clarify what it or its contractors had told her. It has not evidenced it appropriately considered the effects she had stated the resulting damp and mould was having on her health or her concerns about the possibility of wastewater entering her kitchen.
  31. The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s repair records that were provided to this Service. Its repair records lacked detail such as repair completion dates and details about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records. The Ombudsman has recommended the landlord considers its repairs record keeping.
  32. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and does not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, considering the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
  33. The landlord did acknowledge its failures in its stage 2 response and offered £1,500 in compensation in relation to the repairs. For the failures up to that stage 2 response the offer of compensation fell within the range the Ombudsman would offer for such failures. However, the issues remained unresolved, and it failed to evidence it completed the commitments it made in its complaint responses. This prompted the resident to continue to contact and chase it. It provided additional compensation of £80 for its failures to recognise the impact on her vulnerabilities bringing the total offer to £1,580. It however offered no further compensation for the continued delay in resolving the leak. The offer made at that time was not appropriate. The same failures continued to occur following the stage 2 response. This indicated the landlord failed to learn from the complaints process. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response the morning after the resident’s complaint of 11 May 2023. Although its response was within the 10 working days timescale of its complaints policy, issuing it the next day suggests it conducted a limited investigation.
  2. The resident stated her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response the same day. It was clear she was unhappy with its response and contradictions compared to previous explanations she had received from it. She specifically stated she did not want it to close the complaint. The landlord at that stage should have contacted the resident to clarify if she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. There is no evidence it did so.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request of 11 June 2023 in line with the timescales of its complaints policy. However, it informed her it could not provide her with an expected response date due to a backlog of complaints. This was not appropriate.
  4. Although the landlord may have had a backlog it should have provided more clarity to the resident as to when she should expect a further update or its final complaint response. There is also no evidence it took any steps to establish if she was willing to negotiate a response date beyond its complaint policy timescales of 20 working days. There was therefore no agreement from her for it to delay the complaint response.
  5. There is no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident informed regarding the progress of her complaint until it issued its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. The response was issued 51 working days after she requested it to escalate her complaint. It was also 71 working days after she had initially informed it of her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.
  6. The stage 2 response also upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in her receiving the stage 2 response and offered compensation of £50 for the delay. However, as previously stated its complaint handling failures went beyond the length of the delay. The offer of compensation for its complaint handling was not proportionate for the failures identified.
  7. Following completion of the complaints process the resident made a further complaint on 17 July 2024. This complaint came 9 months after the original stage 2 response. The landlord should have considered this as a new complaint as she was clearly expressing dissatisfaction of its actions following the previous stage 2 response.
  8. The landlord however did not raise a new complaint. It emailed her on 22 July 2024 using the original stage 2 reference number. Although it provided her with an update of the repairs, it provided no further response to the issues raised in her complaint. It also failed to explain why it was continuing to respond under the previous complaint reference number despite that complaint completing its complaint process.
  9. The landlord offered an additional compensation of £40 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. It however did not make it clear what time and effort it was referring to. At that stage, the complaint process had been ongoing for 14 months. The further offer of compensation brought the total amount offered to £90 and was also not proportionate to the failures identified.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was inadequate. It failed to provide a full response to the resident at stage 1 or offer any redress despite upholding the complaint. When she expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response it failed to identify that as an escalation request or seek to clarify that with her. At stage 2 it failed to clarify when she should expect its response or provide any updates to her. Its stage 2 response went much beyond its complaint policy timescales. Following her making a new complaint, it failed to raise that as a new complaint. It also has not evidenced it discussed the complaint with her before issuing a response linked to the original complaint or explain why it was doing so. This was maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report to the resident.
    2. Pay the resident the total sum of £2,250 comprising:
      1. £2,000 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould. This includes the £1,580 compensation it has offered in its stage 2 response and response of 22 July 2024.
      2. £250 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the £90 compensation it has offered in its stage 2 response and response of 22 July 2024.
    3. Contact the resident and ask her to provide it with evidence of any increase in her energy bills due to using a dehumidifier because of the outstanding repair. This is so it can consider awarding additional compensation for any quantifiable financial loss, which may have occurred because of its delayed repairs.
    4. Contact the resident and confirm if all works are completed. If any works are outstanding it must provide the resident with a report on the status of those works. This report must include details of any findings and a timetable for it to complete any works.
    5. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping and monitoring of repairs to ensure it completes repairs within the timescales of its repairs policy and it keeps residents appropriately informed of the progress of repairs.