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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202424163)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424163

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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 works within the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. 

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in her property with her husband and children.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 April 2024 about recurring leaks in her bathroom following works in November 2023. She said that she had reported her most recent leak on 19 February 2024 (although the evidence is unclear of the exact date). She said the leaks had subsequently damaged her bathroom flooring and left a hole in the kitchen ceiling. She raised concerns that the hole was unhygienic (as it was above her cooker) and that the dust was affecting her lung condition.
  3. The resident also complained that the landlord had not finished works in her kitchen following its replacement in November 2023. She said it had not grouted between the tiles and installed the wrong light. She complained that she had asked the landlord’s contractors not to install an LED strip light in the kitchen (as it affected her eye condition) and they had ignored this request.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2024. It confirmed it had contained the bathroom leak (by replacing the faulty pipe) and replaced her kitchen light. It apologised if its contractors had missed this request. It said it would add £120 in compensation to her rent account, which included £40 for its complaint handling. It confirmed its “minor works” team would contact her about the repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s first response and escalated her complaint on 1 July 2024. In its response on 28 August 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had completed the resident’s kitchen ceiling works. It apologised to her for its handling of them. It offered her an additional £290 in compensation, which included £150 for its complaints handling.
  6. On 23 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint to the Service. She said repairs were outstanding in her bathroom and she wanted the landlord to assess whether the flooring was safe. She also wanted the landlord to review its compensation offer, as she did not think it reflected the inconvenience the issues had caused her. She said her son has Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and needs to wash frequently, so the issues had particularly affected him.
  7. The landlord provided an update to the Service on 9 May 2025. It said it was aware that works were outstanding to the resident’s bathroom. It confirmed it had raised a repair order to do the works to the bathroom flooring, box in the pipework under the sink, and to fix a bath panel. However, it did not provide clear timescales for starting this work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the impact the issues may have had on hers and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. It will not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident has also raised issues about the potential loss of earnings due to taking time off work to wait in for repair appointments. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the loss of a resident’s income. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. We are therefore unable to consider this within this report.
  3. Some of the issues in the resident’s Ombudsman complaint are new. These include a toilet leak causing another hole in the kitchen ceiling. She has also reported that damp and mould are occurring in the bathroom and kitchen. Whilst these issues may be linked to this complaint, they relate to a period after the original complaint. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement.
  4. We have advised the resident to raise any new issues as a new complaint with the landlord if they remain a concern. If she is dissatisfied following the landlord’s responses to her new complaint, she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of works within the resident’s bathroom and kitchen

  1. Landlords must ensure they carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with their policy timescales. In this case the landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out its emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 25 calendar days. It also operates a ‘Service Adjustment Need Procedure’ (SAN) for its vulnerable residents. This says it will create a flag on its systems to alert its staff to ensure repairs are prioritised for those whose health conditions may be more impacted by them.
  2. The resident has told us about the family’s health issues and needs. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of these prior to her complaint, or whether it currently knows the full extent of them. Nonetheless, the landlord took some reasonable steps in acknowledging the family’s vulnerabilities when responding to the complaint. For example, it offered compensation for its failures in this area. Additionally, since the complaint, its records show it has included a “SAN” flag to alert its staff of the potential need to make adjustments to its services when responding to repairs. This is in line with its policy, and therefore an appropriate response to this complaint issue.
  3. The landlord was proactive in its response to some of the resident’s repair issues following her complaint on 28 April 2024. An example of this was when it replaced her kitchen light promptly after the complaint, on 2 May. It also responded appropriately by apologising if its contractors had previously missed her request for the light to be changed and offered compensation for this. Its actions, apology and offer of compensation regarding this particular issue aligned with its policies and as such were an appropriate way of remedying it.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord responded to the resident’s grouting problem on 3 June 2024 by confirming it had done the work following her complaint. Its response to this was reasonable as it resolved the issue in a timely way and it explained in its complaint response why this job had been outstanding.
  5. Although the landlord took some positive steps, its response to the more substantial repairs was lacking. This included works to the resident’s kitchen ceiling which were substantially delayed, as they were not completed until 15 August 2024, almost 6 months after she had reported the issue. It also failed to schedule repairs to the resident’s bathroom (which included the flooring, bath panel, and boxing around the basin pipes). The landlord did not offer any explanation to the resident for missing these works, or for the delay, and nothing seen in the evidence clearly explains why.
  6. The landlord offered £220 compensation for its handling of the repairs. However, that amount was not sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident’s household. It is evident that the situation had been challenging for the resident. She spent time and trouble chasing the repairs on at least 4 occasions between 14 May and 23 August 2024. She gave the landlord images, including those of exposed pipework under her bath and sink. In May 2024 she told the landlord that “living with these conditions is significantly impacting on our wellbeing and putting a strain on us as a family.”
  7. The landlord acknowledged its repairs service had been poor, and the apologies and actions it took to complete the work went part way towards putting things right (in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles). Nonetheless, the level of compensation it offered was disproportionately low when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint in these circumstances where a resident has been caused unnecessary levels of distress, inconvenience, and frustration.
  8. Landlords must handle complaints in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and their complaint policies. The Code states they must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In this case the landlord’s responses at both stages were delayed and there was no evidence of it agreeing extensions with the resident at either stage. It acknowledged its delays and offered compensation of £190. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance, and as such it is considered reasonable redress for its complaint handling delays.
  9. Overall, the landlord has made some attempts to resolve the resident’s complaint, but the repair work it promised was either delayed, or incomplete. Because of that, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the full scale of its poor service. There was a substantial delay in completing the ceiling works and it failed to schedule the repairs within the resident’s bathroom. As such the handling of the repairs element of the complaint is unresolved and therefore unremedied. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of works within the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. 

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £750 to the resident in recognition of the failings identified in this report. This amount is inclusive of the £410 it has already offered to the resident.
  2. As the works to the bathroom are incomplete, within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must provide an update to the resident setting out the current situation. It should explain what actions it has taken and will be taking, and when it estimates it will be able to complete the work. When assessing this, it should consider the resident’s health and safety concerns, which include the stability of the bathroom flooring and her reports of damp and mould.
  3. If the resident subsequently has any concerns about the landlord’s adherence to its plan to complete the work referred to in this order, or its future communication with her about the repairs, she is entitled to make a new formal complaint to it. She then has the option of bringing her complaint back to the Ombudsman and asking for a new investigation. 
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with these orders by their respective deadlines.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to clarify the full extent of the household’s vulnerabilities. It should then update its records accordingly so it can take them into consideration when responding to the resident, in line with its policies.