London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202427925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427925

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Water leaks from the flat above, including repairs and damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom ground floor flat. Her tenancy started in November 2019. She lives in the property with her husband and 2 children. The resident and the neighbour in the flat above share the same landlord.
The resident told this Service she experienced water leaks from the flat above her since 2019 that affected her bathroom ceiling, hallway, kitchen, and bedrooms. She first reported a leak through her bathroom ceiling in October 2020. Between 2021 to 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about leaks from the upstairs flat no less than 4 times. The landlord provided two stage 1 responses in 2022 and one stage 1 response in 2023. The resident made another complaint on 2 August 2024 following another leak from the upstairs flat.
The landlord responded to this at stage 1 of its complaint process on 13 August 2024 and said it upheld her complaint and had contacted her neighbour about the situation. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 17 September 2024 and said:
1. It could not access the neighbour’s flat above or contact the neighbour following the August 2024 leak but on 5 September 2024 it “addressed” the “plumbing issues” in the above flat.
2. It booked a repair job for the flat above for 14 October 2024.
3. It will raise jobs to repair the damage caused by the leaks after it had completed the repairs to the flat above.
4. It will monitor the work to the flat above.
5. It dealt with jobs since 2022 in line with its “service level agreement.”
6. It will raise a job for damp and mould if there was any. It also offered £480 for distress, calculated at £20 per month for 24 months.
The resident has told this Service that she received the £480 offered in the landlord’s stage 2. She said she has not received any compensation or insurance monies for any damaged beds, mattresses, or carpets. She accepted compensation of £250 in April 2021 and £230 in July 2022 and a decoration voucher for £275 in December 2024. This is a total of £1,235. The resident said she still has mould in her bathroom and bedroom and that there is flaking paint in her bedroom, bathroom and hallway and her hallway flooring has lifted. The landlord has said there are no outstanding jobs but the resident states she still experiences leaks from the flat above. She would like the landlord to rehouse her and has stated the compensation paid is too little.

Assessment and findings

The scope of investigation

The resident said she experienced leaks from the property above since 2019. We note she complained on 2 August 2024 about the landlord’s response to these since then. The first report of a leak from the flat above is from October 2020. Therefore, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of these leaks since then until the landlord’s final response. This includes consideration of the commitments the landlord made to monitor the work in the flat above and to raise “follow on works” to resolve any damage to the resident’s property.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on her and her son’s health and well-being. She disclosed to the landlord the leaks had affected her mental health, and her son had developed a dry cough which she believed was linked to their living conditions. 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. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of leaks

Under the resident’s tenancy and its repairs policy the landlord is responsible for repairing all ceilings, walls and keeping in order any pipes for the supply of water or drainage. Under its repairs policy the landlord has to deal with any water leaks reported out of hours within 4 hours or within 24 hours otherwise. It also aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. The landlord’s damp and mould policy commits to offering mould washes and treatments. Under this it has to assess any damp and mould within 20 working days of a report and raise any jobs within a further 10 working days of the assessment.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a detailed record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also improve the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We consider the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report.
The landlord was under a duty to investigate the leak the resident reported on 28 October 2020 and 13 January 2021. As there is no evidence of it responding to the October 2020 report, we cannot conclude it acted reasonably. The landlord found the boiler of the resident’s neighbour upstairs caused the leak reported on 13 January 2021. By 21 January 2021 the landlord had isolated the water, and said by 8 March 2021 it had replaced the neighbour’s boiler and resolved the water leak. As it is unclear when it replaced the boiler or resolved the leak, we cannot be satisfied it acted in line with the repair’s policy.
The resident reported another leak from upstairs on 27 and 29 October 2021. While the landlord said a plumber attended on 29 October 2021, we cannot verify this and have not seen what actions they took.
The resident reported another leak affecting her bathroom ceiling on 5 December 2021. On 22 December 2021 the landlord replaced the neighbour’s bath mixer tap and fixed their toilet and placed silicone around their bath. The landlord said on 24 May 2022 it attended the resident’s property to “make safe” following a report of a leak from the soil stack upstairs the day before. However, we have not seen evidence of what work it completed. Nor have we seen how the landlord responded to a report of another leak from the upstairs property on 31 May 2022.
The landlord said it checked the electrics on 26 June 2022 and the resident’s bathroom ceiling on 29 June 2022 following a report of another leak from the property above on 26 June 2022. This was in line with the timescales in its repair policy. While the landlord told the resident on 27 June 2022 a faulty washing machine pipe in the property above was the cause of the leak it said it would not fix this until 21 July 2022. This was unreasonable as it ought to have treated this as an emergency repair or clarified why earlier attendance was not possible. The delay in repairing the pipe meant the landlord left the cause of the leak unresolved making it likely to reoccur.
After the report of another leak from upstairs affecting the resident’s bathroom ceiling on 1 July 2022 the landlord said it disconnected the bathroom light on 2 July 2022 and renewed the light on 7 July 2022. It told the resident on 11 July 2022 it raised a job to repair (plaster) the bathroom ceiling, but it was unable to do this until 19 July 2023. We also note the landlord replaced some missing tiles in the resident’s property and sealed and grouted them on 3 April 2023. The initial response to the leak, in making the electrics safe and completing follow on electrical work was reasonable and in line with its repair policy. However, the landlord delayed the job to replaster the ceiling and tile.
The landlord did not complete these jobs within 25 calendar days of the reported leak (1 July 2022) which was unreasonable. The resident also reported leaks on 15 July 2022, 27 July 2022, 10 August 2022 and 2 February 2023. She also mentioned she had a mouldy ceiling on 2 February 2023. While it was appropriate of the landlord to raise a job to investigate this on 6 February 2023 it did not assess or treat the mould until 3 April 2023. The landlord did not respond to the report of mould in a timely way in line with the expectations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It also failed to show how it responded to the reports of leaks between 15 July 2022 to 10 August 2022.
The resident said she told the landlord about another leak at 1.20am on 4 July 2023. While the landlord said it attended at 7.58 am on 4 July 2023 this was not within 4 hours. Therefore, this was not in line with its repairs policy for out of hours leak reports.
It said it cleared a blockage in the property above on 4 July 2023. It asked the resident for details of any damage to her property so it could raise repairs. It also told the resident she could contact its insurance team if any personal belongings were damaged. This was appropriate as landlords are responsible for damage caused to the structure and exterior by an uncontainable leak. The landlord was also responsible for its own fixtures and fittings, as part of the repair obligations in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord also raised a job on 5 July 2023 for a mould wash which was appropriate as mould can often develop after a water escape. The landlord said on 14 July 2023 that it was unable to do a mould wash or treat the property for mould as the resident was not present. However, there is no evidence the landlord raised another job for a mould wash until 19 November 2024 which it completed on 29 November 2024. This was inappropriate as the resident told the landlord she had mould on 11 August 2024 and 3 September 2024. The landlord did not complete the inspection within 20 working days in line with its damp and mould policy.
When a resident reports damp or mould the landlord should come out and quickly inspect the property and check for hazards. It has a responsibility under the Decent Homes Standard and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.9A to make sure that properties are fit for human habitation and free from relevant hazards and risks. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, the landlord was under a duty to consider whether any mould problems in its property amounted to a hazard that may require remedy. Its delay in taking action was not in line with its legal obligations.
It also noted in the landlord’s report of 14 July 2023 that the mould was partly down to the resident not ventilating or heating the property adequately and drying clothes in the living room. This suggested the mould issues were down to the resident’s behaviour or ‘lifestyle’. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021 outlines that landlords should avoid automatically apportioning blame. The Ombudsman has serious concerns that the landlord raised the resident’s behaviour as a contributing factor.
Residents should be able to dry their clothes indoors and have adequate heating and ventilation in their homes or they may not be fit for human habitation. Some households do not have a choice as they do not have access to external areas for drying clothes. The landlord noted there was “inadequate” extractor fans, and it was aware of water escape from leaks. Therefore, it was inappropriate to state the resident’s behaviour was responsible in part for any damp or mould when there were other factors.
The report of 14 July 2023 identified there may be a downpipe in poor condition that was the cause of the leak. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to investigate this on 1 August 2023 and rule this out. However, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the pointing which the report noted was missing or loose. Therefore, we have made an order in relation to this. The resident reported two other leaks on 31 August and 21 October 2023. The landlord attended on 31 August 2023 to deal with the electrics and replaced the damaged bathroom extractor fan on 18 September 2023, and it replaced the bathroom light on 21 October 2023. These were reasonable steps in line with its repair policy.
After the resident reported another leak on 2 December 2023 it is unclear if the landlord took any action. It sent an electrician to check the electrics were safe on 1 August 2024. The eight-month gap in repair records between 2 December 2023 and 1 August 2024 means we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably to further investigate and remedy the cause of the leak. While the electrical job on 1 August 2024 was appropriate as an emergency, we note the resident told the landlord on 11 August 2024 that she was still without a working bathroom light, and it is unclear when the landlord resolved this.
The resident also told the landlord on 2 August 2024 her bathroom ceiling was flaking and falling, and the walls were flaking, and her hallway floor was lifting. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it would raise “follow on works”. While the resident confirmed she received a decoration voucher we have not seen reports of the repair works concerning the ceiling, walls, or floor the landlord raised and so have made an order.
The resident reported further leaks from the property upstairs on 10 to 11 August 2024. The landlord completed a job to fix her neighbour’s bath on 21 August 2024 and recommended a bath replacement which it completed on 14 October 2024. The time the landlord took to replace the neighbour’s bath (54 calendar days from when it raised the job) was unacceptable because it was outside its repair policy. In mitigation, the resident disclosed on 29 October 2024 that she still experienced a leak after the landlord had replaced the neighbour’s bath. Therefore, we cannot say that had the landlord acted earlier it would have stopped the leaks. The landlord replaced the neighbour’s bath panel and repaired a bath waste pipe in November and December 2024.
We also note that the landlord raised a job on 20 October 2024 for an electrician to attend the resident’s property which it completed the day after. This was reasonable and in line with its repair policy. In contrast while the landlord agreed on 30 October 2024 to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom it did not complete this until 27 January 2025. It took the landlord 89 calendar days to do this which was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.

Summary

Overall, the landlord took appropriate initial action to deal with the leaks reported on 26 June 2022, 1 July 2022, 4 July 2023 and 1 August 2024. It also acted reasonably in its response to the leaks reported on 31 August 2023, 21 October 2023 and 20 October 2024. However, its response to the leaks in general was unreasonable. We have identified the following failures which amount to maladministration:
1. Due to records, we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably in dealing with the more than 8 reported leaks from 28 October 2020 to 2 December 2023.
2. A delay in the landlord fixing the neighbour’s washing machine pipe between 27 June 2022 to 21 July 2022.
3. Delays in replastering the resident’s bathroom between 11 July 2022 to 19 July 2023.
4. Delays in tiling the resident’s bathroom between July 2022 and 3 April 2023.
5. Delays in dealing with damp and mould between 2 February and 3 April 2023 and between 5 July 2023 and 29 November 2024.
6. A failure to attend an emergency appointment within 4 hours on 4 July 2023 and not investigating loose or missing pointing.
7. Referring to the resident’s “behaviour” as contributing to damp and mould despite evidence of other significant causes.
8. A delay in replacing a neighbour’s bath between 21 August 2024 and 14 October 2024.
9. A delay in replacing a bathroom extractor fan between 30 October 2024 and 27 January 2025.
10. Not raising “follow on” work after its stage 2 response in relation to the damage to the bathroom, bedrooms, and hallway.
The landlord failed to show it took prompt and reasonable action to comprehensively investigate and resolve the leaks. This meant that the resident experienced at least 22 leaks from the property above between October 2020 and the landlord’s stage 2 response.
We have not seen that the landlord conducted an intrusive plumbing survey of the flat above which would have been reasonable given the extent of the leaks. When the landlord became aware on 31 August 2023 that the neighbour may be responsible for some leaks by overfilling their bath it would have been appropriate for it to consider what additional action it needed to take to prevent this. For example, this may have involved referrals to support services or tenancy enforcement.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord said on 13 August 2024 that it asked the neighbour to be “careful” using the bath however given the extent of the leaks this was not sufficient. This response lacked a commitment to resolving this issue and was unacceptable. This left the resident feeling the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and damaged the landlord and resident relationship. It also meant she faced significant stress and recurrent damage over a prolonged period.
The failures have adversely affected the resident and caused significant distress but there is limited evidence of the level of detrimental effect. The resident has not disclosed specific vulnerabilities affected by the leaks. While she has disclosed one child developed a dry cough, as stated in the scoping paragraph, we have not assessed a connection with this and the leaks and she should seek legal advice on the issue.
The resident received compensation of £1,235. We find that the sum is not proportionate to the level of failure, considering the resident experienced ongoing leaks for over 5 years. We have therefore made an additional award of compensation of £600 in line with our remedies guidance. This is to reflect our finding of major failings which has had a significant ongoing effect on the resident.
The resident told us that she has not received compensation for any damage to her personal belongings. The landlord told the resident on 5 July 2023 that she could contact their insurance team to make a claim for any losses. We have seen no evidence the resident did this. Therefore, we find no fault with the landlord not paying compensation for this. This is because it was appropriate of it to offer its insurer’s details as this was in line with its compensation policy, we have therefore made a recommendation relating to this.
While the resident would like the landlord to rehouse her this is not an outcome, we can fairly order. This is because we do not know the housing need in the local area or the available properties. However, we have made a recommendation the landlord contact the resident to discuss her rehousing options.
The Ombudsman published a report in July 2023 about the landlord following a special wider investigation. It found multiple systemic failures that were affecting its residents. These included the failings by the landlord to take effective ownership and management of repairs leading to delays and poor communication with residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of repairs, complaints and how it recorded information. The failures identified by this complaint largely mirror those identified by the special investigation. As such and given the improvement work is ongoing, we have therefore not made additional orders which would duplicate the recommendations in the special investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a two-stage complaint process. It has to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord needed to escalate a complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 outcome. Her first complaint about water leaks from an upstairs flat was on 1 November 2021. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 May 2022. While she sought to escalate this on the same day it did not accept this and provided another stage 1 response on 11 August 2022.
The landlord sought to close this complaint in June 2023, even though there was outstanding plastering work. When the resident complained again on 4 July 2023 it provided another stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. It failed to respond to her dissatisfaction and further complaint on 2 December 2023 and did not log another complaint until 2 August 2024. It responded to this at stage 1 on 13 August 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 17 September 2024 after the resident’s escalation of 3 September 2024.
The landlord failed to respond to complaints prior to August 2024 in line with the timeframe within its complaint’s policy. It also failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 23 May 2022 and 4 July 2023 or acknowledge her complaint on 2 December 2023. Its actions were not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
We also note that the resident complained on 23 May 2022 and on 11 August 2024 about silverfish. Paragraphs 5.6 (2022 version) and 6.7 (2024 version) of the Code requires landlords to address all points raised in a complaint and yet the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about silverfish.
We also note that in its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to monitor works in the flat above and raise repair jobs in the resident’s property. Paragraph 6.17 of the Code (2024 version) requires landlords to track and action outstanding actions which it agrees to in its stage 2 response. We have not seen the landlord did this in relation to reports of damage to the bathroom, bedrooms, and hallway. This was not in line with the Code and likely made the resident feel ignored and caused her significant distress.
These failures amount to maladministration which had a significant but no permanent effect on the resident. We have therefore made an award of £250 in line with our remedies guidance, to include an element of time and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks from the flat above, including repairs and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Inspect the resident’s property and raise any repairs for damage to the bathroom, bedrooms or hallway that have resulted from leaks, it must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of any findings.
2. Inspect the property for damp and mould and agree an action plan, sharing this with the resident and this Service.
3. Inspect the property for silverfish and decide on an action plan if an infestation is present and related to the leaks, sharing this with the resident and this Service.
4. Contact the resident’s neighbour in the flat above and arrange an intrusive plumbing survey.
5. Inspect the pointing to the resident’s property and complete any repairs for loose or missing pointing.
6. Pay the resident directly an additional sum of £850 made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of leaks, repairs and damp and mould.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling, including an amount for time and trouble.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must undertake any repairs to the flat above identified by the intrusive plumbing survey, if this is not possible the landlord must explain why and when it is likely to start and complete these by.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the required timescales.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to explain what evidence it needs to consider compensating the resident for damage to her personal belongings and how the resident can make a claim through its insurer or failing that consider discretionary compensation
2. contact the resident to offer advice about her rehousing options.
If no repairs are needed but neglect of the neighbour’s property is identified, the landlord should consider what action to take, including referrals to support agencies or tenancy enforcement.