London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202437550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437550

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has informed the landlord that he has disabilities including experiencing mobility and mental health problems. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable.
The resident has been represented in his complaint communications by his daughter. For ease of reference, the report will still refer to the ‘resident’ when his daughter made representation on his behalf.
The resident raised concerns about an existing leak at the property on 18 December 2023. The landlord attended the property to attempt to identify the source of the leak on 9 occasions between this date and 26 November 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 November 2024. He complained about the length of time it was taking to resolve the leak.
The landlord organised the attendance of a contractor at the property to repair the leak on 29 November 2024 who identified the need for follow up works. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. It apologised that the repair had not been completed and said it would organise follow up works. It also said compensation would be awarded once works were completed.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 December 2024. He said he was not satisfied with the stage 1 response and did not consider the complaint resolved. He wanted a timeline for the completion of the work and for him and his family to be moved to alternative accommodation as soon as possible.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. It acknowledged that the leak remained unresolved and apologised that its investigation of the leak was not handled effectively. It appointed a member of its staff to oversee completion of the repairs. It offered £600 in compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident since December 2023.
The resident and his family were moved to temporary accommodation in January 2025 due to safety concerns resulting from the leak. He remained in temporary accommodation until repair works were completed on 30 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leak impacted his health. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and his family. It is understandable that he has concerns about the impact of his living conditions on his health. It is important to explain that this Service cannot establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we will give consideration to the general impact of the living conditions on the resident and consider what the landlord did when it was informed of health concerns.
After the complaints process ended, the resident experienced issues with the temporary accommodation that the landlord organised. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. He can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks in the property

The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out 2 timeframes for the completion of repairs in its service standards:
1. For emergency repairs, it will attend within 24 hours. Follow on repairs will be completed at the earliest mutual convenience.
2. Routine day to day repairs will be completed within 25 calendar days.
Between 18 December 2023 and 26 November 2024 the landlord attended the property 9 times to conduct inspections to find the source of the leak. It was unable to identify the source or resolve the issue during this period. It took photos of containers being used to capture water and potential ingress points on most visits, which showed that it knew the leak was happening and needed repair. We acknowledge that there were issues with accessing neighbouring properties to search for the source of the leak. However, it made multiple references in its reports to neighbouring properties being a potential source of the problem. It could have considered options for accessing the neighbouring properties sooner.
It was not appropriate that the landlord had known about the leak since December 2023 but failed to take sufficient steps to address the issue. It missed opportunities to take action to identify the source of the leak and repair it before the resident raised his formal complaint. It failed to adhere to the repair timeframes set out in its policy as a result. The resident was put to unnecessary time and trouble in having to pursue a complaint about the issue.
The resident raised his formal complaint on 28 November 2024. He said that the repair of the leak was taking too long. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and called the resident to discuss the issue on 29 November 2024. It was appropriate that it acted quickly in response to the complaint and showed that it considered the standards set out in its Complaints Policy.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 29 November 2024 after it had sent out a contractor to inspect the property for the leak. The contractor said that follow on works would be required to detect the source of the leak and complete the repair. In its response, the landlord:
1. Apologised that the works had not been completed during the visit and said it would arrange for these to be done at a time convenient to the resident.
2. Said it would make an offer of compensation for inconvenience caused by the issue following completion of the works.
It was appropriate for the landlord to respond with the urgent attendance of a contractor at the property which showed that it acknowledged the severity of the issue. However, given it had known about the problem for 11 months, it should not have taken the resident’s complaint to have prompted this level of urgency. It also repeated its findings from earlier inspections. This was not appropriate as it already knew it needed to locate the source of the leak in order to complete the repair. It did not demonstrate that it had sufficient oversight of the issue.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 10 December 2024 as he was not satisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this escalation promptly and contacted the resident to discuss the escalation further which was appropriate. The resident confirmed the details of his complaint in an email following the discussion on 13 December 2024. He asked for:
1. A clear timeline for the completion of all repair works.
2. A commitment from the landlord to temporarily move him and his family to a more appropriate property.
3. The immediate provision of necessary safety measures in the property including temporary lighting.
4. Reassurance that he and his family’s health and safety were being considered during the process.
On the same day, 13 December 2025, the resident asked to speak with the landlord regarding further delays in the process. The landlord had said it would be attending the property to conduct a further survey of the leak. It failed to attend when it said it would which meant the resident was put to time and trouble in having to chase the landlord for an update. The landlord failed to contact the resident and explain that its operative was delayed due to vehicle issues. This was not appropriate and further impacted the landlord tenant relationship. The resident said in a further email that stress caused by the ongoing issue was having an impact on his vulnerabilities.
In its Vulnerable Residents Policy, the landlord identifies the need to tailor services to the different needs of residents including vulnerable residents. It says it will monitor its compliance with the policy by demonstrating timeliness through completing actions within agreed timeframes and regular contact with residents for progress updates. It says it will ask residents with potential vulnerabilities how their condition affects them and what support needs they have so it can consider how to respond.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. It acknowledged that the repair remained unresolved and that this was causing the resident and his family distress. It acknowledged there had been a long term impact on his vulnerabilities and his ability to enjoy his home. It apologised for a failure to effectively handle the investigation of the leak and for failings in its service standards. It offered compensation to the resident of £600, made up of:
1. £360 for inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact of delays on the resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. £240 for the time and effort it took to resolve the complaint.
The landlord said it would provide a single point of contact for the resident moving forward who would be in touch with the resident to discuss temporary housing options, as well as overseeing the completion of repairs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that there had been failings in its handling of the leak and how it had impacted the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its apology demonstrated that it had listened to the resident and was able to identify that a vulnerable resident had been negatively impacted by its approach. It was also appropriate for it to have offered compensation in recognition of the impact this had on the resident. However, it failed to take steps to address these failings once it had apologised for them. It could have taken the opportunity to show it was learning by implementing its policy effectively following the stage 2 response. It missed the opportunity to implement its policy as it failed to speak to the resident about his support needs. It did not demonstrate a sufficient response to the concerns the resident had already raised about the impact the leak was having.
It is noted that the landlord said it would provide a single point of contact for the resident in its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. The evidence shows the landlord did not follow through with this. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have failed to maintain regular contact for nearly a month after it had set a clear expectation of how it would support the resident. It failed to provide regular contact regarding the progress of the works as its policy says it will. The resident said he felt unsupported and that the issue contributed to his distress.
The resident had also been told as part of the stage 2 response that his point of contact would discuss moving his family into a temporary property. The landlord did not move the resident until 21 January 2025 following reports of an additional leak affecting the bathroom and electrics. There is no evidence of any discussion with the point of contact prior to this. It was not appropriate that it took an additional report, made a month later, to prompt action from the landlord when it had said it would discuss the move after its stage 2 response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the need for temporary lighting in its stage 2 response but did not explain what it had done to address this issue. Evidence provided shows that it isolated the light due to the leak in November 2024. However, it is not clear what happened with the light after this. It said the point of contact it was appointing would speak to the resident about lighting, which did not happen. It was not appropriate that the landlord knew about the problem with the light but took no clear actions in response.
In its Complaints Standard Operating Procedure, the landlord identifies specific things that its stage 2 complaint decisions must contain. These include an apology, details of any next steps, a communication plan and specific timelines relevant to the issue.
The resident asked for a timeline for the completion of the repair in his stage 2 complaint escalation. While the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, it failed to provide a target date for completion. It said that the resident’s point of contact would oversee the completion of repairs, but the lack of communication identified above meant that this was not a sufficient alternative to the provision of a timeline. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations on when it would complete the work. The resident was put to further inconvenience as no response had been given to his request.
The landlord provided evidence that the post works inspection took place on 30 May 2025 and the resident was invited to return to the property on the same day. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord over 17 months to resolve the issue. While it acknowledged a failing in its service standards in its stage 2 complaint response, the compensation offered did not sufficiently reflect the amount of time that the repair had remained unresolved.
In summary, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the leak. It failed to demonstrate that it was prioritising the issue as it took over 17 months to complete a repair. We acknowledge that leaks can sometimes be complicated to repair within policy timeframes. However, we consider what is reasonable and the timeframe of 17 months was not appropriate and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. It did not show that it sufficiently considered the resident’s vulnerabilities by discussing alternative support options with him. It did not take action when it said it would and did not communicate clearly with the resident throughout the process. The landlord did not demonstrate that it learnt from its failings. After the stage 2 response the poor communication continued, it failed to keep the commitments it made and the property was not repaired for a further 5 months. While we note that the landlord acknowledged its failings, a finding of maladministration has been made as a result of the significant failings outlined above.
For compensation, we consider the offer of £600 to be insufficient for the significant impact the resident experienced. The resident remained in the property for 13 months with an ongoing leak and was not offered any additional support from the landlord during this time. The adverse impact was higher due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. In addition, the landlord failed to act quickly to resolve the issue following the complaints procedure.
For these reasons an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its response to reports of a leak at the property. This brings the total compensation to £900. This amount has been considered with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. It also takes account of the fact that the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. Had the landlord not completed the repairs, there would have been a finding of severe maladministration due to the significant ongoing impact of the issue on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £900, made up of:
  1. £600 already offered if it has not already done so.
  2. £300 in compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a leak at the property.
Evidence should be provided to this Service.