From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202416505)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416505

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 July 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 causing flooding to the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife became leaseholders of a newbuild 3-bedroom house in June 2023. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder.
  2. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 3 October 2023. This caused flooding to the ground floor of the property. He reported further concerns about excess water in his garden which he believed to be a drainage issue, and a leak to the shower on 6 October 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 October 2023. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to resolve the issues and the level of service he received. He asked for compensation for the discomfort and strain the culmination of building issues had on him. He complained further via telephone on 23 October 2023 stating he received no response to the issues raised and asked it to follow up matters with its customer care and insurance teams.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 January 2024. It said that its contractor attended on 4 October 2023 and confirmed it had resolved the leak the previous evening. The contractor advised him to contact insurers which he confirmed he had done on 5 October 2023. It said it was unable to do anything further as the matter was with insurers. It also understood he had raised a complaint to the insurer about the delays. It provided no response to his concerns about the garden or shower.
  5. The date of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint is unknown. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2024, it referred to a telephone call on 8 May 2024 where he expressed his dissatisfaction with its service. It apologised for any inconvenience and offered £40 compensation for its delayed complaint response. It provided no response in relation to the other matters.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants the landlord to increase its compensation offer for the distress and inconvenience and acknowledge its poor communication and service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence he said that the situation had caused stress which made him and his wife unwell. He added that his wife suffers from asthma, and they were concerned about remaining in the house due to the flooding and damp.
  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, this element of the complaint 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. We are unable to determine matters relating to the outcome of insurance claims, or delays by third parties. The independent body for complaints about insurers is the Financial Ombudsman Service. We can, however, assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Reports of a leak

  1. The resident reported a leak on 3 October 2023. He told us that when he returned home from work, he found the ground floor of his home flooded. He realised that this was from a pipe under the kitchen sink but was unable to turn off the water at the stop tap. He had to isolate the water from the stop tap on the pavement externally. He said he was told that someone would attend within 4 to 5 hours, which he found unacceptable. He believed the leak to be no fault of his own and stated it was due to the landlord’s negligence.
  2. We empathise that coming home to a flooded property would be distressing. However, the landlord’s records show that its emergency plumber attended, out of hours at 7:10pm, on 3 October 2023. This was in line with its repairs policy timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs and demonstrates it attended the leak promptly.
  3. The landlord’s records also note that the leak was from the sink waste, and it tested the repair before leaving the property at 7:30pm. The emergency plumber recommended a follow up visit the following morning as they noted several plastic fittings were not quite “hand tight”. The contractor attended the following morning and confirmed the repair was satisfactory and advised the resident to contact insurers. This shows that the landlord acted on the recommendation made by the emergency plumber.
  4. It was appropriate for the resident to be advised to contact insurance. The landlord’s insurance claim procedure states that as the freeholder, it arranges buildings insurance in relation to its leaseholder and shared ownership housing stock. Customers pay the premium via their service charges and have direct access to the insurers and generally report claims directly to them. Its insurers will validate all claims received and appoint an approved contractor to visit and deal with all repairs covered under the terms of the policy.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2023 requesting information for the insurance loss adjuster. He wrote further on 6 October 2023 and thanked the landlord for arranging for someone to assess the leak. He understood that the matter had been resolved but would provide an update. He also raised issues about excess water in the garden and a shower leak. It confirmed on 9 October 2023 that the garden issue had been raised to the contractor for urgent review.
  6. The insurance company wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2023 confirming they attended to assess the damage from the leak. They questioned whether it had discussed the matter with the builder prior to pursuing an insurance claim. Its records show that it queried this internally on 17 and 18 October 2023. It wrote to the resident on 20 October 2023 advising that the insurance company was questioning why the matter had been raised as a claim and for it to look into this further. It stated that the claim had been declined as it was the contractor’s responsibility to arrange remedial work to his home. It asked for drying out equipment to be provided as a matter of urgency.
  7. We appreciate that at this point it had been 17 calendar days since the leak occurred, and this would likely have been frustrating for the resident. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the insurer and developer to establish liability and progress the matter. This was in line with its repairs policy which says that for new homes, developers have a contractual responsibility to rectify defects that occur within the defect liability period. It will liaise with the developer to arrange repairs in accordance with its defect policy.
  8. In his complaint, the resident said he was led to believe that drying out equipment was going to be installed the previous day by a company acting on behalf of the building insurer, but this was not the case.  He added that he was concerned about remaining in his home due to his wife’s asthma. He again raised his concerns about the excess water in the garden and leak to the shower. He said he was frustrated that it was taking so long to resolve the issues and asked to be compensated. He complained further via telephone on 23 October 2023.
  9. It should be noted that where a claim has been made with an insurer, it is general practice for the insurance company to assess whether the home is habitable, safe to live in, or if alternative accommodation is required. Most buildings and contents insurance policies provide cover for alternative accommodation.
  10. The landlord’s records of 23 October 2023 state that it would not ask the contractor to proceed until it knew if it would be dealt with under the warranty with the house builder. It confirmed the following day with the insurer that it could proceed with remedial work and claim the costs back via the builders insurance. This was reasonable and demonstrates the landlord liaising between the insurer and developer in line with its policy.
  11. The landlord’s records of 23 and 24 November 2023 referred to chasing the developer about the leaking shower. It referred to the snagging list and stated that all items had been noted to be complete or that no further action was required. It said that the only outstanding issue was the drainage of the garden.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriate in confirming it attended the leak promptly as demonstrated by its records. A landlord only becomes responsible for any damage caused by a leak to its tenants and third parties if it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s assertion that he was unable to turn the stop tap under the sink. It said that its contractor had been able to turn it the following day, but it required more force. It was also reasonable to state that it was unable to do anything further as the matter was in the hands of the insurers, as was its advice that the insurer could provide more information about any delays.
  14. There is no evidence provided by either party between the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that during a telephone call on 8 May 2024 the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction with its service. It apologised for any inconvenience and frustration caused by its customer care. It said it was implementing measures to prevent issues from occurring in the future which included additional training for staff members. Its apology was reasonable and demonstrates some learning from the complaint.
  15. We appreciate the likely distress, frustration and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the leak and subsequent flooding. However, we find that the landlord attended to repair the leak promptly, liaised between the insurer and developer, and acted in line with its policies and procedures.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays with the landlord’s complaint responses. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) 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.
  3. The resident raised his complaint on 20 October 2023 and the landlord responded on 10 January 2024. This was 45 working days later than its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that following its decision to delay the outcome of the complaint, it decided to bring the stage 1 complaint to a close. It is not known why the landlord delayed its response and we have seen no evidence that it explained its reasons to the resident. It also failed to apologise for its delayed response or offer any redress. This was not in line with its complaint policy or the Code which states:
    1. Paragraph 6.4 – landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
    2. Paragraph 6.6 – A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
  5. While the landlord apologised for its late stage 2 response and offered £40 compensation, we are unable to assess the adequacy of its offer as the date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about his shower and garden. He reported his concerns on 6 and 10 October 2023 and raised these further in his complaint on 20 and 23 October 2023. Given its own records of 23 October 2023 referred to these matters it should have responded within its 2-stage complaints process. This was not appropriate or in line with the Code which states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. The resident has told us that the matter of the excess water in the garden is ongoing.
  7. In summary, we find that there are multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made an order for compensation in the amount of £200 which includes £40 offered in its stage 2 response. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there was a failing by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £200. (This includes £40 offered in its stage 2 response which can be deducted if already paid).
    2. Raise a new complaint for the resident in relation to his ongoing concerns about his garden drainage and provide responses through its 2-stage complaints process.
    3. Send a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.