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 (202406859)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406859

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 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 response to the leaseholder’s:
    1. Reports of water ingress from the roof.
    2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. In April 2005, the leaseholder purchased a 40% share of a 3 bedroom, third floor flat as part of the shared ownership scheme. At the time, the landlord owned the remaining 60 per cent. It is not clear whether any staircasing has taken place since then. The leaseholder pays the landlord a service charge towards maintenance of the block and communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s repair log shows that, in August 2018 and October 2020, the leaseholder had reported a leak into his property from the roof. It is not clear what actions the landlord took immediately after those reports. However, records show that it had carried out repairs to the walls and ceilings in the property in 2021 and paid the leaseholder compensation for loss of rental income. The landlord cleared the gutters on 11 October 2021 and advised the leaseholder that it would attempt a clearance twice a year. It installed a liquid roof membrane sometime in 2022. It is not clear whether this was done in response to the previous reports of leaks.
  3. On 29 June 2023, the leaseholder reported damage to his property due to water ingress from the roof. The landlord raised a repair on 6 July 2023 to “inspect and clear debris in gutter, rain downpipe and roof which could be causing issues on the external wall of the building and internally”.
  4. On 4 August 2023, the leaseholder raised a stage 1 complaint. He stated that the roof had leaked since the block was built, 20 years ago, and he had lost tenants due to this issue. He stated that he wanted the landlord to conduct a drone survey, share the outcome with the leaseholders in the building and “fix the defective flat roof”. He added that he wanted the landlord to “stick to a regular gutter cleaning schedule” and pay compensation for loss of rental and “damage to walls, ceilings furniture and carpets”.
  5. The landlord sent the leaseholder its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023. It stated that:
    1. It had raised a repair on 7 July 2024 to inspect and clear debris in the gutter, rain downpipe and roof. It added that this would require scaffolding to be put up and it would update him once it had more information.
    2. It advised all residents to arrange their own contents insurance cover. If the leaseholder did not have this in place, he would have to make a claim through its insurance team, which it provided contact details for.
  6. The leaseholder wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2023. He said that he had reported the latest damage to his property on 29 June 2023 and, 6 weeks later, he had still not heard back from anyone. He asked how he could escalate his complaint and stated that he needed urgent action from the landlord’s major works team. The landlord responded on 16 August 2023 to confirm that it had escalated the complaint and that it would chase its contractor about the scaffolding. The leaseholder told the landlord on 17 August 2023 that leaseholders would need to scrutinise the scaffolding costs and queried whether there was a “hatch that would allow access for debris clearance”. He asked how the landlord could carry out regular debris clearance without an access point. The landlord responded on 25 August 2023 to say it did not have a maintenance schedule for gutters or roofs, and completed repairs when reported. It added that, in these cases, scaffolding was required to gain access. If not viable, it would explore the option of using a cherry picker.
  7. On 29 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when the scaffolding would go up. It responded on 24 October 2023 to say that it had approved the works quoted on 21 September 2023 but that its roofing team was “experiencing long delays” and repairs were “taking a lot longer than expected”. It added that it had been regularly chasing its contractor for a date for the required works.
  8. The leaseholder chased the landlord several times from October to December 2023 for further updates. On 18 December 2023, he told the landlord that his property was uninhabitable and wanted a refund of his service charge. The landlord informed him on 20 December 2023 that its contractor had completed the roof gutter clearance on 13 December 2023. On 21 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord commissioned an independent inspection of the leaseholder’s property on 5 January 2024 and the contractor that carried it out reported that:
    1. Since the rain gutters and hoppers had been cleared out, there had been “no new signs of dampness in the property, and the walls and ceilings were “dry to the touch”.
    2. In its opinion, the cause of water ingress was not as a result of a faulty roof but the external guttering system.
    3. It recommended an inspection of the guttering to check for any issues with drainage, along with a twice yearly gutter clearance.
  9. The landlord telephoned the leaseholder on 2 January 2024 to discuss his complaint and issued its stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. It provided a summary of the events and its actions relating to the complaint. It then stated that:
    1. It did not conduct regular maintenance of roofs and gutters but this was something that it could consider as part of the service charge. However, this would have to be agreed with the other leaseholders. For the time being, it advised him to request gutter clearances when needed.
    2. It had suggested using gutter guards to minimise the frequency of the clearances.
    3. It was sorry for the delay in providing a date for when the gutter clearance would take place.
    4. It was sorry the leaseholder felt he should not have to pay his service charge. It had previously explained to him that the charge contributed towards “the maintenance and upkeep of essential services within the block and estate”. However, he had the “right” to approach the First Tier Tribunal if he did not feel the charge was reasonable
    5. As a goodwill gesture, it had offered him use of a dehumidifier for 2 weeks to dry out his property and would pay towards the cost of running it.
    6. It was satisfied it had tried to get this matter resolved “as quickly as possible”. However, it acknowledged that the “persistent issues faced” had resulted in a loss of his rental income and delays. It therefore upheld the complaint for the following reasons:
      1. It had not prioritised the required gutter clearance to help avoid the persistent leaks.
      2. The leaseholder had to chase for answers on how to resolve the issue, which resulted in him raising a stage 2 complaint.
      3. As a result of the leaks in his property, he had lost tenants.
      4. It had delayed responding to his stage 2 complaint.
    7. It offered the leaseholder £1,666.36 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
      1. £300 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failure to recognise the impact of the water ingress.
      2. £300 for the inconvenience caused.
      3. £300 for the leaseholder’s time and effort.
      4. £100 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
      5. £600 as a goodwill gesture.
      6. £66.36 to pay for the use of a dehumidifier.
  10. The leaseholder approached the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024. He stated that:
    1. There were holes behind the rain hoppers in his block that allowed water to pool on top of his ceilings.
    2. The downpipes could “not cope” with the volume of rainwater in a storm.
    3. The landlord would not “fix the design issue”.
    4. The matter was made worse because the landlord did not have “safe access” to the roof to complete regular gutter clearance.
  11. On 16 July 2024, the landlord commissioned a site survey of the roof. It found evidence of a leak in the leaseholder’s living room and noted that the main cause was blockage of rain hoppers by pigeon nests. It recommended a number of investigations and works to resolve the water ingress. In October 2024 the landlord started a section 20 consultation with leaseholders for completion of those works. The leaseholder told this Service on 10 January 2024 that, although it had served the section 20 notice, the landlord had not provided enough information about the works that would be included as part of the consultation or whether it would include twice yearly clearance of the gutters.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The leaseholder has stated that he has been reporting water ingress into his property from the roof since 2005. He also stated that the landlord had not adhered to an asset management plan dated 2019. The resident’s comments in relation to these issues are not disputed. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from June 2023 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
  2. The leaseholder has also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the section 20 consultation initiated in October 2024. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to first be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The leaseholder will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The lease states that, subject to payment of the service charge, the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing and renewing, where agreed in writing by a “simply majority of leaseholders”, the roof, main structure of the building and the common parts. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act requires landlords to consult with leaseholders before carrying out certain types of works or entering into long-term agreements. The law applies to qualifying works where the contribution from any one lessee exceeds £250.
  2. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance section on its website states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it could not meet this timescale, it would explain why and respond within a further 10 working days. The timescale for stage 2 complaints, which the landlord refers to as a “review of the complaint” is 20 working days; and a further 10 working days if it is unable to meet that target. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 30 days without good reason.  If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay a fixed award of £10 compensation for the failure to respond to a query within 10 working days, where it is identified as part of a complaint investigation. It also states that it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience, and for time and trouble. The policy does not provide specific amounts for this.

Reports of water ingress from the roof

  1. The evidence shows that the leaseholder’s property had been subject to water ingress from the roof over a long period of time. According to the records, this was caused by a blockage of the rain gutters, hoppers and downpipes by debris and birds’ nests. This meant that, during periods of heavy rain and storms, the water would overflow the gutters and enter into the property underneath, causing damage to walls and ceilings. The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact this would have had on the leaseholder and his tenants’ enjoyment of the property.
  2. Although it is suggested the design of the roof contributed to the problem, this is not something we can consider. This is because the landlord was not responsible for the design of the building. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress and if it took adequate steps to ensure it completed any necessary repairs it was responsible for. This report will consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures, and good practice.
  3. The records indicate that, following a report by the resident on 29 June 2023 of a leak into his property, the landlord raised a work order to inspect and clear the debris from the rainwater goods on the roof. The work was not completed until 13 December 2023, over 5 months later. The evidence shows that one of the reasons for the delay was the requirement for scaffolding to be erected before the clearance could be started. It also shows that the leaseholder had enquired whether scaffolding was needed and if the roof could be accessed in other ways, such as through a hatch or using a fall assist system. This may have speeded up the repair and lessened the cost of the work.
  4. It is understandable that the leaseholder would have wanted the landlord to explore more cost and time effective alternatives to putting up scaffolding. However, landlords and contractors are bound by health and safety regulation and must adhere to it. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately carried out a survey to check if scaffolding was needed. This means it had reasonably explored whether it could safely access the roof by other means.
  5. The records show us that a further reason for the delay in completing the rainwater goods clearance was due to the contractor’s availability and its delay in providing a date for when it could start the work. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, published in September 2020 makes a number of recommendations. One of those states that, where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and expected date of completion.
  6. There is evidence the landlord had chased the contractor several times, and that it was making efforts to manage the leaseholder’s expectations. It informed him that its roofing department had been experiencing long delays and therefore roofing works were taking “a lot longer than expected”. The records also indicate that the landlord had made efforts to update the leaseholder during this period.
  7. However, there were instances where he had to chase the landlord for answers to queries he had raised. One example of this is when the leaseholder sent the landlord a number of questions on 25 August 2023, including whether the roof had an access hatch and a fall arrest system. There is evidence he had to chase it a number of times, and over several weeks for a proper response. It is acknowledged that landlords cannot always respond to certain queries straight away and that it might need to do some research before being able to provide a the information. However, the landlord should make all reasonable efforts to ensure it responds to queries from leaseholders in as timely a manner as possible. This will help promote good customer service and build confidence in the service it provides. It will also help avoid causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience to leaseholders having to repeatedly prompt the landlord for answers.
  8. It is accepted that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues or periods where they are busy and their services are therefore stretched. However, as they retain responsibility for the repair, landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs in line with their policies. Furthermore, given the previous leaks into the property and the damage it had caused, the landlord could have explored whether it could prioritise the works or whether there were other contractors that could carry out the work sooner. That the landlord could not demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to ensure the works were completed within its timescales was a failing.
  9. Records indicate the leaseholder had asked the landlord to carry out roof maintenance work as part of a regular programme. The evidence shows that the service charge did not cover regular clearance of the rainwater goods. Instead the landlord would carry out any necessary gutter clearance or roof repair work when reported by tenants or leaseholders. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to considering whether it could add this as part of its estate maintenance schedule. It is noted that an inspection of the leaseholder’s property on 5 January 2024 recommended twice yearly clearance of the gutters. The landlord reminded the leaseholder that this would have to be approved by other leaseholders and may have to be subject to a section 20 consultation. However, it advised him that he could in the meantime request gutter clearances when needed. This was appropriate.
  10. However, given the documented history of water ingress from the roof, it is unclear why the landlord had not considered exploring this at an earlier stage. Furthermore, there is evidence the landlord had already told the leaseholder in October 2021 that it would try and clear the gutters twice a year. This shows it was aware at this time of the issue caused by the blocked gutters. It could therefore have started the process of consulting with leaseholders about carrying out regular gutter clearances at an earlier stage. This could have helped minimise damage to the leaseholder’s property caused by ongoing water ingress.
  11. Furthermore, it should not have been necessary for the leaseholder to have raised a complaint in order for the landlord to have considered undertaking regular gutter clearances. This suggests the landlord had not taken the matter seriously enough and resulted in unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder, and avoidable damage to the property.
  12. Similarly, the evidence shows that the landlord commissioned a site survey of the roof, which took place on 16 July 2024. This made several recommendations for investigations and repairs to the roof to address the problem of water ingress. Following this, the landlord initiated a section 20 consultation in order to progress the repairs. Had the landlord commissioned the site survey at the point at which, for example, scaffolding had been erected in December 2023 to clear the rainwater goods, this would likely have led to an earlier resolution of the problem. That the landlord delayed in taking appropriate action to address causes of repeated leaks into the leaseholder’s property was a failing.
  13. The resident reported to the landlord on 18 December 2023 that his property was “uninhabitable” as a result of the water ingress. It is understandable that this would have made it difficult for him to house tenants while the problem persisted. However, while we do not dispute what the resident has said, we have seen no evidence to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, the landlord carried out an independent inspection of the property on 5 January 2024, following the gutter clearance on 13 December 2023. This found no evidence of damp and noted that the walls and ceilings were “dry to the touch”. This suggests that the damp would not have been so severe as to have rendered the property uninhabitable. The later site survey of 16 July 2024 noted signs of a leak. However, there was no indication in the report that the property was in an uninhabitable condition or that any of the rooms could not be used.
  14. It is noted that, in its stage 1 complaint, the landlord signposted the leaseholder to its insurance team, so he could make a claim for loss of rental income and damage to personal property. It provided the details of what he should do to make a claim, along with all relevant contact details. This was appropriate as an insurer would be best placed to consider the loss incurred and settle the matter. It is also positive to note that the landlord offered to pay the leaseholder for the cost of renting and running a dehumidifier in the property.
  15. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  16. The landlord made reasonable attempts to put things right. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it had failed to prioritise works to avoid the persistent leaks into the leaseholder’s property. It also recognised that delays in addressing the leaseholder’s enquiries had led him to seek recourse though the complaints process. It offered a sincere apology for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, and that the leaseholder had lost tenants as a result. Furthermore, its total offer of £1,666.36 compensation is in line with what the Ombudsman would award for the impact of similar failings. It is noted that £900 of the redress the landlord offered was in recognition of distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble. The landlord offered an additional £600 as a “goodwill gesture”. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  17. However, the landlord has not provided any details in its response about how it had learnt from the failings it had identified or explored any changes or improvements it could make to avoid similar breakdowns in service provision. For this reason, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it reviews its complaint response to identify any learning points.

Complaint

  1. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord responded to the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint within 24 hours. However, there is no indication it carried out a proper investigation of the complaint. The only aspect of the complaint the landlord responded to was the leaseholder’s concern about damage to his property, and lost rental income. As previously mentioned, the landlord appropriately signposted him to its insurance team to make a claim for loss and damages.
  2. However, the landlord failed to address the leaseholder’s request for a roof survey or a regular gutter cleaning schedule. The landlord’s efforts to provide a timely response to the leaseholder’s complaint is acknowledged. However, this should not have come at the expense of conducting a proper investigation and providing a thorough response. That the landlord failed to properly address the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint was a departure from the Code.
  3. The records show that the leaseholder asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 15 August 2023. Although the landlord confirmed on 16 August 2023 that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and that it would appoint a reviewer, it did not send the leaseholder a formal acknowledgement until 21 December 2023. This was 93 working days later. It informed the leaseholder on 16 August 2023 that it was working through a backlog of cases requiring escalation and that an increase in stage 2 complaints meant there would be a delay in responding within its 20 working day timescale.
  4. It is noted that a shortage of capacity can sometimes mean complaints are not processed as quickly as they should. However, this should not prevent landlords from meeting their obligations and keeping residents and leaseholders properly updated. It was appropriate that the landlord tried to manage the leaseholder’s expectations from the outset. However, it could have sent updates in the meantime to reassure him that his complaint was in hand and to give an estimate on when it would review his complaint. That it did not do so demonstrates a lack of customer focus.
  5. The landlord issued its response 19 working days after it had sent its acknowledgment. It also contacted the leaseholder by telephone to discuss his concerns to ensure it provided a comprehensive final response. This was appropriate. However, it took over 3 and a half months for it to respond to the stage 2 complaint, which was excessive. Furthermore, there is no evidence it had contacted him during this time to agree a new timescale or to apologise for and explain the reason for the ongoing delays. This was a departure both from its own complaints policy and the Code.
  6. The landlord’s attempts to put things right in its stage 2 response are recognised. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its response, and that the leaseholder had to escalate his complaint in order for his complaint to be properly addressed. It also offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling as part of its overall offer of £1,666.36. However, the landlord did not provide a sufficiently adequate stage 1 response and its handling of the stage 2 complaint was excessively protracted. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure and will order the landlord to pay further redress to the resident in line with its remedies guidance.
  7. In its special report published on 27 July 2023, the Ombudsman has made several recommendations with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. One of these is that it reviews its complaint handling procedures and staff guidance to ensure complaints are handled in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own complaint policy. This is particularly in relation to addressing all of the complaint, adhering to policy timescales and updating residents during complaints. The Ombudsman will not make any further orders in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling but will continue to monitor the landlord against these recommendations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress from the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the leaseholder £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the £100 it offered as part of its overall offer of compensation in its stage 2 response.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the leaseholder the £1,666.36 it offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord should provide the leaseholder with details of the works it intends to include as part of its section 20 consultation process, and whether it intends to follow the recommendations from the site survey carried out in July 2024. It should clarify to the leaseholder whether the twice yearly clearance of the gutters, that had been previously recommended, would form part of the consultation process.
  3. The landlord should review its investigation of the leaseholder’s complaint and identify any learning it could take from its findings. It should look at any changes it could make in order to help avoid other similar failings going forward.