London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202504543)

Background

1. On 3 November 2023 the resident reported a leak from the roof was causing damage to her property. The landlord inspected the roof on 21 March 2024 and identified further repairs were needed. At the time of raising her complaint in October 2024, the repairs had not been completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak from the roof.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak from the roof.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak

5. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy following reports of a leak coming from the roof. The failure to act left the leak unresolved for an unreasonable period of 25 months to date. The landlord failed to take learning from its handling of similar repairs reported by the resident 4 years earlier which were also highlighted in a previous investigation by us.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to record the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It’s complaint responses did not acknowledge this failure or the delay to respond to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. We have previously investigated the landlord’s handling of roof repairs to the resident’s property under case reference 201915332. Our investigation concluded in August 2022 and considered the landlord’s actions between October 2019 and June 2021. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issue. At the time of our report the roof repairs were outstanding. We ordered the landlord to provide a progress update on the works which was to include clear timescales and dates for any required consultation period.
8. The resident has complained that the subsequent work completed by the landlord was ineffective, as the leak returned in November 2023.
9. Our Scheme rules state we may not consider complaints that seek to raise matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, we will not investigate the landlord’s actions prior to November 2023. The case has been mentioned here for context only.

What we did investigate

10. It is unclear from the documents provided when the landlord carried out the roof repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2023 and said the repairs had not been effective, as she was experiencing further leaks. She said the leak was causing damage to the walls in her property.
11. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair on 23 November 2023 but noted its contractors were unable to inspect the chimney as scaffolding was required. The resident reported a further leak to her bathroom ceiling on 29 December 2023. The landlord attended on 21 March 2024 and recorded that scaffolding was needed to inspect the roof further.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the structure and roof of all its homes. It also states it aims to complete routine repairs with additional complexity, such as roofing repairs, within 40 working days.
13. Under the landlord’s policy, the resident could have reasonably expected the repair to be completed by mid-January. The landlord’s visit to the property was significantly outside of these timescales. Its failure to ensure scaffolding was erected for the visit, after being made aware it was needed 4 months earlier, was unreasonable.
14. The resident reported the leak was getting worse to the bathroom ceiling on 14 October 2024. She said she was concerned the ceiling would collapse due to the damage caused. The landlord replied to her the following day and said the roof repair had been raised and it was still waiting for a quote for scaffolding to be approved. It advised the resident to seek specialist help if she had concerns over her ceiling. The resident sent several emails expressing her dissatisfaction that the repair had been outstanding for a year.
15. The scaffolding was erected on 27 February 2025, 15 months after the landlord was notified it was required. The landlord inspected the property the same day. It noted the repairs needed would require a Section 20 consultation process.
16. There is a legal necessity for the landlord to issue notices to affected leaseholders when it intends to carry out major works. The Section 20 consultation process is intended to protect leaseholders from paying unnecessarily large sums for work carried out to their building. It was reasonable in the case of the repairs required for the resident’s building for the landlord to apply this procedure given the expected costs of the roof repair. However, when the consultation letter sent by the landlord as notice to the affected leaseholders on 12 March 2025, it related to guttering repairs and not repairs to the roof.
17. With regards to the extent of repairs needed, the landlord’s documentation was confusing. The evidence shows that specific repairs were identified during its inspection but also contained a recommendation to replace the entire roof. As part of our investigation, the landlord clarified the ambiguity and confirmed to us the roof needed to be replaced.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response, issued on 20 March 2025, it said it had requested 2 quotes for the works under its Section 20 procedure. In her escalation request 4 days later, the resident highlighted the Section 20 notice she received did not cover any repairs to the roof.
19. The evidence shows there was confusion between the landlord’s internal teams as to what was required to get the repairs approved and whether a new Section 20 notice was required given its obvious mistake. It is reasonable to assume the lack of clarity from the landlord undoubtably added to the delays faced by the resident.
20. When the landlord issued its final complaint response 2 months later, the repairs remained outstanding. The response failed to acknowledge the ambiguity around its consultation notice and said it was unable to provide a timeline for the repairs. The landlord’s final offer of compensation was £380.
21. The resident told us the situation is still causing her great distress and inconvenience. She states water damage and leaks are still affecting the property. This includes her child’s bedroom, and she is concerned about damp and mould as another winter approaches. It is clear from the evidence the resident has unsuccessfully invested a great deal of time and effort in chasing the repairs.
22. The evidence shows there have been significant delays to address the repairs needed to the roof. At the time of writing this report, the repairs were reported 25 months ago. The resident’s property has been subject to leaks through 3 winters and the damage caused has gradually increased. The resident is understandably reluctant to undertake any repairs until the leaks have been resolved. This has significantly impacted her use and enjoyment of her home.
23. The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy for the resident’s situation and failed to provide her with any updates as to when the situation would be resolved. This caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble which was evident in her communication with the landlord.
24. While the landlord was responsible for fixing the roof, it is not usually responsible for repairs within a leaseholder’s property. However, the prolonged delays to completing the repairs impacted the extent to which the resident’s property was damaged.
25. It is reasonable to conclude the damage would not have been as bad had the landlord effected the required repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should have reasonably foreseen the potential for damage due to the ongoing leaks from the roof of the property.
26. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can make discretionary compensation awards when its failures cause distress and inconvenience. It further states it will consider the duration of the impact when calculating its award. In this case there was around a 12-month delay to address the repairs at the time the stage 2 response was issued. This allows for a period of 2 months in line with the landlord’s repair policy and 4 months to complete the Section 20 notice and consultation period. The landlord’s offer of £380 compensation in these circumstances was significantly below being proportionate to the failings we have identified.
28. The evidence shows the landlord did not fully accept its failings within the complaint responses. It failed to address the errors in the Section 20 notice, despite recognising them itself, and failed to give the resident any meaningful updates as to when she could expect the repairs to be completed. This resulted in a significant long-term impact on the resident caused by what was collectively a serious failure by the landlord.
29. Our previous investigation in August 2022 revealed that the landlord had historically managed the situation poorly. The landlord has not demonstrated that it learnt from our previous determination and similar failings have been repeated. This has exacerbated the impact to the resident over a significant period of time.
30. The combination of failings detailed above, together with the delays to affect a resolution, lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the roof. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,500 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings that have had a long-term impact on the resident.

31. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction and sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. 
32. On 14 October 2024 the resident informed the landlord she was unhappy that she was still experiencing water ingress, despite reporting the repair almost 12 months earlier. The resident followed this up with multiple emails which made clear she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The evidence shows the landlord recorded her “dissatisfaction” but failed to raise a complaint in line with its policy.
33. We wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2025 and asked it to respond to the complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 3 days later.
34. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 40 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was 20 days later than its policy timescales allowed.
35. The landlord’s failure to record the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage and the delay in issuing its stage 2 response has significantly delayed the resolution of this complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings during its complaint process and did not try to put things right. This leads to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Learning

36. The landlord should consider the findings of this report and the opportunities to improve its service provision between its responsive repairs team, complaints team and Section 20 team. This is with a view to ensure its procedures and working practices are fit for purpose and the same mistakes are not repeated.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. In the main, the landlord has demonstrated good record keeping with regards to the issues we have investigated in this complaint.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communication with the resident was at times poor and this has been commented on above.