We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202501150)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501150

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 September 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 reports about repair issues at the property.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property with her child as a secure tenant of the landlord in February 2025. The property, which is a second floor flat with 2 bedrooms, had been empty from May 2024 and the landlord had completed void works including mould treatment over the intervening period.
  2. Within weeks of moving in, the resident asked the landlord to complete various repairs because of leaks and a lack of heating and hot water at the property.
  3. On 5 March 2025 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said there were issues with leaks which had caused damage and damp walls. She asked to be reimbursed for the money she had spent on painting the flat and for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 March 2025. It said it had raised a number of repairs for her, including a plumbing and electrician appointment. It also said it had raised her concerns with its voids team. It said she would need to raise any claim for damage to personal items with its insurance team.
  5. On 12 March 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord should not have rented the property to her in its current state.
  6. On 8 April 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for poor communications and that the resident had continued to experience issues with repairs, including a leak from the balcony and “multiple outstanding repairs”. It offered £1100 in compensation and said that, following arranged repairs, it would consider if that sum should be increased.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on the same day. She asked us to investigate, expressing a lack of confidence in the repairs being completed successfully and concern for the safety of her child. In July 2025 the resident made a further complaint about ongoing issues to the landlord, and what she saw as its failure to rehouse her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with the Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and that of her child. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident raised a second complaint in July 2025 about ongoing repair and rehousing issues. As these are issues which arose after the landlord’s final complaint response they will not be considered in this report.
  3. If the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her July 2025 complaint, the resident has the option of asking us to investigate under a separate complaint reference.

The landlord’s response to repair issues at the property

  1. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress it offered was sufficient to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint. In considering this, we consider whether its offer of redress (by way of apology, compensation and an action plan for works), met with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. At stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had to deal with numerous repairs issues. It apologised for those and made arrangements for operatives to attend to repair them. It is clear it was responsive to the issues as the resident has provided evidence of numerous appointments made by the landlord to attend to those repairs.
  3. The landlord was clearly attempting to resolve issues at a property. However, the resident considered the landlord should not have rented the property to her, given the number of repairs that were necessary.
  4. The landlord’s void policy says that it will ensure its empty homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. It explains that this means, among other things, that homes must be in a reasonable state of repair, which includes an understanding that they have a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort.”
  5. The records show – and the landlord’s complaint responses confirm – that the resident had, at best, intermittent heating and hot water after moving into the property in February 2025. The stage 2 response said the boiler had been capped during the void period. However, this failed to account for the continued issues when it was uncapped. It accepted that the resident had no heating or hot water at the property. It said on 2 occasions operatives had not completed repairs as the gas meter had not been topped up. Although, it accepted its communications about this had not “been thorough.”
  6. The resident denies that she failed to keep the meter in credit. Whatever the position regarding the meter, it is unclear how this, by itself, would have prevented the landlord from effecting repairs. The repair records indicate that there were issues with the boiler, such as leaks, that the landlord could and should have repaired.
  7. The records shows that the landlord was concerned about the issues the resident faced. A contractor attending the property informed the landlord on 24 March 2025, that “…there [were] a lot of issues at the property and the tenant has only been living there for 2 weeks…boiler waste, water pump leaking, soil pipe for toilet running up hill, cistern was hanging off wall and various other issues that need to be sorted.”
  8. The landlord was concerned enough about these and other reports that, at one point an officer informed the resident that she had made a request for her to be moved to a hotel. This request was later refused by a senior member of staff.
  9. By April 2025, when the landlord visited to inspect the property, following the resident’s repeated requests, it still had to raise jobs to:
    1. Clear a blockage to both balconies.
    2. Renew a single socket to the bedroom.
    3. Test the electrics.
    4. Rectify the leaking boiler.
  10. Nonetheless, the landlord accepted in its complaint responses, that the resident had had to deal with multiple outstanding repairs. It acknowledged that these would have caused the resident distress. This was appropriate in the circumstances. With regard to her concerns about damage to her possessions, the landlord’s advice to make a claim to its insurance team for any damage caused by leaks was also appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  11. At stage 2, the landlord also apologised and offered £1100 in compensation. This comprised £900 for distress, inconvenience and time and effort. It also offered a further £100 for the loss of hot water and £100 for the loss of heating. When considered together, the apology and compensation were an appropriate acknowledgement of the distress its failures caused. It also noted that it could consider increasing the sum offered after the completion of repairs at the property which showed a commitment to engage with her ongoing concerns. Overall, this approach was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for failings of this kind.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.

Recommendation

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the sum of £1100 if it has not already done so. This payment recognised genuine elements of service failure and the above reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that it has or will be paid.