London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202451127)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451127

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the drainage system.

Background

  1. The resident and his partner have a joint assured tenancy agreement for the property. They live in the property with their 2 children. The property is a ground floor flat with a garden.
  2. On 21 September 2024 the resident reported a blocked and overflowing drain which was causing an unpleasant smell. On 24 October 2024 the resident complained the issue with the drain was unresolved. He said the landlord had not provided him with updates on when it would resolve the issue.
  3. On 25 October 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said the contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the CCTV inspection.
  4. On 25 November 2024 the resident escalated his complaint due to the length of time it had taken the landlord to resolve the repair to the drain. On 13 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said its contractor confirmed the repair to the drain was complete, however, the resident made it aware the drainage issue was ongoing. The landlord said it had therefore, requested a recall of the repair. It apologised.
  5. In or around June 2025 the contractor completed the works. On 30 July 2025 the resident confirmed to us the work was completed, however, he reported the kitchen waste pipe was misaligned from the main waste line. The resident said this has resulted in the kitchen waste overspilling into the garden. The landlord has informed us it aimed to complete the repair by 11 August 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial repair report within a reasonable timeframe. Specifically, the report was received on 21 September 2025 via the landlord’s website. On 25 September 2024 the contractor attended to clear the blockage and reported the pipework was full of grease and fat. The landlord advises residents can report non-emergency repairs online. For non-emergency repairs, the landlord’s service standard is to contact a resident within 5working days to arrange an appointment. It aims to complete non-emergency repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. The following day (26 September 2025), the contractor attended again as the resident reported he was still experiencing issues with the drainage. The contractor recommended a CCTV inspection as it found a broken gully may have been causing the blockage.
  3. There is no evidence this was completed within 25 calendar days, and the resident submitted a formal complaint on 24 October 2024.
  4. On 25 October 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord said the resident reported the repair on 21 October 2024. It said its contractor attended on 25and 26 October 2024. It stated the contractor had recommended a CCTV inspection during the visit on 26 October 2024 and would be in touch with the resident to arrange the inspection.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord the same day it provided its response. He stated it had referenced incorrect dates regarding the repair, in its stage 1 response. The landlord responded with an apology and advised the resident the contractor should be in touch with him within the next week.
  6. The evidence shows it took 6 weeks from 26 September 2024 to 7 November 2024 for the landlord to complete the CCTV inspection. This represents an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s stage 1 response had incorrect dates about when its contractor attended the property and recommended the CCTV inspection. Therefore its assessment of the complaint at stage 1 was undermined and unreliable based on these errors. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to acknowledge that by the time it was issued, several weeks had already passed without it acting on the recommendation.
  7. The CCTV inspection on 7 November 2024 found scale was causing blockages within the pipework. It also found multiple cracks in the pipework. The contractor recommended follow on work to descale to the pipework. It said once the descale was complete, it would be able to see the extent of the cracks and provide a quote for the remedial work.
  8. On 25 November 2024 the resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy with the time it was taking the landlord to resolve the issue. On 13 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. A review of the landlord’s stage 2 response shows it failed to provide a response supported by evidence. The landlord said its contractor confirmed the drainage repair was completed. However, the evidence the landlord had available from the CCTV inspection report dated 7 November 2024, contradicted this. The report stated follow on works were required to descale the drainage pipework in order to ascertain the full extent of the remedial repair. When the landlord sent its stage 2 response it had no evidence to show it had completed the descale of the drain, contrary to what it stated in its response. This was unreasonable and undermined the credibility of its response.
  9. On 14 April 2025 the landlord completed the recommended descale of the drainage pipework. Thereafter, the contractor recommended remedial work to renew the gully and the drainage pipework. The landlord arranged an appointment to complete the repairs on 17 June 2025, however, the resident reported to the landlord the appointment did not take place as arranged.
  10. We have not been provided the definitive date the landlord completed the work, however, the evidence indicates it was around 23 June 2025. The resident reported to us that when the landlord completed the remedial work, his kitchen waste pipe was not properly aligned with the main waste pipe. The resident said as a result, the waste from the kitchen pipe is not draining properly through the main drainage pipework and spilling into the garden.
  11. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord failed to progress the repair to resolution within a reasonable time following its stage 2 response. The contractor recommended a descale of the drainage pipework on 7 November 2024. This was not completed until 5 months later. Since the descale was necessary to identify the required remedial works, the delay to complete this work unnecessarily extended the overall time taken to provide resolution to the drainage issue.
  12. When failures are 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 considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  13. In the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s complaint, it failed to acknowledge the service failures in its handling of the drainage repair. It also did not offer the resident any redress for its failure to address the issue within a reasonable timeframe. At the time of its final response, dated 13 December 2024, the landlord was aware it was required to complete further work before the drain could be repaired. Despite this, it did not complete the recommended work promptly.
  14. As a result of the issue with the drainage, the resident’s garden had sewage overflow described by the resident as ‘sewage puddles’. The resident also experienced foul smells into his property coming from the drains.
  15. The delays in resolving the repair impacted the resident’s enjoyment of his garden. The landlord’s complaint responses were also poor. Therefore, these failings amount to maladministration.
  16. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its handling of the drainage repair. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation, taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, and our remedies guidance.
  17. The residents have sole use of the garden, and their enjoyment of it was affected by the ongoing drainage issues while the substantive drainage repair remained outstanding between September 2024 and June 2025. In addition, after the landlord completed the substantive repair to the drainage in June 2025, the resident continued to experience inconvenience due to the kitchen waste pipe not being properly connected to the main waste pipe. In light of the delay in completing the substantive repair and the ongoing inconvenience caused by the unresolved issue with the kitchen waste pipe, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £768.63, consisting of:
    1. £468.63 which is compensation based on an equivalent to 5% of the resident’s rent for the period during which the substantive drainage repair remained outstanding. This period is between 20 October 2024 to 23 June 2025, which is based on the date of the resident’s first report on 21 September 2024, less the landlord’s target timeframe to complete the necessary repairs.
    2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This includes the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the repair, the missed appointment on 17 June 2025 and the landlord’s failure to resolve the matter during the complaint procedure. The compensation also takes into account the further inconvenience the resident has experienced as a result of the outstanding repair to the kitchen waste pipe following completion of the substantive drainage repair in June 2025.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the drainage.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident with a formal apology for the failures we identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £768.63 compensation. This payment should be made directly to the resident and consists of:
      1. £468.63 in recognition of the delay in the landlord addressing the drainage substantive drainage repair.
      2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the delay.
    3. Complete a post inspection to ensure the works and issues are now resolved with finality.
    4. Provide us with documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders.