London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202516158)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette with her 5 children. The landlord is aware she has respiratory health conditions. She complained to the landlord about delays repairing a leaking roof.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

4. There were avoidable delays completing an effective and lasting repair to the roof. The landlord’s communication throughout was poor and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The matter has remained outstanding for a significant period after it issued its final complaint response.

Complaint handling

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which it did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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

6. The resident raised concerns about the effect of the roof leak on the health of her and her family. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. Following the resident’s report that a roof leak had returned the landlord raised a recall repair job for its contractor to attend. As the contractor had completed repair work to the roof less than 4 weeks previously, this was appropriate. That said, the repair records show the landlord cancelled the job after the contractor claimed the issue was not a roofing problem. There is no evidence the contractor attended to confirm this. The landlord then failed to arrange follow‑on repairs or update the resident.
8. There is no evidence of further reports from the resident regarding the roof until September 2023. Between 22 September 2023 and 2 January 2024, she chased the landlord on multiple occasions. She reported that the leak became uncontainable during rainfall and filled several buckets in the lounge in under an hour, leaving her unable to use the room. She told the landlord the leak was making her unwell, and she was ‘unable to cope.’
9. The resident told the landlord she lived with young children, and it was aware of her health vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that it considered mitigating action such as temporary rehousing of the family to enable full investigation of the issue. We have seen no evidence that it completed a risk assessment for any hazards.
10. After erecting scaffolding to allow access to the roof, the landlord attended on 5 January 2024 to conduct repair work. This was over 3 months from the resident’s September 2023 report, an unreasonable delay for which the landlord offered no explanation. It cleared out the box guttering but was unable to renew lead flashing to the roof. Its records indicate it noted that its major works team needed to arrange further repair work. There is no evidence that it followed this up or contacted the resident to update her.
11. The resident expressed concerns about the safety risk due to water ingress in the electrical system. There is no evidence that the landlord considered potential risks in view of the repeated water ingress. Its records do not demonstrate that it responded to her concerns which is a failing.
12. The landlord inspected the leak on 3 occasions between February and May 2024 following further contact from the resident. It noted that mould growth and damp was present due to the ongoing water ingress. Its damp and mould report identified the need for repairs to the roof and internal walls and ceilings. However, despite escalating the severity to the roofing team, it did not raise any repair orders. By the time the resident complained, the leak had continued for more than 13 months.
13. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised for the trouble caused to the resident by its delay to repair the roof. It said it would conduct an inspection of the issue on 19 June 2024 and would update her following this. It offered £480 in compensation for its delays to repair the roof and the resulting distress and inconvenience.
14. The landlord’s compensation offer at this point was not proportionate to the detriment the issue caused to the resident living with the leak for 13 months. It failed to acknowledge her concerns about the impact on her health, or the loss of use of the lounge. Given the size of the household and the property occupied, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if it could take any mitigating measures to reduce the effect of losing the main communal space in the home.
15. The resident had told the landlord that damage had been caused to flooring and personal items by the water ingress. It would have been reasonable for it to provide details of its liability insurer in response. As it has not demonstrated it has done so throughout this case, we have made a recommendation.
16. The landlord inspected the roof as set out in its stage 1 response. It identified repair work necessary to rectify the leak. However, there is no evidence that it raised a works order to complete this, resulting in further delays for the resident. Although its complaints team chased the repair work with the relevant team, a lack of communication between the landlord’s departments meant it did not resolve the issue.
17. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and she had to spend considerable time chasing for information and progress. These communication failures worsened the situation and increased the impact on her. They also further damaged the relationship between the parties.
18. The landlord’s final response set out that roof required replacement, and it would update the resident on any interim works that it could complete. It said its major works team would be arranging the replacement and would keep the resident updated. It said the compensation it offered at stage 1 was in line with its policy.
19. The landlord’s final response lacked empathy and failed to respond to key concerns, including the loss of use of the lounge, internal repair work, mould, and extra costs from replacing items damaged by water ingress. It did not acknowledge or apologise for further delays that had occurred in the 6 months since its previous complaint response. It offered no further redress to recognise the detriment caused to the resident living with the leak for 20 months. It also failed to offer any support to her despite its awareness of the vulnerabilities in the household. It failed to include an action plan or a timescale for completing a permanent repair.
20. After completing its complaint process, the landlord failed to repair the roof leak within a reasonable timeframe and did not act on the lessons learned. Thirteen months later, the issue remains unresolved, reflecting serious failings in oversight and accountability. This has significantly impacted the resident and the enjoyment of her home. She has also reported ongoing poor communication and a lack of updates, further indicating that the landlord did not learn from the original complaint. Therefore, with consideration of our remedies guidance we have made orders for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident and to take specific action to resolve the issue. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its published timescales.
23. The landlord failed to monitor actions set out in its stage 1 response. On 11 July 2024, the resident said it had not updated her regarding the substantive issue as agreed. There is no evidence that it responded to this. Its failure to do so meant delays continued causing further inconvenience to the resident.
24. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 1 November 2024. It only did so following further contact from her on 5 December 2024. This led to avoidable time and trouble for her chasing the progress of her complaint.
25. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for its complaint handling delay in its responses. We have made an order for it to apologise and pay compensation.

Learning

26. The landlord should improve how it monitors non‑routine repair work. In this case, major delays occurred because its teams did not communicate effectively. It should put a clear process in place to support good internal communication, keep residents informed, and track the progress of major repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements for complaints and repairs to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to consistently communicate about delays throughout the repairs process with the resident. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns and that it keeps them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.