London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202405907)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405907

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 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 of flooring issues.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat. The property was built by a third-party developer (‘the developer’) and handed over to the landlord in 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 30 November 2021 the resident moved into the property. The resident reported issues with the flooring in December 2021. In April 2022 the resident queried whether the correct flooring had been installed. He subsequently complained to the landlord about these issues. As part of the complaint resolution the resident was compensated for the flooring “not being as advertised”.
  3. Between May 2023 and July 2023 the developer completed repairs to the flooring. In December 2023 the resident reported the floorboards were moving and the landlord completed a repair. In January 2024the resident told the landlord the repair had been unsuccessful.
  4. On 11 June 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the flooring issues. He said he first reported issues in December 2021. The resident said he thought the issues were resolved in 2023, but the condition of the floor deteriorated. The resident said there were gaps in the floor, the floor panels moved and were poor quality. The resident said he wanted the flooring replaced.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 7 November 2024 and said:
    1. The developer did not accept responsibility for the issues. In June 2023 it repaired the floor as a ‘goodwill gesture’ and told the landlord no further action was needed.
    2. No issues had been reported since December 2023.
    3. The issues were originally reported during the landlord’s 2-year warranty. It therefore “strongly recommended” the resident submit a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC).
    4. It was sorry for the delay in resolving the issues. It was not dismissing the resident’s case but there was little it could do.
  6. On 20 November 2024 the resident told the landlord its response was incorrect, and he had reported issues after December 2023.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 29 January 2025. It acknowledged the issues were unresolved. The landlord apologised for not replying to the resident’s emails. It said the NHBC told the resident the landlord would need to submit a claim on his behalf. It confirmed it had done this and would monitor the claim to completion. The landlord awarded £300 compensation.
  8. The resident referred the complaint to us on 28 April 2025. He said the issues were ongoing and the floor was unsafe. The resident said the condition of the floor meant he could not invite friends into his home. He said he wanted the developer to replace the floor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We are aware there are historical issues with the flooring. We encourage residents to complain to their landlords in a timely manner, so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’. This also means the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. We do not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident complained to the landlord in 2022 and contacted us about the complaint. The resident decided not to pursue his complaint with us at that time but made a further complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2024. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the developer repaired the floor in June 2023. This investigation therefore considers the period from June 2023 until the landlord’s final complaint response on 29 January 2025. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint.
  2. The resident said he is dissatisfied with the actions of the developer. The developer is not a social landlord and therefore it is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. We will only consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member landlord. As such, this report will focus on the actions of the landlord and whether its response to the resident was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with us, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooring issues

  1. The resident’s lease agreement says he is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition. New-build properties have a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues. The landlord is responsible for raising issues with the developer during this period. The building defects liability period ended on 4 December 2021. The landlord’s warranty ended on 30 November 2023. The property has a 10-year warranty cover from NHBC.
  2. On 13 June 2023 the resident said a contractor glued the floor in place. He said chips in the floor panels had not been repaired. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the floor condition would not affect the value of the property. A further repair was completed on 14 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s query. The landlord acted unreasonably in not responding to the resident.
  3. On 22 December 2023 the landlord repaired the flooring. The resident told the landlord on 2 January 2024 the repair had not worked. He explained he was very upset as several repair attempts had failed. The landlord responded on 10 January 2024. It said as it was a recurrent issue it was pushing for the developer to replace the floor.
  4. In March and April 2024 the resident chased the landlord for updates and explained the issues were worsening. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the developer about the issues until after 8 April 2024. This was 3 months after it told the resident it was working to resolve the issue.
  5. On 24 April 2024 the landlord said the developer had not accepted responsibility for the floor and considered the issues to be ‘wear and tear’. The landlord said it “strongly disagreed” with this position. It said both it and the developer had attempted repairs, but these were unsuccessful. The landlord said there was nothing it could do as the developer refused to accept responsibility. It advised the resident to contact NHBC.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response sent on 7 November 2024 the landlord restated the developer’s position. The landlord said its options were limited as the developer would not take responsibility for the “defective flooring”. It said the developer completed repairs in June 2023 and no issues had been reported since December 2023. It said the initial repairs were reported within the resident’s 2-year landlord warranty and he should therefore contact the NHBC. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issues but said there was little it could do.
  7. The resident told the landlord he was disappointed by its response. He said he had reported flooring issues after December 2023. The resident said the landlord had previously told him NHBC would not get involved.
  8. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 29 January 2025. It acknowledged the resident had first raised the issues in 2021 and they remained unresolved. The landlord also acknowledged the resident had to chase it for responses. It said the NHBC confirmed to the resident the landlord had to submit a claim on his behalf. The landlord said it had submitted a claim. It awarded £300 compensation.
  9. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the flooring issues were unresolved and its communication had been inadequate. However, it failed to apologise for providing incorrect information about the NHBC claims process. The landlord did not explain why it had not submitted a claim earlier. Had the landlord acted in a timelier manner the resident would have received a decision sooner. The landlord failed to recognise the distress this delay caused the resident. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  11. We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 compensation. This comprises £300 awarded at stage 2 and £300 for the failures set out above. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that had a significant impact on the resident.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
    3. Notify residents of any delays and seek to agree a new deadline.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2024. This was 84 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 7 November 2024. This was 83 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  4. The resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response on 20 November 2024. We consider this to be the date the resident escalated his complaint.
  5. After the resident chased the landlord for a response it provided an acknowledgement of his complaint on 8 January 2025. This was 28 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 29 January 2025. This was 28 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  7. We found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not follow the timelines in the Code. This delayed the resident’s access to a complaint resolution and caused him distress. We ordered the landlord to pay £250 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing that adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of flooring issues.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing for the identified failures.
    2. Pay the resident £850 compensation. This comprises:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of reports of flooring issues.
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord may deduct from this amount any compensation paid at stage 2. The compensation awarded by the Ombudsman must be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.

  1. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update on the status of its claim to NHBC.