London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202347433)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202347433 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
26 May 2026 |
Background
- The landlord is the leaseholder of the flat, which is in a building where another company owns and manages the freehold. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of a water leak from a neighbouring property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
a) Reports of water leaks.
b) The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
a) A reasonable offer of redress was made for the landlord’s response to reports of a water leak.
b) A service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord took reasonable steps to trace and repair the water leak. It apologised for its poor communication and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for these failings, and other shortcomings identified in our investigation. Which included poor record keeping for repairs to secondary leaks and failing to treat the ceiling repairs as urgent.
- The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 and instead issued a second stage 1 response 38 days later. This delayed the resident’s referral to us. It offered reasonable compensation but did not explain the failures or provide an apology.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 26 June 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
29 January 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. They reported discolouration and damp patches on the ceiling, which they believed were caused by a water leak. They asked the landlord to investigate and repair the leak and to redecorate the affected ceiling and walls. |
|
1 February 2024 |
The landlord issued a complaint acknowledgement and response letter. It apologised for the plumbing issues that the resident had reported and said that it had responded to the water leak within 24 hours. It explained that it would complete follow-on repairs to resolve the leak. |
|
2 March 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord and said that they had been told that their complaint had been closed. They said that they were unhappy with this decision as they had 3 ongoing water leaks, which made their property unsafe for them to live in. |
|
24 April 2024 |
The landlord issued a further stage 1 response. It said it had completed repairs in several properties to try to resolve the water leak. It advised that, if the leak continued, further investigation by the freeholder’s managing agent might be needed. It offered £400 compensation made up as £100 for distress, £100 for Inconvenience, £100 for poor complaint handling, £100 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved. |
|
16 May 2024 |
The resident escalated their complaint. They reported an ongoing water leak in a cupboard that had not been resolved despite multiple contractor visits and said the landlord had not completed the necessary repairs. They also asked when the landlord would arrange for decoration of the affected areas. |
|
30 May 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had attended within 24 hours of the resident reporting the water leak and had carried out plumbing repairs in neighbouring properties to resolve the issue. It stated that it completed the repairs within its target timescales but accepted that its communication had been poor. It explained that internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility and provided details of its insurer, inviting the resident to make a claim for any damage to personal property. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate their complaint. They said that they were unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the water leaks and believed the property was unsafe for them to occupy. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to reports of water leaks |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- On 29 February 2024 the resident reported a water leak. The landlord attended the following day and determined that there was a slow leak which was coming from 1 of the properties located above the resident’s flat. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says that it will attend to urgent repairs within 24 hours.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2024 and reported a very slow leak was also coming from a heating pipe. The landlord has not provided any evidence of how it responded to this report, or when it completed the repair. This indicates poor record keeping.
- A third water leak was reported on 12 February 2024, which also affected the resident’s ceiling. This appears to have been linked to the original water leak.
- The landlord attempted to access the properties above the resident, which were owned by leaseholders. It visited the properties and left calling cards asking the leaseholders to make contact. This was reasonable, as the landlord did not have a direct landlord and tenant relationship with those residents and needed to arrange access.
- On 28 February 2024, the landlord arranged for a mould wash at the property. This was appropriate, as it helped manage the risk of damp and mould while the landlord investigated and repaired the water leak.
- On 6 March 2024, the landlord completed a Healthy Homes report, which identified that the ceiling was bowing and at risk of collapse. The landlord did not treat this as an emergency repair, which led to a further 6‑day delay before it removed the damaged ceiling and installed new boarding. This was not appropriate and did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy, which requires urgent risks to safety to be made safe within 24 hours.
- The landlord traced the leak to a neighbouring property and found it was caused by a backflow from a shower room. It completed the repairs on 23 May 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of ownership for this property, so it is unclear whether it owned the lease or carried out the works on behalf of another leaseholder.
- In total it took 85 calendar days to complete the repair. Whilst the landlord failed to meet its repair policy target of 25 calendar days, it was a complex repair that required it to negotiate access to several properties some of which it neither owned, or managed. It took reasonable steps to contact the leaseholders and when it identified the source of the leak completed the repairs.
- In its complaint response, the landlord explained that the resident was responsible for redecorating the area affected by the water leak. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, which states that it will not carry out redecoration when completing day to day repairs.
- While the landlord managed the repairs appropriately, it did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not explain the actions it had taken to resolve the leak in the cupboard or carry out an appropriate assessment in response to the resident’s health and safety concerns. As a result, the resident had to contact the landlord for updates, reported that they felt their concerns were not taken seriously and that no action was being taken.
- The landlord apologised for its poor communication and offered £300 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience and effort getting the issue resolved. We consider this to be a reasonable offer of redress, as it is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our guidance for cases involving multiple communication failures, incorrectly categorising the ceiling repairs, and poor record keeping.
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £400, as agreed in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress relies on this payment being made.
- The resident reports that the leaks resumed after the landlord issued its stage 2 response and that they have experienced several leaks over recent years. We can only assess the landlord’s actions up to the stage 2 response, when it confirmed the issues had been resolved. The resident may raise a new complaint about any subsequent leaks and refer it to us if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time complied with the definition of a complaint set out in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The policy also met the Code’s timescale requirements. It sets out a 2-stage complaints process, with a target to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days.
- The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 after the resident confirmed they remained dissatisfied with the response. Instead, it issued a second stage 1 response. This was not appropriate and delayed the resident’s ability to refer the complaint to us for investigation.
- The landlord took 38 working days to issue its stage 2 response, against a policy target of 10 working days. This delay extended the time it took for the resident to refer the complaint to us and is likely to have caused frustration and distress.
- The landlord offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling but did not explain what failures this related to or provide an apology. As a result, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge what had gone wrong and set out how it would prevent this from happening again.
- Had the landlord provided an appropriate apology for the failures identified in its complaint handling, we would have made a finding of reasonable redress. This is because the compensation offered was reasonable and in line with both its compensation policy and our guidance.
- However, as the landlord failed to provide an appropriate apology, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for its complaint handling.
- In addition to the written apology, if the landlord has not already done so, they must pay the £100 compensation offered in it’s complaint response.
Learning
- The landlord should ensure that its complaint responses clearly explain and apologise for any failures for which it is offering compensation.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate repair records that clearly detail the work completed at each visit.
Communication
- The resident would have benefited from improved communication and the landlord proactively updating them about the actions it was taking to resolve their repair.