London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202523567)

Decision
Case ID	202523567
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 March 2026

 

Background

1. On 6 November 2024 the resident reported a roof leak which was causing damage to her home. The landlord completed repairs but the resident complained as the problem remained and reoccurred during rainfall.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a roof leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to a roof leak.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Roof leak

5. The landlord took too long to complete the repairs and failed to take effective action to establish and resolve the root cause of the leak. There was evidence of poor communication, confusion, and a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the failures in its complaint response or offer the resident proportionate redress.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised and offered proportionate compensation for the failure.

 

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 failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to a roof leak. The landlord may deduct from the total any payments already made with regards to this complaint. The landlord must pay the resident directly and provide documentary evidence of the payment to us by the due date.	No later than: 27 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £60 as agreed in the stage 2 complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.
As the repair has been completed recently, it is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to ensure the repair has been successful.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint about an ongoing roof leak. She said the recently completed repairs had been ineffective and the leak remained active when it rained. She said the contractor had missed 2 appointments and had been rude during a recent call. The resident said the ongoing leak was affecting her daily life, had damaged her flooring, and caused concern about further damage to her home.
16 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised on behalf of the contractor. It acknowledged the missed appointments, apologised and confirmed the roof repair was completed on 16 May 2025. It acknowledged the impact caused and offered £70 compensation, which comprised of £40 for 2 missed appointments and £30 for inconvenience.
25 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said despite multiple repairs, the landlord had not resolved the issue, and she continued to experience water ingress. She explained the leak remained active and she wanted it to resolve it and complete all necessary repairs.
10 September 2025	The resident added to her complaint. She said she’d identified a gap in the roof which she believed was causing the leak. She said she wanted the landlord to repair the internal damage caused by the leak.
15 September 2025	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It: apologised for the damage to belongings and provided its insurance details acknowledged it should have managed the repairs more effectively and completed them sooner and raised a task to complete all outstanding repairs upheld the complaint and recognised its poor handling of the issue and the time and effort caused to the resident increased its compensation to £390, which comprised of £330 for the inconvenience and £60 for complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the repair was completed in February 2026. She wanted an apology and compensation for her time and trouble.

 

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	Landlord’s response to a roof leak
Finding	Maladministration

7. On 6 November 2024 the resident reported a roof leak and water ingress. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete repairs with added complexity such as roof works, within 40 working days. It completed the repair in early March 2025, taking approximately 80 working days. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
8. On 17 March 2025 the resident reported the leak again. The landlord asked the contractor to return and arranged appointments for 28 and 29 April 2025. These appointments were missed and the resident was not updated. She chased the repair on 12 and 14 May 2025, and the landlord confirmed completion on 16 May 2025. The repair took 43 days, which was slightly outside its 40-day repair timescale. Further, the lack of updates to the resident was a communication failure.
9. The resident reported the leak for the third time on 25 July 2025. She said during rainfall the roof leaked and had caused flooding and damage to her home. There is no evidence the landlord raised any repairs at this time or that it communicated with the resident. Given the reoccurring nature of the leak, the landlord ought to have acted promptly to investigate and prevent further damage. Its repairs policy says it will deliver a reliable repairs service and respond promptly to repair requests. The landlord’s lack of action or urgency was unreasonable and its failure to remedy the leak led to worry for the resident.
10. On 26 August 2025, as part of a separate investigation into damp and mould within the property, the landlord instructed an independent inspection. The surveyor noted remedial works had taken place on the roof but found increased moisture levels near the leak. Although the wall plaster may still have been drying, the surveyor recommended an urgent review of the roof to ensure the covering was sound and waterproof. This was a reasonable step to ensure the leak was resolved.
11. The roof inspection took place on 19 September 2025, and the landlord also assessed the internal damage. The inspection found the front and back gutters and the downpipe required renewing, with repairs due by 12 December 2025. While the inspection was completed within a reasonable timeframe, the repairs were not completed by the due date. This was unreasonable and the resident had now experienced an ongoing leak during rainfall for approximately 10 months without a resolution.
12. On 14 November 2025, the landlord identified confusion about the outstanding repairs. The repair raised after the September 2025 inspection had been closed without completion and a repair raised on 6 October 2025 did not specify the works required. In addition, photos from the September inspection did not match the resident’s property. The records do not show that the landlord escalated the matter or arranged a further inspection to identify the correct repair. Instead, it concluded the photos were uploaded in error and chose to complete the previously closed repair. This was a record-keeping failure and showed insufficient oversight of the repairs.
13. It is evident the resident chased the outcome of the inspection and the status of repairs several times. Although the landlord replied, it did not provide a meaningful resolution or acknowledge the impact of the ongoing leak. The resident spent time and effort pursuing updates, which caused her distress and inconvenience. This was reflected in her communication with the landlord during and after the complaints process.
14. The resident told the landlord the ongoing roof leak had damaged her personal belongings. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for residents’ belongings, therefore it was appropriate for it to provide its liability insurer’s details to enable her to make an insurance claim directly.
15. Overall, the evidence shows there were extensive delays, ineffective repairs and repair management, poor communication, and record keeping failures. These failings led to prolonged inaction over a period of 10 months up to the final complaint response. The resident told us the repairs were completed in February 2026, 5 months after the landlord’s final complaint response. The situation caused her distress and inconvenience, and it was clear she invested time and effort in chasing the landlord to obtain a resolution.
16. The landlord admitted some failings, apologised and offered £400 compensation. We must consider whether this redress put things right and was in line with its compensation policy, our dispute resolution principles, and remedies guidance. The landlord’s policy allows discretionary awards when it does not follow its policies, when it negatively impacts the resident, or when repairs are not managed properly. In this case, there was a significant delay before the required repairs were identified correctly and completed. The landlord’s offer of £400 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.
17. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we have found maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £900 compensation. This sum reflects the impact on the resident and the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. 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.
19. The resident raised a complaint on 29 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged it in 6 days and provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2025, 8 days later. While the acknowledgement was delayed by 1 day, this was unlikely to have had a significant effect or detriment to the resident.
20. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2025. It is unclear why the landlord did not acknowledge it until 8 September 2025, 32 days later. It provided its final response on 15 September 2025, 36 days later. This was not in line with its policy and was a complaint handling failure.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified the failure in its complaint handling. It said managers had been briefed on the case, it apologised and offered £60 compensation. In doing so, it sought to act in line with our dispute resolution principles: to act fairly, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes. The compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response was in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for compensation of this amount where there was a service failure that adversely affected a resident. We have recommended the landlord pay the compensation as a condition of our finding.

 

Learning

General Learning

22. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to provide its stage 2 acknowledgement on time. The landlord should review their policy to ensure all complaints are managed accordingly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. Poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why a landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service and in complaints handling. In this case, we would recommend the landlord read our spotlight report on knowledge and information management May 2023.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It missed multiple opportunities to engage with her to update or reassure her regarding the leak. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication around repairs.