London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202428660)

Background

1. In September 2024 the resident reported a leak from the flat above. She said it had caused water damage to the walls and ceiling inside her home, and this had happened before. She believed the landlord was not maintaining the boiler properly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of water damage.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of water damage.
   2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found:
   1. The landlord did not consider the history or earlier reports when responding to the damage. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the impact on the resident. It did not act on the learning it identified, and further leaks and damage occurred.
   2. The landlord did not clearly identify or respond to all the issues raised by the resident. It did not recognise failings in its complaint handling.

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.

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

5. The resident raised issues that were not included in her original complaint and others that occurred after the landlord provided its final response. We have no power to investigate complaints where the landlord has not had the chance to put things right. The resident has made a separate complaint about the impact the leak had on her water bills. She would need to make a further complaint about any issues that have occurred since.
6. The resident was affected by leaks coming from both her own and her neighbour’s boiler. We have not investigated how the landlord handled repairs in the neighbour’s property. We have only considered how it responded to the resident’s reports of leaks and damage in her home. We do not look at claims in the same way an insurance provider would or award financial redress for damaged items which should be covered by insurance. Our compensation awards are generally modest in comparison and are based on distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will make good surfaces affected by a repair so residents can redecorate. It will only redecorate itself when it has an obligation to or in exceptional circumstances. Its compensation policy also reflects this. It also says where there is damage to residents’ decorations, it may carry out reasonable decoration or provide decorating vouchers. Both policies state that residents should have insurance to cover their belongings.
8. The landlord has published a repair responsibilities booklet on its website. This sets out that it is responsible for making sure fixtures and fittings for the supply of water and heating are in working order. It also commits to providing a heating system that is tested to make sure it is safe and provides adequate heat. In relation to damp and mould, it will identify the cause, make repairs, and work with the resident to prevent issues recurring. It says it will do annual boiler checks on gas boilers.
9. The resident complained on 27 September 2024. She said a leak from the flat upstairs had caused water damage in her home. She said the landlord had not come back from a previous leak to complete the work. She requested compensation so she could redecorate. The landlord responded saying it had not received any recent reports from the resident and raised a new repair. This was reasonable given it thought there was an active leak in her property. However, clearer communication could have avoided this error and reduced the time and trouble the resident spent escalating her complaint.
10. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 October 2024 because she felt the landlord had misunderstood her concerns. She felt it had been negligent and her property had been damaged more than once. The landlord advised that redecorating was the resident’s responsibility. In its stage 2 response, it offered £120 worth of decorating vouchers which was consistent with its compensation policy and guidance on redecoration. However, its repairs policy says it will make surfaces good first and there is no evidence that it did this until March 2025 when it responded to a further leak.
11. The evidence shows the resident experienced repeated leaks that required redecoration several times due to water damage. The landlord’s policy says it can redecorate for residents in exceptional circumstances. Given the history of the issue, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether the resident’s complaint in 2024 met this threshold. However, there is no evidence that it recorded any consideration of whether the circumstances were exceptional or documented its reasons for deciding that redecorating was not appropriate. While the decorating vouchers partly addressed the issue, they did not reflect the repeated problems experienced or the time and trouble the resident incurred.
12. The landlord’s policies recommend residents have their own insurance to cover damage or loss, which is reasonable. However, there is no evidence the landlord directed the resident to its insurance team to consider whether her reports of negligence and damage could be assessed through that route.
13. The landlord recorded learning from the complaint in October 2024 and said it would carry out annual boiler checks. It says on its website and in its policies it will make sure heating and hot water systems are safe and tested. The boiler manufacturers also recommend annual servicing on their website. The evidence does not show the landlord carried out inspections or servicing, as identified in its learning and as manufacturers recommend.
14. The landlord responded to further reported leaks and water damage in January 2025 and January 2026. This indicates ongoing issues with the boiler and a failure to complete a lasting repair. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and explain how it will monitor or inspect the boiler to prevent recurring issues.
15. Our finding of maladministration recognises the cumulative impact of repeated leaks and water damage on the resident. While the landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 2 alongside decorating vouchers, this was not proportionate to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. The landlord has been unable to provide a lasting solution or reassurance it has resolved the issue. It has not shown that it learned from the failings it identified or has taken steps to prevent the issue happening again. We order the landlord to pay £200 inclusive of the £100 it has already offered. This is in line with our compensation guidance for maladministration where the resident has been adversely affected.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy has a 2-stage process. It says it will provide a response in 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales align with The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident made her complaint on 27 September 2024. The landlord sent its acknowledgement and decision 1 working day later. While this met the timescales set out in its policy and the Code, it did not clearly define the scope of the complaint or address all the points raised by the resident. As a result, the response did not fully resolve her concerns and led to further dissatisfaction. Clear complaint definition and full responses to all issues are key requirements under the Code.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 October 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 October 2024, 19 working days later. This was in line with its policy and the Code. It also spoke to the resident prior to issuing its response, showing effective communication and engagement in the complaint process.
19. The landlord said it could only consider issues from the previous 12 months within its complaint process. The evidence shows that prior to the resident’s contact in September 2024, the last call regarding a leak had been October 2022. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to make exclusions under its policy.
20. However, it could have responded to the resident’s concerns about boiler maintenance and the risk of further issues. It did not provide reassurance which led to more uncertainty and dissatisfaction. The landlord recorded that it needed to carry out annual inspections of the boiler, but there is no evidence to show it communicated this with the resident during the complaint process. Had it done so, the resident may not have needed to bring her complaint to us.
21. Our finding of service failure relates to the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. While it escalated the complaint promptly at the resident’s request, it did not identify or reflect on its earlier failings. This slightly delayed resolution of the substantive issue and caused the resident minor inconvenience. We have included a learning point relating to complaint handling and ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a minor service failure.

Learning

22. The landlord’s records showed a history of leaks at a neighbouring property. When it received further reports of similar repairs, the landlord could have contacted the resident to check whether she had been affected again. This would have shown it had considered the history of the issue and taken a proactive approach.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. Effective knowledge and information management helps to prevent repeated issues. When landlords do not link reports relating to the same underlying problem, they may miss opportunities to identify patterns and address the root cause. Systems that can connect related cases can help reduce risk and support service improvement.

Communication

24. In this case, the landlord did not clearly communicate with the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. As a result, it did not accurately scope the resident’s complaint or provide a meaningful response that fully addressed the issues raised. Better communication may have prevented the complaint escalating and given the resident confidence in the landlord’s complaint process.