London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202505877)

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord to report water leaking through the flat roof into the bedrooms, causing water damage and mould on the ceilings. The resident is disabled.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a roof leak and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak and associated repairs.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a roof leak and associated repairs

5. The landlord exceeded its repairs timescales, causing the resident prolonged distress despite knowing the health impact. It did not compensate the resident for the duration of the delay.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded within required timescales. The responses were thorough and covered all elements required by the Code.

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.

7. The resident reported water leaking through his kitchen ceiling on 7 April 2025. He said that leaks from the roof had occurred before and had caused damp and mould in his home. Under the landlord’s repair policy, it will attend emergencies within 24 hours and will aim to complete routine day to day repairs within 20 working days. It aims to complete complex repairs, including roof works requiring scaffolding, within 40 working days. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires it to address the root cause and carry out necessary repairs in line with the repairs policy. It will assess the property within 20 working days and raise remedial works within 10 working days of the assessment. Where the work required is complex, the landlord will communicate timescales with residents and keep them informed throughout. It will consider the residents’ needs and vulnerabilities.
8. Although the resident had reported roof leaks in previous years, the evidence does not show that the earlier reports related to the same repair.
9. The landlord inspected the roof on 8 April 2025, which was appropriate given the emergency nature of the report. It arranged follow on works, including a 20-day roof repair and a mould treatment inside the flat. The mould treatment took place on 17 April 2025. The landlord responded promptly and in line with the damp and mould policy.
10. The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 9 April 2025. The landlord did not uphold the complaint because the repair was still within the 20-working-day timescale at that point. The landlord continued to chase its contractors for updates on the roof repair. By the time it issued its stage 2 response on 14 May 2025, 24 working days had passed. The landlord confirmed its contractor had inspected the roof and provided a report and quote, and that it had authorised the repair on 9 May 2025. The contractor had identified the need for scaffolding, making the repair complex. The landlord upheld the complaint, and accepted that it had not managed the repair effectively.
11. The landlord continued to chase the contractor, who carried out a further inspection on 19 June 2025. It is not clear why a second inspection was needed. The contractor completed the work on 14 August 2025, 90 working days after the resident first reported the leak. This exceeded the landlord’s 40-working-day target for complex works. As a result, the landlord had to delay full mould treatment until the roof repair was completed. It has since finished the mould treatment.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. In its stage 2 response on 14 May 2025, the landlord accepted that it had not managed the repair effectively and apologised. It recognised the impact on the resident’s health and additional needs and offered £260 compensation. This comprised £120 for distress, £120 for inconvenience, and £20 for time and effort in pursuing the complaint. However, the roof repair was not completed until 14 August 2025, which further extended the period of disruption. This amounts to service failure, we have ordered increased compensation to £360, in line with our compensation guidance, to reflect the prolonged detriment to the resident.

14. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. This can be extended by 10 working days for complex cases. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. This can be extended by 20 working days for complex cases. This is in line with the Code.
15. The landlord responded at stage 1 and 2 within its timescales. The responses were detailed and thorough and covered all elements required by the Code. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

16. The landlord initially treated the roof leak as a routine repair, but later reclassified it as complex. Earlier assessment would have set more realistic timescales.
17. Although the landlord carried out mould treatment quickly, it had not resolved the source of the leak first. This delayed full resolution.
18. Repeated chasing of contractors without progress suggests ineffective oversight. The landlord should have a more robust oversight of its contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord provided good evidence of record keeping for repairs, making it easy to see how repairs progressed.

Communication

20. The landlord did not demonstrate that it kept the resident informed of revised timescales once delays arose, contrary to its damp and mould policy.