Please note our systems are currently down for maintenance over the weekend and on Monday 12th October 2026.

This means our phone lines, web chat and webform will be unavailable during this time for updates on existing cases.

If you’d like to raise a new case with us during this time, please send it to info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk.

We’ll provide a further update for customers Monday 12th October 2026 here. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202231383)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231383

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 September 2024

 

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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a crack in the exterior wall, a leak from the above balcony, and the subsequent damage to his property.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. He lives in a ground-floor flat.
  2. On 10 September 2021 the resident reported a crack on the wall next to his neighbour’s balcony. He also reported damp in his bathroom from an external pipe that joins the properties. As it was believed to be caused by subsidence, the landlord told the resident to contact its building insurance team. The landlord erected scaffolding on 22 September 2021 and said it would notify the resident of an appointment date once it inspected the crack and leaking pipe.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 20 June 2022 as no repairs had taken place. He was dissatisfied that the scaffolding was still in situ as he could not have full use of his garden, and the scaffolding had damaged his decking. He requested £9000 compensation for the 9 months the scaffolding had been in place, £400 for each additional week the issues were ongoing, and compensation for the damaged decking.
  4. The Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded with a stage 1 complaint response. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 16 October 2022 as the issues had not progressed since his initial complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023.
    1. It recognised that the resident had to chase the leak and repairs several times. It said some of the delays were due to the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown and winter months. It apologised that it did not provide an action plan as requested by the resident.
    2. It would attend on 31 May 2023 to chip of the render on the external wall and remove the bathroom floorboards to investigate the causes of damp. It would book an appointment to clean the guttering.
    3. It apologised that the contractor damaged the shrubbery. The contractor investigated the matter and offered compensation, which the resident did not accept.
    4. It recognised that decoration works to the decking, bathroom wall, and bathroom flooring were outstanding. It said there would be a long wait for it to complete the work so it would award compensation for the resident to complete them.
    5. It offered £4,578 compensation comprised of £2,470 for the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience, £120 for 6 missed appointments, £338 for the limited use of the garden, £750 for his right to repair, £250 as a gesture of goodwill for the possible cap on service charge payments, £500 for the internal/external decorating to be completed, and £150 for the late stage 1 acknowledgement and stage 2 response. It referred the resident to its liability insurance to pursue a claim for health or damaged personal items.
    6. It said it would not pay trespass costs and it had referred the resident to the relevant clauses of the lease which required him to provide access. It advised the resident to consult a legal adviser.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as he wanted additional compensation for the loss of use of the garden and for the damage to the tree. He had completed the repairs to the decking himself, as the landlord had failed to do so. The bathroom repairs remain outstanding because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposed repair. He wanted the flooring to be replaced with like-for-like materials.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has requested £28,039.77 compensation for trespassing caused by the scaffolding. He advised the Service the figure was reached by taking legal advice and assessing amounts awarded by the courts in similar cases. As there are laws regarding trespassing, and the resident is seeking compensation for damages, this element of the complaint would be more appropriately assessed and determined by a court.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. This element of the case would be better suited to refer to the legal process, as the Service is not able to make findings and awards in the same way a court would. Nonetheless, the impact on the resident caused due to the scaffolding will be considered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a crack in the exterior wall, a leak from the above balcony, and the subsequent damage to his property

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for keeping the flat in good and substantial repair and the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and common parts of the building. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. As such, when the resident reported a crack in the exterior wall, the landlord was obligated to act in line with its repairs policy, as it is a structural repair issue.
  2. The landlord recognised failings in its handling of the repairs in its final response. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident reported the external crack on 10 September 2021. The resident said that he understood his neighbour had previously reported the repair, but there is no evidence to confirm this, so it is unclear whether the landlord was on notice for the repair at an earlier date. The landlord initially appropriately handled the repairs as it promptly installed scaffolding on 22 September 2021 to inspect the issue. The landlord’s insurer confirmed on 18 October 2021 that it would not cover the damage as it was a gradually operating defect, not subsidence. At this stage, the landlord should have accepted full responsibility for the repairs and ensured it promptly completed the necessary work.
  4. The landlord’s contractor completed an inspection on 25 November 2021 which found a leak from the soil stack running through the balcony from the flat above. It recommended works to ensure the balcony was watertight prior to remedying the damp in the resident’s bathroom. In its complaint response, the landlord said it received the report on 9 December 2021, which the Service has not seen a copy of, so it is unclear what specific works were required. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the landlord subsequently completed the works in line with its 25-day repair timeframe, or that it promptly took any steps to progress the works. 
  5. There was a prolonged period of inaction by the landlord between December 2021 and June 2022, in which the resident chased the repairs on several occasions and raised a complaint. In its complaint response, the landlord said it experienced delays due to COVID-19. While it is recognised there may have been a backlog of repairs caused by COVID-19 lockdowns, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of any potential delays or took any steps to manage his expectations about the expected timeframe to complete the repairs. Furthermore, as the majority the government restrictions ended in April 2021, it would have been reasonable for the resident to assume that the landlord’s repair service would be operating within normal timeframes by the time he reported the issue in September 2021.
  6. The landlord told the resident on 20 June 2022 that the contractor had been unable to contact him to arrange an appointment. This may have caused delays outside of the landlord’s control, however, the resident disputed that the contractor had attempted to contact him, and there is no evidence to confirm such attempts. An appointment was subsequently cancelled on 4 July 2022 due to contractor illness. While this was an unavoidable delay, the landlord should have promptly rearranged the appointment.
  7. The repair records show the landlord completed a work order on 27 July 2022 to the leaking guttering, but it is unclear what the works were. Nonetheless, it took over 7 months to complete the repairs, which was an excessive delay. 
  8. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. This should include the date it raises and completes works, details of the completed repairs, and any necessary follow-on works. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, as we do not have a copy of the report or outcome of the appointment, there is insufficient evidence to assess whether the landlord appropriately fulfilled its repair obligations. The landlord may also have missed the opportunity to identify whether follow-on works were required, which may have caused further delays in resolving the repair in full.
  9. In its complaint response, the landlord said a surveyor confirmed on 6 September 2022 it needed to re-asphalt the balcony floor, remove the railings, and complete works to the brickwork. Again, the Service has not seen a copy of this report. The landlord noted that it had engaged with the resident, including meeting with him to discuss the repairs, but ultimately there is no evidence that it promptly progressed the works. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint on 16 October 2022 as there had been no progress.
  10. The landlord completed a further structural inspection on 8 November 2022 which recommended mechanically stitching the crack in the exterior wall using Helibars. The landlord said it would take 2 days to complete the works. It is of concern that the landlord’s insurer had identified the need for such repairs in October 2021 and the landlord had not progressed the works. It is understood that the landlord may have required a new survey from its own contractor, but the length of the delay was wholly unreasonable, particularly as the contractor indicated the works would not be particularly extensive or time consuming.
  11. The resident chased the works on 5 December 2022. The landlord agreed to the repair timeframes set out by the resident. He requested the landlord to repair the crack in the wall on 12-13 December 2022, the balcony repairs on 14-16 December 2022, repair the bathroom floor by 30 January 2023, and remove the scaffolding by 30 January 2023. The repairs were postponed due to cold temperatures, as they could not be completed in weather conditions under 4 degrees. While this was outside of the landlord’s control, it could have assessed the weather conditions prior to agreeing to the timeframes set out by the resident to ensure it could realistically adhere to his request. As it failed to do so, it set unrealistic expectations, which would have understandably frustrated the resident and further undermined his trust in the landlord.
  12. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to regularly update the resident to manage his expectations on when it could proceed with the works. As it failed to do so, the resident had to pursue the repairs and request an updated schedule on several occasions. The contractor completed the brickwork on 15 February 2023 and works to the outside staircase and removal the scaffolding on 23 March 2023. The scaffolding was therefore in place for over 18 months, during which time the resident did not have full use of his garden. It is evident that the landlord failed to complete the repairs in a reasonable timeframe, and it missed several opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe of the works which caused him additional time and effort in chasing the matter.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation when it has failed to follow its policies and procedures and if the resident is unable to use the outdoor space due to a repair issue that is its responsibility. In this case, it failed to promptly complete the repairs, which led to damage in the resident’s bathroom, and the scaffolding restricted his use of the garden for a prolonged period. The landlord reimbursed 10% of the resident’s rent for the period he did not have full use of the garden, which it calculated at £338. It also offered £2470.00 for the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience caused.
  14. The Service’s remedies guidance states that awards above £1000 are appropriate in cases where “the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. The landlord has demonstrated it properly considered the impact on the resident, and offered an amount in excess of what the Ombudsman would typically offer. This is because, although there were significant delays in completing the necessary works and removing the scaffolding, the impact was limited to the bathroom and garden, rather than the full use of the property or key living areas. The landlord has therefore reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.
  15. As referenced above, the resident does not feel this was adequate compensation and sent charges to the landlord for trespassing. It is recommended that he seeks legal advice if he wants to pursue this further as it would be more appropriately considered by the courts.
  16. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is entitled to charge the resident for costs it has incurred in connection with the repair of the building. As the landlord did not recharge the resident for the repairs, this has also been considered as part of the overall redress. Nonetheless, given the additional unnecessary time the scaffolding was in place, due to the landlord’s inaction, it was reasonable for the landlord not to pass these charges onto the resident. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not confirm the cost of the scaffolding. However, the landlord would not be obliged to provide such information as it was not passing the costs to the resident so the contract details would not directly impact him.
  17. The resident is also dissatisfied that the landlord has not completed the repairs to the bathroom and decking following the completion of the external works. In its final response, the landlord said it had a long wait to complete the decoration works to the decking and bathroom so it would allow the resident to complete the works within the compensation. It offered £750 for the resident’s right to repair and £500 as a gesture of goodwill for the internal and external decorating. This was reasonable to prevent additional delays. As the landlord did not differentiate how much of the compensation was to complete the works to the bathroom and the decking, the Service has acted on the assumption that £625 compensation was awarded for each repair.
  18. Following the completion of the complaint, the landlord appears to have accepted responsibility for the bathroom repairs as it completed a work order on 2 May 2023 to inspect the bathroom render and remove the floorboard to locate where the damp was occurring. On 11 May 2023 it said it would complete the required work, but it was unable to commit to the guidelines set by the resident for like for like flooring. There has been no further progress on the works.
  19. Due to the age of the building, it is likely that the landlord would experience difficulties resourcing the necessary materials. The resident said he had sourced second hand materials to match the rest of the interior of the building. Considering this, it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation in its final response for the resident to complete the works so he could “get the finish you want and deserve”. Nonetheless, due to the contradiction between the landlord’s stage 2 response and its subsequent action, the resident would understandably have been unclear on its final position regarding the repairs. The landlord missed the opportunity to clearly communicate the available options with the resident in order to appropriately manage his expectations and prevent a further delay in completing the work.
  20. The resident requested £2,795 to complete the repairs to the bathroom. He provided a quote from an alternative contractor that could complete the works to a like-for-like standard, as supporting evidence for the requested amount. The quote is in excess of the compensation offered by the landlord to complete the works. The Service has asked the landlord for a comparable quote, which it has not provided. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed how much the works would cost to determine a reasonable level of compensation. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to reassess its position. It should obtain a comparable quote, allow the resident to gain an updated quote from his contractor, and determine an appropriate amount to allow him to complete the works to a suitable standard. If it does not offer the full amount requested by the resident, it must offer clear, appropriate reasons for the decision, such as if it determines the work can be completed to a suitable standard at a lower price using an alternative contractor. If it determines that compensation, in excess of the amount awarded in its final response is warranted, it should pay the additional amount to the resident.
  21. The resident told the Service that he has completed the decking repairs. The £625 awarded for the resident to complete the repairs was sufficient for him to complete the works to the decking. As such, the landlord reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.
  22. The resident was also dissatisfied with the contractor’s conduct during the works and said that they burned the tree in the garden, which provided additional privacy to the bathroom. The contractor investigated the matter and found the subcontractor had used an unapproved contractor that had breached health and safety regulations and used inappropriate language.
  23. The contractor offered a £50 garden centre voucher. The resident did not accept the compensation as he wanted to engage with the landlord rather than the contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially refer the matter to the contractor as they were best placed to investigate the issue. However, as the resident’s contractual relationship is with the landlord, not the contractor, the landlord should have handled the issue once the resident requested it to do so. The landlord did not take any further steps to remedy the issue, so it remains outstanding. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation, as initially offered by the contractor, and apologise for the delay in taking accountability for the matter. The landlord should also provide its liability insurance details to assess the damage to the tree.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 June 2022. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the stage 1 response. As referenced above, it is important for landlords to keep clear records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
  3. The resident told the Service that the landlord only responded at stage 2, and he did not receive a stage 1 response. Although the landlord referred to its stage 1 response in its stage 2 response, it did not provide any specific details, despite including a detailed timeline of events. In the absence of evidence, the Service is unable to confirm that it was issued. This conclusion is further supported as the resident continued to chase the complaint, without response.
  4. The Service’s complaint handling code outlines that landlords must have a 2-stage complaint process and escalate the complaint through all stages unless it has valid reasons for not doing so. Its failure to complete both complaint stages meant the resident did not have the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s response or raise any further issues that may have arisen from the response.
  5. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 16 October 2022 due to the lack of progress following his initial complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and said it would continue to chase the works, but there is no evidence that it formally acknowledged the complaint. The resident proceeded to regularly chase the substantive issue of the complaint, but the landlord did not take appropriate steps in line with its complaint process.
  6. The resident contacted the Service on 10 March 2023 regarding the complaint and we asked the landlord to issue a response. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 13 March 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It therefore took 10 months for the landlord to issue a response following the resident’s initial complaint, which was a wholly unreasonable delay. It is also of concern that it did not meaningfully engage with the complaint or follow its complaint process until the Service’s involvement.
  7. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint and offered £150 for the late stage 1 acknowledgement and stage 2 review. In view of the significant failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, the level of compensation was not sufficient. It is evident that the issues caused additional time and effort for the resident in pursuing the complaint and delayed his referral rights to the Service for independent review. The landlord therefore must pay the resident an additional £150 compensation. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which states that such award is appropriate when the landlord has acknowledged failings, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a crack in the exterior wall, a leak from the above balcony, and the subsequent damage to his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £4,578 compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £50 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the tree.
    2. £150 compensation for the additional complaint handling failures identified.
  2. The landlord should review the compensation offered for the resident to complete the works to the bathroom. It should obtain a quote for the bathroom works to be completed to a like for like standard and consider the quote provided by the resident. If it cannot obtain a comparable quote for the work to be completed to a like for like standard, it should accept the resident’s quote. The landlord should then confirm the revised compensation amount to the resident and the Service and set out the reasons for its decision. It should provide evidence of any additional compensation payment made. The £625 compensation already awarded for the bathroom repairs can be deducted from the final compensation amount.
  3. The landlord should apologise to the resident for the delay in taking accountability for remedying the damage to the tree. It should also provide its liability insurance details so the resident can pursue his compensation request for damage to the tree by the contractors.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear records of repairs, including when it raises and attends works, and details of any completed works and follow-on works required. It should also review the Service’s KIM spotlight report.
  2. The landlord should review its complaint-handling practices to ensure it responds to both stages of complaints within its response timeframes.