From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202201125)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201125

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 August 2025

 

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. A leak and the subsequent moves to temporary accommodation.
    2. The resident’s complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is 2-bedroom ground floor flat and she lives there with her partner and 3 children.
  2. Following a leak in March 2021 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of this. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to on 4 May 2022. It awarded her compensation of £4,225, including £1,125 for costs incurred by the resident.
  3. On 6 May 2022 the resident raised a new complaint about issues with the properties she was moved into temporarily while the landlord carried out repairs. She said that the compensation had not been calculated correctly and had overlooked things. She also said that works had not been completed as the landlord had stated and she had not yet been moved back into the property.
  4. The landlord’s records state that it sent its stage 1 response on 4 April 2023. However, it has been unable to provide a copy of this response. It sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £11,220, broken down as follows:
    1. £2,640 for distress (33 months at £80 per month)
    2. £2,640 for inconvenience (33 months at £80 per month)
    3. £2,640 for time and effort (33 months at £80 per month)
    4. £3,300 for complaint handling (33 months at £100 per month)
  5. In its response the landlord said that it would not be reviewing the loss of her personal items as she had already accepted a settlement of £2,270 from its insurance team.
  6. On 19 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she did not think the offer was fair. On 20 December it confirmed it would be paying her an additional £250 to take into consideration a week she stayed with friends and family. It said it would not be increasing the compensation offer further.
  7. On 16 January 2024 the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaint. She told us she felt the landlord should have reduced her rent while she and her family were in temporary accommodation.
  8. On 19 February 2024 the landlord agreed to apply a 50% reduction to the resident’s rent for March 2021 to May 2021, which it credited to her rent account to reduce arrears.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Despite requests for full repair and complaint records from the landlord, it has not provided this information. The evidence provided shows gaps in the chronology of events and at times it is unclear what actions the landlord took. The landlord’s failure to provide the requested information will be addressed later within this report. For the purposes of the complaints about its handling of the leak and the resident’s complaint, inferences have been drawn where it is fair and reasonable to do so.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
  3. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  4. The resident has also raised concerns about damage to her personal belongings. This Service cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be more usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
  5. We also cannot draw conclusions on the actions or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Leak and temporary accommodation

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its responsibilities, including clearing blocked sinks, basins and toilets and preventing drains and waste pipes from getting blocked. It says that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and routine repairs will be completed in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that it will temporarily rehouse residents when it needs to complete works on the home which would make it unsafe for them to remain in situ while works are being carried out. It acknowledges that this can be a stressful and disruptive experience and says it will:
    1. provide clear information and guidance on what is happening and what needs to be done, including regular updates
    2. always provide the resident with the opportunity to stay with family and friends
    3. if required, provide suitable alternative accommodation that meets the needs of the resident and their family
    4. ensure residents are compensated fairly by paying reasonable expenses for losses or costs caused by their move
  3. On 5 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that toilet was overflowing and there was hazardous waste on the flooring. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 5 and 9 March 2021, however it is not clear what work was carried out at that time. The resident was moved into an alternative property to allow for works to be completed. However, on 24 March 2021 she raised repairs issues with this property, including mould. It was not appropriate that she was moved to a property that was not in a suitable condition.
  4. On 14 May 2021 a job was raised for a joint site visit, which was completed on 20 July 2021. No report has been provided to show what was found at this visit. The landlord has not provided any repairs records after this time to demonstrate what work was carried out to the property, or that it kept the resident appropriately updated. It is unclear why it was unable to carry out repairs in line with its policy timescales and it has not demonstrated that it acted in line with its policies.
  5. The resident spoke with us on 19 April 2022, when she told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak and the condition of the properties she was moved into. She said she had been moved 3 times and had to live from boxes. The landlord has provided no records relating to the temporary accommodation, or an explanation of why she had to move several times.
  6. On 4 May 2022 the landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident. Its records do not show when this was raised. It said it had previously offered her £1,000 in its stage 1 response of June 2021, which we have not seen. It increased its compensation offer to £4,100 plus an additional £1,125 to reimburse her for expenses she had incurred.
  7. The resident responded to the landlord the same day to say she was unhappy with its response, as she felt it did not cover all issues she had raised. On 6 May 2022 she said she had been to view the property and the works had not been completed. On 10 May 2022 the landlord raised this as a new complaint.
  8. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident moved back into the property. However, from the information available it seems she had moved back in by July 2022, as she reported an issue with the heating at that time, which was resolved with the repairs policy timescale.
  9. The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 4 April 2023 to discuss its stage 1 response. It has been unable to provide a copy of the response so we do not know whether it made a further compensation offer at that time. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 24 July 2023 as she was not happy with the amount of compensation she had been offered.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023, in which it increased its offer of compensation to £7,920, including the £4,100 it paid following the previous stage 2. It asked if she wanted to use the compensation to reduce her rent arrears. It was reasonable for it to give her this choice.
  11. The landlord said it would not be reviewing her loss of belongings as its insurance team had already made an offer, which she had accepted. However, it did say it would assess damage to her sofa, which had not already been considered, and asked her to provide more information for it to assess this. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  12. The resident responded to the landlord the next day, saying that she did not think the compensation was a fair reflection of what she and her family went through. She also asked about a £250 payment she said she was due for a week spent staying with friends and family.
  13. The landlord responded on 20 December 2023, confirming it would credit the £250 payment to her rent account. It said it would not consider any further compensation. However, it contacted her again on 19 February 2024 to say it had considered her loss of a bathroom while in temporary accommodation. It said it would refund 50% of her rent for March 2021 to May 2021 to her rent account, which was £1,004.47. These additional payments brought the total compensation for this issue to £9,174.47.
  14. While the landlord’s records are incomplete, it appears that it did not communicate clearly with the resident. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that it should have provided clear information and guidance about what was happening. However, the resident’s communications with the landlord show that she was not always clear on what to expect. There is no evidence that it clearly set out expectations to her regarding the move into temporary accommodation, likely exacerbating what was already a difficult situation for her and her family.
  15. There were failures by the landlord in relation to the leak and the resident’s moves to temporary accommodation. The delays and lack of communication caused considerable distress and inconvenience to her and her family. However, it has acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response. The compensation offer took into consideration the time from when the leak occurred until the complaint was resolved, despite the resident not being away from the property for the full time period.
  16. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation and apology offered by the landlord for its failures was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy and was therefore reasonable.
  17. Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of leak and the subsequent moves to temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging. At stage 2 it says it will send its response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  3. The resident reported a sewage leak on 5 March 2021. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when she raised her initial complaint, or whether the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It sent a stage 2 response on 4 May 2022. This response refers to a previous compensation offer made in June 2021, which was likely when it issued its stage 1 response. Based on the information available there was an unreasonable delay between its stage 1 and 2 responses.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint on 6 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 June 2022, which was not in line with its policy timescale. It said it would provide a response by 14 June 2022. We have seen no further evidence that the landlord provided updates to her, and it did not issue a stage 1 response until 4 April 2023. This was not in line with its policy and represented an unreasonable delay. This delay, and the lack of explanation for it would likely have compounded the distress the resident felt from an already challenging situation.
  5. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 24 July 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged this request. It sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023, which again was outside its policy timescale and was an unreasonable delay.
  6. In the stage 2 response the landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures and apologised for these. It offered £3,300 compensation, calculated as £100 per month for 33 months from March 2021 until December 2023.
  7. While there were complaint handling failures by the landlord, it has acknowledged and apologised for these in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord for its failures was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
  8. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

  1. Effective knowledge and information management plays a vital role in a landlord’s ability to manage both repairs and complaints effectively.
  2. As explained above, the landlord has failed to provide us with full records of the repairs that were carried out. It is likely that its failure to keep complete records in relation to the repairs contributed to the delays in getting to the root cause of the problems. The lack of records has also made it difficult for us to fully investigate the landlord’s handling of the repairs issues.
  3. The landlord has also failed to provide us with full records of its complaint handling and responses. It is likely that its failure to keep these records contributed to its complaint handling delays.
  4. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping as it has failed to keep complete records and update the resident’s records where appropriate.
  5. In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns including its handling of complaints and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices, and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.
  6. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process, or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of:
    1. a leak and the subsequent moves to temporary accommodation
    2. the resident’s complaint
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the compensation offered during its internal complaints process, if it has not already done so.