Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202214684)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214684

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 July 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding repairs to the bedroom.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom fourth floor flat in a communal building. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 January 2023. He said that it had failed to complete required repairs to his bedroom since 2016. He raised his concerns again on 13 March 2023. He said that a faulty pipe outside the bedroom window had caused damp which destroyed his carpet and skirting boards. He asked it to compensate him for the delays and complete the repairs.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 7 September 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and offered £100 compensation. It said that it completed his repairs on 5 July 2022 and hoped this satisfied his concerns.
  4. Following further correspondence, on 14 February 2024 the landlord offered £460 compensation. This included £180 for distress, £180 for inconvenience, and £100 offered in its stage 1 response for complaint handling. Due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its offer, the following day it increased this to £820. This comprised £360 for distress, £360 for inconvenience, and £100 for complaint handling.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 11 April 2024. He said that since living in the property he found it “took forever” to address repairs. He said that the damp had affected his health and it should have dealt with the issues when he reported them in 2012 and 2013. He also raised concerns about other matters.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 July 2024. It set out a timeline of events including appointment dates, required repairs, and the actions taken up to the date of its response. It said that it completed all repairs with the exception of cleaning the carpet. It acknowledged there had been delays, its poor communication, and that it should have resumed repairs after COVID-19 restrictions eased. It apologised and said it had not addressed his concerns in its previous response. It increased its compensation offer from £820 to £930 which comprised:
    1. £360 for distress.
    2. £450 for inconvenience.
    3. £120 for complaint handling.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants it to increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence he said that the situation had caused stress and affected his health, mental health, and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence, he stated multiple dates from when his repairs had been outstanding between 2012 and 2019. We note that the repairs were subject to a disrepair claim in 2018 and the matter was decided by the court. We cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on merits was given. We are, therefore, unable to consider this timeframe. Our investigation has focussed on the events 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint made in January 2023, up to the landlord’s final response in July 2024. Any events prior to this or relating to the disrepair claim are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
  3. In the resident’s escalation request he raised concerns about the heating and hot water system, intercom, and general upkeep of the building. The landlord advised him that this was not part of his original complaint and it would address these as a separate complaint. We are unable to consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. We have, therefore, not considered these matters as part of this investigation.

Reports of outstanding repairs to the bedroom

  1. It is not disputed that there were delays in resolving the resident’s repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint in January 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord contacted its disrepair team. It asked that they manage the complaint. It noted that there was a disrepair claim in 2018 which it subsequently closed due to no contact from the resident in March 2022.
  3. The resident raised his concerns again on 13 March 2023. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded until its stage 1 response on 7 September 2023.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it apologised for the inconvenience but said that it completed the resident’s repairs in July 2022. Its response was dismissive and failed to consider his reports of incomplete repairs in January and March 2023.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord the same day stating that his repairs were not complete. It responded stating it had raised the repairs to its contractor who would be in touch to arrange an appointment. This was appropriate and acknowledged the resident’s assertion that the repairs were incomplete.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 September 2023. It said its contractor had advised that they had been unable to gain access. It asked him to let it know when he would be available to enable it to complete his repairs. He responded the same day stating he had started a new job and currently had no availability to accommodate an appointment. It was reasonable that the landlord cancelled the repair at this time with an instruction to re-raise it once the resident provided his availability.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident the following day explaining that it needed to re-assess the required work and asked if he was available at weekends. Its offer to complete repairs on the weekend demonstrates its commitment in trying to resolve the matter after its initial poor response. It arranged an appointment for 23 September 2023.
  8. The landlord’s records of 9 October 2023 refer to the required work which included removing defective plasterboard, skirting boards, and windowsill on the external wall. It would inspect the exposed wall for any hidden defects, reinstate the plasterboard, skim and replace battens, and redecorate. It also stated it would professionally clean the carpet.
  9. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 November 2023. He said that following its assessment of the work in September 2023 he had heard nothing. However, there is no evidence to show that he contacted the landlord to provide an update on his availability beforehand. Its records show that it had received a quotation for the work but was waiting for approval.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 requesting compensation from 2015 for its delay in completing repairs. It should be noted that the resident advised us that he received compensation in 2018 as part of the disrepair claim ordered by the court. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to explain that it was unable to compensate him for this timeframe. It advised him that it would only consider matters up to 6-months. Its response was compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time which states that it could only consider matters up to 6-months prior to the complaint being made.
  11. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 February 2024 that the quotation had been approved and its contractor would contact him to arrange an appointment. It is not known why it took so long to approve the quotation and this would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. That said, it offered £360 compensation which comprised £180 for distress and £180 for inconvenience. He responded the following day stating its offer was “an insult”. It revised its offer to £720 which comprised £360 for distress and £360 for inconvenience. Its offer was reasonable and within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2024 stating it had only awarded compensation for 12 months. He said the matter had been ongoing since 2019. It reiterated its position the same day and explained that it was unable to compensate from 2019. It attributed some of the delays to the resident’s failure to make contact.
  13. The landlord’s records of 13 March 2024 again show that it had been unable to make contact with the resident and its contractor had been unable to gain access to complete the work.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2024 stating he had always given access and it had failed to complete the work. He repeated that it should have undertaken the work in 2019 and referred to his disrepair claim. It should be noted that in cases where a court has made an order, it would be for the resident’s solicitor to take the matter back to the court where a landlord has failed to comply with any orders. He advised the landlord that his new work holidays did not commence until April 2024 and asked for compensation for taking annual leave to accommodate the repairs.
  15. The landlord reiterated its position and confirmed it would not compensate him for taking leave. It reminded the resident of his tenancy obligations to provide access. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It asked him to contact the contractor to make an appointment. He confirmed on 6 April 2024 that he had cleared the bedroom and asked for dates when it would attend. He chased for a response on 9 April 2024.
  16. The landlord’s records show that it completed the repairs in June 2024. It tried on 2 occasions to contact him to check he was happy with the work. On 28 June 2024 its records show that its contractor had not been instructed to look at the carpet and a new job should be raised if there were an issue.
  17. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged that it did not fully address the resident’s complaint in its initial response. It confirmed the timeline of communication and events and acknowledged the delays in approving the work following the quotation. It explained that its contractor had made multiple attempts to book in the work and he confirmed he only wanted to be contacted via email. Its contractor contacted via email and he stated he was unavailable until April 2024.
  18. The landlord notified the resident that the work would take 5 days as it needed to install insulation. It submitted a further quotation to its panel which was approved on 6 June 2024. Its contractor completed the work on 7 and 8 June 2024. It completed all work with the exception of the carpet. It asked him to confirm he was happy with the work.
  19. The landlord acknowledged that its communication was not delivered in a “professional capacity” and there were delays in completing the repairs. It said that once COVID-19 restrictions eased it should have resumed the repairs. It apologised for its more recent shortcomings and delays. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and it demonstrated some learning from the complaint.
  20. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £810. It explained that it would pay the compensation into the resident’s rent account to offset arrears. This is in line with its compensation policy which says that it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed by a customer, including rent and service charge arrears.
  21. While we appreciate the resident’s frustration, the delays appear to be attributable to both parties. The landlord’s apology, compensation offer and offer to complete the repairs was reasonable. Its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for where there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident.
  22. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident stated that his carpet was outstanding. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor provided a quote in August 2024 to replace the carpet. The resident requested an appointment for 31 August 2024 but later cancelled this requesting a date in September 2024. The landlord’s records show that it chased the resident in October 2024 and completed the work in November 2024.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays with the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident complained on 26 January 2023 and raised his concerns again on 13 March 2023.
  3. The landlord responded on 7 September 2023, 146 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It apologised and explained that it assumed its disrepair team were managing his complaint. While its records demonstrate that it asked its disrepair team to manage the complaint, it should have managed its process to ensure a response was sent. It was appropriate to apologise for the delay and its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 11 April 2024. It responded on 1 July 2024, 35 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It apologised for its late response and offered £20 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and its compensation offer was reasonable.
  5. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure it monitors complaints and response timescales appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding repairs to the bedroom.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £930 if not already paid.
  2. We recommend that the landlord ensures that where it allocates complaints to other departments, that it monitor these to ensure complaint responses are sent within its complaint policy timescale and the Code.