London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202301984)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301984

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 6 April 2024, the resident reported an uncontainable leak in the bedroom. On the same day, a plumber attended and confirmed the leak, though the cause of the leak remained unknown. The plumber completed a temporary repair and filled in the hole with silicone. On 8 April 2024, the landlord raised repair work for the leak and mould.
  3. On 10 April 2024, the resident submitted a complaint that stated she had reported a similar leak the previous year, which damaged the carpet, wardrobe and walls in her bedroom, and it caused mould. That leak had been repaired after months of delay. She stated that the current leak was a second occurrence but no repair work had been undertaken.
  4. On 11 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the inconvenience. It explained that repair work for the leak was scheduled for that day (11 April 2024) and the mould treatment was scheduled on 22 April 2024. Furthermore, it would consider redecoration and flooring in the affected areas after the leak had been resolved.
  5. During the repair appointment on 11 April 2024, a full repair was not carried out due to the extensive work and multi traders required as the leak had multiple sources. After this appointment the resident did not receive a further update about the leak repair and therefore she contacted the contractor to arrange the appointment. On 16 April 2024, the landlord provided an update that the leak repair had been scheduled for 19 April 2024. However, on 18 April 2024, the resident requested escalation of her complaint as she had to arrange this appointment herself and the landlord did not follow up with an update. On 19 April 2024, the landlord completed the leak repair. On 22 April 2024, a mould treatment was carried out. The resident explained that, during an appointment on 28 May 2024, the contractor advised that the initial block and paint was not successful as the wall was not dry.
  6. On 29 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the delays and offered £80 compensation. Furthermore, it provided an update about the further repair work (stain block and painting), which was scheduled for 5 June 2024. The landlord also clarified that residents are advised to arrange contents insurance to protect their belongings. It offered guidance on submitting a public liability claim for the damaged carpet if the resident did not have the necessary insurance. Additionally, it stated there were no further investigations to be carried out and the complaint had been finalised.
  7. On 5 June 2024, the landlord carried out repair work, however the resident reported on 7 June 2024 that this was not effective. On 9 June 2024, the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier and a further repair appointment was scheduled to fill holes in the bathroom and bedroom. On 27 August 2024, the resident complained to us that the case should be reopened as the leak resumed and the wall repair remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the handling of a leak in early 2023. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2024 that were considered in the landlord’s final response. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. The landlord’s complaint process was completed on 29 May 2024. On 27 August 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that that the leak had resumed. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint (6 April 2024 to 29 May 2024). Any new issues raised following the end of the landlord’s complaint process will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions fully through its complaints process prior to our involvement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the subsequent issues, she can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will maintain fixtures and fittings for water and sanitation, and it is responsible for repairs to remedy mould. It will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs in an average of 25 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that an assessment of the property following a report of damp and mould will be done within 20 working days and any remedial works will be raised within 10 working days. Multiple fixes may be required and, therefore, it will be clear with residents about timescales and keep them informed throughout.
  3. On 6 April 2024, a plumber attended the property on the same day as the uncontainable leak was reported. It was appropriate to treat the uncontainable leak as an emergency and it was responded to in line with the repairs policy. This demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s report seriously.
  4. The resident disputed whether any repair work was completed. We have seen evidence (repair log) which confirmed that the plumber filled in the hole with silicone. It was appropriate to carry out a temporary repair during this initial appointment as a full repair could not be completed.
  5. The repair log shows that the landlord ordered the repair work on 8 April 2024 and on 11 April 2024 the contractor identified multiple sources of the leak and that extensive work was required. While extensive work and different professionals were needed for the repair, due to the nature of the issue (a leak with multiple sources) it was not appropriate for the full repair to be completed 8 calendar days later on 19 April 2024. While its initial response to the repair was appropriate, the repair was urgent and the landlord should have completed the full repair in accordance with emergency timeframes or as soon as possible.
  6. The resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions (12, 15 and 16 April 2024) for an update and escalated her complaint on 18 April 2024. We have seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails on 12, 16 and 18 April 2024. This was appropriate and it was reassuring to see that the landlord was transparent with the resident about the progress of the repair appointments. While chasing and arranging appointments caused an inconvenience, it is noted that the landlord was also responsive to the resident and provided updates where it had one to provide.
  7. On 22 April 2024, during the mould treatment appointment, the contractor advised the resident of preventative measures including improved ventilation and adequate heating. The follow up report confirmed that mould was treated and no repairs were required. As such, there was no failing by the landlord as it is reasonable to rely on professional advice. The landlord’s overall handling of the damp and mould was reasonable as the healthy hones inspection was carried out within 10 working days of the initial leak report on 6 April 2024.
  8. The landlord confirmed to us that no post inspection was carried out. A post inspection would have been reasonable. This was particularly relevant as the leak caused damp and mould, and the staining and redecoration work was ongoing at time of the stage 2 response. The resident informed us on 22 October 2024 that that the leak had been resolved.
  9. Furthermore, the damp and mould policy states that multiple fixes may be required, which was the case in this matter. However, where there are delays or multiple fixes needed, a landlord should be proactive in communicating with the resident and explaining the plan of action, indicative timeframes and updates. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that further repair work (block and painting the bedroom and bathroom wall) would be undertaken on 5 June 2024. This was appropriate and informed the resident of the next step and timeframe. The repair log has marked this as completed on 9 June 2024, within 43 working days of the initial leak report on 6 April 2024. This was reasonable as the bathroom needed longer to dry out and an earlier visit on 28 May 2024 identified that the stain and block was carried out too early.
  10. The resident was not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered. In the stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in repairs and the time and effort in contacting the landlord throughout the repair, and offered £80 compensation. The landlord’s offer was reasonable, as the delays were fairly minor given the repairs required. Furthermore, the adverse effect reported on the resident was minimal.
  11. The resident also raised concerns about damage to the carpet. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained that the resident was responsible for the bedroom carpet and residents are advised to arrange contents insurance to protect their belongings. This was disputed by the resident, who explained to the landlord on 7 June 2024 that the carpet was not her belonging and therefore not her responsibility. Furthermore, it was damaged due to the bathroom leak, which was beyond her control. The landlord provided floor coverings at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement stated that the resident must not install any flooring. As such, the landlord’s response about this was not appropriate and it appears the tenancy agreement suggests it was responsible for the flooring. It has therefore been recommended to contact the resident to check whether the carpet damage needs follow up.
  12. In summary, the landlord’s delay in repairing the leak and its response to the carpet damage amounts to a failing. The total of £80 compensation is, however, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for delays in getting matters resolved and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer to put things right and has been recommended to pay this to the resident if not paid already.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it must respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed at any stage, the landlord must inform the resident.
  2. The resident requested escalation on 18 April 2024 and the stage 2 response was due on 17 May 2024. It issued the stage 2 response on 29 May 2024, in 27 working days. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy’s timeframes. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay during its complaints process. Furthermore, the response did not confirm that it was responding to the resident’s escalation request at stage 2. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must clearly state what stage of the process a complaint is at.
  3. Additionally, the Code states that the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. Similarly, the landlord’s complaints policy states that the stage 2 review must be carried out by the customer relations team or senior management. However, the same person, a customer liaison officer, handled both the stage 1 and 2 complaint response, and this was not in accordance with the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. While there was a short delay of 7 working days and minor complaint handling failures at stage 2, there was no adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. We have recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its practice in relation to how it responds to formal complaints and provides training to its staff to make sure appropriate members of staff respond to complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Carries out a review of its practice in relation to how it responds to formal complaints and provides training to its staff to make sure appropriate members of staff respond to complaints.
    2. Pay total compensation of £80 to the resident for the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak (if not paid already) offered during its complaints process for the inconvenience caused.
    3. Contact the resident to check whether the carpet damage needs follow up.