Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202304370)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304370

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 June 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s:
      1. Concerns about roof repairs and damage to flooring.
      2. Request for compensation relating to her time in temporary accommodation.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of her landlord, a housing association. She lives with her family in a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident first reported a roof leak in 2017. Up to July 2021, she had reported 3 separate roof leaks. On 13 September 2022 the resident raised a complaint with her landlord. She said she was unhappy that the roof repair was not fixed after 18 months, and she wanted compensation for the delay. She said the roof leak had caused damage to personal items and laminate flooring which she also wanted to be compensated for.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint that day and issued its stage 1 complaint response that day also. It apologised for the delayed roof repairs. It said a contractor was scheduled to attend on 31 October 2022 to repair the roof and fit a smoke alarm, but it would try to escalate this. It said it would offer compensation once works were completed.
  4. Although works were brought forward to 5 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2022 to offer £250 compensation for delayed roof repairs. It acknowledged it could have managed the repair reports better and stated repairs backlogs were the reason for the delays. The resident did not accept the compensation offer. On 5 October 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that works had been completed. It again offered the resident £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the roof repair delays and for the resident’s time and effort chasing repairs. It stated that roof repairs had been completed, and an electrician had been scheduled for 11 October 2022 to replace the smoke alarm. The resident again stated the compensation was not adequate and she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  5. On 4 November 2023, the resident reported a further roof leak. She said water was coming through the hall light and there was a total power cut. On 9 November 2023, the landlord placed the resident and her family in a hotel until roof and electrical works were completed. The family remained in the temporary accommodation for 18 days.
  6. On 15 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase compensation for meals and expenses for the period she had been placed in temporary accommodation. She sent the landlord copies of her expense receipts. She told the landlord her young child had been receiving cancer treatment and how the time in temporary accommodation had affected their care and the family.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response the next day, on 16 August 2022, it:
    1. Stated the £250 compensation previously offered for delayed roof repair was reasonable.
    2. Offered the resident a standard daily meal allowance and awarded £360 compensation for meals for 18 nights. It did not refund the resident for dry cleaning stating it only allows for laundry.
    3. Issued a £200 voucher for damage to flooring.
    4. Apologised for the 10-month stage 2 complaint response delay and offered £250 compensation for the delay.
  8. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy that all of her temporary accommodation costs were not considered. She said the compensation for damaged flooring and roof repairs delay was not adequate and did not reflect the level of inconvenience experienced. We accepted the case for investigation on 24 July 2024.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident also reported that this issue had been ongoing for 6 years. The Ombudsman will usually only investigate issues raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the resident becoming aware of the issues. This is usually taken to be 12 months. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and relevant evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As such, this investigation will focus on events and evidence since July 2021 leading up to the complaint. Historic events will be considered for background and context only.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including all roofing and rainwater goods and fixtures and fittings for electricity. The landlord is also responsible for hard wired smoke, heat, and carbon monoxide detectors. It states it aims to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment and will attend emergency work where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public within 24 hours.
  2. The landlord has a decant policy which states it will provide support and guidance during the temporary accommodation process and will promptly pay temporary accommodation compensation claims.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation in a range of circumstances including discretionary compensation, where it has caused damage during the course of repairs or damage has been caused because of delayed repairs.
  4. The landlord has a legal obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. It is acknowledged that various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should, however, be able to show that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it could to resolve issues appropriately.

 

Roof repairs

  1. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute that the resident experienced repeated roof leaks and delays in completion of roof repairs, and it offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience and distress this caused. A review of the landlord’s repair logs confirms significant roof repair delays. A roof leak reported on 6 July 2021 was not attended to until 31 January 2022, a delay of 6 months. Another leak, reported on 1 April 2022, was not scheduled for repair until 31 October 2022, a delay of 7 months.
  2. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe and must provide valid reasons for delays. The landlord’s own repairs policy also states it will complete repairs at the earliest mutually convenient time. However, the only explanation the landlord gave for the roof repair delays was a general reference to repairs ‘backlogs’, which was not adequate. Furthermore, there is no evidence of ongoing communication from the landlord to the resident to explain these delays even though such communication would have been appropriate.
  3. Despite a further roof repair on 5 October 2022 the resident experienced another serious leak on 4 November 2022. The Ombudsman’s spotlight in repairs report emphasises the importance of landlords monitoring repeat repairs for effectiveness. Given the recurrence of the leaks the landlord should have reviewed the effectiveness of previous repairs. It is not evident that landlord considered a different approach to the roof repair which was a missed opportunity to satisfy itself that the works completed were appropriate and effective.
  4. The delayed roof repairs were especially serious considering the documented health and safety risks due to leaks affecting the property electrics and hallway mains powered smoke alarm. Contractors noted safety concerns on several occasions including 6 July 2021, 24 March 2022, and 24 and 27 July 2022. Although the landlord appropriately responded to these reports within the 24-hour timescale for emergency repairs, the landlord’s records show that the mains smoke alarm was disconnected on 27 July 2022 and was not replaced until 11 October 2022. There is no evidence that a temporary battery alarm was provided in the meantime.
  5. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the mains smoke alarm, however, records show the landlord only followed up with the contractor 6 weeks after the alarm was disconnected (and after the resident had complained) on 13 September 2022. This lack of proactive response by the landlord left the family without adequate fire protection for a prolonged period.
  6. The resident stated that, during the period of temporary accommodation, she told the landlord verbally that her child was receiving cancer treatment; however, there is no record of this in the landlord’s file. There is no record of a risk assessment by the landlord which would have been appropriate when considering temporary accommodation and would have identified relevant vulnerabilities and ensured the resident received appropriate support during this difficult time.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated the £250 compensation for delayed roof repairs at stage 1 was appropriate. In doing so, it failed to do take account of events following the stage 1 complaint response, namely further roof repairs on 5 October 2022, and the further serious leak on 4 November 2022 that resulted in the family being decanted to a hotel for 18 days. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not address these events at all or explain whether they were considered as part its stage 2 assessment of its £250 compensation award. If the landlord had considered these events as new issues more appropriately addressed under a new complaint it should have advised the resident accordingly.
  8. While the landlord accepted its failings regarding its delays to the roof repair, the level of compensation provided was not adequate to reflect the repeated leaks, and disruption experienced by the resident from July 2021 until the completion of the roof works in November 2022.
  9. The resident also requested compensation for flooring damaged due to repeat leaks and for the ruined contents of her fridge freezer due to a power cut.
  10. Regarding the damaged laminate flooring, the landlord gave the resident a £200 voucher, acknowledging the damage caused by leaks. However, it also said she would need to claim on her insurance if she wanted to replace her flooring. Given, however, that there were unreasonable delays to the resolution of the leak and also that its compensation policy notes it will offer compensation for damage caused by delayed repairs, its offer of only a £200 voucher was not proportionate. It was also not appropriate to signpost the resident to her insurer given that it had identified a failing leading to its offer of the £200 voucher. An order has therefore been made below for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the full cost of the flooring.
  11. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord could reasonably have offered discretionary compensation where it “failed to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable”. In doing so, it would have demonstrated a commitment to putting things right fairly and openly.
  12. In an email to the landlord on 15 August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she had lost the contents of her fridge freezer due to a power cut. The landlord, however, failed to address this is its stage 2 complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered appropriate compensation under its compensation policy. However, it did not do so and as such the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right though its complaints process. A more person-centred approach would have been appropriate given the resident’s experience.
  13. In summary, in offering £250 for the delays to roof repairs, the landlord failed to fully consider the impact of the prolonged repairs on the resident and her family. It missed a chance to fairly assess all elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and missed an opportunity to offer appropriate resolution in its stage 2 complaints process. In failing to do so, the landlord also missed an opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
  14. The level of compensation offered was not sufficient to recognise the multiple failings identified including its failure to apply its own procedures, the considerable delays of 18 months to complete the repair or provide reasons for those. The resident experienced damage to personal items and inconvenience due to being moved into temporary accommodation. Considering the multiple failings identified the landlord is responsible for maladministration and is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £950 which is in line with our remedy’s guidance at the higher end of maladministration where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.” This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  15. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident requested compensation for the loss of fridge freezer contents following a power cut in November 2023. The landlord’s records show this matter was first raised on 15 August 2023. While this is within 12 months of the incident happening, the landlord has not as yet had a reasonable opportunity to address this as part of its formal complaints procedure. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it may also be more appropriate for the issue to be considered as an insurance claim. A recommendation for the landlord to provide its position on this matter has been made below.

Compensation relating to temporary accommodation

  1. The resident asked the landlord to cover expenses such as meals and dry cleaning while she and her family were placed in a hotel in November 2022. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to pay the resident a standard daily meal allowance of £10 per adult and £5 per child per day. While this approach was in line with the landlord’s decant policy there is no evidence the landlord had advised the resident about daily meal allowances or allowable temporary accommodation expenses prior to her move. As such, the resident was unaware of daily allowance limits.
  2. Records show that the resident and her family were placed into temporary accommodation by the out of hours service on 9 November 2022 and that the landlord only became aware of this when the resident phoned them on 11 November 2022 to raise concerns that the hotel did not provide breakfast. The landlord’s own records confirm that during this call the landlord told the resident to ‘keep all her receipts.’ There is no evidence of any further guidance or support given to the resident regarding temporary accommodation expenses.
  3. Furthermore, we have seen an internal email dated 24 October 2024 where the landlord confirmed it could not find evidence that the resident was given guidance related to temporary accommodation expenses. Given the lack of guidance, it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect that reasonable expenses would be paid. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord failed to consider what temporary accommodation guidance and support the resident had received when assessing the resident’s compensation request and it instead it applied a blanket approach. The landlord also dismissed the resident’s dry-cleaning claim, stating it only covered ‘laundry.’ Although this is in line with its decant policy, the landlord failed to make the resident aware of its policy, which caused the resident further inconvenience.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord’s decant policy states it will pay compensation requests promptly, yet the resident had to chase the landlord for reimbursement 8 months after the period in temporary accommodation occurred. The landlord’s breach of its policy caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience.
  5. In addition, the resident advised the landlord on 15 August 2023 of petrol costs during the period in temporary accommodation. While the landlord’s decant policy does not allow for petrol costs, its compensation policy allows for ‘out of pocket expenses’. However, there is no evidence this was considered.
  6. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s temporary accommodation compensation request lacked flexibility and empathy and missed an opportunity to put things right by considering its poor communication and guidance. The landlord did not acknowledge this or apologise for its failings. Its overall delay and approach in this matter was unreasonable and its actions amount to maladministration. It is therefore ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 which is in line with our remedy’s guidance where “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.”

 

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s complaint dated 13 September 2023 was acknowledged by the landlord that day and was therefore within its 5-day acknowledgement timescale. It also issued its stage 1 complaint response again on 13 September 2022, within its 10-day response timescale.
  2. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 5 October 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord; however, there was no further communication from the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it aimed to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord may extend this period by up to 10 additional working days, provided it gives a valid reason.  However, there is no evidence any such extension was requested or explained.
  3. The stage 2 complaint response was not issued until 16 August 2023, almost 10 months later, and only after the resident contacted it on 15 August to chase payment of temporary accommodation expenses and compensation. The landlord gave no explanation for this significant delay, which was unacceptable given the length of time involved.
  4. The landlord did, however, apologise to the resident for the delay and awarded compensation in line with its compensation policy. These were appropriate steps to show efforts to put things right. The landlord had failed to follow its own complaint policy, and it did not communicate appropriately with the resident which in the circumstances further added to the resident’s frustration. The 10-month delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint without justification was unreasonable and constitutes maladministration.
  5. However, the £250 compensation offered by the landlord is consistent with our remedy’s guidance in cases of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some efforts to address them. In this case, the landlord recognised the complaint handling delays and took steps to provide redress. We consider the £250 compensation represents a reasonable and proportionate response to these specific delays in complaint handling. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that this amount has already been received by the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs and associated compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request for decant costs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident that acknowledges the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident additional total compensation of £1,450 made up of:
      1. £950 for inconvenience and distress related to delayed roof repairs and associated damage.
      2. £500 for delay and failure to fairly assess the residents decant costs.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. Any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer may be deducted.
    4. Reimburse the resident for replacement flooring costs above £200 already provided.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with details of its relevant insurance policy to enable the resident, if she wishes, to claim for the loss of fridge freezer contents due to a roof leak related power cut.