London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202325286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325286

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 October 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into her property.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord.
3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 April 2023. She said it needed to complete repairs due to a leak in the building affecting multiple flats. She explained a contractor carried out some work, but the leaks returned. She said she had contacted its surveyor but had not received a response.
4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process the same day. It upheld her complaint. It set out that it had raised several work orders for repairs, but its contractors were unable to gain access. It confirmed it had emailed the area supervisor to investigate and advise accordingly.
5. On 26 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She told the landlord that she had first reported the water ingress years ago, and the matter was still unresolved. She said that any time it rained, the water penetrated her living room ceiling and light fixtures.
6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 January 2024. It said that the balcony of another property was causing the leaks into the resident’s home. It confirmed its defects team would be managing the repairs, which were ongoing. It recognised its lack of communication and that it took multiple attempts to rectify the leaks which started in 2019. It explained she could claim for any damage to belongings under her contents insurance. It also provided the details of its own insurer. It offered the resident £870 compensation.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to us. She felt its offer of compensation did not reflect the service failures and communication deficiencies that had occurred since 2019.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the issues impacted her health. 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, the court can examine oral testimony. While we empathise with the resident, her complaint about the impact to her health is better dealt with via the court.
9. The resident said she had been reporting issues with water ingress to the landlord since 2019. She also provided the reference number of a previous complaint from March 2022. Neither party have provided copies of the associated complaint responses to us. We generally expect residents to escalate complaints to us within 12 months of receiving the landlord’s final complaint response, in accordance with our Scheme. We have seen no evidence that the resident did so. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on her more recent complaint of April 2023 and the associated complaint responses. Any reference to previous events is for context only.

Water ingress

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
11. Once on notice of a repair, a landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. Neither party has provided a copy of the lease to us.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that leaseholders are responsible for most repairs to the interior of their property. For new homes, developers have a contractual responsibility to rectify defects that occur within the defect liability period. The landlord will liaise with the developer to arrange these repairs in accordance with its defects policy.  It has not provided a copy of its defects policy to us.
13. We note that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks. It can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in flats where multiple properties may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work or investigations to undertake.
14. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it stated the leaks started in 2019. It summarised several work orders it had raised between June and December 2023 including investigating the roof, decking, and drainage. It also provided a copy of a damp survey from January 2022 and explained at times there was no access to attend repairs. It said it took multiple attempts to rectify the leaks and as a result caused additional repairs. It stated the issue should have been rectified at the first attempt. We note it has not fully evidenced all its investigations into the resident’s reports or the actions taken. Furthermore, it is not clear from the evidence available whether the leak reported in April 2023 is the same as the initial water ingress from 2019.
15. We have seen little evidence that the landlord took the resident’s reports of water ingress seriously early on, proactively managed the investigations or completed a comprehensive survey at the earliest opportunity. We also find it failed to evidence its communication with other parties such as the developer and its defects team. These were shortcomings.
16. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps us to understand its actions and decision making at the time. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that it acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, we are unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
17. The resident expressed concerns about the safety risk due to water in the light fittings. While neither party disputes that electricians attended the property, the landlord has not provided detailed evidence of what happened on these visits. It is a shortcoming that it has not evidenced its consideration of potential risks in view of the repeated leaks or that it set out its position to the resident in response to her concerns.
18. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. It did not update her regularly and it is clear she spent time chasing for updates, while being concerned about her own safety due to the ongoing leaks. Within its stage 2 response, it apologised for its communication failings. It stated that it should have contacted her before any appointment, and she ought to have received constant communication throughout the repairs process. While it apologised, it did not specifically offer redress for the shortcomings identified. This was not appropriate. We determine that the communication failings exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on her. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
19. At stage 2, the landlord said it had contacted its defects team and was waiting for an update. It also acknowledged the repairs were ongoing but failed to set out a schedule of works or an estimated timeframe for them to be finalised. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. It must follow any remedy proposed through to completion. Within this case, it failed to appropriately manage her expectations regarding the repairs. We therefore conclude there were failings in its handling of the matter.
20. When there are failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
21. It was unreasonable for the landlord to uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and not offer any redress or remedy. It offered the resident £870 compensation at stage 2, comprising:
    1. £270 for distress for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities.
    2. £270 for inconvenience for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities.
    3. £60 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    4. £270 for poor complaint handling.
22. While the landlord referenced vulnerabilities in its stage 2 response and compensation breakdown, it has not provided information to us about this. Additionally, the resident has not disclosed any vulnerabilities to us. Therefore, we cannot fairly comment on the landlord’s consideration of the impact of any vulnerability she may have.
23. We acknowledge the landlord accepted its shortcomings and attempted to put things right with its compensation offer. However, after considering all the circumstances, we think compensation of £1200 is more appropriate based on the shortcomings identified within this report.
24. The resident evidenced that she followed up with the landlord several times between January and March 2024. Neither party have told us whether it has now completed the repairs. We recognise the property remained affected by water ingress after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. It therefore failed to resolve the leak or provide a lasting solution within a reasonable period.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £870 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
       2. An additional £330 for time, effort, distress, and inconvenience caused by the delays, poor communication and failing to provide a resolution.
    3. Clarify to the resident in writing the position with the repairs, including timescales for remedy if applicable.

Recommendations

27. We recommend the landlord consider whether additional compensation is due to the resident for any further delays resolving the issues up to the date it completes repairs where they continue to be outstanding.