London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202327840)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. She complained to the landlord about delays repairing a leaking roof.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the associated complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

5. There were avoidable delays completing an effective and lasting repair to the roof. The landlord’s communication throughout was poor and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The matter has remained outstanding for a significant period after it issued its final complaint response.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord apologised and compensated the resident for the delays in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident raised concerns about the impact on her health. While the Ombudsman empathises, health-related claims are best addressed by the courts, where independent medical experts and oral testimony can be properly considered. We can consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

What we did investigate

8. 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.
9. Once on notice of a repair, the 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.
10. The lease sets out that the landlord shall maintain, repair, and renew the roof and main structure of the building. The landlord’s repair policy explains that homeowners are generally responsible for all repairs to the interior of their unit.
11. The resident reported a leaking roof on 8 September 2022. The landlord attended the same day and referred the issue to a roofing contractor. They completed a repair on 13 October 2022, with advice that the flat roof may need renewing if problems persisted. Although the resident considered the repair temporary, available evidence does not support this, and no follow-on works were raised at the time
12. The resident reported another leak on 19 March 2023. It is not clear from the evidence whether the leak reported in March 2023 had the same cause as the water ingress from September 2022. The landlord inspected the roof on 4 April 2023 and referred the matter to a different roofing contractor, who submitted a quotation to erect scaffolding and undertake repairs. This quotation exceeded the cost limits set out in Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
13. Landlords must consult leaseholders under Section 20 before starting major works that exceed set cost limits. This legal process informs leaseholders, invites their feedback, and helps prevent unexpected charges. If urgent repairs are needed, landlords can apply to the First-Tier Tribunal for a dispensation to bypass the consultation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered applying for this.
14. In April 2023, the landlord appropriately sought quotes from 2 roofing companies in preparation for a potential consultation. However, there is little evidence that they took the resident’s reports of water ingress seriously thereafter, managed investigations proactively, or conducted a timely thorough survey. The landlord has not adequately explained its decision-making or why it took until June 2025—over 2 years later—to issue the first Section 20 consultation letter.
15. 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. From the evidence available, we cannot fairly conclude that it acted in line with its repairing obligations.
16. The resident expressed concerns about the safety risk due to water in the electrical system. It is a shortcoming that it has not evidenced its consideration of potential risks in view of the repeated water ingress or that it set out its position in response to her concerns.
17. The landlord demonstrated that it provided details of its insurer to the resident on several occasions for her to make a claim for the damage caused. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
18. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and she had to spend considerable time chasing for information and progress. These communication failures worsened the situation and increased the impact on her. They also further damaged the relationship between the parties.
19. On 24 April 2025, the resident informed the landlord that a temporary repair had been completed that morning. We find the landlord took too long to arrange this repair and did not provide evidence of managing her expectations regarding a permanent solution.
20. The resident informed the landlord in August 2025 that scaffolding was due to be removed before a permanent repair was completed. She expressed concern about whether it would include this cost in her service charge. As we have not seen any evidence concerning this, we recommend that it contacts her directly to clarify.
21. In October 2025, we asked the landlord to confirm the status of the roof repair. It provided evidence of a communal ceiling repair but did not show that it had fixed the roof affecting the resident’s home. The resident reported that the issue remains unresolved and that she is facing financial loss, as she cannot sell, let, or live in the property.
22. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord offered £400 compensation to acknowledge its failings up to August 2023, excluding complaint handling which we’ve considered separately below. We find that its final complaint response lacked empathy and failed to respond to key concerns, including the prolonged loss of use of the resident’s only bedroom, mould, and extra costs from running dehumidifiers. It also did not offer support or carry out interim repairs within a reasonable period. Crucially, the stage 2 response failed to include an action plan or a timescale for completing a permanent repair.
24. After completing its complaint process, the landlord failed to repair the roof leak within a reasonable timeframe and did not act on the lessons learned. 2years later, the issue remains unresolved, reflecting serious failings in oversight and accountability. This has significantly impacted the resident and the enjoyment of her home.She also reported ongoing poor communication and a lack of updates, further indicating that it did not learn from the original complaint. As a result, we have made a failure finding and awarded additional compensation.

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with its policy timescales. It took a total of 84 days to issue its stage 2 response. This was not in line with the Code or its policy.
27. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations in part by informing her of its delays progressing complaints. It apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered the resident £75 compensation. This offer is in line with our remedies guidance.