From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348138)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348138

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 May 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 repairs to a leak through the bedroom ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and his flatmate hold a joint assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of an apartment block. Located directly above the property is a roof terrace. The block was built in 2016.
  2. The member landlord manages the property on behalf of one of its wholly owned subsidiaries. In this report, we will refer to the member landlord as ‘the landlord’.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the earliest report of the leak was in April 2022. The resident reported a water mark on his ceiling at this time. The landlord raised a repair to investigate the cause of this leak.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again in August 2022 regarding a leak and mould in his bedroom. A contractor attended following this report and found the leak was coming from the patio on the roof terrace above. The contractor’s report noted that the probable cause of the leak was a lack of drainage. The contractor was unable to complete a repair and advised the landlord that a roofing company was required.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2023. He said that the leak coming through the bedroom ceiling was still not resolved. He advised someone had attended to check the leak after he initially reported it “months ago”, but he had received no updates since this time. The resident said he had recently woken up with half of his bed wet due to the ceiling leaking. He also said that the ceiling was rotten. He expressed concerns that this could collapse on him while he was asleep.
  6. On 12 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement and response. It said it was upholding the resident’s complaint and apologised for the distress and trouble caused. The landlord advised it had reviewed the repairs history and acknowledged that an emergency repair was required, which it then raised. It agreed to let the resident know the next steps once the report from the emergency repair had been received.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 February 2024. He said:
    1. There was still water leaking through his ceiling when it rained, causing damage to the wall and ceiling.
    2. He had been told by an engineer in August 2022 and December 2023 that the bedroom was not safe to use due to the damage to the ceiling. He had therefore stopped using it.
    3. He was sleeping on the sofa in the living room and was concerned about how this was affecting his posture.
    4. There had been periods of no response from the landlord since he made the initial report about the leak in August 2022.
    5. He had been informed the roof was under guarantee from the builders, but he was not aware of any plan of action for the roof repairs.
    6. He requested compensation due to being unable to fully use his bedroom for the last 1.5 years.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 4 March 2024. It advised it was trying to ascertain who was responsible for the roof due to the warranty. It said it would look at compensation once it had assurance the roof had been repaired. The landlord also advised that it was only able to investigate and compensate issues that occurred within 6 months of the complaint being raised.
  9. On 19 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised that it had been unable to resolve the complaint. It said that as the complaint related to roof repairs, it had been assigned to its Area Maintenance Supervisor for a response. The landlord offered £1,260 compensation to the resident, made up of:
    1. £1,200 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £60 for time and effort.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 April 2024. He said that he remained unhappy and felt the compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 was not enough. He said there had been 1.5 years of inaction and the landlord had been slow to respond.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows a job was raised on 21 May 2024 to check the resident’s ceiling was safe and to complete a temporary repair. A report from its contractor dated 23 June 2024 confirmed the leak “seemed to have stopped” and the bedroom ceiling had been repaired with new plasterboard.
  3. Repair records from the landlord dating from June to August 2024 indicate that issues with the roof were still ongoing at this time. A report from its contractor dated 4 July 2024 confirmed a survey to the roof was completed but this was an inspection only, as the “estate is being done by minor and major works.”
  4. During contact with the Ombudsman in April 2025, the resident said that the leak was still ongoing and causing further damage to the ceiling. He felt this had impacted his overall health, including his posture from sleeping on the sofa, and triggered allergic reactions from the damp and mould. He also stated that using the living room as a bedroom and communal space had strained the relationship between him and his flatmate. The resident advised it had not been made clear to him when the landlord would be completing the roof repairs.
  5. As an outcome, the resident told us he would like the landlord to put together a plan of action for repairing the leak. In addition, he requested compensation for the impact the roof leak has caused. He asked the Ombudsman to consider a reduction in rent for the period his bedroom has been unusable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the roof leak impacted his health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, drains, gutters, and external pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 25 days and emergency works within 24 hours. It defines emergencies as where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will “focus on tackling the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. It says it will arrange an assessment of the property within 20 working days of a report of damp and mould. Any remedial works identified will be raised within 10 working days of the assessment.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider a partial refund of rent in circumstances where a customer has been unable to use a room in their home. It says this will be considered when a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility has caused a “prolonged and unreasonable disruption”.
  5. Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Both damp and mould and structural collapse are hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  6. The landlord first raised a job to investigate the cause of a potential leak affecting the resident’s property on 21 April 2022. Its repair records indicate this was completed 18 days later. This was within its 25-day routine repair timescale. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a routine repair given that the initial report from the resident was a water mark on the ceiling, which would not be considered an emergency. However, it is not clear from the repair records what the outcome of this appointment was. This points to a record keeping issue. The Ombudsman notes that another repair was raised on 9 May 2022 for a contractor to complete further investigations.
  7. On 18 August 2022, 119 calendar days after his initial report, the resident contacted the landlord to report the leak again. He also reported mould in his bedroom. The repair raised on 9 May 2022 had not been completed by the contractor at the time of the resident’s repeat call. There is no evidence from the landlord to suggest that it contacted the resident to explain the reason for this delay. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any call records from the landlord. However, the resident’s repeat call was not disputed by it. It was not appropriate or fair that the resident had to chase the landlord for the leak to be investigated and repaired. It should have monitored the progress of the resident’s repair with the contractor. In not doing so, it missed an opportunity to resolve the repair issues at the earliest opportunity.
  8. An emergency repair was raised by the landlord upon receipt of the resident’s repeat call. Its repair records indicate this was completed on 19 August 2022, which was within its 24-hour emergency repair timescale. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to treat this as an emergency given its previous failing when the repair was initially reported. The records do not detail what the outcome of the emergency appointment was. However, it is noted an inspection was completed 6 days later, on 24 August 2022, by the landlord’s contractor. This shows an attempt by the landlord to try and put things right.
  9. A fourth repair relating to the leak was raised by the landlord on 24 August 2022 following the inspection. The landlord also sent 2 letters to the resident on the same day. The first letter said a job had been raised for the flat roof and the contractor would be in contact to confirm an appointment. The second letter said the resident had not given access to check the leak and the repair had been cancelled. This contradicts the landlord’s repair records, which show that the contractor did not attend until 31 October 2022. This was 68 days after the job was raised and was marked as “complete no access”. The apparent discrepancy in these records is concerning.
  10. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest the resident was aware of the appointment on 31 October 2022. It was unreasonable, given the length of time he had been waiting for the contractor to attend, for the landlord to then cancel the repair. It is not set out in the landlord’s repairs policy how it deals with no access. However, in the circumstances, it should have been more proactive. It should have tried to contact the resident or re-book the repair rather than simply taking no action and relying on the resident to contact it back. There are potential hazards which a leak can cause under HHSRS, and in cancelling the repair, the landlord failed to address the risk of these appropriately.
  11. The resident reported the leak again on 11 December 2023. The landlord’s initial response to his report was to raise a routine repair as the leak was containable. As part of its stage 1 response, an emergency repair was raised instead and the landlord agreed to keep the resident updated. This was reasonable given the resident’s concerns that the ceiling was rotten and appeared dangerous. The emergency repair was completed within its 24-hour timescale. However, the records do not detail what the outcome of the appointment was, which is unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman is therefore unclear of what steps the landlord took to act upon the resident’s concerns regarding the ceiling. It is noted that on 18 December 2023, a repair was raised for a contractor to address the leak. A further inspection was completed on 21 December 2023.
  12. Repair records show that between 21 April 2022 and 7 February 2024, 10 repairs were logged by the landlord in respect of the leak through the resident’s bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s repair records lack detail. They show the date the repairs were raised, the status of the repair and the completion date, but do not show the outcome of the appointments. Due to this missing information, we cannot establish whether the landlord completed the works needed at each appointment.
  13. Inspections were completed by 2 separate contractors in August 2022 and December 2023, 16 months apart. Both inspections identified the cause of the leak to be an issue with drainage on the roof terrace above the resident’s bedroom. Despite this, a further inspection was requested on 7 February 2024. The landlord repeatedly raised the same repairs to identify the cause of the leak even though this had originally been identified in August 2022. This resulted in the resident receiving multiple visits for the same issue from different contractors. This added to his uncertainty, as well as causing him inconvenience, time and effort to try to get the issues resolved. This also demonstrates poor information management, as the landlord failed to link previous repairs and inspections which contributed to unnecessary delays in it progressing the repair from diagnosis to completion.
  14. The landlord was aware of the cause of the leak from its inspections but delayed in carrying out repairs. The Ombudsman notes there is reference in the landlord’s records from 26 January 2024 to 4 March 2024 regarding the roof being under warranty until 2026. The landlord’s records confirm a repair raised on 21 December 2023 was cancelled and had been “passed back” due to the roof being under warranty. However, there is no further evidence in the landlord’s records of the warranty or any communication with its contractor (or other parties) to progress this further. This demonstrates poor record keeping and communication with the contractor in dealing with the issue. There is also no information from the landlord to suggest that it contacted the resident to explain this further, or to outline its plan of action for completing the repair. The resident was only advised about the warranty when he contacted the landlord to enquire regarding next steps. This was unreasonable given the complaint he had raised.
  15. The landlord’s records show it did not act with any urgency in responding to potential hazards caused by the leak. Under HHSRS, the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The resident initially reported an issue with mould in his bedroom on 18 August 2022. The Ombudsman notes that while repairs were raised again at this time for the leak, no repair was raised to assess and treat the damp and mould. A repair was not raised for this by the landlord until 7 February 2024, which was 18 months after the initial report. This is a failing under its policy, which states a damp and mould assessment should be completed within 20 working days.
  16. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” The landlord did not do this, which was unsatisfactory.
  17. The contractor’s report on 26 February 2024 confirmed the presence of mould in the resident’s bedroom. The report stated the ceiling in the bedroom was unable to be treated as there was still an active leak and hole in the plasterwork. It recommended further investigation on the flat roof above the bedroom ceiling and stated the ceiling would need repairing once the cause of the water ingress had been fixed. This should have been a further prompt for the landlord to progress the repair to the roof. However, there is no evidence in its repair records to suggest that any further repairs were raised until 21 May 2024. This was despite the landlord’s damp and mould policy stating remedial works will be raised within 10 working days.
  18. A further hazard the landlord is required to assess under HHSRS is structural collapse. The resident was clear in his correspondence with the landlord in December 2023 that he was concerned about the potential collapse of his bedroom ceiling. Repair records show that the landlord did raise a temporary repair on 21 May 2024. This was 85 calendar days after the written recommendation received from the contractor, and therefore caused a further delay to the resident. The repair was completed on 23 June 2024. While it was reasonable of the landlord to try and mitigate the effects of the leak, a temporary repair should have been completed sooner given the potential risk of collapse and the damp and mould which had been left untreated. This demonstrates that the landlord did not take sufficient action to comply with the HHSRS requirements in a timely manner.
  19. The lack of communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings, as the resident was not kept informed of the progress of his repair. He was left unaware of when the roof repair would be completed, leading him to complain to the landlord. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised it would update the resident following the emergency repair. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest it did this or that it kept in regular contact with him throughout the complaints process. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for progress updates. The poor quality of the landlord’s records also meant that there were occasions where the landlord was unable to give an update when the resident asked for one.
  20. The resident has told this Service and the landlord that his bedroom was not usable due to the leak and damage to the ceiling. In his complaint escalation on 28 February 2024, he advised the landlord that he had been unable to make full use of his bedroom for the last 1.5 years. There is no evidence that the landlord was made aware of this until 11 December 2023. In contact with this service in April 2025, the resident said the bedroom had been unusable since December 2023 which is in line with the landlord’s records.
  21. The resident also said he had been told by contractors that his bedroom was not safe to use. The Ombudsman specifically asked the landlord about this in our information request. There is an undated email record within the evidence from the landlord which says that, to its knowledge, no one advised the resident that the bedroom was uninhabitable. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claims. It is noted that the contractor’s report does not specifically say that the bedroom was not safe to use. However, the report dated 26 February 2024 does confirm there was an active leak, damage to the ceiling, and presence of damp and mould. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident has been unable to make full use of his bedroom due to the ongoing repair issues. It is also noted that the resident was not told at any point by the landlord in its correspondence with him that the bedroom was safe to use, nor was a risk assessment around his use of the room carried out and the outcome shared. The resident was therefore left thinking that he could not use the bedroom while the repair issues were ongoing.
  22. The Ombudsman is unclear of the current position regarding the roofing repair. However, in his communication with this service in April 2025, the resident advised he was still unable to use his bedroom, and this had been the case since December 2023. A photo sent to the Ombudsman by the resident in April 2025 appears to show further damage to the bedroom ceiling. It therefore appears that a lasting repair to resolve the leak has not yet been completed by the landlord. The landlord’s failings have had a significant and long-term impact on the resident. He has suffered excessive and unexplained delays over a period of 2.5 years while continuing to live with the leak. He has told the Ombudsman that he is continuing to sleep on the sofa in his living room as a result. The resident shares the property with his flatmate and therefore his bedroom is his only private space. The loss of full use of this room has resulted in a lack of privacy, amenity and enjoyment of his home.
  23. Overall, there were a series of significant failings by the landlord which accumulated over a prolonged period. These failings have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord failed to meet its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and was slow to respond to reported hazards. The landlord also showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve his complaint through to completion. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak repairs.
  24. The landlord did offer compensation of £1,260 in its stage 2 response. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards over £1,000 would be considered appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have caused a long-term impact. It did therefore try to put things right in terms of financial redress for the resident. However, the landlord failed to adequately assess the impact of its actions on the resident by not considering a reduction in rent for the bedroom, which he had advised he was unable to use. This was not in line with the requirements of its compensation policy. Given the circumstances of the resident’s case, this was unreasonable.
  25. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The resident has been unable to make full use of his bedroom due to the ongoing issue with the leak through his ceiling. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider a partial refund of rent in such circumstances, but does not state how it will calculate this. The Ombudsman considers that a 20% rent reduction is appropriate over a period of 16 months. The number of months has been calculated from December 2023 (when the resident told the landlord he believed the bedroom to be unusable) to April 2025 (when the resident confirmed to this Service that the repair remained outstanding). As the resident lives in a flat share situation, we have used an approximate calculation based on an assumption that the resident contributes half of the total rent of £2,875. Half of the current monthly rent is £1,437.50. 20% of this figure is £287.50. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £4,600.
  26. The Ombudsman has investigated other complaints and issued a special report about the landlord in July 2023, which identified similar failings with its handling of repairs. A number of orders and recommendations were made as part of this report, including the need to review its record management and staff awareness of repeat repair requests. Therefore, we have not made recommendations for record keeping as this was addressed as part of this report.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, its policy states it will conduct a “thorough and customer focused” investigation. It also sets out responsibilities for complaint owners and says that they are responsible for “owning and resolving the complaint”. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out the following:
    1. Under section 5, landlords are required to consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if it will help to resolve the issue for the resident. It also requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint.
    2. Under section 6, landlords are required to acknowledge where things have gone wrong. They must set out the actions they have already taken or intend to take to put things right for the resident.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation will be offered as part of its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint decision. It says that it will pay discretionary compensation to residents who have suffered distress and inconvenience because of its own failings or where it has not complied with the Code. It states compensation will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the complainant’s circumstances and the impact on them. It says that compensation can be paid even when there are works outstanding, and this can later be reviewed if required.
  4. The landlord adhered to the timescales within its policy during the complaints process. However, there were other failures. Its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses failed to fully address the actual issues raised by the resident and showed a lack of thorough investigation. At stage 1, the landlord said it had reviewed the repairs history, but it only referred to the contact the resident had made regarding the leak in December 2023. It did not address the issues dating back to 2022 even though the repair logs were available. At stage 2, the landlord said that as the resident’s complaint related to roof repairs, it had been assigned to another member of staff in the maintenance team for a response. The Ombudsman notes that there was no further response to the resident in the evidence provided by the landlord.
  5. The landlord’s final response did not explain its investigation, and therefore failed to address in detail the substantive issue of the roof leak. It did not acknowledge its delay in the handling of the repairs to the leak. It missed an opportunity to set out the actions it had already taken and what it planned to do to put things right for the resident. This also went against the requirements of its complaints policy, which sets out the need for complaint owners to own and resolve the complaint. The landlord’s complaint handler should have obtained responses from its maintenance team to include in its stage 2 response. This would have enabled the landlord to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage. The lack of investigation meant that the landlord did not adequately assess the impact on the resident as part of its complaint response, which is a failing. As a result, it did not use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that the stage 1 complaint was upheld by the landlord. It attempted to put things right by booking an emergency repair and offering an apology. While these were positive steps, we consider it did not go far enough, as the landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. In its stage 2 acknowledgement email, the landlord told the resident it would look into compensation once the roof had been repaired to ensure it was a “fair representation of the delay”. The landlord should have considered offering an amount of compensation at stage 1 and then reviewing this on completion of the works, in line with its policy.
  7. In its stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord also stated that in line with its complaints process, it would only be able to investigate and compensate for issues that occurred up to 6 months before the complaint was raised. The landlord concluded that it would be unable to provide compensation dating back 1.5 years. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint and compensation policies do not put any time limit on how far back it can investigate an issue or award discretionary compensation. This shows a lack of awareness of its relevant policies. It also indicates an unwillingness on the landlord’s part to acknowledge and investigate the total length of time the leak had been ongoing.
  8. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of service failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £200 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman’s special report about the landlord in July 2023 identified similar failings in its complaint handling. A number of orders and recommendations were made as part of this report including the need to carry out staff training on effective complaint handling. Therefore, we have made no further recommendations for training as this was addressed as part of the special report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a leak through the bedroom ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a member of its executive team. Evidence of its apology should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £6,060 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is made up of:
    1. £4,600 for the resident’s loss of the full use of his bedroom, as set out in the calculation in paragraph 41.
    2. £1,260 for distress and inconvenience offered during its complaint process, if not already paid.
    3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to appoint a senior member of staff to oversee the repairs and act as the resident’s point of contact until completion. Within 4 weeks it should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an action plan for completion of the roof repairs and timescales for this. This plan should also include details of any temporary repairs to ease the impact on the resident if these are available. The landlord should provide monthly updates to both parties until the repairs are complete.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the resident’s bedroom to establish whether it is safe for him to sleep in while the repairs are incomplete. Within 4 weeks, it should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a report outlining its findings in relation to this and an explanation of how it has reached this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman has identified poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. The landlord should review its relationship with its contractors to make sure communication is efficient and residents are not impacted. When delays are unavoidable, the landlord should make sure it updates the affected resident/s.