London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202413538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413538

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of sewage leaking from the communal stack pipe onto his balcony.
2. The resident’s concerns that it has not considered his human rights under article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in dealing with the leaks.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a 4-storey house. There is a flat on each floor, which share the use of a soil stack on the rear of the building.
The resident has informed the landlord he has health vulnerabilities. These include asthma, depression, anxiety and a phobia of contamination.
There is evidence of historic and re-occurring problems with the shared stack pipe at the resident’s property. Previous failures in the pipe have resulted in raw sewage flooding the balcony and entering his property. The landlord fully replaced the stack pipe in September 2020. Following further leaks in 2022 and advice it had fitted it poorly, it rebuilt the stack in March 2023.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 August 2024. He said despite attendances by its plumbers, sewage leaks onto his balcony persisted. He said following the last incident it did not undertake any clean-up and it was not acceptable that he had lived with this issue for 10 years.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 4 September 2024. He said the landlord had failed to respond to his complaint of a month ago. He said sewage on his balcony was a health and safety issue and he would be taking legal advice. He also said it was denying him the right to live in a safe and secure environment, which was impacting his health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024. It referenced speaking to the resident that day, which had provided a better understanding of his complaint. It said it would escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the 2 October 2024. It provided details of 6 complaints, 3 subject access requests and a “legal disrepair” claim that it had responded to between 2019 and 2023. It said all related to the problem with the stack pipe and resulted in it paying the resident a total of £1,975 compensation. It said outside of the complaint process he had accepted an offer of £7,500 in full and final settlement of the matter. It would arrange for a surveyor to attend and order any works needed. It apologised for not responding to his stage 1 complaint and offered him £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to us. He said it had not resolved his complaint and sewage was still leaking from the stack pipe onto his balcony.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s complaint he stated that he has been experiencing the problems with the communal stack pipe since 2014.
We investigated a previous complaint from the resident on this issue in October 2023 (case ref 202209500). We cannot consider complaints that seek to raise matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. For this reason this investigation will focus on events that have occurred since October 2023. Any mention in the report of events prior to this date will be for context only.
The resident said the landlord’s failure to find a permanent solution to the leaks from the stack pipe, have impacted his mental and physical 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 into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the impact on his physical and mental health is better dealt with via the court.
We have received evidence that the landlord and resident settled on this matter through the pre-action protocol for housing. The settlement required the landlord to carry out specified repairs to the soil pipe and pay a financial settlement. This will not impact our investigation, but we will not be assessing the adequacy of this agreement as this is a process outside of the complaint procedure.

Stack pipe

The tenancy agreement commits the landlord to ensure it keeps the structure and exterior of the resident’s home repaired. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord should also complete repairs within a reasonable period of time. There is no statutory definition of a reasonable period. However, its repairs policy commits to respond to routine repairs in an average of 25 days. It says for emergency repairs where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours
Landlords must also ensure that properties they rent out are fit for human habitation. The main source of this duty is section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which was inserted by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. A property might be unfit because of sanitation problems or health and safety hazards.
At the time of our previous determination of the resident’s complaint, on 4 October 2023 no repairs to the stack were outstanding.
Approximately 1 month after our determination was issued, on 1 November 2023 the landlord’s records show the stack pipe had broken again. It said the middle bracket was insecure, the pipe was bowing in the middle, and sewage was leaking from this point. Between then and 10 November 2023 it raised a further 3 repair orders. Repair records show it cancelled all 3. The first was for no access the other reasons are unknown.
Following this, on 12 December 2023 the landlord ordered an environmental clean of the balcony. While this was appropriate action to take, it was almost 6 weeks after the resident had put it on notice of the sewage spillage. Raw sewage is a hazard, as such, it required an urgent response for the clean-up.
A copy of the associated complaint has not been provided to us, however, the landlord issued a complaint response on 18 January 2024.This confirmed it raised an order for work to the stack pipe in October 2023 which it completed on 5 December 2023. There is no record of this logged on its repairs history.
The landlord’s response also offered the resident £180 compensation in recognition of service failure. It broke this down for the 2-month period October to December 2023, £40 for inconvenience, £40 for distress, £50 for complaint handling and £50 for time and effort.
This amount was proportionate for the 2-month period of failure and within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for a failure which adversely affected a resident. The resident refused the offer because he did not feel it reflected that he had experienced this problem at regular intervals since 2014. He also said the sewage problem was still current.
The resident approached a solicitor who commissioned an inspection of the property from an independent surveyor. Their report of 26 January 2024 noted the landlord had renewed the foul waste stack, but a branch wastewater pipe was actively leaking. It also found evidence of a leak at the waste connection of the first and second floor junction, and an insecure waste pipe bracket. It said this could lead to movement, which may cause the upper section of the pipe to leak sewage. It recommended it renew the kitchen waste run, repair the leaks and fit a new bracket.
Although the stack pipe issue has not been constant, records suggest there had been an inordinate number of problems over the years. The instability of the soil pipe again meant the risk of leaking raw sewage. Although it identified the current leak as sink wastewater from the neighbour’s wastepipe, it was still dirty water. This combination of factors required a level of urgency in its response to the matter.
The landlord did not raise an order for the work until 12 June 2024. This was 6 months from the date on the report. This significantly exceeded its repair policy response times of 25 days for routine repairs and did not demonstrate the level of urgency required.
The delay in the landlord progressing the work coincided with its negotiations on the pre-action protocol agreement with the resident’s solicitor. The Ombudsman has produced guidance for landlords on this. It advises that when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from the repair issue. The delayed response to the repair suggests it did disengage, which was a service failing.
The landlord completed the recommended soil pipe repairs on 29 July 2024. Within days the resident raised his complaint of 2 August 2024. He said despite plumbers attending, sewage was still leaking onto his balcony. He emailed it again on 3 and 4 September 2024 to chase a response, which it failed to reply to.
The landlord attributed this to it including the complaint in the pre-action protocol process. It apologised that it had not informed him of this at the time. Our guidance for landlords also advises that they must continue to engage in their internal complaint process, even when the pre-action protocol has been instigated. Not to do so was a failing. Moreover, it did not recognise that this was a failing in its complaint investigation.
The landlord’s final stage response on 2 October 2024 set out the significant complaints and pre-action protocol negotiations it had completed in this matter. This demonstrated significant engagement since 2019 and several resolutions reached. However, it had not recognised that this also showed it had not created a permanent solution in this time.
As an action the landlord said it had raised a referral for a surveyor to attend and inspect the issue. They in turn would arrange the necessary works. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must clearly set out what will happen and by when, with any remedy offered. This proposal did not provide any timescales.
This was not reasonable, as at this point the nature of the leak was unknown. Any direct leak from the stack pipe including wastewater will be contaminated from sewage. As such, the inspection should have been attended to with the highest priority as its policy requires. There was no evidence that it did.
The Code also requires that landlords should follow through to completion any remedy proposed. The landlord’s policy says it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete. There is no evidence it raised an inspection of the stack pipe in October 2024. It has not provided an inspection report, details of any findings or records of it raising any repair orders. There was no indication of any monitoring officer allocated to the case. This suggests that it did not follow through with the actions it committed to in its final stage response.
The resident reported the problem again on 7 November 2024. This was further evidence the landlord had not resolved the issue. The repairs history shows it raised and cancelled a job order for the soil stack that same day, but there is no explanation why.
A lack of information on its repairs history has been a common finding. A lack of recorded details of outcomes along with copied and pasted repair orders has made it difficult to follow events. Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It is because this also assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, monitoring outstanding works and providing accurate information to residents.
Additionally, if there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure. We identified failures in the landlord’s record keeping for repairs in our investigation in 2023. It is not evident that it has significantly improved its record keeping since then.
The resident said a surveyor attended on 9 October 2024. He confirmed there were signs of sewage in the leaks, and assured him they would address the problem within 2 weeks. He recollects them asking him to sign to confirm this. On 1 November 2024 he wrote expressing his disappointment that it had not attended to fix his sewage issues.
The landlord had arranged a post inspection survey with the resident via email for this date. Post inspections check on completed repairs although it was unclear what it was post inspecting. It is possible the surveyor discussed the resident’s stack-pipe concerns with him while on site. However, the appointment suggests the surveyor was not attending for this matter at all.
The landlord’s update indicated the leak to the resident’s stack pipe was still outstanding on 15 January 2025. This shows that its complaint process did not resolve the substantive complaint. Furthermore, it took it 6 months to attend. This again did not meet its repair response times and shows a continued lack of urgency in the landlord’s approach to this matter.
The update from the landlord also included a recent report from a drainage expert dated 25 August 2025. This stated it repaired a third-floor leak from the stack and cleared the pipe on that day. It noted the stack is not installed straight and a pipe is missing the access cap. Another wastepipe was also leaking, which required a plumber.
For the operative to mention the stack pipe is not installed straight suggests it is a problem. This could be placing undue pressure on the joints and fixings, which is causing these problems to re-occur. To prevent further detriment to the resident, this is something the landlord needs to investigate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leaking soil stack has been poor. It has been slow to respond despite the possibility any leak may be contaminated with sewage. It has failed to communicate adequately with the resident. It cannot evidence that it followed through with the actions in its complaint response. Its continued attendance since its final stage response is evident it did not resolve the substantive complaint. Moreover, it has not found a permanent solution to the problem causing further detriment to the resident. It has also failed to demonstrate it has taken any learning from its previous complaints and used it to improve its service.

Concerns about not considering the resident’s human rights in the handling of the leaks

The resident’s complaint said the landlord had denied him his right to live in a safe and secure environment and as a result his health was suffering. In further communication he raised specific concerns that its inability to permanently resolve leaks onto his balcony from the communal stack pipe had breached article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998.
The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms entitled to everyone in the UK. It requires all public authorities, including other bodies carrying out public functions, to respect and protect the rights of individuals as set out in the articles contained within Schedule 1 of the Act. Some social landlords, although private organisations, deliver public services so are ‘hybrid public authorities’. As such, they have the same human rights duties when performing acts considered public functions.
Article 8, states ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ This includes elements such as a person’s health and wellbeing and the enjoyment of their home. This is a ‘qualified’ right, which means that it can be breached by a public authority in certain circumstances.
The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached any of the articles in the Act. A decision on this can only be made by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has given due regard to an individual’s rights under the Act when considering a resident’s complaint.
The resident sent in a copy of a letter to the landlord from a specialist clinical psychologist dated 9 November 2023. This advised it was their view the failure to find a permanent resolution to a sewage leak on his balcony was negatively affecting his mental health. It said he had developed increased anxiety from the fear of contamination from sewage. This had resulted in behaviour such as refraining from cooking in the flat, drinking only bottled water and not using his bedroom.
The resident’s mental health issues suggested it was likely he would be more impacted by an undetermined leak from the soil stack than other residents. Being put on notice of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it had duties under the Act. We have not seen that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration by expediting action to resolve the issue. It also did not seem to have considered what it could do differently after it received the letter from the psychologist. Instead, there was a continued lack of urgency in its response. Neither was it evident it had acknowledged the past history of the leaks and the level of detriment this has caused him. Having previously had his balcony flooded with raw sewage this was something the resident feared most.
In circumstances such as this it would have been appropriate to keep the resident informed and his concerns and correspondence answered promptly. The only people keeping him informed appeared to be the operatives attending. Several of his emails went unanswered, which would likely have increased his anxiety. He said this left him feeling frustrated and unheard.
It is evident from recent updates that the problem has not been resolved. The landlord continues to carry out minor works to repair joints and fixings. This provides only short-term solutions, which the resident has no confidence in. It has not carried out a risk assessment or considered alternative action to provide him with a permanent resolution.
The resident’s concern the landlord had denied his right to live in a safe and secure environment, was a prompt for it to give consideration to whether a breach of Article 8 had occurred. It would have been appropriate to have openly responded to the resident’s complaint about this during the complaints procedure. Its final response, however, was silent on this issue.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond fully within 10 working days. This aligns with the Code.
The resident made his complaint on 2 August 2024 using the landlord’s portal. He received no acknowledgement in response. He chased this on 4 September 2024 and when he still received no response he called it on 9 September 2024.
The landlord called him back later that day to discuss his complaint. It followed this up with an acknowledgement email. This was a 27 working day response time, which significantly exceeds its policy response time of 5 working days.
The landlord’s acknowledgement email advised the resident it had referred his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It also said a reviewer would be appointed to consider the handling of the stage 1 complaint.
The Code requires that landlords have a 2-stage complaint process, which its complaint policy commits to. This is in part to ensure that the resident has the opportunity of requesting a further consideration of their complaint if they are not satisfied with its first decision. Referring the resident’s complaint straight to stage 2 meant it denied him the chance of further consideration. Furthermore, it had not completed a stage 1 investigation. It was therefore difficult to see how it could review its complaint handling at this stage.
In its final stage response the landlord acknowledged there had been failings in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation. This sum is within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for a failing which had no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of sewage leaking from the communal stack pipe onto his balcony.
2. The resident’s concerns that it has not considered his human rights under article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in dealing with the leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the orders below. It must:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Flag the resident’s repair records to indicate his vulnerabilities, and implement reasonable adjustments:
  1. To provide an urgent response to his reports of leaks from the stack pipe.
  2. That operatives accessing the balcony should use shoe coverings on entering his flat.
3. Complete a full and thorough inspection of the stack pipe, joints connecting wastepipes and fixings (including the fixing points – brickwork). Provide the resident with a report identifying any faults, remedial action needed and timescales for completion.
4. Pay the resident the sum of £700 compensation (directly to the resident and not his rent account), broken down as follows.
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the soil stack.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by it not considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.