From 13 January 2026, we will 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 (202421083)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421083

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom apartment on the 6th floor of an apartment block since 2 April 2019. The resident lives with her 9-year-old daughter and sons who are 6 and 11. The landlord’s records say the resident has visual impairment.
  2. On 2 July 2024 the resident reported to the landlord there was a leak coming into her apartment. The landlord’s operative attended and turned off the water to the apartment, but they said the leak coming from the building’s sprinkler system.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2024. She said the landlord delayed repairing the leak. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 July 2024. It offered her £569.52 compensation as it accepted it should have managed the situation more effectively.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. She said she did not accept the compensation offer. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 10 September 2024.
  6. On 10 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It offered a further £536.55 compensation for the delays in carrying out repairs and the loss of use of a bedroom due to the damage caused by the leak.
  7. The resident contacted us on 11 October 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  8. Following the landlord’s complaint responses, some repairs were carried out, and it completed an inspection of the property on 24 January 2025. Its surveyor identified outstanding repairs and said the resident would need to be temporarily relocated for the works to be completed.
  9. The landlord and the resident have not been able come to an agreement for her to be temporarily relocated. On 6 August 2025 the landlord applied to the county court for an injunction to enforce relocating the resident during the repair works.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told both us and the landlord as resolution to her complaint she would like to be permanently moved to a different property. We are not able to tell a landlord to move the resident or comment on how it should allocate its housing stock. Our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident also told us she has suffered an injury due to the damaged flooring at the property. Whilst we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Matters relating to personal injury or damage to health are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any general distress and inconvenience caused where there has been a failing by the landlord.
  3. Part of the sequence of events relating to the resident’s complaint involved the landlord seeking an injunction to move the resident from her property in order to facilitate repairs. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints which we consider it more effective to seek resolution through the courts. For this reason, our investigation will not assess the landlord’s decision to seek an injunction as the merits of this are likely to form any consideration by the court. Our investigation will focus on whether the landlord’s actions up to the point of applying for the injunction were fair, reasonable and in accordance with its policy in how it handled the resident complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. On 2 July 2024 the resident reported to the landlord there was a leak coming into her apartment. The time of the report is not recorded, but the landlord’s records say its operative attended within 4 hours, at 2:32am on 3 July 2024. The operative told the landlord the fire brigade turned off the water supply to the property, but the leak was coming from the building’s sprinkler system. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the building and its sprinkler system, so another operative attended at midday on 3 July 2024 and drained the sprinkler system as it was leaking into multiple apartments. The landlord raised a work order for a specialist engineer to inspect the sprinkler system within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord recorded on 4 July 2024 that its operative attended and confirmed the electrics in the resident’s property were safe and working. They also temporarily secured loose vinyl flooring in the kitchen as a result of the leak with duct tape.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend an emergency out of hours repair such as a leak within 4 hours and make the situation safe. For other emergency works that pose an immediate danger to the resident, it will attend within 24 hours. The policy also says any follow-on repair will be completed at the earliest opportunity. The landlord’s operatives attended the property to address the repairs in line with its policy timescales.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2024. She said the landlord took too long to stop the leak, and there had been water damage to 3 rooms in the property, including her daughter’s bedroom.
  5. A surveyor inspected the sprinkler system on 9 July 2024 and told the landlord the leak had been repaired.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 9 July 2024, and she requested to be permanently relocated to a different property. The landlord said it would only relocate her if there was a medical emergency, but it said she could apply to her local council for a mutual exchange if she wanted to move property. The resident told us she has since applied to her local council and is on a waiting list to be rehomed.
  7. On 11 July 2024 the local council’s environmental health department inspected the resident’s property. They wrote to the landlord the same day and said they had found damp and mould in the property following the leak, and it should carry out repairs within 28 days.
  8. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When there is a report of damp and mould, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states an appointment to find the source of the damp and mould at a property will take place with 20 days of it being reported. Any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised within 10 days of the assessment. The landlord took no action to inspect the property for damp and mould following it being reported by the local council.
  10. On 16 July 2024 the landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. The landlord said its plumber had attended the property within 4 hours to make the situation safe, but it apologised she was not told what actions would be taken regarding further repairs.
  11. The landlord told the resident it was arranging remedial works for the damage caused to her daughter’s bedroom. It said it expected repairs to the property would be completed by 31 August 2024. The landlord said it would not temporarily relocate her as her children could share a bedroom or use the living room space. The landlord added that referrals for permanent rehousing had been suspended at that time due to significant demand. It again suggested she contact her local council to request rehousing or consider applying for a mutual exchange.
  12. The landlord accepted the resident had not received the standard of service she should have, and it should have managed the situation regarding her reports of a leak more effectively. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £569.52 compensation:
    1. £469.52 for the loss of use of the bedroom from 2 July to 31 August 2024.
    2. £80 for distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £20 for the time and effort taken to resolve the complaint.
  13. A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows it accepted there had been delays in it carrying our repairs. It offered compensation for the delays, including the loss of use of a bedroom, as per its compensation policy. The landlord also explained it was not in a position to relocate the resident.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 17 July 2024. She said her daughter should not have to share a bedroom with her brothers, and she could not use the living room as a bedroom as it was an open-plan space with the kitchen. She also said she had a visual impairment, and it was difficult for her to navigate the property due to the damage caused by the leak.
  15. On 30 August 2024 the landlord’s operative attended the property and carried out repairs to the damaged ceilings. This was outside of the landlord’s standard repair policy timescales, which is 25 calendar days.
  16. The resident contacted both us and the landlord on 5 September 2024 as it had not replied to her escalated complaint. The landlord called the resident on 16 September 2024 to discuss her complaint. She said it had not repaired the damaged walls or flooring in the property.
  17. The landlord’s operatives carried out repairs to the damaged ceilings, walls and woodwork in the property on 1 October 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 October 2024 and said she would be contacted by its contractor about repairing the damaged kitchen floor.
  18. On 10 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said the repairs to the bedroom walls and ceiling had been completed. The landlord said the vinyl kitchen flooring had been temporarily patched, but further repairs were required, including treating mould underneath the flooring. It said the resident would be contacted to arrange the repairs. The landlord added that the issue with the building’s sprinkler system had been referred to its management team and it would arrange further inspection of it.
  19. The landlord apologised it took until 1 October 2024 to carry out repairs to the bedroom, and it offered £516.55 further compensation. This took the total compensation offer to £1,086.07. A breakdown of the additional compensation was as follows:
    1. £346.55 for the loss of use of the bedroom.
    2. £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £50 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  20. Although the landlord’s complaint response apologised and offered redress for the further delays to arrange repairs to the property, it did not provide the resident with timescales for when the remaining works would take place.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident told the landlord on 10 October 2024 her daughter’s bedroom repairs were not complete as the walls had not been skimmed, the woodwork had not been fully repaired and the ceiling had watermarks. The landlord referred the repairs to its contractor the following day, but no further action was taken.
  2. On 15 October 2024 the landlord’s contractor treated the mould under the vinyl floor in the kitchen. The mould treatment was carried out 3 months after it was first reported. The time taken to attend to the damp and mould at the resident’s property was beyond its associated policy timescales.
  3. The resident instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf, who arranged for an independent survey of the property to take place on 25 November 2024. The surveyor identified outstanding repairs required in the bedroom, hallway, kitchen and living room due to damage caused by the leak. They said the resident would not be required to be relocated while the repairs were carried out. It is not recorded when the survey results were shared with the landlord, but a copy of the survey was shared with us during our investigation into this complaint.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 24 January 2025. They identified mould in the property and outstanding repairs in the bedroom, hallway kitchen and living room. They said the flooring needed to be replaced, and the resident would need to be temporarily relocated for the duration of the repair works.
  5. The local council’s environmental health department contacted the landlord on 3 February 2025 and said the state of the property was not acceptable. On 25 February 2025 the environmental health department inspected the resident’s property. They sent an improvement notice to the landlord on 3 March 2025 as they found damp and mould in the property, and said it posed a significant risk to the health and safety of the occupants. There is no evidence the landlord took any action to address the damp and mould reports as per its policy.
  6. During May 2025, the resident, her solicitor and the landlord discussed how to arrange the repairs to the property. The resident again said she wanted permanent rehousing as a resolution to the issue, but the landlord said it had limited stock to arrange a move. The landlord said it could arrange to temporary relocate the resident in a hotel while the works were carried out, or it could pay towards the costs of her staying with family or friends. The resident said temporary relocation was not feasible as she had pets, and her children were at schools close by. She added that she had no friends or family close enough to stay with, and she could not use public transport due to her visual impairment.
  7. Clause 4.j. of the property tenancy agreement states if it considers it cannot reasonably carry out necessary works with the resident in the property, the landlord may require them to move to temporary accommodation to complete the works.
  8. As its surveyor had recommended the resident be relocated to allow the works to take place, it was reasonable for the landlord to start to explore options for the resident to move away from the property for those works to take place. However, the landlord only sought to arrange the relocation in May 2025, 4 months after its surveyor said it was required following their inspection. This delay was unreasonable.
  9. On 20 May 2025 the resident’s solicitor sent pre-action correspondence to the landlord due to the outstanding repairs at the property.
  10. The landlord told the resident’s solicitor on 28 May 2025 if the resident refused its offer of temporary accommodation, it would pursue an injunction to remove her to carry out the necessary works.
  11. On 29 May 2025 the landlord made a settlement offer of £1,000 to the resident for the delays in carrying out the outstanding repairs identified on 24 January 2025. The landlord said the offer was conditional on the resident agreeing to be temporarily relocated while repair works were completed and it aimed to do so within 90 days of settlement being agreed. The resident has told us she did not accept the settlement offer as the landlord has not offered suitable alternative accommodation for her family.
  12. The landlord continued to correspond with the resident throughout June and July 2025 about temporarily relocating her. It estimated the works would take 2 weeks to complete. The landlord offered to arrange a cattery and kennel for her pets, but the resident declined this as she said it was not suitable for her dog. She added that hotel rooms would not be big enough for her family, and the layout would not be suitable for her due to her impaired vision.
  13. The repairs to the resident’s property remain outstanding. On 6 August 2025 the landlord applied to the county court for an injunction to enforce relocating the resident during the repair works.
  14. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord initially responded to the reports of a leak in the resident’s property promptly, however, the timeline of this complaint shows it has failed to carry out all of the remedial repairs identified from subsequent inspections.
  15. The work required to treat damp and mould was not organised or conducted in accordance with its damp and mould policy. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses recognised its delays and it offered redress for these failings. The landlord offered overall compensation of £1,086.07 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its lack of action, as well as the inability to use the resident’s daughter’s bedroom for a period.
  16. However, following its offer of redress, the landlord only arranged a survey of the property and ascertained the remaining works required in January 2025. This was around 3 months after the landlord’s complaint response. Following the survey, the resident and landlord remain in dispute around how to facilitate the works which remain outstanding. The landlord offered temporary accommodation for the resident and her family and additional measures to provide accommodation for the resident’s pets from May 2025.
  17. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  18. When considering the landlord’s compensation offer against the criteria set out in our remedies guidance, its offer of £1,086.07 was proportionate to its failings that caused distress and inconvenience and had a detrimental impact on the resident at the point it was made. However, for the matter to be resolved would also have required the landlord taking action to do the required works and complete them within a reasonable timescale following its stage 2 response.
  19. The evidence shows whilst the landlord carried out some repairs following its stage 2 response, it failed to arrange all the repairs identified in subsequent inspections of the property. Part of the time taken to date to account for the failure to complete the works is down to the resident and landlord not being able to agree how to facilitate the works. However, prior to this point, there were delays identifying the required works, and that it took too long for the landlord to recognise that in order to facilitate the works, it would be necessary to offer temporary accommodation to the resident and her family.
  20. It is recognised this additional delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who during the period, initiated pre-action correspondence following the inability of the complaints process to resolve the situation. There has been no settlement between the parties.
  21. Our consideration of the redress offered by the landlord, extends up to the point it made its offer to temporarily relocate the resident for the reasons outlined below.
  22. The landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation to conduct the works it had identified, was made around 7 months after its complaint response. The offer was made as part of pre-action correspondence with the resident and was conditional on the basis the resident accepted its offer of temporary accommodation.
  23. In these circumstances we accept the dispute is ongoing. The landlord has a responsibility to conduct the necessary works, and the resident has a responsibility to uphold the terms of her tenancy agreement. However, there was no realistic option provided by the landlord for her to move to conduct the works before May 2025. The landlord has not offered any unconditional redress for this delay.
  24. We recognise the significant compensation offered by the landlord as part of its internal complaint process for the failings identified up to its stage 2 response. As stated previously, this, in conjunction with an appropriate post-complaint procedure response would have satisfactorily settled the complaint. However, because the landlord took too long to identify and provide an option to facilitate the required works following the stage 2 response; then failed to offer appropriate compensation for these delays, leads to a determination of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused through to the point it made an offer of temporary accommodation.
  25. Our order of compensation is not contingent on the resident taking the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation. The compensation order is distinct from any ongoing proposed arrangements between the parties as part of pre-action correspondence. The landlord is required to take the necessary reasonable steps to facilitate the repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints by the end of the next working day from when it is raised. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It should acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of the escalation and respond to them within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  3. On 16 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, which was within its policy timescale.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 10 September 2024, which was outside of the timescale prescribed in its policy.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 October 2024. This was slightly outside of its policy timescale. The landlord apologised and offered £20 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
  6. The landlord’s offer of £20 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays to respond to the resident’s complaint aligns to an award of redress we would typically arrive at in similar circumstances when using our remedies guidance. However, the landlord’s failure to resolve the issues raised during the complaint procedure meant the resident was caused more time and trouble instructing a solicitor.
  7. The complaint procedure is supposed to be a mechanism to resolve disputes in their entirety. In this case, however, the resident had to take steps to instruct a solicitor. That should not have been necessary and indicates a significant failure by the landlord’s complaint team to arrange an inspection, works and fair compensation.
  8. The landlord’s failure to resolve the situation through its complaints process resulted in additional time and trouble caused to the resident. Due to this, the resident understandably lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs and sought to engage in pre-action correspondence. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £1,936.07 compensation to the resident. The landlord may deduct the sum of £1,106.07 awarded as part of its internal complaints process, if already paid. The balance should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent account. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,786.07 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date if this report.

Recommendations

  1. Whilst it continues with its attempts to resolve access to the property by legal means, the landlord is recommended to concurrently evaluate its offer to temporarily relocate the resident within the range of options available to it. This is while trying to be as accommodating as possible to her needs in order to facilitate the start of the outstanding works.
  2. The landlord is also recommended to update the resident on the status of her request for it to permanently relocate her. If the landlord is unable to permanently relocate her within an agreed timescale, it should signpost her to relevant alternative options to request permanent relocation.