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 (202422078)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422078

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 July 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 and blockages to the resident’s toilet.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord in a supported housing scheme. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is vulnerable. He has learning disabilities, hearing difficulties and mobility issues. He is partially sighted and is registered blind. Scheme staff are on site 24 hours a day to help and support residents.
  2. The resident’s father is acting as an advocate on behalf of the resident in this case. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and the advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. Scheme staff reported an issue with the resident’s toilet flushing mechanism on 18 July 2023. Water continued to flow into the toilet bowl after flushing. The landlord arranged a repairs appointment for 27 July 2023. The repairs completed did not resolve the issue, so the scheme staff continued to raise repairs with the landlord.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 May 2024. He said there were ongoing issues with his toilet. He said he had reported a recent repair and the landlord had given him an appointment date of 11 July 2024. He said, after complaining, the landlord had brought the date forward to 9 May 2024 then cancelled the appointment on 8 May 2024. The resident said the landlord had given him a new appointment date in August 2024 but he felt this was not acceptable due to his health issues and learning disabilities. He said he had been waiting for the landlord to undertake the repairs since December 2023.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 May 2024. It said it had cancelled the repair as the operative was unable to attend and its other plumbers were fully booked. It confirmed the new repair date was 1 August 2024. However, it said it had been able to bring the date forward to 16 May 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident a £20 e-voucher as a gesture of goodwill.
  6. The landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property on 16 May 2024. They completed a minor repair but said the job was too big. The resident arranged for a private plumber to attend following a flood from the toilet on 31 May 2024. The plumber charged the resident £600 for the call out.
  7. Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 2 August 2024. It said it was unable to refund the resident’s £600 as it had not had the opportunity to resolve the repair. It said, if the issue arose again, it would deal with the repair as a priority due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. It offered compensation of £340 made up of £300 for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities and £40 for the delays.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he wanted the landlord to refund the £600 paid to the private plumber and to refund the excess water charges paid whilst the repairs to the toilet were outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although we cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and blockages to the toilet

  1. The resident has told us that the issues with the toilet began as soon as he moved into the property in November 2022 and that they got worse over time. He said he reported the repairs directly to the scheme staff, who contacted the landlord on his behalf. The resident said the care provider changed in April 2024 and as a result, numerous records were lost. This included records of when scheme staff reported the toilet repairs and blockages to the landlord.
  2. We asked the landlord to confirm whether records had been lost during the transition period. However, it has been unable to confirm whether this was the case due to staff turnover.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it is responsible for repairs to toilet cisterns and flushing mechanisms. It also says it will deal with waste pipe blockages in agency managed schemes where scheme staff have investigated and tried to unblock the pipes.
  4. The evidence shows the scheme staff reported an issue with the resident’s toilet to the landlord on 18 July 2023. They told the landlord that the push button flush kept getting stuck and when this happened the water continued to flow into the toilet bowl. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend on 27 July 2023. This was appropriate as it was within the timeframe of 25 calendar days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for routine repairs.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence provided what work the operative carried out to the toilet during the appointment on 27 July 2023. The scheme staff reported further issues with the flushing mechanism on 27 August 2023. The landlord raised a further repair on or around 4 September 2023. Although it is unclear from the landlord’s records when it attended, what the outcome of its investigations were, and whether it completed any repairs.
  6. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. We would expect a landlord to have robust records of the actions it took for repairs, as this allows it to track what actions it has taken and what remains outstanding. Especially when diagnosing a difficult and recurring repair. Detailed records also allow the landlord to provide answers when its actions are called into question. In this case, the lack of available records has affected our investigations as we are unable to draw conclusions on the landlord’s repairs actions between July 2023 and September 2023.
  7. The scheme staff reported further issues with the resident’s toilet to the landlord on 28 January 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what the details of the report were. The landlord’s operative attended on 31 January 2024. This was within the timeframe of 25 calendar days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for routine repairs. However, the evidence shows the operative spent 15 minutes at the property before concluding that it was “too big a job”.
  8. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it arranged any follow up work. This was unreasonable considering the operative was unable to resolve the issue during the visit. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to rectify the issues for the resident at this point. It also meant the issues with the toilet were unduly prolonged.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 20 March 2024. He said the toilet kept blocking and the flushing mechanism was still faulty. He said he had unblocked the toilet on 17 March 2024 with a plunger, which he said he had had to do several times recently. He said he was concerned that if the toilet blocked, and the flushing mechanism stuck at the same time, the flat could flood. The resident said he was aware the scheme staff had already reported the issue a couple of times that year. He said the local authority were supposed to be fitting a new toilet, but he did not know when and it could take months. He asked the landlord to sort the blockages and flushing problem as a matter of urgency in the short term to avoid the risk of flooding.
  10. The landlord responded on the same day. It confirmed it had reported the issue to the repairs team on multiple occasions and also confirmed it had copied the repairs team into its response.
  11. The scheme staff reported further repairs to the landlord on 26 April 2024. They said the push button flush was still getting stuck, resulting in water flowing continuously. They also said the toilet was frequently blocking. The landlord made an appointment to attend on 11 July 2024. This was not appropriate as it was over 2 months from the date of the report and significantly outside of the timeframe of 25 calendar days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for routine repairs.
  12. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the date of repair was so far ahead. The landlord would have been aware that the resident lived within a supported scheme and that he had significant vulnerabilities and disabilities that would likely be affected by the continuing issues with his toilet. The risk of flooding was a real concern as the resident did not always notice the continuing flushing due to his hearing and sight disabilities.
  13. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy says it will adjust its service standards where a delay would put a resident at risk because of their condition. Yet in this case, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered the risk to the resident based on his vulnerabilities. This was inappropriate in the circumstances considering the resident’s physical and learning disabilities. In addition to not following its own policy, the landlord has not shown whether it considered its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord sometime between 26 April 2024 and 30 April 2024 to ask it to bring the repair date forward. He said he felt it was not good enough to have to wait a further 2 months as the issue had already been ongoing for almost 12 months. The landlord responded and said it would bring the appointment forward to 9 May 2024.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 April 2024. He said he had contacted his water supplier as his water bill was higher than usual due to the continuing flow of water from the toilet cistern. He said he would come back to the landlord in relation to the extra costs once it had fixed the problem.
  16. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 May 2024 and cancelled the appointment booked in for 9 May 2024. This was because the operative assigned the job could not attend and its other plumbers were fully booked. The landlord re-booked the appointment for 1 August 2024, almost 3 months later.
  17. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it considered the resident’s disabilities when it re-arranged the appointment or that it considered any risk to the resident by the further extended delay. There is no evidence to show it spoke to scheme staff to consider whether such a long delay would be reasonable. This was inappropriate and not in line with its repairs and maintenance policy when considering vulnerable residents. This would also have been a further opportunity for the landlord to show whether it had considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
  18. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 May 2024. He said the toilet flushing mechanism had not worked properly since he moved into the flat. He said the water flowed continuously when he flushed the toilet. He said his water bills had increased to £100 per month due to the continual flow of water. He said the landlord said it had fixed the problem last year, but within days the fault returned. He said the toilet was also prone to blockages. He said he was concerned that if the toilet blocked at the same time as the continual flushing, his bathroom would flood.
  19. The resident said the landlord had cancelled his appointment booked for 9 May 2024 and re-arranged it for 1 August 2024. He said the new date was not acceptable as he had been trying to get the problem resolved since December 2023. He reminded the landlord he had learning disabilities and health problems and he asked it to repair the toilet.
  20. On 13 May 2024 the resident’s toilet blocked. As the flushing mechanism was still sticking, the sewage water from the toilet flooded his bathroom. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord attended or whether the scheme staff dealt with the issues themselves on this occasion.
  21. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 15 May 2024. It said it had cancelled the job and re-booked it for 1 August 2024 as the operative was unable to attend and its other plumbers were fully booked. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that it had brought the appointment forward to 16 May 2024. It offered the resident a £20 e-voucher as a gesture of goodwill. It did not, however, give the resident a formal response in relation to the increase in his water bills.
  22. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 16 May 2024. He sprayed the flushing mechanism with a lubricant as a temporary fix and then left. He told the scheme staff that he could not clear the blockage in the soil pipe as the job was too big for him. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the operative could not complete the work or whether he raised any follow on work. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
  23. The resident sent the landlord an email on 17 May 2024. He said the operative was unable to unblock the toilet. He asked it to arrange an appointment for a drains specialist to attend as a priority. He said the scheme staff had to clear up after a recent flood, which was unhygienic. He also said he was extremely stressed about the ongoing issue. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email. This was unreasonable considering the operative had left a vulnerable resident with a blocked toilet that was at risk of flooding again. The landlord missed an opportunity to instruct a drains specialist at this point and resolve the immediate risk of a further flood for the resident.
  24. The resident has told us that the toilet continued to block and the scheme staff had to keep clearing the blockages with a plunger.
  25. The resident’s bathroom flooded with sewage water on 31 May 2024. The resident has told us that the scheme staff tried to report the flood to the landlord. He said they tried the repairs line and could not get through. Due to the severity of the flood, and the concerns that the resident would not be able to stay in his flat over the weekend, they called a private plumber.
  26. The plumber attended and found that the foul branch pipe that fed into the soil stack was severely blocked. He unblocked the pipe with a specialist machine. The plumber noted that the foul pipe was draining upwards, which was the likely cause of the frequent blockages. The plumber charged the resident £600 call out charges.
  27. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 19 June 2024 due to the ongoing issues with the toilet. He said the local authority were due to fit a new adapted toilet, but he had been waiting over 6 months. He said he was worried the toilet would block again before the local authority fitted the new toilet. He asked the landlord to reimburse the £600 call out charge.
  28. The local authority fitted the new adapted toilet on 8 July 2024. This resolved the issues related to the flushing mechanism and the frequent pipe blockages.
  29. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2024. It said it was sorry the resident had to call a plumber out. It said it operated a reactive maintenance service. It said, as the scheme staff had not reported the flooding incident on 31 May 2024, it was unable to reimburse the cost of the private plumber. It said it had not had the opportunity to respond and resolve the repair. It said it would have attended as an emergency within 24 hours had it been given the opportunity.
  30. The landlord said it could see there had been several call outs to the toilet and it had requested a supervisor attend to check the toilet and the pipes. It said it would mark the repair as a priority as the resident was vulnerable. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £340. This was made up of £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities and £40 for the delays in completing the repairs.
  31. It was reasonable, in the circumstances, of the landlord not to reimburse the resident the £600 paid for a private plumber. This is because a landlord is not normally liable to carry out works until it has been put on notice of the repair. The landlord was aware of an ongoing issue with the toilet. However, it was not given the opportunity to respond to the flood as an emergency on 31 May 2024 prior to the scheme staff and resident making the decision to call a private plumber. Although we do understand that the flood would have been very distressing for the resident.
  32. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord did apologise to the resident and offer increased compensation. However, it did not recognise the length of time the issue had been ongoing or that it had failed to repair the toilet on the occasions it had attended. It did not acknowledge that it failed to organise follow up work when operatives were unable to complete repairs. It did not fully acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the issue based on his vulnerabilities and disabilities. It did not fully recognise its failure to follow its own repairs and maintenance policy in terms of vulnerable customers or recognise that it had not shown whether it had considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It did not formally respond to the resident’s reports of higher water bills due to the continuous running water or recognise its failure to respond to the resident’s emails on occasion.
  33. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s 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.
  34. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were some failings in the way it handled the repairs, it has not shown it has recognised all the failings, as set out above. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. Therefore, we consider the offer of £340 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings.
  35. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £640 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident in the circumstances and to consider the resident’s increased water bills.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs and blockages to the resident’s toilet.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £640 (the landlord may deduct from this amount any payment it has already made) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs and blockages to the resident’s toilet.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Request evidence from the resident in relation to the increased water charges. Once the evidence has been provided, assess whether the issues with the flushing mechanism likely resulted in additional costs to the resident and consider awarding additional compensation. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with an outcome of its assessment within 2 weeks of the resident providing the evidence.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.