London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202427871)

Decision
Case ID	202427871
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leasehold
Date	15 December 2025

Background

1. The resident’s husband raised the complaint as her representative, for this report, we will refer to the resident and her husband as ‘the resident,’ unless we need to mention them separately. In May 2023, the resident reported a leak into the property caused by roof and guttering issues. The resident was concerned about the damage caused to the property and the mould and damp within her son’s bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a leak and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated repairs.
4. We found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Did not attend to the roofing repairs in a timely manner, which caused damage to the property and concern to the resident.
   2. Delayed commencing the section 20 process.
   3. Did not communicate effectively with the resident.
   4. Failed to provide a meaningful resolution to the resident’s complaints.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the chief executive. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,800 made up as follows:  £1,600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in handling of a leak and the associated repairs.  £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failings. The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment to us by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord has told us that the section 20 repair works can be issued to the contractor after 17 December 2024. We would therefore expect that works are started within 4 weeks of being issued to the contractor. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:    The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale or explain why it cannot. Further the landlord should: Provide the resident with a single person contact (SPOC) to correspond with the resident on a weekly basis on the progress of the roof works until completion. Confirm to the resident the expected timescales for the start and the completion of the section 20 roof works.	No later than 19 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 August 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she was unhappy regarding the landlord’s delayed response, lack of communication and unacceptable handling of the repairs. She wanted the repairs completed and to be compensated for damage caused by the landlord’s failure to deal with the roof leak.
15 August 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said the roofing repair was awaiting approval, an update would be provided and it would monitor the complaint until the repairs were booked in. Further, it said that all residents should have contents insurance, but if the resident felt that it was at fault, then a claim could be made via its liability insurers.
9 February 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, she said that no updates were provided and it had been over a year since the leak was first reported.
9 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it was progressing with the section 20, however it was an extensive and timely process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. She said repair works remained outstanding, there was ongoing water ingress from the roof and gutters, and a continuing risk of mould in her child’s bedroom when it rained.

What we found and why

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

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated repairs.
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time. The focus of our investigation will be the timeframe from May 2023, when there is evidence the resident requested repairs. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint raised with the landlord on 14 August 2023.
7. The resident explained that the leak and its timeframe affected her mental health, and she was concerned about the effect of damp and mould on her son. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported a roof leak on 11 May 2023 to the landlord. Under the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for the interior however the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the external structure parts, including the roof. This is also detailed in its repair policy. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attended the property to either inspect or complete repairs, this was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy timeframe to complete routine repairs within 25 days.
9. The resident chased a response from the landlord on the 26 June, 31 July, 4 August 2023 and due to no response, raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 August 2023. The lack of action or communication from the landlord was unreasonable and would have likely caused the resident frustration, time, and trouble. Further, it should not take a resident’s complaint for the landlord to act.
10. On 15 August 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that the roof repair was awaiting approval and that an update would be provided. The resident chased a further update on 31 August and 18 September 2023. On 19 September 2023 the landlord sent a holding email, which said an update would be provided in 5 days. The resident did not receive an update and contacted the landlord a further 3 times. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage further with the resident, understand the frustrations, and work towards a resolution.
11. Further, during calls to the landlord the resident explained that she was frustrated and worried about the approaching winter, the effect the leak had on the property and the mould and damp in her son’s bedroom. We would have expected the landlord to have acted quickly on this information, taking whatever steps necessary to mitigate further damage to the property and loss to the resident. The landlord’s failure to address the leak in a timely manner, led to worry and a deterioration in the resident’s living conditions.
12. On 9 October 2023, the landlord completed a roof inspection and at the same time completed some minor works to clear the gutters. While this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, it was completed 107 working days after the resident’s initial report of a leak. This was over the landlord’s repairs target of 25 days and an explanation for the delay has not been provided, therefore this was unreasonable.
13. On 23 October 2023 the landlord provided an update to the resident and confirmed that an inspection had taken place, it said it would advise the resident of the outcome. The resident did not receive a further update and chased the landlord again on 9 February 2024. Due to a lack of communication and action, the resident escalated her complaint. The evidence shows that the resident had to consistently chase the landlord for information and updates, this caused significant frustration and was unreasonable.
14. Throughout the landlord’s evidence from May 2023, it is clear that it was aware that the required works needed to be undertaken via a section 20 process. Nonetheless, the landlord did not commence the process until May 2024 or request quotes from contractors until July 2024. Further, it told the resident in July 2024, that the process is extensive and would take a significant amount of time to complete. The 14 month delay to the commencement of the section 20 process was unreasonable and the response from the landlord showed no empathy for the situation the resident and her family had found themselves through no fault of their own.
15. The resident reported to the landlord that damage had occurred to the property as a result of the ongoing roof leak, she requested that the landlord complete the repairs. Under the lease, the landlord is not responsible for the internal property, therefore It was right of the landlord to provide its liability insurers details to enable the resident to claim directly.
16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs was poor. Repairs remained outstanding since May 2023, despite the resident’s concerns of ongoing damage to the property. While we appreciate that a section 20 process can take time, the delay to commence the process was unreasonable and has indicated a fundamental lack of understanding by the landlord of its repair obligations. Further, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, caused the resident time and trouble and showed no consideration for the distress and inconvenience the leak and associated damp and mould caused the resident and her family.
17. The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs amount to severe maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord that had a serious and detrimental impact on the resident.
18. When deciding an appropriate remedy, the landlord’s repeated failings over a significant period have been considered along with the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused the resident. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we consider that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1600. This can be broken down as £1,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £600 for the time and trouble caused to the resident. This amount is inline with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Maladministration

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Code.
20. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 August 2023. The landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 14 August 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 15 August 2023. This was within the 5-working day and 10-working day timeframe respectively.
21. The resident attempted to raise a stage 2 complaint on 9 February 2024, and it was not until it was raised for a second time on 4 June 2024, that the landlord acknowledged it. The resident should not have had to raise the complaint twice for it to be acknowledged. This was unreasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 10 June 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. This was 6 days late and therefore not in line with its policy or the Code.
22. Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked clarity and substance in addressing the resident’s complaint, it did not provide an adequate explanation about why delays had occurred, or what it intended to do to resolve them. Further, it failed to comply with the actions that it promised in a timely manner. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
23. Overall, the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration. There was a lack of response to the points raised in the resident’s complaint and a lack of meaningful resolution. This would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience over a considerable amount of time.
24. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord should pay £200 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

25. Our dispute resolution principles set out that landlords should learn from complaints. We would therefore recommend that the landlord read the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds: complexity and complaint handling (September 2020).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. The landlord should consider how it can prevent this from happening again.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It provided evidence that showed examples of unanswered communications from the resident regarding the repair and raising a complaint.