London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202431536)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak in July 2024. The leak was coming into the property from the roof, into the loft and then into her child’s bedroom. The landlord attended the repair and the resident complained about the conduct of the contractor. Following delays in the landlord completing the repair, the resident escalated the complaint. The resident explained her child’s vulnerabilities and the impact of the leak on the family. The landlord repaired the leak in February 2025 but did not complete the internal decorative works in the bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A roof leak.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed unreasonably in arranging scaffolding for its contractor to complete the roof repairs. It acknowledged these delays, and made an offer of compensation for them, in its stage 2 complaint response. However, the delays continued for a significant period after this, with the leak not resolved until almost 7 months after the resident had first reported it.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were compliant with its complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that, after its contractor completed the roof repairs, the landlord has not yet repaired a crack in the ceiling of the affected bedroom.
7. This matter did not form part of the resident’s complaint, as detailed above. Nor did the landlord’s complaint responses refer to any further remedial work it planned to complete once the leak had been resolved. Due to this, the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider this matter as part of its internal complaints procedure. As a result, we will not investigate this further. We have, however, made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident, discuss the outstanding issues with the bedroom ceiling and raise any repairs required.
8. The resident’s stage 1 complaint concerned the landlord’s contractor’s conduct towards her. Namely, messages it had sent in response to her dissatisfaction about the delay in it attending. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for its contractor’s conduct and said it would provide feedback about this. The matter did not feature in the resident’s stage 2 complaint, nor did she express continued dissatisfaction with it when bringing her complaint to us. Due to this, we consider the matter resolved and will not investigate it here.

What we did investigate

9. The resident first reported the roof leak on 16 July 2024. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a repair to its internal repairs team the same day. 10 days later, the landlord cancelled this repair and raised a new order to a contractor. The reasons for this decision, which delayed it addressing the leak, are unclear.
10. At some point following this, the contractor scheduled the repair, and the resident contacted it to express dissatisfaction at how far away the appointment was. In response, she received messages from a contractor in a tone that she described as rude and inappropriate. This led her to raise her complaint to the landlord and request that it brought the appointment forward.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the resident’s experience. It said it had arranged to bring the appointment forward and for its contractor to attend on 12 August 2024. This was a reasonable resolution to the complaint.
12. During the 12 August 2024 repair visit, the contractor told the resident that the roof needed further investigation. The landlord has provided a report of this visit that confirms that multiple leaks were visible, with water coming from the roof into the property, and the contractor required scaffolding for a closer inspection.
13. Following the first repair visit, the resident was not kept informed of the status of the repair. On 22 August 2024, she chased the repair and was informed the job was awaiting approval. She told the landlord that she had put buckets in the loft to collect the water, to prevent it from coming into her daughter’s bedroom. The resident explained that the buckets were filling up fast and required emptying multiple times during the night.
14. The resident clearly expressed concerns around the significant impact of the leak and the hazard it posed. The   landlord failed to properly consider the effect of any outstanding repairs on the resident and her family or to consider any temporary solutions whilst dealing with the repair.
15. The resident chased the repair on multiple occasions in September 2024. She told the landlord on 30 September 2024 that she was getting frustrated with the process, that her daughter was having surgery that afternoon that required a six-week recovery period and that it was her bedroom that the leak was in. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on the same email.
16. Internal emails show that on 4 September 2024, the landlord’s contractor asked it to arrange for another contractor to erect the scaffolding. This was due to its own scaffolding not being available, which was delaying the works. The landlord took until 24 September 2024 to raise the request for scaffolding to the new contractor. This was an unreasonable delay.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there was significant delay in it approving a variation order, which its scaffolding contractor had submitted. This variation order was sent to the landlord by the scaffolding contractor on 25 September 2025. However, by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response – over a month later, it had still not approved this. This was an unreasonable delay, especially considering the impact the resident had described.
18. The date on which the landlord approved the scaffolding contractor’s variation order is unclear from the evidence provided. However, the first evidence we have seen of the landlord and its contractors discussing erecting the scaffolding was not until 18 December 2024. This was over 4 months after its contractor had first inspected the roof and identified the need for scaffolding.
19. The scaffolding contractor erected the scaffolding on 24 January 2025. It is evident from the landlord’s records that this was the third attempt to erect the scaffolding. The 2 previous attempts had been cancelled due to it failing to give the resident with sufficient notice for her to provide access to the property. This poor planning and communication caused further unnecessary delays.
20. The original contractor attended the property on 27 January 2025 and fully inspected the roof. It then submitted a variation order for works to the roof, which the landlord promptly approved on 29 January 2025. The contractor completed the repairs on 12 February 2025.
21. The landlord’s website says “We aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Some larger complex repairs may take up to 90 days to complete.” While the roof leak could reasonably be considered a complex repair, due to the need for scaffolding, the landlord significantly exceeded its 90-day target. Its contractor did not complete repairs and resolve the leak until almost 7 months after the resident had first reported it. This delay was almost entirely due to the landlord’s failure to arrange the scaffolding in a reasonable timeframe.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £210 compensation. Whilst this may have been considered reasonable for the delays up to that point, it was a further 15 weeks before the landlord’s contractor finally resolved the leak. Due to this further unreasonable delay, we make a finding of maladministration.
23. We order the landlord to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof leak. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration which have had a significant impact upon a resident. The landlord may deduct the £210 offered in its stage 2 complaint response from this amount, if it has already paid this.

24. The Code, which the landlord’s complaints policy follows, requires the acknowledgement of a complaint within 5 working days. The landlord must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
25. The landlord acknowledged and responded at stage 1 within 2 days from when the resident made her complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord apologised to the resident and fully addressed her complaint.
26. The landlord’s handling of stage 2 of the complaint did meet the timescales required by the Code. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 1 October 2024 escalation request within 2 days. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 October 2024 to discuss the complaint. It issued its stage 2 response on 29 October 2024, within its policy time limit of 20 working days.
27. In summary, the landlord responded within its policy timeline at all stages of the complaint, it responded to all elements of the complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. There were issues with the landlord’s record keeping, as the approval process for the scaffolding was complex, adding further delays to the repair. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure staff maintain clear and up to date repair histories, particularly where multiple teams or contractors are involved.

Communication

29. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately informed on the status of her repair. The landlord should review its processes to ensure they incorporate regular, proactive updates throughout the progress of a repair.