Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202450720)

Back to Top

 

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450720

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 August 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:
    1. A roof leak.
    2. A damaged bathroom basin.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat between 7 July 2022 and 6 June 2025.
  2. The resident reported there was a leak from his roof on 6 January 2025.
  3. On 17 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord as it had not contacted him about the roof leak.
  4. The landlord’s contractor told it on 23 January 2025 it had attended the property, but the resident was happy to leave the repair.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 5 February 2025 the bathroom basin was cracked. The landlord told him on 12 February 2025 he would be charged for a new basin.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 February 2025 as he was not happy with its handling of the issues he had raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2025.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2025. It apologised and offered £20 compensation for the delay in replying to his complaint.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 March 2025. It said it would contact him about remedial work following the leak.
  10. The resident contacted us on 30 March 2025 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak

  1. On 6 January 2025 the resident reported there was a leak from his roof into the property’s lounge. The landlord raised a repair order with its roofing contractor the same day. The resident called the landlord on 15 January 2025 for an update as no action had been taken since he reported the leak.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining a property’s roof. The policy states the landlord will contact the resident to arrange an appointment within 5 working days of the issue being reported and it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. Although the landlord referred the repair to its contractor, it did not arrange an appointment with the resident as per its policy.
  3. The resident called the landlord again on 17 January 2025 and made a complaint about its lack of action regarding the leak. The landlord said it would ask its contractor for an update.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 23 January 2025. They told the landlord they had spoken to the resident, who agreed no further action was required at that time regarding the roof leak. The landlord closed the repair order the following day. The contractor attended the property regarding the roof leak within the time allowed by the landlord’s policy.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 13 and 17 February 2025 and complained it had not contacted him about the roof leak. The landlord told the resident on 18 February 2025 it would check what actions were needed to repair any damage caused to the ceiling following the leak. It said it would contact him with an update by 12 March 2025.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 5 March 2025 and asked for an update on his complaint. The landlord emailed him on 6 March 2025 and said the roof repair had been closed on 23 January 2025. It asked him to send pictures of the lounge ceiling to show what remedial work was required. The resident replied the same day and said the roof and the ceiling still needed to be repaired. The landlord has no record of the resident providing photos of showing the damaged lounge ceiling.
  7. The resident has told us the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof on 14 March 2025, but they could not find the cause of the leak. The landlord has not provided any further details of this appointment.
  8. On 20 March 2025 the landlord sent its response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord gave details of the actions taken since he first raised the issue with the roof. It said the contractor had been due to attend on 14 March 2025.
  9. The landlord’s complaint response did not provide any details of what happened as a result of the most recent inspection or what further action would be taken regarding the roof or to fix the damage caused to the ceiling.
  10. The resident told the landlord on 20 March 2025 he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said the was happy to contact it if the roof leak happened again, but he wanted to know when it would carry out the works to the ceiling.
  11. On 27 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it did not uphold his complaint as it did not find any failures in its stage 1 response. The landlord said no further issues had been identified by its contractor regarding the roof, so no action was necessary for this matter. The landlord said it would contact him regarding carrying out remedial works to the ceiling following the leak.
  12. The landlord’s complaint response was silent on timescales for when it would contact the resident regarding the remedial works to the ceiling following the leak.
  13. The landlord did not contact the resident or carry out any works to the lounge ceiling prior to him vacating the property on 6 June 2025.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord did not follow its repairs policy by failing to update the resident when arranging an appointment following the roof leak, but its contractor did attend within the required time. During its initial complaint response, the landlord failed to explain to the resident the results of its latest inspection. The evidence shows the resident was still waiting for the landlord to fix the damage caused by the roof leak at the point he vacated the property over 2 months after the damage had occurred.
  15. In summary, although the landlord explained in its stage 2 response its contractor had found no further issues with the roof in its stage 2, it failed to fully resolve the matter for the resident by putting right the damage inside the property that had been caused by the leak. The landlord failed to offer any redress to the resident caused by its lack of action. This was unreasonable.
  16. The landlord’s failings lead to a determination of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of damage following a leak from the roof. This amount is calculated in line with our remedies guidance and reflects that the landlord took some action to address the matter, but it failed to address the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged bathroom basin

  1. On 5 February 2025 the resident reported to the landlord the bathroom basin was cracked. The landlord did not record whether the resident told it if the basin could still be used, or not.
  2. The landlord told the resident on 12 February 2025 he would be charged £220 for a replacement basin. The resident said he did not cause the damage to the basin so should not be charged to replace it. He said the temperature of the water in the basin may have caused the crack.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for water and sanitation. The policy states the resident is responsible for keeping the bathroom in good condition. The policy adds the landlord can charge the resident for repairs when the issue has been caused by the resident if non-repair would cause a significant health and safety risk or could cause further damage to the property. The timescales for the landlord to respond are to arrange a repair appointment within 5 working days, and to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 13 and 17 February 2025 and complained the basin had not been inspected. The landlord told him on 19 February 2025 it would check what action was to be taken regarding the basin. On 24 February 2025 the landlord raised an order to inspect the basin.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 5 March 2025 and asked for an update on his complaint. The landlord emailed him on 6 March 2025 and said it would inspect the basin on 14 March 2025. This was outside of its policy timescale to contact the resident and arrange an appointment. The resident replied the same day and said the landlord had not told him he would be charged to replace the basin when he initially reported it was cracked.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2025. It said the basin was inspected on 14 March 2025.
  7. In its complaint response, the landlord did not provide any details of the result of its inspection, nor did it say if it would repair or replace the basin. The response was silent on the matter as to whether the resident was expected to pay for the repair.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 20 March 2025. He said the landlord had not addressed whether he would be charged for the repair.
  9. The landlord’s repair records show the basin was replaced on 26 March 2025. The time taken to make the repair was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale. The landlord has told us the resident was not charged for the new basin.
  10. On 27 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint to the resident. The response did not answer any of the questions raised by the resident, or account for the delays in the process.
  11. The evidence shows, the landlord did not arrange to inspect the basin or carry out repairs within its policy timescales. These failures were compounded by the landlord telling the resident he would be liable to pay for a replacement basin before it had conducted an inspection. The prospect of having to pay for the repair caused the resident distress. The landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s complaint and offer redress for its failures during its internal complaints process is unreasonable.
  12. The landlord’s poor communication and its failure to put things right for him within its policy timescale leads to a determination of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £175 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of a damaged basin. This amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaints 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 called the landlord on 17 January 2025 and complained it had not contacted him regarding the roof leak. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 February 2025. He complained about its lack of action regarding the roof leak and the damaged basin. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2025. This was outside of its complaints policy timescale.
  4. On 20 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. This was not within its policy timescale. The landlord apologised and offered £20 compensation for the delay in replying to his complaint.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 20 March 2025 he wanted to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged this the same day.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 March 2025. The landlord’s response was within its policy timescale. However, although the landlord said the resident had complained about the damaged basin, it did not offer any response to this complaint. This was not in accordance with paragraph 6.7 of the Code, which states landlords must address all points raised in the resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for its decision.
  7. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy in replying to the resident within its prescribed timescales, and its stage 2 response was not in accordance with the Code. This led to a process which was unclear and more difficult for the resident to navigate than it should have been. Although the landlord offered £20 compensation for its delayed stage 1 response, this was not reflective of its failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint and the delays this caused.
  8. These failings, together with the failure to provide appropriate redress to put things right, lead to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An increased order of £100 compensation has been made below for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

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 roof leak.
  2. 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 damaged bathroom sink.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures outlined above.
    2. Pay £475 compensation to the resident (the landlord can deduct from this total the £20 offered as part of its internal complaints process if already paid). The balance should be paid directly to the resident. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
      2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged bathroom basin.
      3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaints handling.