London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202506848)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202506848 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
29 April 2026 |
Background
- The leaseholder reported water leaks through a light fitting in the bathroom ceiling on 2 occasions in 2024. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports. At the time of the complaint the leaseholder was renting the property out to a private tenant.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The leaseholder’s reports of leaks.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of leaks.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of leaks
- The landlord did not manage its investigations into the source of the leak effectively or clearly explain its position on responsibility for repairs. Its communication was poor, with instances where it did not update the leaseholder on progress or respond to his queries. This contributed to delays in resolving the matter.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord failed to escalate the leaseholder’s complaint or make further enquiries after he raised dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response lacked a clear outcome and failed to address all the points in the leaseholder’s complaint.
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 leaseholder for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 01 June 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £375 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the leaseholder by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 01 June 2026 |
|
3 |
Write to the leaseholder The landlord must contact the leaseholder by the due date and seek to establish whether the leak is still affecting his property. If the leak is ongoing, the landlord must write to the leaseholder within 7 calendar days of making contact and set out:
|
No later than 01 June 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 February 2025 |
The leaseholder complained to the landlord about its handling of leaks affecting his property, which he described as persistent. He said the landlord had not taken timely action and its communication had been poor. He reported financial loss as a result of his tenant withholding rent due to damaged contents and hire of a leak detection specialist. |
|
3 March 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It outlined the actions it had taken to date, including investigating the upstairs flat on 3 January 2025. It said it found no evidence of a leak. It asked for a copy of the leaseholder’s plumber’s report and explained responsibilities for communal and internal pipes. It confirmed leaseholders must start investigations by removing access tiles in their own property. It advised that claims for damaged belongings should be made under the leaseholder’s home contents insurance. It also provided its liability insurer details. |
|
31 March 2025 |
The leaseholder submitted another complaint via the landlord’s online form and said the complaint handler had not responded to his emails. |
|
21 May 2025 |
The leaseholder escalated his complaint. He said he was dissatisfied with the extent of the landlord’s investigations and said the leaks predated his purchase of the property. He said the landlord had not responded to several of his emails. He requested a full investigation into the issue, a clear plan of action and a named point of contact. |
|
26 June 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged findings from a leak detection report supplied by the leaseholder. It arranged a roof inspection for 9 July 2025 and said its contractors would arrange an inspection of the soil stack pipe. It confirmed it could not offer compensation for loss of earnings under its policy and provided details for its liability insurers. It also provided contact details for a member of staff who would oversee the next steps. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The leaseholder asked us to investigate the complaint and said the landlord had not completed the actions it agreed at stage 2. He said that the leaks had continued and raised safety concerns, particularly as he had recently welcomed a baby. He also said he had evidence showing the leak existed before he purchased the property, but the landlord had refused to provide its repair history. He further said he could not contact the landlord by phone and believed it had blocked his number. To put matters right, the leaseholder requested that the landlord investigate and resolve the issue and pay compensation. |
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 |
The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of leaks. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- The leaseholder said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of transparency when he requested historical repair records for the property. We understand that he submitted a subject access request to obtain this information. Issues relating to privacy, including the handling of subject access requests, fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Therefore, we have not investigated this further.
- We have also not considered the leaseholder’s reports that the previous owner failed to disclose leaks. This relates to a potential legal issue arising from the conveyancing process when the leaseholder purchased the property.
What we have investigated
- The landlord’s records show the leaseholder reported a leak on 14 February 2024. It noted the owner of the upstairs flat advised it was not from their property. The landlord raised an emergency work order which it later cancelled. The records do not explain the reason for this. There is no evidence of further leak reports until October 2024 when the leaseholder reported water coming through the bathroom light fitting. He raised concerns about electrical safety. The leaseholder said the landlord advised him to obtain a private plumber’s report to identify the cause of the leak. This was a reasonable step to establish responsibility.
- The leaseholder said he shared his plumber’s report with the landlord on 14 October 2024. While we have not seen evidence of this communication, the landlord’s records note that the leak was suspected to be coming from plumbing between properties. It attended the property within its emergency timescales and identified a heating pipe above the ceiling as the likely source of the leak. It said further investigation was required but took no action until 7 November 2024.
- The landlord’s repairs policy does not set timescales for investigations, but it says it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. Although the landlord had not yet established responsibility for the leak, it agreed to carry out further investigation. It took 24 calendar days to do so, which was unreasonable in the circumstances as it exceeded its timescale for completing any necessary repairs. We have also seen no evidence it assessed the potential risks associated with water ingress through a light fitting. This was despite the leaseholder raising concerns about electrical safety. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so if it suspected the leak was originating from a pipe for which it may have been responsible under the lease.
- During the November 2024 visit the landlord concluded that the leak did not originate from the heating system and was likely to be coming from the upstairs flat. There is no evidence it proactively updated the leaseholder about this finding. The leaseholder confirmed that after following this up with the landlord, it informed him it would speak to the leaseholder of the upstairs flat.
- The landlord said it carried out further investigations at the upstairs flat on 3 January 2025. It later confirmed it found no leak. However, it has not explained why it took nearly 2 months from its earlier visit to do so. There is no evidence it shared its findings with the leaseholder until he reported another leak on 27 February 2025 and submitted a formal complaint.
- In response to the complaint the landlord asked the leaseholder to provide a plumber’s report. The leaseholder supplied the report from 14 October 2024 which said the leak did not appear to be coming from upstairs and advised him to contact the managing agent. The landlord said this report was inconclusive and that the upstairs flat owner needed to investigate first. When the leaseholder questioned this, given that the landlord had advised him it had checked the upstairs flat, the landlord confirmed that it had not removed any access panels during that visit. It was unreasonable that the landlord only clarified that its investigation was inconclusive, and further investigation was required after the leak had reoccurred and the leaseholder queried its advice.
- In March 2025, after instructing a leak detection specialist, the leaseholder asked the landlord to assist with removing access panels in the upstairs flat to allow further investigation. The landlord did not respond, despite the leaseholder sending several emails and submitting another complaint. The landlord failed to set out whether it could provide any support to facilitate such an investigation which contributed to delays in resolving the issue.
- In the meantime, the leaseholder instructed another leak detection specialist who concluded the leak was likely caused by rainwater penetration from the roof. The report confirmed that the leaks occurred periodically, 3 to 4 times every 9 months. According to its repair obligations, as set out in its repairs policy, the landlord was responsible for repairs to the roof. The leaseholder shared the report with the landlord on 9 June 2025 and asked it to arrange an urgent inspection. The landlord said it would respond to this as part of the complaint. However, it should have recognised this as a repair request and assessed it within its repair policy timescales. Instead, it scheduled an inspection visit after 20 calendar days. This was its policy timescale for completing repairs.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for not resolving the leak during previous visits and set out the steps it would take to identify the source of the leak. These included a roof inspection and a soil stack pipe inspection. It also provided a named point of contact. The landlord confirmed its policy did not allow compensation for loss of earnings and provided insurance details for public liability claims.
- When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and action plan) put things right and resolved the leaseholder’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- It was reasonable that the landlord confirmed it could not consider loss of earnings in line with its compensation policy, which excludes loss of rental income arising from repair issues. It was also reasonable it provided its liability insurer details and explained the process for public liability claims. However, although it apologised for not resolving the leak and set out further investigative steps, it missed an opportunity to fully review its earlier handling of the matter. It did not reflect on its communication, management of investigations or consider the impact of this. There were also issues with its implementation of the actions agreed at stage 2, as the named point of contact did not initially respond to the leaseholder’s enquiries.
- The roof inspection did not go ahead as scheduled because of access issues. However, it took place on 18 July 2025 and the landlord identified further investigation was needed. The work order reflected the leak specialist’s findings and sought to check whether rainwater may have travelled down the stack pipe from the roof. A later inspection on 15 September 2025 found no roof leak and recommended an electrical inspection for a possible fan pipe issue.
- While outside of the scope of this investigation, there is no record that the landlord arranged a further electrical inspection, established the source of the leak, or informed the leaseholder of next steps. The leaseholder reported another leak on 19 November 2025. On 25 November 2025 he told us the landlord had not updated him on the investigations promised at stage 2 and again raised safety concerns, having recently welcomed a baby. We do not have information about when the leaseholder began living in the property.
- The landlord’s handling of the leak reports shows a pattern of poor communication and ineffective management of investigations. Although it completed a roof inspection in line with its stage 2 commitment, it did not reach a point of conclusion on responsibility or explain what options remained available to the leaseholder. At the point of referral to us, the matter was unresolved. It is unclear whether this remains the case. We have therefore ordered the landlord to set out its position and next steps regarding the leak.
- We have also ordered it to pay the leaseholder £300 for the time and trouble likely caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the leaseholder.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the Code.
- The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. It acted reasonably by confirming the leaseholder’s escalation rights when he first queried its response. However, it did not respond to a further email on 6 March 2025 and an online complaint submission on 31 March 2025 in which the leaseholder expressed continued dissatisfaction and requested manager contact details.
- The landlord’s complaints policy says it will escalate complaints where a leaseholder remains dissatisfied and requests this, and that it will make further enquiries in such circumstances. The Code makes clear that where all or part of a complaint remains unresolved, it should progress to stage 2. The landlord did not progress the complaint or make further enquiries. This resulted in a delay, as it did not escalate the complaint until the leaseholder formally requested this again on 21 May 2025.
- After the landlord logged the stage 2 complaint, it acknowledged it and responded within its policy timescales. Its response set out its investigation, next steps, and an apology. However, it did not clearly confirm is decision on the outcome of the complaint or provide reasons. This was not in keeping with the requirements set out in the Code for stage 2 responses.
- In view of the findings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, we have ordered it to pay the leaseholder £75 for the likely time and trouble caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings and has made no attempt to put things right.
Learning
- Landlords should take steps to establish whether they are responsible for leaks affecting leaseholder properties as soon as reasonably practicable. Establishing clear responsibility is essential to ensuring remedial works can take place.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Landlords should maintain accessible and complete records of contact and investigations to avoid unnecessary duplication and delay.
Communication
- Landlords should provide clear updates on the findings from their investigations. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to our November 2025 learning from severe maladministration report. This includes learning from home ownership cases involving leaks and highlights the importance of effective communication.