Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202007901)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007901

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 2024

 

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Leaks into the living room.
    2. Associated repairs to the living room ceiling.
    3. The entrance system and fobs.
    4. Car park gate repairs.
    5. Its handling of the associated formal complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the 2-bedroom property since 2011 and the housing association landlord is the freeholder of the block. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. A 2013 defect report identified that, when it rained, water ran down the patio doors in some of the properties in the building and pooled. There was engagement between the landlord and resident and complaints which have been referenced in more recent correspondence, but these were not escalated to the Ombudsman at that time.
  3. In January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about water ingress from the property above. The landlord made interim repairs to the living room ceiling on 20 February 2020 but it would not hold water, so the landlord had to replace part of it to prevent it from caving in.
  4. On 26 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to complain about ongoing leaks (Complaint 1). She explained that she had been without a ceiling since February 2020 as the landlord put up ply wood as an interim measure under an emergency repair, but had not carried out repairs to stop the leaks. She said she was unable to sell the property and the experience was affecting her mental health and professional life.
  5. The landlord arranged for a canopy to be installed in the property above, as a further temporary measure, to deflect the water from pooling when it rained so that it did not enter the resident’s property. This was discussed on 9 November 2020.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1 of 26 November 2020 it said an appointment had been made to install the canopy on 8 December 2020. It also directed the resident to its insurance to claim for water damage and offered to reimburse the £100 excess fee if she pursued this.
  7. The appointment did not go ahead and the landlord rebooked it for January 2021 but did not update the resident. The canopy was installed on 14 January 2021 but the resident later reported that it was not working and she still experienced water ingress in the living room when it rained. Although evidence suggests the landlord arranged for updates to the resident from December 2020, she reported that it did not follow through on agreed actions and repairs, so she escalated her concerns to the Ombudsman.
  8. Following this Service’s intervention in March 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 on 22 March 2021. It detailed the steps it had taken to address the resident’s reports and implement temporary measures since October 2020 to reduce the impact on her. It had considered the 2013 defect report and arranged an inspection to verify the design flaws, after which a scope of works would be agreed.
  9. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in its communication and repairs service and detailed the learning it had shared with its staff. It directed the resident to claim on its insurance for damaged goods, and explained how she could do this. Finally, it awarded £420 compensation (£100 for inconvenience, £100 for distress, £100 for time and trouble, £50 for complaint handling, £20 for the missed appointment of December 2020, £25 for the late stage 1 and £25 for the late stage 2 responses).
  10. On 5 October 2021 the resident reported another leak, despite the repair works which had been undertaken. In response, the landlord arranged for regular block emails to update residents on its progress on repairs to the leak (and other issues). It said its surveyor would complete investigations into the building and would need access to affected properties from 18 October 2021. On that date, the resident made a further report of leaks and repeated her original concerns.
  11. In November 2021 the resident reported issues with the communal car park gate. The landlord repaired it, but received additional reports which it attended, and this continued intermittently into 2022.
  12. The resident sought the Ombudsman’s assistance again in May 2022 and advised that she had not received a stage 2 response to Complaint 1. The landlord confirmed that it had issued a response in March 2021, so the complaint was then logged with this Service for investigation.
  13. The resident also raised new issues such as the car park gates not working (April 2022) and faults with a new entrance system (May 2022). The landlord agreed to log a new complaint for these new issues, plus more recent occurrences of the original issues (Complaint 2), in July 2022. In contacts with the landlord at that time, the resident detailed her new concerns as:
    1. The car park gates were broken for about 7 months.
    2. The new entrance system app was not working.
    3. Ongoing issues with leaks (there was a leak every 4 months and this had been going on for a decade) and she still had plasterboard in the living room ceiling which had been fitted temporarily to remedy the damage.
    4. The landlord did not reply to her communication and she had to go through her MP or the Ombudsman to get a response.
  14. During this period the landlord encountered delays in installing scaffolding to investigate the defects. Evidence indicates it was also managing the disturbance to the normal parking arrangements for residents who would be affected by scaffolding in the car park.
  15. On 7 July 2022 the landlord issued a block communication, stating that it was working with the developer to start remedial work to the defects at the end of August 2022. It also asked residents to confirm if they needed access fobs using the new entrance system, and said it was waiting to find out what happened to the gates from its security team, and finally set out the repair reporting contact details.
  16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 2 of 19 July 2022 it said:
    1. It delivered a fob to the resident and asked to be informed of any issues.
    2. The new entrance system app could be downloaded onto a smart device and a tablet could be purchased at cost to the resident.
    3. It detailed the repair issues with the car park gates, which showed that these had been tampered with and damaged on several occasions.
    4. It apologised for delays to the leak repairs. It reached an agreement with the developer about the remedial works to the defects and signed off its contribution to the works. Construction would begin in 3 to 4 weeks and completion would take 6 to 7 weeks.
    5. It was not responsible for damage to the ceiling or internal repairs, so the resident could claim on her own insurance or the landlord’s insurance and it repeated its details on this.
    6. It asked the resident to explain her request for compensation so it could consider it, and offered £50 for the delayed complaint response.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint the same day and in subsequent correspondence, stating that:
    1. She was only given 2 fobs and was missing a third. The app for the entrance system was not working and she was not told she would have to pay for the tablet alternative.
    2. There was no news on repairs to the car park gate, and she questioned why she would be charged when the landlord said in December 2021 it knew one of the perpetrators who damaged the gate and they would be charged accordingly.
    3. The living room ceiling was removed by the landlord as it was unsafe and not waterproof. She questioned why she should pay for the repair which was due to the building not being built property and she referenced the defect report of 2013. She had no ceiling, mould, and rain water coming in.
    4. The landlord historically offered her £1,000 12 years ago and £500 compensation 2 years ago, she did not demand this as implied by the landlord.
  18. It acknowledged the escalation request on 27 July 2022 and provided an update on the substantive issues:
    1. The remedial works were with its defects team.
    2. It would request a delivery of a third fob as soon as possible and look at her reports of the app not working.
    3. A job would be raised to repair the car park gate; out of several reports only one was connected to an individual purposely damaging it.
    4. It clarified its previous communication and acknowledged that damages in the resident’s property were the sole result of building defects beyond the resident’s control and the situation was complicated and difficult and it repeated the insurance option with its own insurance.
  19. There was regular correspondence between the parties in July and August 2022, including new reports of leaks on 9 August 2022. The landlord said it would share a programme for external works to address the leaks and that a new gate had to be temporarily disabled to allow all residents access as per a previous block update.
  20. Following further intervention by the Ombudsman in November 2022 the landlord sought clarification on the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction. She responded that:
    1. There was plasterboard instead of a ceiling since February 2020.
    2. There were boxes on the floor to catch the water when it rained as repairs were not carried out.
    3. She was still waiting for a third access fob.
    4. The car park gate had been repaired after 8 months but she was waiting to learn why she was charged when the perpetrator who broke it had been identified.
    5. Compensation was promised historically but she was still waiting for this to be paid.
  21. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint 2 of 16 November 2022, it said:
    1. The third fob had been ordered 4 times but the resident did not receive it and was given a faulty one. A new one was due to be hand delivered.
    2. The resident was given a tablet for the new entrance system that she did not want, so this would be collected, and the landlord would also show her how to use it if she wanted.
    3. There were 13 works orders raised when the car park gates were not working and it detailed each diagnosis. It would not charge residents and would refund and adjust any charges made for repairs in the upcoming service charges.
    4. Regarding the leak, remedial works were in progress and damage caused by the leak would be made good. The contractor would contact the resident once external work was completed to arrange access for internal repairs.
    5. It apologised for its communication and complaint handling.
    6. Outstanding compensation from a 2016 complaint (£1,200) would be raised and paid as a cheque to the resident’s registered address. In respect of Complaints 1 and 2, the landlord offered £1,120 (£420 for Complaint 1; £100 for complaint handling; £100 for time and effort; £400 for distress and Inconvenience; and £100 for the handling of Complaint 2).

Events after the end of the complaint process

  1. On 22 December 2022 the landlord raised a work order following the resident’s report of an uncontainable leak from the ceiling. In August 2023 the resident updated the Ombudsman that repairs to the living room ceiling were completed.
  2. In July 2024 the landlord revisited the complaint and issued a second stage 2 response to Complaint 2. It said external works were needed before internal works could be completed. It apologised that this had not happened and raised a new job reference. It offered an additional £200 for the further delays and £50 for the complaint delay at stage 2. However, the resident advised the Ombudsman in September 2024 that the landlord had not contacted her about the leak repair or paid the additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service is aware of historic issues with the property and previous complaints raised. However, the scope of this investigation is limited to the events between January 2020 (when the resident reported water ingress) and November 2022 (when Complaint 2 exhausted the complaints process). These are the issues which have been raised in recent times and which the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware that various other repairs issues were raised during the period covered by this investigation, including window repairs. However, there is no evidence that they were raised as part of Complaints 1 or 2, or any other formal complaint which has since exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As a result, they are not assessed in this report. These matters, together with any issues arising since November 2022, would need to be raised as a new complaint, so that the landlord is able to consider them and respond internally in the first instance (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).

Background to the landlord and the Ombudsman’s paragraph 49 Investigation 

  1. Between January and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman reviewed findings of complaints made to the landlord between March 2019 and October 2022 and identified common points of failure in its repair handling, complaint culture, and knowledge and information management. As part of the special investigation, the landlord provided details of its operations between March 2019 and October 2022 which included severe disruptions caused by the pandemic and measures it has since taken. The report, published in July 2023, made recommendations for improvements, which the landlord has since engaged with.
  3. This investigation report does not duplicate orders or recommendations that have already been made and engaged with. This investigation is looking back in time to the period of the resident’s concerns, and any redress ordered is proportionate to those service failures identified in the specific circumstances of the case.

Leaks into the living room

  1. The landlord’s Repair Policy sets out the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the home including walls, windows, external doors, common entrance ways and other communal areas including estate grounds. The landlord will liaise with developers to arrange defect repairs in line with its Defects Policy (not provided). The landlord has not disputed its repairing responsibilities in this case.
  2. The landlord’s Repair Policy sets out its service standards as 24 hours for emergency repairs and mutually convenient appointments for routine repairs. Ultimately the landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe and to a good standard.
  3. The repair records indicate that the resident reported a leak in January 2020. There were repairs raised to address the associated risks from the ceiling in February 2020, which was reasonable, but no investigation or action taken to address the cause of the leaks, which was not. It was not until October 2020 and a repair record of an emergency repair, that the landlord said that it arranged an inspection of the patio doors above. This constitutes a period of approximately 6 months beyond a reasonable timeframe to address a repair report, and was unreasonable.
  4. Following the resident’s repeat reports of leaks, including after the landlord carried out interim steps to install a canopy in January 2021, it acknowledged her claims of defects in its complaint response in March 2021. It should have acknowledged this much sooner, such as when the resident complained about the known defect in 2020. The landlord did not subsequently offer a cohesive response taking into account previous reports or investigations. Instead it repeated the same advice or update to the resident indicating broadly that remedial works would be undertaken.
  5. The landlord referenced negotiations with the developer over its responsibility to repair the defect at one stage, but there is no evidence that it took reasonable steps to pursue repairs in a timely and prompt manner, despite the difficult circumstances. The landlord has not shown how it engaged with the developer, or that it took reasonable steps to expedite or progress remedial works. This was despite regular reports by the resident of leaks, and its own acknowledgement and communication to the resident of the problem and protracted repair. This was unreasonable.
  6. It is unclear if the repairs were completed as per the landlord’s update in  November 2022, when it explained that contractors would be in touch following external repairs. There is no evidence of the contractor’s communication with the resident as per the complaint response to confirm that external works were completed, or when the internal works would be completed.
  7. In terms of the communication, after the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord sent out regular block updates, which was a reasonable approach to manage the varied repair issues for all residents. However it did not evidence that it followed through with the repairs that it updated the resident on regarding the leaks, which would have been appropriate. It also communicated inconsistent views about the liability for repairs in its complaint responses. Though it ultimately clarified this and appropriately accepted financial liability (via its insurer) for the damages associated with its delayed repairs, the resident still experienced time and trouble in seeking clarification.
  8. Overall, the resident’s report of a leak was unaddressed for approximately 23 months (under the scope of this investigation) beyond a reasonable timeframe for repairs to be completed.
  9. The landlord’s offer of redress in acknowledgement of the service failure to address the leak was broken down into £100 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for time and trouble, £20 for a missed appointment (under Complaint 1) and then a portion of £400 for distress and inconvenience plus £100 for time and trouble for the complaint period of July to November 2022 (under Complaint 2). Though resolution focused, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the overall detriment caused by the service failures identified in this report.
  10. Therefore, taking into account the landlord’s acknowledged service failure and the mitigating factors known of the time (identified in the paragraph 49 investigation), the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £1,725 (inclusive of the sum already offered). This is calculated approximately as £75 for each month the repair was outstanding beyond a reasonable period after the resident notified the landlord in January 2020, from February 2020 to November 2022. This is for both distress and inconvenience and time and trouble associated with the ongoing leak repair.
  11. This order is made in line with our Remedies Guidance and takes into account: the duration of avoidable distress and inconvenience, the stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty experienced by the resident, the raised expectations of the resident due to the landlord’s updates on remedial works which were not followed through, and the length of time and severity of the issue.

Associated repairs to the ceiling

  1. In response to the resident’s report of leaks in January 2020 the landlord agreed to replace part of the living room ceiling to mitigate the risk of it collapsing and damage caused by the unresolved leak when it rained. The interim repair was carried out in February 2020, which was reasonable as it addressed the safety risks associated with the ongoing and intermittent rain water leaking into the living room. Complete repairs to the ceiling were associated with the repairs to the water ingress initially, but were then repaired prior to the water ingress being resolved, in August 2023.
  2. This was a period of approximately 2.5 years beyond a reasonable timescale and therefore constitutes a significant failure in service. The resident was without complete repairs during this period, but had temporary repairs carried out, and did not otherwise lose any amenity or functionality within the property. However, she did experience time and trouble in chasing the landlord about this repair, so a finding of maladministration is made.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its service failure and offered compensation that was a portion of the amounts set out above for the leaks. However, this was not proportionate to the time and trouble the resident expended in chasing the landlord about when it would complete the repairs after installing a temporary repair measure. It would also have been helpful for the landlord to have provided an action plan to manage the resident’s expectations, particularly where this repair was linked to other repairs, or in response to the resident’s repeat queries.
  4. Therefore, taking into account the known issues with the landlord at the time (under the paragraph 49 investigation), the Ombudsman awards £750 (calculated as approximately £25 each month the repair was outstanding beyond a reasonable timeframe). This is inclusive of any compensation which the landlord has already paid.

Entrance system and fob

  1. In May 2022 the resident reported issues with the new entrance system. Her complaint and communication to the landlord was broad in nature, and ranged from not being given clear information about the costs of the tablets, to issues with the app system, and the lack of fobs.
  2. The landlord responded reasonably by offering to investigate the issues reported about the app, and to collect the tablet when the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with it. There were delays in the resident receiving a fob, which the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response, and which it offered a portion of redress for (£100 for time and effort).
  3. The landlord’s investigation and offers to clarify and address the specific concerns the resident raised, and its acknowledged service failure and redress offered was resolution focused. Its explanation and response, including its offer of redress, were overall reasonable. Therefore, there is a finding of reasonable redress made in respect of this complaint. If the landlord has not done so already, it is recommended to pay the compensation it offered for time and effort for this element of the complaint, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure.

Car park gates

  1. The resident reported issues with the communal car park gates in November 2021, and they were repaired in December 2021. This was a reasonable period as per the Repair Policy. There followed a period of repeat breakdowns reported to the landlord followed by visits by its contractor to identify the issues. These ranged from problems with the gate’s motor, vandalism, or no issues found on arrival. This continued until the gates were fully repaired from October to November 2022. The resident’s complaint then focused on the financial liability for the repairs, given that the landlord had indicated that an identified perpetrator would alone be liable.
  2. The landlord responded reasonably by addressing the resident’s developing concerns each time, investigating the repair history for the gates, and explaining this to the resident. Evidence indicates that the landlord carried out multiple repairs, though unfortunately issues persisted. In response to one specific concern about costs, it explained that only part of the issue was attributed to vandalism, but it nonetheless ultimately agreed to cover the cost of repairs, which was resolution focused.
  3. Though understandably frustrating and disruptive to the resident, the issues with the car park were addressed reasonably and the landlord’s ultimate decision to take the costs on itself was appropriate. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the landlord’s Complaint Policy (2021), stage 1 complaints are provided under 10 working days and stage 2 complaints are provided under 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised Complaint 1 on 26 October 2020 and the landlord responded on 26 November 2020, 14 days beyond the Complaint Policy timescales. Following the escalation on 4 March 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2021. This was within 13 working days, and therefore reasonably within the prescribed timescales for stage 2 complaints.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its delayed complaint handling overall for Complaint 1 and offered £100, which was reasonable. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure where there has been no permanent impact on the resident.
  4. The evidence indicates that there was some confusion between the Ombudsman and the parties over whether Complaint 1 had exhausted the internal complaint process. The landlord was subsequently advised to raise a new complaint to address the new concerns raised by the resident, which it reasonably did.
  5. Complaint 2 was logged on 5 July 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2022, within 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident during the investigation period to discuss and provide opportunity to clarify her concerns. This was reasonable given the broad range of issues which she communicated about, in response to regular block updates.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint 2 on 19 July 2022. The landlord confirmed its escalation on 27 July 2022 and then provided its final response on 16 November 2022, after further intervention by the Ombudsman. This was a period of 85 working days which was beyond the reasonable prescribed timescale for stage 2 complaints.
  7. The resident experienced time and trouble in escalating her concerns both to the landlord and the Ombudsman. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps once it was aware of the delay, by inviting the resident to confirm her outstanding concerns, in November 2022. The resident did so in writing, and the landlord then acknowledged its service failure offering £200 in total in its final response of November 2022 for delays in the complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there has been no permanent impact.
  8. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which resolves the complaint about the complaint handling satisfactorily. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made overall for the complaint handling (for both Complaints 1 and 2). If it has not done so already, the landlord is recommended to pay the total compensation of £300 which it awarded for its acknowledged service failures in the complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into the living room.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of associated repairs to the living room ceiling.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the car park gate repairs
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaints satisfactorily regarding:
    1. The entrance system and fobs.
    2. Its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £2,475 compensation comprised of:
      1. £1,725 for the leaks into the living room.
      2. £750 for the associated repairs to the ceiling.

This is inclusive of any compensation already paid, excluding the compensation paid for historic complaints of 2016 which have not been considered within the scope of this complaint. 

  1. Provide the resident with an update on the status of repairs to the leaks if this has not been resolved.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the redress it had already offered, on which the finding of reasonable redress was made, for the complaint handling (£300) and the entrance system and fobs (£100), if it has not already paid this to the resident.