London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202216087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216087

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak from the roof and into the bathroom.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association, under the shared ownership scheme. The lease commenced on 5 September 2013. The landlord has not confirmed if it has any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, in an email to the landlord on 5 March 2023 the resident confirmed that his child had asthma.
The property is a 3 bedroom, 4 storey house in a terrace of 4 properties that share a communal flat roof. The houses form part of a larger estate of properties which also have flat roofs. At the time of the complaint the resident’s property was covered by the National House Building Council (NHBC) 10 year new home guarantee.
The resident has provided this investigation with a copy of an inspection report of the shared flat roof dated April 2017. It was undertaken following reports of a leak into a neighbouring property. The inspection established that the roof covering was a single ply membrane on a “warm roof construction.” A single rainwater outlet was located in the location of the bedroom to the neighbouring property and to the hopper and downpipe.
The report said it was “clearly evident” that the roof drained via this outlet only. It concluded that there was an inadequate number of rainwater outlets and the existing outlet was “inadequately sized.”
On 1 September 2022 the resident completed an online form to report water marks on the ceiling on the top floor, indicating water was coming through. On 9 September the resident reported that the water ingress was worse when it rained. The landlord’s initial response on 2 November was to refer him to the terms of his lease for repair and maintenance. It also advised him to explore the possibility of claiming on the buildings insurance and/or contacting the NHBC.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord raised a works order to inspect and repair the roof due to water ingress into the resident’s property. Inspections were carried out on 5 December 2022 and 12 January 2023. An internal email dated 14 February noted that the resident’s property was one of a number of buildings on the estate that had “roofing issues.”
On 15 February 2023 the resident provided the landlord with photographs of mould in the bathroom, damp in the hallway and the roof and wall which also showed signs of damp. A surveyor attended that same day and identified a possible leak in the bathroom. He also noted that there was evidence of penetrating damp from the roof, tracking along soil stacks. Internal damp staining was minimal however, there was extensive mould growth within the soil stack boxings. The landlord raised works orders to install a dehumidifier and carry out a mould wash.
The issues in the bathroom were resolved by the landlord around June 2023. By 26 July temporary works to the roof had taken place. However, the resident reported further water ingress in September 2023.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2022. He expressed his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s inaction in response to his report of a leak from the roof. He said it was worse when it rained and that it was causing damage to the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022, the main points being that the resident:
1. Should refer to his lease for information about repair and maintenance responsibilities.
2. Explore claiming on its buildings insurance for which it attached a summary of cover.
3. Should contact its aftercare special projects team, for which it provided the relevant contact details, to explore options such as getting permission for the NHBC to investigate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022 to set out his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He was unhappy that the landlord “had done nothing” to address the cause of the problem.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay.
2. It said it had acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint without fully investigating the complaint and its reply was late. Its response did not account for “time, effort, inconvenience, distress caused and the resident’s right to repair.” It also apologised that it did not consider the resident’s circumstances, including a member of the household having breathing issues.
3. It accepted it should have raised “clear enquiries” on the resident’s behalf to address the matter. He was left with outstanding repairs and was given incorrect information for which it apologised.
4. Due to a back log of complaints the stage 2 complaint was not allocated until February. It apologised that its initial response was late.
5. Its communication did not meet its standards. The case went to different staff until it was allocated back to the customer relations team. Time frames were not adhered to and agreed commitments were not always met.
6. It was unable to pursue liability claims through the complaints process. It signposted the resident to its insurance team and provided their email address.
7. It set out a timeline of events from 1 September 2022 to 10 July 2023.
8. The resident had made a formal complaint in September 2022 however it acknowledged that the resident had been experiencing roof leaks before that date.
9. The roof was linked to the neighbouring property and it knew there was insufficient drainage. Although “quick fixes” had taken place, the exact root cause of water ingress was still being investigated.
10. Its healthy homes surveyor identified that damp and mould in the downstairs bathroom was separate to the roof issue and it noted that the resident had reported an improvement. It asked him to report if the problem reoccurred. It explained that repairs like that were usually the leaseholder’s responsibility but it assisted in this case because there was an element of doubt that it might be a “building defect.”
11. Its various teams had failed to take ownership of the repairs. It had asked for the name of the member of staff leading on the project.
12. Its major works team was now overseeing works and a site visit was planned for 21 July 2023. Once it had received the report from the visit it would contact the resident to share the proposed action plan. It provided the name of the consultant and the details of other parties who would be attending the meeting.
13. It acknowledged that the resident still had internal damage to his ceilings and floor that needed “attention.” It said this fell “partly” under insurance and the resident was therefore asked to make a liability claim as advised previously. It said it may decide to repair the internal structural work directly but encouraged the resident to approach insurance to start a case in the meantime.
14. Its newsletters to residents between February and March 2023 provided “little detail” for the road. It had fed back to its housing and major works team that it should “do a much better job” of updating residents in future.
15. It set out a number of actions, as follows:
  1. The case was to be passed to a customer liaison officer to monitor repairs, as that team worked for direct maintenance.
  2. It would provide the name of the colleague leading on the project.
  3. It would report back regarding the outcome of the site meeting.
  4. It would provide more detailed information in its monthly newsletter and would ensure the resident received a copy by email.
  5. The surveyor would be in touch should it decide to carry out decorating and to repair the internal damage. Flooring would normally go through its insurance but if it was original flooring which it had fitted the major works team may decide to address it.
16. The landlord offered £2775.40 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1400 for time, effort, distress and inconvenience.
  2. £750 for the resident’s right to repair.
  3. £200 gesture of good will for failures in service.
  4. £275.40 for running costs of the dehumidifier for 5 months
  5. £150 for complaint handling failures.
The resident contacted this Service on 1 August 2023 to request an investigation into his complaint. He asked that the landlord complete all remedial works, improve their communication and consider the ongoing issue of compensation. The complaint became one we could investigate on 17 May 2024.

Events post internal complaints process

On 26 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that during a recent downpour water “flowed” through the ceiling leaving damp patches and damaging his belongings.
On 6 November 2023 a job was raised under the resident’s property for a roofing contractor to attend on 30 October. A file note dated 22 November says that due to no movement with the order, which was issued and raised to a different contractor on 7 December 2022, it was closing down the order. A variation was uploaded on 29 June 2023 and was still at a status of awaiting approval. It referred to a note saying the order was raised to investigate a roof leak under another property. If works were still required another order should be raised and issued to a different contractor. Alternatively, the roofing supervisor or direct maintenance surveyor should advise on how to proceed.
During a phone call with this Service on 14 January 2025 the resident said he remained concerned about water ingress. He said he emailed the landlord in November 2024 to report the appearance of further damp. He said it told him it could not assist with temporary issues because they were part of a wider problem. He said that for this reason he did not contact the landlord when more damp areas appeared following rain in December.
The resident reported that enjoyment of his home continues to be affected because he does not feel able to fully utilise the room on the top floor. Furniture remains covered in case of further water ingress. He also advised that internal redecoration and damage caused to the flooring remains outstanding. He confirmed he had made a claim on the landlord’s insurance regarding damage to his personal items.
In an internal email dated 20 January 2025 the landlord confirmed that it visited the property on 12 December 2024 with the original developer and an officer from NHBC. It also inspected the communal roof at this time. It noted that all spaces within the property were “usable and occupied” with no evidence or trace of water ingress. It intended to produce drawings and specifications with a view to replacing the roof. It had asked the resident to continue to report any issues with water ingress to its repairs team as normal until the replacement is carried out.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

A landlord’s repairing obligation is set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 11 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that across all its homes it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home including roofs.
Its complaints policy effective from October 2022 to August 2023 says it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. If it needs more time to reach a decision, it will explain why and write again after no more than 10 working days.
2. Issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. After confirming its decision in writing it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.
Its compensation policy effective from August 2021 to August 2023 says it will consider offering compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient in order to recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on a resident. It also says that:
1. Where statutory compensation is due it will pay this in accordance with right to repair legislation.
2. The final award of compensation will be reviewed once all work/issues have been resolved to ensure it is proportionate.
3. It will consider compensation for shared owners where its failure has caused them to be unable to use a part of their home or experienced a loss of amenity.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and into the bathroom

Roof

The landlord’s email to the resident of 8 November 2022 said that the first contact it had received from the resident regarding the leak was when he made his complaint on 9 September 2022.
The resident’s email to the landlord on 17 November 2022 disputed this was the case. He said he had reported the issue via a number of channels but had not had a response which is why he had complained. In its stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been experiencing roof leaks prior to his complaint in September 2022. The lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
In an email to the resident on 26 July 2023 the landlord advised that its roofing contractor attended on 5 December 2022 and suggested a single ply contractor be employed. The landlord’s internal email of 12 April 2023 shows that a works order was raised on 23 December 2022 for its roofing contractor to attend.
A further inspection of the same neighbouring property previously surveyed in 2017 was carried out on 12 January 2023. It noted “various areas of concern” with the single ply covering of the roof. It recommended the following works:
1. Electronic leak detection test.
2. CCTV survey to all open penetrations.
3. Carry out liquid repair where an “obvious repair” was needed to the upstand.
4. Investigate metal capping and provide a report.
5. Install grating/wire balloon to prevent blockages.
Despite the outcome of the survey in an internal email dated 1 February 2023 the landlord stated that the resident should be “encouraged” to arrange his own repairs. If the problem was an installation or design issue the correct route would be for the resident to pursue the NHBC warranty. The landlord failed to take ownership of the problem which was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident.
Following allocation of the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 February 2023 the customer relations team contacted the resident to acknowledge receipt. A file note of the same date notes that the officer ordered a healthy homes inspection.
In an internal email dated 14 February 2023 the officer noted this was “another building” on the estate with a roofing issue causing penetrating water and damp and mould. They said it was apparent that the roof had “insufficient drainage” and that several contractors had attended. Given that the 2017 survey of the roof had identified the same it was evident the landlord had not carried out the rectification works and the problem was therefore ongoing.
The officer advised that another property was also affected. They requested that a joint inspection be carried out and queried whether a leak test had been completed. They also queried how the landlord would proceed if this was an “ongoing latent defect” as suggested by the notes on system.
It is acknowledged that the landlord arranged an inspection of the roof however, this did not happen until several months after the resident made his complaint. It was positive that in February an officer acted promptly to try to resolve the ongoing substantive issue. However, this came late in the process being 5 months after the resident made his complaint. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on the recommendations of the survey carried out on 12 January 2023 which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2023 advised that its healthy homes surveyor had inspected the property on 15 February. Also on 15 February an officer from the customer relations team phoned the resident to advise that the complaint investigation had been transferred to the housing team. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to provide photographs showing the impact of the damp on the paintwork in the hallway which still felt damp in places. He also:
1. Provided photographs of the roof and wall to show how damp it had got and said he had videos of the water running if needs be.
2. Advised that the leak had damaged personal belongings including his books and iPad.
3. Said that the surveyor had found damp and mould running down the pipes in the bedroom.
On 16 February 2023 the officer emailed the resident to provide the contact details for its insurers. It advised him to make a claim for damage to his personal belongings because it could not pursue a liability claim through its complaints process. It acknowledged information the resident had provided regarding a member of his household’s breathing difficulties and apologised if he felt it had not considered his needs. The resident replied to thank the officer for their work on the case.
An internal email dated 17 February 2023 sent from the housing team to the customer relations team queried the supply of a dehumidifier to a leaseholder. The reply set out the reasons including that the landlord had to be mindful that the house next door had “exactly” the same issues. In a further email sent on the same day the customer relations team advised that its system showed evidence of defects in the roof in previous years.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5, 12 and 27 March 2023 to chase a response from the landlord in relation to the substantive issue. The housing team emailed the resident on 28 March to confirm that it had organised for another contractor to attend the roof and provide a report to determine the cause of the leak.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property and carried out a CCTV investigation of the chamber of the stack which was consistent with the recommendation of the survey carried out on 12 January. It recommended that a patch liner be installed to seal an observed joint displacement. In its email to the resident of 26 July the landlord confirmed that the work had been carried out. There is no evidence to confirm when this took place or the nature of the work which was a record keeping failure.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged a number of emails regarding a site visit carried out by its contractor the previous day. The landlord said they had not been able to make contact with him. The resident disputed this was the case.
On12 April 2023 the landlord sent an internal email asking whether any repairs were outstanding and what action had taken place. It is concerning that this information was not accessible on the landlord’s systems which is a record keeping failure.
A further internal email dated 14 April 2023 confirmed that the issues with the roof were part of a “big project” taking place on estate. It confirmed its contractor had flood tested the roof and that defects were found. It said it was awaiting their full report to be able to start programming works. Its contractor had been unable to get hold of the resident to check whether there was any ongoing water ingress and its housing team had been asked to contact him.
On 22 June 2023 the resident completed an online form to report the ongoing roof leak. He said the roof had been flood tested and he was starting to see purple water starting to seep “into the ceiling.” He said this was part of a “long standing problem which affects multiple properties.”
An internal email dated 23 June 2023 confirmed that leak detection works were being carried out by its contractor who would produce a report for all affected blocks across the scheme.
In an email to the landlord of 3 July 2023 the resident set out his ongoing concerns regarding the lack of repair to the roof as follows:
1. There was no resolution to the outstanding problem of drainage on the roof so the problem could reoccur.
2. The contractor had advised that the drainage was “inadequate” and the drain holes needed a guard.
3. Damage caused to the roof and cracks that appeared still existed. This was the same for a number of properties covered by the roof.
4. Leaks had caused “substantial” internal damage including a large crack in the ceiling making the bedroom at the top of the property unusable. There was damage to “multiple” areas throughout where water from the roof ran down internal pipes. The beams in the house were also damaged.
5. Attempts to flood the roof to identify cracks did not replicate water on the roof during heavy rainfall.
He said the issues had taken a “huge amount of time, posed health risks” and led to him being unable to live in the property “normally.” It had caused a lot of stress which was made worse by some of the recent communication.
An internal email dated 3 July 2023 confirmed there were no open roofing jobs for the property. It queried if its development and special projects team were dealing with issues in the resident’s road. A response sent on the same day confirmed investigations were starting that week at 2 other buildings and that because the road was on the list it anticipated works would start soon. A further email queried whether the consultants would inspect internal damage and if not, whether the direct maintenance or major works team review this after the roof was made watertight.
An internal email dated 6 July 2023 confirmed that a consultant had been asked to diagnose the cause of the roof leaks and suggest what remedial works were necessary. It said it could not give firm timescales for resolution until this was done. An appointment for investigatory works to 2 of the blocks had been made for 21 July with its consultant, roofing contractor and landlord in attendance. It confirmed that damage would be made good once the problems were resolved, by whom would depend on the nature of the issues identified. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to update him accordingly, adding that its preconstruction team was leading on the project.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 20 July 2023 was appropriately transparent about its failures and set out an appropriate action plan. During his call with the landlord on 25 July the resident expressed his concerns that the consultant had only become involved on 21 July and that he may suffer more leaks in the coming months.
The resident’s concerns were exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to progress the actions set out in its stage 2 response. There is no evidence that the resident was provided with the name of the colleague in major works who was leading on the project. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he was provided with an update regarding outstanding redecoration and repair of internal damage.
This investigation acknowledges that the scale of work required on the estate created an exceptional circumstance which required the landlord to consolidate its approach rather than replacing roofs on an ad hoc basis. However, it is concerning to note that almost 2 and a half years since the resident made his complaint the work remains outstanding. The delay is unreasonably long and inappropriately extends well beyond the landlord’s final complaint response.
There is a lack of clarity about ongoing water ingress into the property. Furthermore, the question regarding the internal decoration and flooring has not been concluded. The landlord has not kept the resident informed of progress regarding his individual circumstances which is inappropriate.

Bathroom

In an email to the resident on 13 February 2023 the landlord confirmed it had ordered a dehumidifier to be delivered.
During its call to the resident on 15 February 2023 the officer from the customer relations team confirmed that a healthy homes inspection would take place and that he would be contacted by a surveyor. She also advised that the landlord would consider the daily running costs of the dehumidifier as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This was communicated to the housing team in a handover email from the customer relations team sent on that day. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to provide photographs of the mould in the bathroom.
An internal email dated 15 February 2023 confirmed that a surveyor had inspected the property that day and identified a possible leak in the ground floor bathroom. However, given that the resident was a leaseholder he would be responsible for rectifying the issue. It said that a works order had been raised for its contractor to carry out an assessment and mould wash.
In the absence of a stage 2 complaint response on 24 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to enquire how it would reimburse the running costs of the dehumidifier. He also requested a plumber attend, as per the survey carried out on 15 February. The landlord did not provide a response which was inappropriate, causing the resident to email on 5 and 27 March to chase. The landlord’s inaction compounded the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
There is no evidence setting out the landlord’s decision making with regards ownership of the bathroom issue which is a record keeping failure. The lack of clear and concise decision making caused frustration to the resident.
In an email to this Service on 27 February 2023 the resident confirmed that problems with the roof were his main concern but that mould was spreading across the pipework. He said a mould wash had been booked in but this was “weeks away.” He expressed his ongoing frustration with the landlord’s inaction and described its response as “shambolic.” He also raised concerns about the impact of mould on the health of his household. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns which was inappropriate. This was because it demonstrated a lack of regard for the impact damp and mould can have on resident’s health.
The landlord’s internal email dated 12 April 2023 shows that a works order was raised on 14 March 2023 to carry out a mould wash to the affected rooms.
In his email to the landlord of 29 March 2023 the resident asked why it was trying to collect the dehumidifier when the issues with the bathroom were outstanding. The reply from the housing team sent the same day was abrupt and defensive in its tone. It said it was “unclear” who had advised that the use of dehumidifier would be reimbursed and asked for the name of the person who said this. Given the handover from the customer relations team in February this was information the housing team already possessed.
Its response was inappropriate, compounding the resident’s distress and further undermining the landlord/resident relationship. This was evident in the resident’s email later that same day when he expressed concern over its comments. He asked it to go back through the notes and improve its internal communication. He also expressed his concern that the water leak in the bathroom had started at the same time as the roof leak which is why he suspected they were related.
The landlord’s internal email dated 12 April 2023 shows that a works order was raised on 5 April for a “healthy homes job” with an appointment date of 18 April. A further works order was raised on 18 April with works required by 10 May. This was followed by a note which read “cancellation order request sent and being reviewed.” The repairs records are confusing and do not adequately set out the landlord’s response. This is a record keeping failure.
Following the transfer of the complaint back to the customer relations team, the landlord emailed the resident on 26 June 2023 to assure him that it would provide compensation for the running costs of the dehumidifier.
In his email to the landlord of 3 July 2023 the resident said that by June it had taken steps to address the leak in the bathroom. However, he remained concerned that it was linked to the issues with the roof. He asked again how he could be reimbursed for the costs of running the dehumidifier.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 20 July 2023 noted that the landlord used its discretion to carry out works to the bathroom because it could not rule out a connection to the roof leak. However, its healthy homes surveyor had confirmed that was not the case. It asked the resident to report any further issues with the bathroom. During a telephone call with this Service on 14 January 2025 the resident confirmed that to date, the issues in the bathroom had not returned.

Communication

The landlord issued monthly newsletters to residents living on the estate during January, February, March and April 2023.
The January edition provided updates on roof leaks to some of the buildings but did not contain any information in relation to the resident’s road. February’s edition updated occupiers in the resident’s road that water damage/leaks from the flat roof was affecting their homes and that investigations would be commencing. It asked residents to report leaks “urgently.”
March’s newsletter did not provide any updates on the resident’s road unlike April’s edition. It said its contractor had been clearing the roofs and drainage pipes to allow for investigations into what might be causing the roof leaks.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2023 appropriately acknowledged its failings with regards to communication via the newsletters and set out its commitment to make improvements.

Compensation

At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord offered £2625.40 compensation. During a telephone call with the landlord on 25 July 2023 the resident raised concerns that he had not been able to use the top bedroom from September 2022 to the current date for fear of further water ingress and cracks in the ceiling. He had not been compensated for not being able to use his downstairs bathroom, although it was noted he had use of a second bathroom.
The landlord subsequently emailed the resident on the same day to offer further compensation amounting to £2964.74, comprised of:
1. Loss of bathroom from October 2022 to May 2023 calculated as:
  1. Monthly rent= £672.92 multiplied by 12 divided by 52 = £152.29 weekly rent. £152.29 multiplied by 52 and divided by 365 = £21.70 per day for rent X 25% = £5.42. 7 months = 213 days x 5.42 = £1154.46
2. Loss of top floor bedroom from September 2022 to the current day. 11 months = 334 days x 5.42 = £1810.28.
The resident was offered a total of £5590.14 compensation up to 25 July 2023. The landlord was honest about its failures in its stage 2 complaint response. While this was positive, resolution of the substantive issue of the roof leak and other associated matters remained outstanding which was inappropriate. Furthermore, the landlord failed to set out its learning to identify why things went wrong and what it would do differently.
The amount of compensation awarded by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was severe maladministration. However, its failure to resolve the substantive issue and its failure to demonstrate lessons learnt means this does not prevent an adverse finding of maladministration. The landlord should note that had it not made a reasonable offer of compensation, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2022. On 13 September the landlord appropriately emailed him to acknowledge receipt of the complaint which it defined as being about the “communal roof repair building guarantee.” It said it would take 5 to 7 days to investigate the complaint and aimed to provide its response by 22 September 2022.
The landlord failed to provide a response causing the resident time and trouble when he emailed again on 28 September 2022 to chase. He advised there was clear evidence of water damage and was unhappy with the landlord’s inaction particularly given that conditions were getting worse.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay and explained it was waiting for further information which it had chased. While this was positive it was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations which was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 2 November 2022 which was 37 working days after the complaint was made and 27 working days out of time. Its response failed to acknowledge the delay or the inconvenience caused to the resident. It failed to consider providing compensation to try to put things right, in line with its compensation policy.
Given the content of the resident’s emails of 9 and 28 September 2022 it is unclear how the landlord arrived at its complaint definition which ultimately led to an incorrect response being issued. Furthermore, its error resulted in the landlord failing to use the complaints process to try to resolve the substantive issue which meant the leak continued. The landlord’s inaccurate response was particularly concerning given the outcome of the 2017 survey and its stage 2 response regarding reports of a roof leak prior to the stage 1 complaint.
The resident contacted his MP on 27 October 2022 in an effort to resolve the issue. He was also engaged in email communication with the landlord regarding its suggestion that the matter be referred to the NHBC. The landlord’s failure to carry out an appropriate investigation caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
The resident expressed his frustration in his email to the landlord of 17 November 2022 when he said the landlord had not understood his complaint and had therefore not carried out a proper investigation.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2023 appropriately acknowledged its failures at stage 1 of the complaints process. However, it failed to set out its learning in terms of what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 November 2022. The landlord replied on the same day to say that it could not assist further because there was no failure to provide a service and referred the resident to its complaint response in terms of next steps. It offered £50 compensation for its delay in “responding to contact.”
On 5 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2 but that there was a backlog. The resident was caused inconvenience when he contacted this Service on 10 February 2023 to request assistance. We wrote to the landlord on the same day to request that it provide its complaint response by 27 February 2023.
On13 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to offer its “sincere apologies” that it had not provided its stage 2 response. It arranged to call the resident the following day to discuss the complaint.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord transferred ownership of the complaint from the customer relations team to the housing team. It called the resident to update him accordingly. On 16 February the resident emailed the customer relations team and this Service to express his concerns that the complaint had been transferred back to the team who was responsible for a “lack of action” in the first place.
The landlord failed to issue its response on 27 February 2023. This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord on 5 March to chase. He expressed his frustration at the delay, particularly because its stage 1 response was “dismissive, inappropriate and incorrect.” The resident sent a further email to chase the response on 12 March 2023.
The landlord replied on 13 March 2023 to say the delay had been taken up at management level and that it hoped he would be contacted “very soon.” An internal email was sent to the housing team to request an “urgent response.”
On 28 March 2023 the housing team emailed the resident to apologise for the delay. It said it had kept the resident updated throughout the process and had advised it was investigating the matter. It said it hoped to issue its response that week or early the next.
The landlord’s response was inappropriate because it was lack of updates that had caused him to chase. Furthermore, it failed to provide the response in the timescale stated in its email causing further disappointment and distress to the resident.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to “assure” him that it would issue its response by the close of week commencing 3 May. However, it again failed to adhere to its commitment.
The resident contacted our Service again on 10 April 2023 to try to expedite the matter. We emailed the landlord on 1 June to ask that it provide its complaint response by 8 June 2023.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident apologise that the response had not been issued. It confirmed that the complaint had been transferred back to the customer relations team. In a further email to the resident the following day the landlord confirmed the delay would be considered as part of its response, including compensation.
In an email to the landlord of 3 July 2023 the resident said its communication and management of the issue, including its transfer of the complaint back and forth, had been “appalling.” The landlord kept in touch with the resident via emails on 10, 11 and 17 July 2023.
An internal email dated 11 July 2023 confirmed that the information provided to the resident and MP was incorrect in relation to homeowner’s responsibilities. They were responsible for internal works except where the landlord was responsible for the damage. It said that while it was right to refer the resident to its insurance team, it should have progressed the case by contacting direct maintenance, aftercare and special projects.
The complaint response was issued on 20 July 2023 which was 174 working days after the complaint was escalated, exceeding its target response time by far. The response appropriately apologised for the delay and set out the circumstances for this. It also offered the resident £150 compensation to try to put things right. While this was positive it failed to set out what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence.
During the landlord’s discussion with the resident on 25 July 2023 he set out his dissatisfaction that the stage 1 complaint response did not focus of the most important element of the complaint. The landlord subsequently increased the compensation for its complaint handling failures to £200 which was confirmed in an email to the resident on the same day.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that effective complaint handling skills are one of the most important factors in ensuring that the complaints handling works well. It took 314 days, just under a year, for the resident to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process because of its failures.
Furthermore, the Code says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord’s complaints policy also says it will monitor all actions to ensure they are completed. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2023 set out an action plan however, it failed to monitor it accordingly.
Financial redress is offered by landlords as a way of trying to put failures right. Therefore, care should be taken to ensure that the process is managed effectively so as not to give rise to further complaint. However, on 22 September 2023 the resident was caused inconvenience when he emailed the landlord to advise that he had not received his compensation.
The landlord replied on the same day to advise there had been an administrative error which would be rectified, it apologised for the inconvenience. An internal email also dated 22 September 2022 confirmed that it could not locate the second cheque request. This was rectified and it updated the resident on the same day to advise that he should receive the cheque “any day.”
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay £400 compensation. It may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Special investigation

On 27 July 2023 the Ombudsman published a special investigation report into the landlord. In its response the landlord confirmed it had “overhauled” its complaint handling process including investing in staff, training and other resources, prioritising efficiency and good communication, and embedding learning from complaints in its process. Through our ongoing monitoring of the landlord’s response to our recommendations we are satisfied that appropriate changes have been implemented. Therefore it has not been necessary to make a further order in this case.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence provided by the landlord for the purposes of this investigation was not clear and easily accessible. Furthermore, its submission contained upwards of 20,000 pages. The majority of the information was printed from its system and contained numerous duplications. This hampered the efficiency of the investigation which was inappropriate because it delayed the determination.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and into the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a member of its executive team to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property to determine whether:
  1. There is currently water ingress which needs to be addressed by interim repairs. It should confirm the outcome of the inspection to the resident in writing. In the event that repairs are required it should set out an action plan providing details of the work and appropriate timescales.
  2. It intends to carry out rectification works of the internal damage caused to the property including redecoration and floorboards. It should confirm the outcome to the resident in writing. If works are to be carried out it should set out an action plan providing details of the work and appropriate timescales.
3. Write to the resident to set out its action plan for the replacement of the roof including when the roof will be replaced, by whom and what the works will entail.
4. Consider whether further compensation should be awarded to the resident for the ongoing failures identified in this report. It should write to resident to confirm the outcome, setting out the reasons for its decision.
5. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the case. This should include an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred. It should also satisfy itself that changes made following the Ombudsman’s special report will ensure the failures identified in this report do not reoccur. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman and resident with a copy of the review, also within 8 weeks.