From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202233208)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233208

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 April 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. In early 2020, the resident reported water ingress from his living room window. The landlord replaced the window in March 2021 and responded to a formal complaint in September 2021. We issued a determination in May 2022 (reference 202008983).
  3. In January 2023, the resident made a further complaint as the water ingress continued. He described repair delays, missed appointments, and water ingress through the kitchen and living room ceiling. On 6 February 2023, the landlord closed the resident’s complaint as a duplicate of his previous case.
  4. The landlord replaced the windows in May 2023 and offered the resident £100 compensation to reflect the repair delay and distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2023 with the same reference number as its initial complaint response from 2021. It offered an additional £240 compensation for the delay in its communication.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response, citing that it did not address the complaints he raised in January 2023. He said the redress offered did not address the impact on his life. He referred the complaint to this Service for consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the living conditions and associated stress had on the health of the occupants. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the courts to deal with concerns about the health impact of the issues.
  2. On 25 May 2022, we issued determination 202008983. This considered the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window and the associated complaint up to September 2021. This Service may not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. We have, therefore, mentioned previous events within this report for context only.

Water ingress

  1. The lease sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the main structure of the building, including the foundations, and walls bounding window frames.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy states it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, and windows. It aims to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  4. It is not disputed that the resident initially reported water ingress in early 2020 and that the matter was resolved in May 2023. Following the previous complaint, it is evident the landlord took steps to try to resolve the water ingress, such as doing a survey, conducting a spray test and repairs, before deciding to replace the windows again. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors.However,in this case, there were periods of avoidable delaysfrom when the resident reported further water ingress following the window replacement and repair attempts. The resident also alleged several missed appointments from sub-contractors. This was undoubtably frustrating and distressing for the resident when considering the previous complaint and unresolved issues.
  5. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident at several times during the above period. Records indicate it did not update him regularly and he spent time chasing for updates. There were delays responding to emails and the landlord did not always outline the next steps, answer his questions, or give timescales. Additionally, he expressed concerns on several occasions regarding the lack of oversight between the landlord, contractor, and sub-contractors. These concerns were not sufficiently addressed. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  6. In March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that its head of delivery would be taking over the installation of the new windows. Considering the length of time the issues had been outstanding for; we find it was reasonable for the landlord to appoint a senior member of staff to oversee the works through to completion and have a direct line of communication with the resident. At this stage, while communication with the resident improved a great deal, there were still delays responding to emails and questions. For instance, the resident emailed it on 14 March 2023, chased for an answer on 19 March 2023 and received a response on 23 March 2023. While it is clear the landlord was working in the background to progress matters, it ought to have better managed the resident’s expectations concerning its response times.
  7. After the installation of the windows in May 2023, the resident requested a leak test from an independent third party to ensure that the water ingress had been resolved. The landlord evidenced that it discussed and considered the request with its contractor. It was confident it had resolved the problem and agreed to keep an open dialogue with the resident and communicate each time it rained to ensure the repair was effective. The Ombudsman recognises social landlords have limited resources and should manage these responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It follows that we find the landlord’s decision not to arrange independent testing in May 2023 was reasonable as there was no evidence the repair was unsuccessful.
  8. The stage 2 response dated 9 October 2023 referenced a previous compensation offer of £742. The resident said they were unaware of this. We asked the landlord to provide evidence of when they initially made this offer to the resident and what his response was. The landlord did not provide this information. Rather, it shared a screenshot of its system stating cheques for £400 and £342 were issued in relation to the complaint. Based on the evidence available, we are unable to determine the date the cheques were issued or if the resident received or cashed them. Further, it is unclear if this offer relates to the previous complaint. As the landlord has not evidenced making this offer to the resident within the scope of this case, we have not considered it when assessing the compensation.
  9. Records show that the landlord offered £100 compensation on 4 May 2023 to reflect the additional time taken to complete the repair. It made a further offer of £240 within its stage 2 response in October 2023. Notwithstanding the compensation awarded in the previous complaint and determination, the Ombudsman is minded that £340 is not reasonable to reflect the service failings, extensive repair delays, or poor communication. This offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, nor was in accordance with our remedies guidance for cases where there were failings that were long lasting or had a significant impact on a resident.
  10. Overall, the landlord failed to offer suitable redress to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience, the repair delays, or the time and trouble spent pursuing an effective and lasting repair. As such, we have ordered compensation of £740, replacing the landlord’s offer of £340. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 for findings of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual  resident or group of residents. The resident’s communication with the landlord on 10 January 2023 expressed significant dissatisfaction about several issues. The landlord acted correctly in the first instance by recording and acknowledging another complaint.
  3. The landlord closed the complaint as a duplicate on 6 February 2023. It then issued a stage 2 response with the reference number from the previous complaint on 9 October 2023, 38 weeks after the resident’s complaint of 10 January 2023. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. Additionally, this caused confusion and frustration to the resident as it was not following its own complaints policy or acting in line with the Code.
  4. Complaints can provide insights into service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems and be a catalyst for organisational learning. It is a concern it did not progress a second complaint which was a continuation of the issues previously complained about in addition to new concerns. New points raised were concerns that the windows installed in February 2022 lacked ventilation and were not registered with FENSA, missed repair appointments, poor living conditions, and continued water ingress. The landlord’s omission in recognising and responding to these concerns was a significant failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord apologised for its communication and complaint handling, it could have done a lot more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
  6. Overall, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and ordered £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £840, comprising of:
    1. £740 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the substantive issue.
    2. £100 for the complaint handling failings.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £340. The landlord must pay the ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord investigates its payment system and provides clarity to the resident concerning the £742 redress it referenced in October 2023.