London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202312771)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312771

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she did not live in the property and it was rented out in the private sector. During her complaint both the resident and her managing agent were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to contact from the resident and managing agent as ‘the resident’.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 asking it to “urgently” inspect issues related to a leak from the roof. She said it had arranged for a roofing inspection in 2022, but this was cancelled for an unknown reason. She said the leak was causing issues with damp and mould in the property.
The landlord raised a job for a mould wash inside the resident’s property on 19 May 2023. It did not go ahead. The resident chased the landlord about the roofing works throughout May, June, and July 2023.
Following an intervention from this Service in August 2023, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 1 September 2023, and said:
1. It apologised for the “inconvenience” caused by its handling of the repairs.
2. It had arranged a work order to reinstate a downpipe on the external wall on 30 December 2022, but this was recorded as a “no access” visit.
3. It asked its contractor to raise a new job on 4 August 2023, but due to a “contractor backlog” the issue was still outstanding. Its contractor would be in touch directly to book the repairs visit.
4. It cancelled the damp inspection from May 2023. It explained it was the resident’s responsibility to complete any internal works under the terms of her lease.
5. It advised the resident of how to make a claim to its insurer if she was of the view the damp and mould was caused by the roof leak. It explained it could not consider such claims as part of its complaints process.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2023 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. She said was unhappy with the length of time taken to get the reported leak fixed. She said the ongoing leak was the “root cause” of the damp and mould in the property. The resident contacted it again on 29 September 2023 and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates about the the repair works throughout September, October, and November 2023. The landlord’s contractor erected scaffolding on 21 November 2023.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It restated the history of the repair and its position in relation to the internal damp and mould works. It also gave a list of information its insurer would need to consider in relation to a liability claim. It explained it had now erected scaffolding and its contractor was progressing with the roofing repairs. It said it was “hopeful” once the repairs were done the roof would no longer leak and the damp issue would be resolved. It apologised for the delay in progressing with the repairs and offered the resident £240 in compensation for “inconvenience”.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contact us on 29 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She was unhappy the roof repair was still not done and the landlord’s offer of compensation did not cover the “inconvenience” she experienced in chasing the repair.
The landlord completed works to the exterior of the property on 20 December 2023. The evidence provided indicates it fixed the downpipe at the front of the property. We have not been provided with evidence that shows it did any works to the roof.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 April 2024 and raised a concern about the “longstanding” leak issue from the property’s “communal roof/pipe”. She said she had not received a “meaningful resolution” to the issue. An internal email for the landlord on 22 April 2024 stated it had tried to get access to the property on 3 April 2024 to do works, but was unable to. It is unclear whether it completed any works at that time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated damp and mould

The resident’s lease agreement states that she is responsible for repairs within her property. The lease agreement states she is responsible for keeping the walls and floors, including plaster and floorboards in “good and substantial repair and condition”. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for all external load bearing walls, and the roof.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
Throughout the complaint the resident raised a concern that the landlord was not taking responsibility for the damp and mould inside the property. She maintained the landlord was responsible for the damp and mould as it was caused by a repair it was responsible for. In its complaint responses the landlord explained its position that the resident was responsible for the repairs within the property. It also signposted her to its liability insurer to consider whether it was liable for the damp and mould within the property. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident may wish to raise a claim with the landlord’s liability insurer if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.
Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim. If the resident wishes to challenge the landlord’s legal interpretation of the lease agreement, and it position she is responsible repairs inside the property, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. As such matters are best placed for a court to decide on.
When the resident contacted the landlord about the repairs in March 2023 she said the issue was ongoing since 2021. We do not seek to dispute this claim. However, we have not been given evidence by either the resident or landlord going back to 2021. The evidence provided for this investigation by both the resident and landlord starts in March 2023, and the earliest reference to the issue is a repairs visit from December 2022. Therefore, we consider it reasonable in the circumstances to consider the landlord’s actions related to the repairs visit from December 2022 onwards. This is a timeframe we consider reasonable leading up to the resident making her complaint.
It is also worth noting that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the matter was still outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
The landlord accepted that the repairs visit of December 2022 did not go ahead. We have not been provided with any evidence that supports its claim it was unable to access the property. This is a failing in its record keeping. Considering the repairs related to the exterior of the property it is unclear why internal access was needed. What is clear is that the landlord was not appropriately proactive in follow up on the repair. This was despite the resident regularly chasing it about its progress with the repair from March 2023 onwards. The resident was inconvenienced by an unreasonable delay and experienced time and trouble of having to regularly chase the landlord.
The landlord unfairly raised the resident’s expectations by raising a mould wash at the property in May 2023. It is noted the landlord cancelled this as it was of the position it was not responsible to remedy the damp and mould within the property. As set out above the resident may wish to pursue a claim with its liability insurer if she wishes to pursue this matter further. We have seen no evidence the landlord gave the resident an appropriate explanation at the time about why it cancelled the mould wash. This inconvenienced her. Its stage 1 complaint response went some way to putting right this error, as it clearly outlined its position with regards to the resident’s repair responsibilities.
We have seen no evidence the landlord sought to progress with the repair between the failed repair visit in December 2022. It did not do so until it erected scaffolding in November 2023. This was an unreasonable delay of nearly a year which was evidently frustrating for the resident.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It accepted the repair did not go ahead in December 2022. But, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the fact the resident was inconvenienced by repeatedly chasing it about the works. We welcome the fact it apologised for the inconvenience caused by the overall delay, but its response lacked detail and learning. It was inappropriate that it did not offer compensation for the delay. This means it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident, and build trust.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also lacked detail in relation to the roofing/external repairs. The tone of its complaint response was inappropriate. To state it was “hopeful” the repair would be resolved soon did little to reassure the resident or build trust. We welcome the fact it sought to put things right by offering the resident compensation. This went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also gave an appropriate level of detail of the information its insurer needed in order to consider a claim for liability for the repairs. This was reasonable in the circumstances and the landlord communicated its position with clarity and consistency. As set out above, it is not for us to determine whether the landlord was responsible for causing the damp and mould within the property. This matter is better suited to a court, or liability claim.
The landlord completed the external works in December 2023, this was a year after it first sought to progress with the repair. We acknowledge the need to erect scaffolding meant it was unlikely it would be able to complete the repair within its 25 day target timeframe. However, the delay of a year was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by chasing it in the intervening period before it progressed with the repair.
The evidence seen for this investigation shows the works the landlord completed in December 2023 was to reinstate the external downpipe. We have seen no evidence the landlord inspected the roof at that time. This is concerning. Both the resident and landlord referred to a roof leak throughout the period of the complaint. Considering the resident raised concerns the issue was still ongoing as recently as April 2024 it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s visit from December 2023 did not resolve the issue.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for its latest position on the issue. The landlord did not provide any evidence it completed any works, or inspected, after the resident raised the issue again in April 2024. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that inconvenienced the resident. The landlord must complete an urgent inspection of the roof area where the resident is concerned the leak is coming from.
Considering the failings identified above we have decided the landlord’s offer of £240 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. (depending on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident). Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order for a further £300 in compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
The information provided for this investigation shows the resident asked for information about the landlord’s complaints process from May 2023. She was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case and had expressed dissatisfaction. It was unreasonable the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time. Our Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint.
That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident. She was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service to get the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint, in June 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 4 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the substantive issue. That it did not apologise or acknowledge errors in its complaint handling was inappropriate. This was a failing in its complaint handling and it missed an opportunity to show learning and try to put things right.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day it sent its stage 1 complaint response. She gave a clear expression of dissatisfaction with its handling of the matter, and its complaint response. It was unreasonable that it did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. The resident was inconvenienced by this. She was further inconvenienced by the need to explicitly ask it to open a stage 2 complaint on 29 September 2023. That it did not open a stage 2 complaint at that time was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us in November 2023 in order to get a response to her stage 2 complaint. Again, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord missed another opportunity to show learning, put things right, and build trust with the resident.
Considering the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, an order for £150 is considered appropriate. This is to put things right for the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling errors.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £690 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £240 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £540 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the roof leak issue.
  2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to inspect the property in relation to the residents concerns about a leak from the roof. The landlord must write to the resident, and us, outlining its findings giving timeframes for any planned works, also within 8 weeks.