London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202314975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314975

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 May 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:
1. repairs following a leak from the upstairs property.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom, second floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
On 3 June 2021 there was an uncontrollable leak from the flat above which caused water damage to the property. On 22 July 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the progress of completing repairs to the property. She said that the entire flat had been affected by the leak, that electrics needed replacing, that all the walls and ceilings required repainting, and the flooring needed replacing. She said the landlord had not taken action to repair this and she wanted the landlord to carry out the repairs as soon as possible.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 January 2022. It stated:
1. it had completed the repairs to the plastering and electrics of the property.
2. it had arranged for its contractor to replace the damaged flooring and asked the resident to contact the contractor to arrange an appointment. It told the resident it would not reimburse her for the cost of the carpets that had been damaged from the leak as it had agreed to replace the flooring instead.
3. it had reimbursed the resident £600 to cover the cost of her excess for her content insurance claim for her personal belongings that were damaged by the leak.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on the same day. She said she was dissatisfied as:
1. the landlord had not completed any plastering repairs as it claimed in its response.
2. she considered that the landlord was required to replace the damaged flooring or reimburse her with the value of the original flooring, and it had not done either.
3. the walls and ceilings had not been repainted 7 months after the leak. She said the landlord had not provided her with redecoration vouchers or made arrangements to carry out the redecoration itself.
4. it had not offered her any compensation for the time taken to complete the repairs and the inconvenience to her as it said it would.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 June 2023. In this it:
1. said it understood that the repairs had been resolved since the resident escalated her complaint and it had previously offered the resident £600 in October 2021.
2. apologised for its delay in responding which it said was due to a backlog of complaints.
3. offered the resident £250 in compensation consisting of:
  1. £200 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
  2. £50 for service failure.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 September 2023. She confirmed that the repairs had been resolved by the landlord. However, she considered its offer of compensation did not reflect the impact its actions had on her.

Assessment and findings

The scope of investigation regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs

From the available documentary evidence and what the resident told us, the Ombudsman considers there are 3 key issues to be looked at in assessing the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs following the leak (as set out in paragraph 1.a. above) which this report will address, namely:
1. repairs to replace ceiling lights, smoke detectors, and the heat detector in the property.
2. plastering and redecoration of the walls and ceilings of the property.
3. replacement of the flooring across the property.

The landlord’s repair obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy says, in terms of who is responsible for repairs, that:
1. repairs to light fittings, light switches and hard-wired smoke and heat detectors are its responsibility to repair.
2. it is responsible for treating condensation and mould in its properties.
3. it will repair internal walls and plasterwork where these are cracked (over 5 mm). The policy says that hairline cracks to internal walls or plasterwork are the resident’s responsibility to repair and it will not decorate internal walls unless it has an obligation to do so under the tenancy agreement.
4. it is responsible for repairing cracks in ceilings (over 5mm). The policy says hairline cracks are the resident’s responsibility to repair and it will not redecorate ceilings unless this becomes necessary from repair work it has carried out.
5. it is responsible for repairing kitchen and bathroom coverings. The policy says residents are responsible for repairing floor coverings “in any rooms except kitchens and bathrooms where flooring coverings were provided by [the landlord] and are causing a trip hazard”.
Where the landlord has a repair responsibility its repair policy says its service standards are that:
1. it will attend emergency works, which pose an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, within 24 hours to make safe the repair. It will complete any follow-on repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. for routine repairs it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
Though the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale for completing non-emergency repairs the Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.

Replacement of the ceiling lights, smoke detectors and heat detector

As part of the landlord’s records for repairing the leak on 3 June 2021 it recorded that it had disconnected and made safe 4 ceiling lights, 2 smoke detectors and a heat detector across the property before reinstating the power. The landlord created a repair request to reinstate the lights and alarms. However, it did not record an intended completion date for this. The landlord later cancelled this repair order on an unknown date.
The resident told the landlord on 4 June 2021 that some of the lights at the property needed reinstating. The landlord told her that it had raised a new repair request to reinstate the lights and alarms but it would need to confirm the leak had been resolved before it could complete this repair.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 18 June 2021 where it recorded the leak from the upstairs flat had been resolved and the ceilings of the property were drying out. It noted that some lights in the property were not working but the landlord would restore these. From the available records there is no evidence that the landlord took action to proceed with the repair to reinstate the lights and alarms or contacted the resident to arrange an appointment for the repair following this report. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2021. She said she had received no information about when it would be replacing the lights and alarms disconnected by the landlord following the leak and said she had needed to improvise over the past 2 months. She requested an update from the landlord about this. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at the time. It did not raise a new repair request until 9 September 2021, 23 working days later. This was not appropriate, in line with its policy it should have contacted the resident promptly to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to carry out the repair.
Furthermore, though the resident said the smoke detectors and heat detector at the property had not worked for the last 2 months there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether it should prioritise the repair. This was unreasonable, in line with its policy it should have considered if there was any immediate risk to the resident and made this safe within 24 hours if so.
The landlord completed the repair to replace the lights and alarms on 14 September 2021, 73 working days after the landlord had first identified this repair as necessary. This was unreasonable, compared to the Ombudsman’s expectations there is no evidence of a delay that prevented the landlord from completing the repair sooner. It also did not communicate the reasons for any delay to the resident or consider ways it could mitigate the impact on her.

Repairs to replaster and redecorate the walls and ceilings

As part of the damp and mould inspection on 18 June 2021 the landlord recorded:
1. that there was mould present on the ceilings because of the leak which was treated that day by carrying out a mould wash.
2. the ceiling would need repainting following the leak, but the damage was cosmetic and it would be the resident’s responsibility to redecorate.
3. there were watermarks present on the walls from the leak. It did not specify whether any repairs were required to the plasterwork.
The action that the landlord took to remove the mould was appropriate as it resolved the issue in a reasonable timescale in line with its repair policy.
In terms of redecorating the walls and ceilings, the landlord’s repair policy says that the resident will ordinarily be responsible for this, which is consistent with what the damp and mould inspection recorded. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident following the inspection on 18 June 2021 that she would be responsible for redecorating. There is also no evidence the landlord considered offering to redecorate the property for the resident at this time, given that the need to redecorate the walls and ceilings was the result of the leak from the upstairs property which the landlord had needed to repair. As such, the landlord’s actions were not reasonable.
On 9 August 2021, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord told the resident its plasterer would attend on 10 September 2021 to inspect, measure and repair the ceilings and walls. It told the resident it could complete the redecoration of the walls and ceilings for her or offer her £300 in decorating vouchers as an alternative. The resident replied on the same day that she would be happy to accept redecoration vouchers.
Though the landlord created a repair request on 9 August 2021 for a plasterer to attend the property the landlord closed this as complete on the same day without explanation. There is no evidence that the landlord attended the property on 10 September 2021 as it had agreed with the resident or that it took any further action to complete the plastering repairs or provide the resident with the redecoration vouchers before its stage 1 response on 4 January 2022. This was inappropriate, as the landlord did not act in line with its repair policy by completing the repairs at the agreed appointment. There is also no evidence that it communicated the reasons for any delay in carrying out this repair.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord created a new repair request to inspect and repair damage to the ceilings and walls of the property following the leak on 3 June 2021. It attended the following day and scheduled follow-on work for 6 June 2022to stain block and repaint the kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms of the property. From this the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord had accepted responsibility for redecorating the ceilings and walls of the property, in addition to carrying out repairs to the plasterwork.
The landlord attempted to complete the repair on 6 June 2022 but recorded that the repair was unsuccessful as the ceiling plasterwork had been badly damaged from the leak and the paint kept peeling away. It scheduled for further work to take place on 4 August 2022 to replaster and repaint the ceiling. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s failure to have a plasterer inspect and repair the ceiling in a reasonable timescale contributed to this further delay. There is also no evidence the landlord recognised the extensive delays that had occurred with its response to the repair request previously or that it assessed whether it could prioritise the work as a result.
The landlord completed the repairs to redecorate the walls and ceilings of the property on 4 August 2022. This was over 14 months after the original leak and nearly 12 months after it first told the resident it would create a repair request to inspect and repair any damage to the walls and ceilings. This was a significant delay. It was inappropriate as it exceeded what we would consider a reasonable timescale to complete the repair. There is also no evidence it communicated the reasons for any delay to the resident or it considered ways it could mitigate the impact on her.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to provide her with the £300 in decorating vouchers, that it had originally agreed to provide her with on 17 August 2021. The landlord did not provide any explanation about why it took over 17 months to provide the resident with redecoration vouchers and there is no evidence that it communicated with the resident about this. This was a further failing by the landlord.

Replacement of the flooring

As part of the damp and mould inspection on 18 June 2021 the landlord recorded that all the lino flooring in the property had lifted as a result of the leak and needed replacement. The landlord recorded it would raise a repair request for this. Though the landlord’s repair policy says that it would not ordinarily take responsibility for replacing flooring, except in the bathroom or kitchen of a property, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord accepted responsibility for replacing the flooring at the property from this point.
From the available records the landlord did not create a repair request to inspect, measure and replace the flooring until 26 July 2021, 26 working days after the inspection. There is no evidence to explain why this delay happened or that it gave any information to the resident about this delay. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
From the available records the landlord replaced the flooring on 12 January 2022, 145 working days after it first identified the repairs as required. This was inappropriate as, compared to the Ombudsman’s expectations, it greatly exceeded what could be considered a reasonable timescale to complete the repair. There was also no evidence during this period that the landlord considered ways it could mitigate the impact of the lack of flooring across the property to her.
Though the landlord told the resident on 8 August 2021 that the repairs to the walls and ceilings needed to be completed before it could replace the flooring there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs to the wall and ceilings before April 2022. As such we cannot see this was a meaningful explanation about why the landlord could not replace the flooring sooner.
In addition, from the available records the resident asked the landlord on several occasions between August 2021 and December 2021 about whether it would reimburse her for the flooring that had been damaged. In our view the landlord’s explanation from its stage 1 response that it would not be reimbursing the resident because it had agreed to replace the flooring was reasonable. However, we have seen no reason why the landlord could not have provided the resident with this information at the time of her queries. This was a further failing by the landlord.

The impact of the landlord’s handling of the repairs and redress

In summary the Ombudsman has seen evidence of failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs following the leak in that it:
1. took 73 working days to reinstate the ceiling lights, smoke detectors and heat detector that had been damaged from the leak.
2. took 251 working days to assess and repair damage to the walls and ceilings of the property after it first told the resident it would arrange this.
3. took 145 working days to replace the flooring in the property after it identified the repairs were necessary and accepted responsibility for these.
4. did not adequately communicate with the resident about the repairs, its approach for handling these and the reasons for any delays in completing them.
5. did not assess whether it should have prioritised completing the repairs. Both in terms of the potential risk of the resident being in a property without working smoke and heat detectors and in recognition of how long the repairs had been outstanding.
6. did not provide the resident with redecoration vouchers, as it had agreed with her, for 17 months.
The resident told us that she experienced a loss of enjoyment of her home, distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions. From the available evidence the resident’s property did not have full lighting for around 3 months and was without suitable flooring for around 6 months after the leak. The property also had damp-stained walls and ceilings across at least 4 rooms for over 14 months after the leak. In the Ombudsman’s view this would have been likely to have reasonably caused the resident distress, inconvenience and a loss of enjoyment of her home as she described.
In terms of the delay in providing the decoration vouchers the resident told us these were no longer useful when she received these in January 2023 as the property had already been redecorated. We would have not expected the landlord to both redecorate the property and provide the resident with redecoration vouchers so we do not see that this failing caused the resident any financial loss. However, we do consider that this delay was likely to have caused her additional frustration.
In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to providing the resident with a cheque for £600. However, from the available evidence this was to pay the excess from the resident’s contents insurance claim for her personal belongings that were damaged by the leak. Similarly, the £300 the landlord offered in terms of redecoration vouchers was also to address the impact of the leak not the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs. As such our view is that these payments were to remedy the impact of the leak on the resident, rather than the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs, and do not put right the impact of the complaint the Ombudsman has investigated.
In relation to the delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the leak the landlord offered £50 for ‘service failure’ in its stage 2 response but did not explain the basis for this offer, apologise for the delay in completing the repairs or describe why these delays happened.
Considered against our guidance on remedies this was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. There were a series of repeated failings by the landlord to resolve the repairs and to communicate with the resident about these. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s failing constituted severe maladministration and, as the combined effect of these failings likely had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. As such we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £850 in recognition of the impact its actions had on her. This reflects the time of some 14 months to put matters right after the initial leak.
As the landlord did not acknowledge the delays in its handling of repairs it did not provide any explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its response to repair and maintenance requests. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its repair policy, analysing and reporting on its response to repair requests and address situations where it had failed to follow its repairs policy. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its handling of the repair requests in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2022, following the previous version in 2020 that was in place at the time of the original complaint. We will refer to this as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between each version, otherwise the version will be specified.
As set out previously the resident first complained to the landlord on 22 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 July 2021, 2 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the expectations of the Code.
Following the acknowledgement however the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 4 January 2022, 113 working days later. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. There also is no evidence that it informed the resident of any reason why it was not able to respond within 10 working days as it was expected to do in line with its policy and the Code.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s stage 1 response there were failings by the landlord compared to the expectations of the 2020 Code as it:
1. did not give the resident an opportunity to explain her point of view or what she was looking for as an outcome before the response was issued.
2. did not consider all the evidence carefully as it inaccurately claimed that it had completed the repairs to the plastering of the property.
3. did not acknowledge its delays in handling the repairs following the leak, provide an explanation for these or offer an appropriate remedy to put things right.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 4 January 2022. From the landlord’s internal records, it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process on 28 January 2022. However, there is no evidence that it acknowledged her complaint until 17 January 2023 over a year after the escalation request. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 June 2023, 95 working days after it acknowledged her escalation request and nearly a year and a half after she originally escalated her complaint. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code. Though the landlord contacted the resident on 2 March 2023 to inform her there would be a delay in allocating her complaint it provided her with no other updates, which was also not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s stage 2 response there were failings by the landlord compared to the 2022 Code in that:
1. though there was a record that the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her on 23 May 2023it did not define the resident’s complaint with her or record what she was seeking as an outcome. It recorded as part of the call it told the resident it was “unable to discuss other complaint issues” with her. However, due to a lack of adequate records about how the landlord understood the resident’s complaint and what she told it in that call we cannot reach a view on whether the landlord’s decision not to comment on the other complaint issues was reasonable.
2. it did not acknowledge its delays in completing the repairs following the leak or provide any explanation for why these happened. Its response on this issue was limited to noting that the repairs had been completed since the escalation request.
3. it did not recognise the impact to the resident from the time the landlord took to complete the repairs, or offer the resident any remedy for this, despite the resident specifying this as something she was looking for in her escalation request.
As part of the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint handling and offered the resident £200 as a remedy for this. It did not acknowledge or remedy the other failings. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was not a reasonable remedy considering the extent of the delays and other complaint handling failings. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident the above award plus additional compensation to fully recognise its delays and other failings.
The landlord provided no explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar complaint handling issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its complaint handling performance to bring this in line with the expectations of the Code. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
In summary there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, in that it:
1. significantly delayed responding to the stage 1 complaint, taking 113 working days to respond after its acknowledgement.
2. did not adequately investigate the complaint at stage 1 and incorrectly told the resident that it had completed the plastering repairs.
3. took over a year to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
4. significantly delayed responding to the stage 2 complaint, taking 95 working days to respond after its acknowledgement.
5. did not define the resident’s complaint with her at either stage of the complaints process or record what she was seeking as an outcome.
6. did not acknowledge its delays in completing the repairs, the impact this had on the resident or offer any remedy to put this right at either stage of the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following the leak from the upstairs property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. provide a copy of this decision to its Chief Executive and ask them to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s delays in its handling of the repairs and the subsequent complaint and the impact this had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £1,250 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £900 (inclusive of the £50 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the leak.
  2. £350 (inclusive of the £200 it previously offered) in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears, where they exist.