London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202348214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348214

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 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 the resident’s:
1. Requests for balcony window repairs.
2. Reports of leaks in the property.
3. Reports of damp, mould, and silverfish in the property.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord.
The resident reported leaks, damp, and mould in the property in April and December 2023. On 22 January 2024 he made a formal complaint about:
1. His balcony window repairs.
2. Leaks in the balcony and bathroom.
3. Damp, mould, and silverfish in the property.
4. The standard of cleanliness of the block of flats.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It stated that it had raised a work order to resolve the balcony window repair and the leaks. It mentioned that silverfish were common in all tower blocks and were visible because of the leaks. It did not uphold the complaint.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 23 March and 16 April 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of the situation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024. It stated that it had booked appointments for 23 May 2024, to repair the balcony window and resolve the leaks. It partially upheld the complaint.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to us. He wants the landlord to facilitate a management move and offer him compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on His health. 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, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident stated that he has reported ongoing issues with leaks, damp, mould, and concerns about his balcony windows for the past 10 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner, which is normally within 12 months of the issue arising. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue while it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 22 January 2023. This is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint to the landlord and any reference made to events prior to this date is for context only.
The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he complained about the landlord’s handling of his request for a management move. This complaint has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, as such it will not be considered in this report. However, we have considered the issue within the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Requests for balcony window repairs.

In his stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2024 the resident explained that when he moved into the property around 2014 the landlord boarded up the balcony window due to an issue with the locking mechanism. He reported it took the landlord around 2 years to resolve the issue. After it resolved the issue, his partner opened the window and it shattered. The landlord repaired the window. However, it was difficult to open and the resident was concerned that it might shatter again. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it completed this initial repair, or when the resident first reported difficulties with opening the window.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home. It aims to complete routine repairs in 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s records show it attended the property on 31 January 2024 and left a no access card. While it was reasonable to attend within the repair time limit, there is no evidence that it agreed the appointment with the resident beforehand. It would have been reasonable to confirm the appointment time with the resident prior to attending.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2024, the landlord stated that the balcony window issue was ongoing in all the flats in the block. It had raised a work order to investigate the issue. It stated the problem might be due to a design defect and it might need to remove the window. At this stage, the landlord appropriately recognised the issue with the resident’s balcony window and took reasonable steps to resolve it.
The landlord’s records show it attended to the resident’s property on 28 February 2024. It left a no access card. Again, there is no evidence that it confirmed this appointment with the resident prior to attending, which was unreasonable.
In his escalation requests on 23 March and 14 April 2024, the resident explained that the sliding window mechanism was not functioning effectively on his balcony window and he was worried it might break again. He noted his neighbour’s window was fine, while his was lopsided. He asked the landlord to repair his window.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been experiencing issues with his balcony window for some time. It raised an appointment to attend on 23 May 2024 to rectify the problem with the sliding window mechanism. It partially upheld the complaint.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding his balcony window. However, by the stage 2 response, the issues remained unresolved, almost 4 months after the initial complaint. While complex repairs may require more time to resolve, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep the resident updated on the repair status and provide a timeline for completion. The landlord’s failure to communicate or update the resident meant he had to constantly chase for updates and raise multiple concerns.
Furthermore, the resident informed us that the repairs to the balcony window are still outstanding, more than 10 months after the landlord’s promise to resolve the issue in its stage 2 response. This was a failure and not in line with its repairs policy.
According to its compensation policy, the landlord should offer compensation when it fails to follow its policies and procedures or satisfactorily address repairs it is responsible for. In this case, it has not completed the repairs within its repairs policy time limit or offered compensation for these failings.
In conclusion, although the landlord made some attempts to resolve the repairs, it failed to put things right for the resident. The balcony window repair is still outstanding and it did not offer compensation in line with its policies. There was maladministration in its handling the resident’s reports. As a result, we have ordered compensation of £300 to reflect the impact on the resident of these shortcomings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has made some attempt to rectify issues but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Reports of leaks in the property.

The landlord’s records show it completed repairs to leaks from the balcony on 16 May 2023. In his stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2024, the resident reported leaks in the balcony and bathroom. He stated he had been reporting leaks for the past 8 years. He believed the leak in the bathroom was coming from the flat above him. A plumber had attended previously, but the issue remained unresolved. The landlord gave him an appointment date of 8 February 2024 to attend the property. However, he was unhappy about the delay and wanted it to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing leaks in the property. Its repairs policy states it should complete non-emergency leak repairs within 25 calendar days. The date it gave to attend the property was reasonable and in line with its repair policy time limit.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2024 the landlord stated it had raised works for a plumber to attend and resolve the issue. While this response was reasonable, there is no record that the landlord attended the property on 8 February 2024 to resolve the leaks issue. We have also seen no evidence that it informed the resident it would not attend on that date. This was not reasonable and may have led him to believe it was not taking his concerns seriously.
In his escalation request the resident stated the bathroom leak destroyed his personal items, walls, and decoration. He said there were damp patches and marks on the walls and ceilings because of the leaks. He had resolved the bathroom leak himself, but the balcony leak was still ongoing. He said the situation was causing him distress.
In its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024, the landlord stated it had tried to resolve the issues with the leaks on the balcony. However, the issue was complicated by the need to coordinate with residents in the flats above, making it difficult to schedule a joint appointment. It scheduled a surveyor visit for 23 May 2024, to coincide with the window repair. It partially upheld the complaint.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the leaks. However, by the stage 2 response, the issues remained unresolved, almost 4 months after the initial complaint. This was a failure and not in line with its repairs policy. Additionally, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about his damaged belongings and water damage caused to his flat by the leaks. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided guidance on how he could make a claim for his damaged items and provided its insurer’s details. It was unreasonable that it did not provide clarity on what redecoration it would complete, if any, to his walls and ceilings. This was a failing and not in line with its repairs and compensation policy which highlights its position regarding not paying compensation for damaged personal items but providing its insurers details where required.
As stated previously, the landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer compensation where it has failed to follow its relevant policy. In this case it did not follow its repairs policy with regards to resolving the leak issues. Compensation would have been reasonable.
In conclusion, while the landlord agreed to repair the balcony leaks, its response was inadequate, and it did not offer compensation for its failures. Furthermore, the resident informed us that the issue with the leaks remains unresolved more than 10 months after its stage 2 response. There was maladministration in its handling the resident’s reports. As a result, we have ordered compensation of £300 to reflect these shortcomings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has made some attempt to rectify issues but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Reports of damp, mould, and silverfish in the property.

The resident reported damp, mould, and silverfish in his property on 22 January 2024. He believed the silverfish were in the property due to the damp and mould in the flat. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that upon receiving a report of damp and mould, it will determine if an immediate repair is needed and act according to its repairs policy. It will schedule an assessment within 20 working days to understand the issues presented and their scale. The assessment will identify the cause of the damp and mould and provide the resident with management guidance. Any necessary repairs will be recorded and assigned to maintenance teams within 10 working days. It will communicate clearly with residents about timescales and keep them informed throughout the process.
The landlord’s records show it attended the property to complete an assessment on 16 February 2024. While it was reasonable to book the assessment within its policy time limit, it did not confirm the appointment’s suitability with the resident, resulting in the resident not being available when it attended. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated silver fish were common in all tower blocks and were visible because of the leaks the resident reported. It did not make further comments about how it would rectify the issue or about completing damp and mould assessments. In line with its damp and mould policy it should have taken appropriate steps to resolve the issues. Its stage 1 response was not in line with its damp and mould policy. It was unreasonable and dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
In his escalation request, the resident reiterated his damp and mould concerns. He mentioned that silverfish were everywhere in his flat. Despite buying several products, including sprays and air control devices, the silverfish kept appearing. He believed this was due to the condition of the flat. He received missed appointment cards from the landlord on 10 January 2024 and 16 February 2024 for damp and mould inspections but we have not seen any evidence that he was not notified by the landlord about the visits beforehand. He requested a management move and insisted the landlord should inform him before attending the property.
There is no record that the landlord raised further appointments to complete a damp and mould inspection or treatments after the resident’s escalation request. This was a failing.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and silver fish in the property. The complaints process is an opportunity for landlords to resolve issues for the resident and the landlord did not adequately address this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In conclusion, the landlord did not make sufficient attempt to resolve the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and silverfish in the property. It did not complete assessment or treatments in accordance with its policies, neither did it offer compensation for its failings. Furthermore, the resident informed us that the landlord has not yet resolved the issues with damp, mould and silverfish in the property. He reports that the damp and mould is rapidly spreading throughout his property. There was maladministration in its handling the resident’s reports. As a result, we have ordered compensation of £300 to reflect these shortcomings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has made some attempt to rectify issues but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 7 February 2024, although, this response was 2 days outside its complaints policy time limit of 10 working days at stage 1, this delay was minimal and would not have caused significant detriment to the resident. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 23 March 2024 the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this request, leading him to make another escalation request on 16 April 2024.
Paragraph 6.11 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaint procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 204, this was 35 working days from the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 23 March 2024. This was 15 days longer than the 20-working period stated in its policy. Additionally, it did not request any extension or provide any explanation for this delay. This was a failing.
In his stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request, the resident raised issues around the level of cleanliness of the communal areas outside his flat. He said the communal areas were very dirty and requested the landlord to deep clean them. The landlord did not provide any response to this element of his complaint at stage 1 or stage 2 of its complaints process.
Paragraph 6.7 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate for any decisions. In this case the landlord failed to address this element of the resident’s complaint.
In his escalation requests, the resident asked the landlord for a management move. He also raised new concerns regarding dirty water in the bath, which he believed was a result of issues with the wastepipes. He said wastewater was getting into his bath and had caused him to have health problems.
Paragraph 6.8 of the Code states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately informed the resident that it could not consider the issue regarding the management move request in its complaint response as it had already provided a stage 1 response. However, it should also have logged the issue as a new complaint. It failed to do this.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns about issues with the water and waste pipes. As stated above, it should have logged these additional concerns as a new complaint. It failed to do this.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and the Code in handling the resident’s complaint. There was maladministration in its handling the resident’s complaint. As a result, we have ordered compensation of £200 to reflect the impact of these shortcomings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Special investigation

This Service completed a special investigation into the landlord which we published in July 2023. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes to improve its complaint handling and repairs service. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by this investigation. The landlord has since been working actively with this Service to implement the recommendations. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any further similar orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlords handling of:
1. Requests for balcony window repairs.
2. Reports of leaks in the property.
3. Reports of damp, mould, and silverfish in the property.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Write to the resident with its insurer’s details and an explanation on how the resident can claim for his damaged personal belongings.
3. Inspect the cleanliness of communal areas and share the result of this inspection with us and the resident.
4. Contact the resident concerning his complaint regarding his requests for a management move.
5. Pay the resident the total sum of £1100 in compensation broken downs as:
  1. £300 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of requests for balcony window repairs.
  2. £300 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of reports of leaks in the property.
  3. £300 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of reports of damp, mould and silverfish in the property.
  4. £200 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of his formal complaint.
  5. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Complete the repairs to the balcony window, balcony leaks, inspect and complete damp and mould repairs in the property.
2. Confirm if there are any silver fish in the property and if so, share a detailed plan of action to eliminate them.
3. Confirm to the resident, if and what redecoration it will complete to his walls and ceilings.
4. If it is unable to meet this deadline the landlord must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay.