London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202523925

Decision Case ID 202523925 Decision type Investigation Landlord London & Quadrant Housing Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 26 January 2026 Background The resident lives with her husband and children in a 3-bedroom house, owned by the landlord. She reported that the roof was leaking on 23 September 2024. The landlord booked an initial inspection for 29 January 2025. The resident complained as she said the wait time was unacceptable, particularly given the time of year, and said the problem was affecting her family’s health.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to reports of a roof leak. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Summary of reasons Roof leak The appointment the landlord scheduled to inspect the roof was significantly outside its repair timescales. However, it made reasonable efforts to bring the appointment forward, recognised its failings, and its compensation was fair in the circumstances.

Complaint handling The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident the £260 in compensation which it offered at stage 2 of the complaint process if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is based on it doing so. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 23 September 2024 The resident contacted the landlord to report that the roof was leaking into her daughter’s bedroom. 30 September 2024 The landlord confirmed it had booked an appointment for 29 January 2025 to inspect the roof.

The resident complained that this was too long to wait. She said there was a persistent dripping sound each time it rained, which was affecting her children who have sensory processing disorders. 4 October 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it understood why the resident was unhappy to wait 4 months for the inspection and had asked its roofing team to book an earlier appointment. It said it would contact her when it had an update. 23 October 2024 The resident escalated her complaint as she had not heard from the landlord since its stage 1 response.

She reiterated her children’s health issues and said her 3-year-old had developed a cough since the problem started. 15 November 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it said: Its contractor had confirmed an appointment for 18 November 2024. There was a high demand for its roofing team due to the time of year. It was sorry for the delays and inconvenience, and it offered £260 in compensation. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to us as she said the landlord has still not repaired the roof.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak Finding Reasonable redress What we have not investigated The resident said the issues have affected her children’s health.

It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further. The resident told us there have been further problems since her complaint, and the roof repair is still outstanding. We may not investigate matters which have not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, so this investigation will consider events from 23 September 2024 when the resident reported the leak, to the landlord’s final response of 15 November 2024.

The resident has made a new complaint but is yet to receive a response from the landlord. We have given her advice on the next steps, and if the resident receives a final complaint response which she is unhappy with, she can ask us to consider a new investigation. What we have investigated The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report promptly, but it scheduled its initial inspection for 29 January 2025, which was 4 months later. The landlord’s policy states it will aim to complete ‘routine’ repairs of this nature within an average of 20 calendar days.

Therefore, the timing of the inspection meant it would not have been possible to meet the aims of its policy. The resident complained that the wait time was unacceptable. She added that the dripping sound was affecting her children’s sleep and general wellbeing, as they have neurodivergences including sensory processing disorders. In its stage 1 response of 4 October 2024, the landlord apologised and said it would try to bring the appointment forward. The evidence shows that the complaint officer contacted the landlord’s roofing team as promised and explained the impact on the resident and her children.

The officer also escalated the situation to a manager when the team failed to respond. However, the landlord subsequently did not always reply to the resident’s chaser emails, and, not receiving any updates, she escalated her complaint on 23 October. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 October 2024 to confirm an earlier inspection date of 11 November. However, it cancelled this without notifying the resident, which is likely to have added to her frustration. The landlord called her on 15 November 2024 to say it had rescheduled the inspection for the following week.

It confirmed this in its stage 2 response of the same day, in which it also: Apologised for the delay, its lack of communication, and the failed appointment. Explained that its roofing team were extremely busy due to the change in weather, which had contributed to the delay. Advised the resident to complete a ‘person centred risk assessment’ so it could consider the impact of any vulnerabilities in the future. Offered a total of £260 in compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, and its explanation for the delay was reasonable in the circumstances.

It highlighted the potential household vulnerabilities with its roofing team, and it explained how the resident could log these formally. The evidence shows the landlord completed the inspection on 18 November 2024, meaning it was still outside the timescales in its repairs policy. However, it recognised this and its compensation was in line with our remedies guidance where a failure has adversely affected a resident but had no permanent impact. Therefore, its overall response and offer of redress was reasonable.

Complaint Complaint handling Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy aligns with the Code. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and escalation request in line with these timescales, and line with Code’s other requirements. Learning The landlord provided a timeline of events in its stage 2 response, which included dates that do not correspond with the evidence.

For example, it said it had booked an appointment for August 2024, when in fact this was for November. This did not cause any detriment to the resident as it also confirmed the date over the phone, and minor mistakes in the timeline did not affect the overall response. However, the landlord should make sure its responses are accurate to avoid any confusion. The landlord was alert to the resident’s concerns about her children, and it was appropriate to signpost her to the risk assessment.

It may have been helpful to have recommend this sooner, as the resident had explained the impact of the problem when she first raised her complaint.