A property management company has been ordered to pay £500 compensation to a leaseholder following failures in contractor oversight and complaint handling during a flooring repair dispute, according to a recent ruling by The Property Ombudsman.
The case involved a leaseholder, identified as Sally, who raised concerns about flooring installed by a contractor appointed by property management firm QWZ after a leak caused damage to her apartment. Sally reported that the replacement flooring was defective, poorly finished and mismatched in colour, with exposed nails, uneven surfaces and hazardous materials left in the property.
After repeated attempts to contact QWZ without resolution, Sally arranged and paid for remedial works herself, then sought reimbursement and compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Investigation findings
QWZ stated that the original damage resulted from a leak between flats and that replacement flooring had been arranged through the service charge account. The company maintained the flooring was not defective and argued the issue related only to appearance rather than any need for replacement.
The Property Ombudsman found that once QWZ had chosen to manage the flooring replacement, it was required to exercise reasonable care. Due to lack of records, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that QWZ had properly monitored the contractor’s work, maintained repair records or taken appropriate steps to investigate the leaseholder’s concerns.
The complaint handling process also came under scrutiny. Evidence showed Sally submitted a formal complaint in July 2025 and later escalated it through QWZ’s internal procedure. Although an initial response was issued, the Ombudsman found no evidence that the complaint progressed through required stages or that a final viewpoint letter was provided.
The case highlights broader issues within the property management sector, which continues to face scrutiny over standards. Similar concerns about contractor oversight have emerged in recent months, with the government launching a register to tackle rogue builders in response to widespread complaints about poor workmanship.
Compensation awarded
The Ombudsman gave particular weight to the fact that the issues affected a family home with two young children and remained unresolved for an extended period. Sally’s health and safety concerns were not given serious consideration, nor were steps taken to reassure her about the safety of the flooring.
The complaint was partially upheld regarding communications and handling of the repair, and fully upheld on complaint handling issues. The Property Ombudsman awarded £500 compensation for avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused by QWZ’s service failings over a prolonged period.
The Ombudsman did not award the cost of the flooring Sally paid for, as repair liability between Sally and her landlord was outside the scope of the review.
Implications for property managers
The ruling demonstrates that property management companies face financial and reputational consequences when they fail to maintain adequate records, oversee contractors properly or follow complaint procedures. The case indicates that compliance with basic obligations may not be sufficient if customer service standards are inadequate.
For landlords and property investors, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of selecting property management companies with robust complaint handling procedures and contractor oversight systems. Poor communication and inadequate follow-through can escalate minor issues into formal disputes requiring ombudsman intervention.
All names in the case were changed to maintain anonymity.
