Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202433017)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433017

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a third floor flat with no lift present in the building. The landlord is aware that she has health issues.
  2. In August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that her current property was no longer suitable due to her worsening mobility. She said she was unable to manage the stairs and required rehousing to an accessible property.
  3. As part of its final complaint response in August 2023, the landlord provided guidance to the resident on how she could submit an application for rehousing based on her medical need. She submitted this to the landlord on 12 September 2023. It offered the resident £200 in compensation due to its delayed response.
  4. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2024. She was unhappy that it had refused her application for rehousing. She said the issue had been ongoing since 2022 and for her safety she needed to be moved to an accessible property.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024. It said that it had refused the resident’s previous application as she had not provided enough evidence. It said it could reconsider this if it was re-submitted along with additional supporting evidence. It apologised for a delay in resolving her complaint and offered £20 compensation for this.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 October 2024. She was unhappy at the length of time it had taken to approve her request for rehousing.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 1 November 2024. It said it was waiting for the resident to provide an Occupational Therapist report. It signposted her to several rehousing options available. It apologised for not contacting her via her preferred method of communication and made a revised offer of compensation of £120, which it broke down as:
    1. £50 for distress caused by not adhering to the resident’s preferred method of communication.
    2. £50 for poor complaint handling.
    3. £20 for the delay in responding acknowledged at stage 1.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She is seeking to be permanently rehoused, increased compensation, and for the landlord to issue an apology to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident told us her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of her rehousing request. 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. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The resident’s request to be rehoused to an accessible property is noted. A permanent move to another home is not something that we are able to order a landlord to do. This is because it may affect other applicants who have a higher priority need and would be unfair to those applicants. As such, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, and if its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. The resident raised separate complaints relating to the issue of her rehousing request. Events and evidence relating to both have been considered in this investigation. This is due to both complaints occurring within a reasonable timeframe of the resident approaching this Service. Any events following the landlord’s stage 2 response on 1 November 2024 are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
  4. The resident believed that the landlord’s decision was discriminatory. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, this Service can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Human Rights Act, or the Equality Act, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

Rehousing request

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that to add a resident to its rehousing list, it must meet 1 or more of specific criteria. These include if a resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home. Specified managers will require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision.
  2. The policy states that the landlord will identify residents that are vulnerable. It will take additional measures to support these residents with rehousing applications.
  3. After the resident’s initial contact in August 2022 requesting rehousing due to health issues, the landlord advised that it did not have an active rehousing list. It said due to unmanageable demand it was unable to facilitate priority rehousing needs in a timely fashion. Due to this it could not accept new referrals. It was appropriate that it gave her advice on alternative ways to seek rehousing including mutual exchange and how to register with the local authority.
  4. Unhappy with this response, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. Despite it logging this request on 17 August 2022, it did not issue a stage 2 response until 3 August 2023. We have not seen any evidence to show that the resident made contact with the landlord to chase a response to her escalation request during this time. It was appropriate that in its response it apologised for this delay. It also offered £200 in compensation to the resident for this.
  5. The landlord’s allocations policy states that it began assessing new housing transfer applications via a priority needs panel on 25 May 2023. Thus, although its stage 2 response on 3 August 2023, was significantly outside of the 20-working day timescale set out in our Complaint Handling Code, this did not significantly affect the outcome for the resident. A response issued in a timelier fashion would have to take into consideration the fact that the rehousing list remained closed. We have considered this, along with levels of redress set out in our remedies guidance when assessing the landlord’s response. Based on this, it is our opinion that its offer at this time, of £200 in compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In its first stage 2 response of 3 August 2023, the landlord said it would consider rehousing applications based on medical need. The evidence shows it took reasonable action by, advising the resident of the process to submit an application, forwarding her the relevant forms and chasing the return of these along with medical evidence.
  7. The resident submitted a medical assessment form along with several forms of evidence supporting her need for rehousing to the landlord on 5 September 2023. It forwarded this to its independent medical advisor for consideration on 6 October 2023.
  8. On 30 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had refused her rehousing application. It said that while it recognised her medical need, the severity of her needs did not meet its threshold for priority. It set out its criteria for awarding medical priority. It said if further evidence was provided demonstrating that her current home was a risk, its independent medical advisor would review the case. 
  9. Although we recognise the resident’s disappointment with this decision, the landlord acted in line with its allocations policy. Its response explained that due to a shortage of available homes, the threshold to be awarded priority was high. It was reasonable that it gave advice on suitable evidence that the resident could obtain for it to reconsider its decision. It also appropriately signposted the resident towards options to seek a mutual exchange.
  10. On 15 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its decision to refuse her rehousing application. She relayed the difficulties she was facing navigating the stairs to her property with her health conditions. In her correspondence she made distressing statements concerning the safety of herself as well as other neighbours within the block she resided in.
  11. In its stage 1 response to the second complaint, the landlord explained that it contacted the emergency services to safeguard the resident as a result of this. Although this action was appropriate, we have not seen evidence that it took any further measures to assist the resident at this time. Given she had expressed how she was vulnerable and distressed due to the situation, it would have been reasonable for it to consider this. Actions such as conducting a risk assessment, making support referrals or signposting the resident to alternative agencies, would have demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to assisting her. Its failure to demonstrate it had carried out any of these actions was a shortcoming. 
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 response also set out its process for considering applications for rehousing based on medical need. It said the resident’s previous application was refused as it did not include a report from an Occupational Therapist. It was reasonable that it signposted the resident on how to obtain the report and said it would reconsider her application once it received this. Its offer of further support by staff to help resubmit the medical assessment was in line with its policy and demonstrated a recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  13. On 19 June 2024 the landlord approved the resident’s rehousing application. It said it would make 1 offer of accommodation of a one-bedroom level access property. This would be ground floor accommodation where a lift was not present or up to third floor with a lift. It said it prioritised cases based on approval date, and reviewed them on a 6–monthly basis. Although we have not seen the correspondence leading to this approval, it is reasonable to assume that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration, based on the property type it has deemed appropriate.
  14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2024. She said that she was unhappy that she had not received an alternative offer of accommodation. She set out that she believed the landlord’s failure to rehouse her was a breach of her human rights. She said the landlord had sent her an e mail when she had requested all communication via post and thus believed it was breaching the Equality Act.
  15. It was appropriate that the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as a result of this communication. In its subsequent response it recognised that it had not adhered to the reasonable adjustments set out around the resident’s communication preference. It apologised for this and offered the resident £100 in compensation. Its apology and offer of compensation demonstrated its consideration of its obligations under the Equality Act, cited by the resident. However, there were further shortcomings in its responses.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 response contained inaccuracies in that it made no mention of the resident being accepted onto its rehousing list and therefore offered no updates or timescales involved in this. This indicates a lack of corroboration between the landlord’s teams dealing with complaints and the issue of rehousing. It also did not address all points she had made in her complaint escalation. It stated that it was waiting for the resident to provide an Occupational Therapist report, which given the fact that it had already approved her application, did not seem to be relevant. It also did not respond to her specific assertions concerning its obligations under the Human Rights Act with respect to her housing conditions. It failed to respond or offer an explanation to her concerns that it had discriminated against her. Its failure to address the issues raised and offer a considered explanation was inappropriate.
  17. It was positive that the landlord agreed to make a direct offer of accommodation and gave general housing options advice in all communication with the resident. She had demonstrated that she was clearly distressed by its process and as stated above, the evidence does not indicate that it took the time to address this. In light of this we have made appropriate orders below.
  18. We welcome the fact that the landlord made the resident an offer of alternative accommodation after its final response. However, the evidence indicates that features of the property offered are not in line with the recommendations set out by its independent medical advisor. The resident has refused the offer, as amongst other issues the property is not level access throughout. The landlord is currently reviewing this refusal as set out in its policy. Due to this we have made a related recommendation below.
  19. We find that the landlord’s offer of £20 for the delay to dealing with her second stage 1 complaint was appropriate redress in the circumstances, thus, have not included this in our orders below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Contact the resident to provide its decision on whether it will make an alternative offer of accommodation via its rehousing list.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation (this includes the £100 previously offered in its second complaint response if not already paid) in respect of its failures in handling the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds.
    3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord ensures that any direct offer of accommodation made to the resident is in line with the recommendations set out in its approval letter. These are summarised in paragraph 26 of this report.
  2. We recommend that the landlord considers implementing a process to provide relevant updates to those residents on its rehousing list. This is to ensure that resident’s expectations are adequately managed.