London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202323748)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323748

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Decision to relet a property which it had marked for disposal.
2. Decision to dispose of its housing stock.
3. Response to the resident’s request to be added to its rehousing list.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the property, which was a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a mental health condition which the landlord is aware of.
Around May 2023 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding its management of her anti-social behaviour case (ASB) and her need to move to another property because of this. The landlord informed the MP that it had investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and concluded that it did not constitute ASB. It also said it had received many requests from the resident concerning moving to other properties. It had informed her that it had temporarily paused its rehousing list and it only gave priority to those with medical need or where there was a threat to life. It added the resident did not qualify for either.
In June 2023 the resident asked the landlord if she could downsize to a 1-bedroom property, owned by the landlord, on the same street. For the purpose of this report, we shall refer to this property as property A. She said this would resolve the ASB issues she had with a neighbour. The landlord informed her this was not possible because it returned its empty properties to the local council for nomination from the waiting list. Any properties which it kept back were for residents who it had assessed as needing emergency relocation. It said the resident did not fit those criteria at that time. It referred her to other housing options including mutual exchange and applying to the local council.
On 9 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord because she was unhappy with its decision. She said she had an urgent medical need, which the landlord was aware of and she had been on the waiting list for 8 years.
On 18 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it understood the resident needed to downsize due to health reasons and she needed to be re-housed close to her support network. The landlord explained that it could not guarantee it could rehouse the resident in the same block, scheme or area but it would try to assist her to locate to a property based on her requirements. The landlord said it was accepting applications from residents wishing to downsize onto its rehousing list on the understanding they accept a number of criteria, one of which was to have at least 3 boroughs where they would be willing to move to.
The landlord enclosed a medical application form and provided all the necessary advice and information the resident would need to complete this. It also set out the medical assessment process. The landlord said it had previously provided this information to the resident on 10 August 2023 but the resident had not returned the form. On that basis it said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint because it had not had the opportunity to assess her application.
The resident remained dissatisfied and on 22 September 2023 she escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s response had repeated the information it had given previously.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 October 2023. The landlord confirmed it had sent the medical application form to her at stage 1. It recommended the resident explore all options available for moving which included mutual exchange and registering with the local council to go on their downsizing waiting list. It provided the websites the resident could use for a mutual exchange and a link to the local council website. Regarding property A, it said this property was subject for disposal due to the cost involved in bringing it back to a lettable standard. It added it was no longer available for relet.
The resident has informed us she was unhappy that the landlord had refused to allow her to move into property A. She said the landlord had given her different reasons why it could not move her to the property, which had been confusing.

Events post ICP

We are aware the landlord referred property A to the local council for letting at the beginning of 2024. The resident bid for the property and was successful, moving in around February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

We are not free to investigate every complaint brought to us. The rules by which we operate, called the Scheme, set out what we can and cannot investigate. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

The resident has informed the landlord that she was not happy that it changed its decision to relet property A without telling her. The resident has also raised concerns the landlord was selling off its housing stock. She was concerned how this may impact upon local people in need of housing.
We can see that the landlord changed its decision to relet property A around the beginning of 2024. The resident raised her concerns about the landlord disposing of its housing stock in November 2023. Both issues were therefore not part of the resident’s original complaint and have not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, we will not investigate these issues.

The resident’s request to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list

The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy says if a resident contacts the landlord for advice on moving it will assess their circumstances and give them options which are appropriate for their needs. This may include mutual exchange and applying to the local council’s housing register.
The policy also states, where there is a need to directly rehouse existing residents it will match the resident to a property through its rehousing list. It will add a resident to its rehousing list providing their circumstances meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The resident is at immediate risk by remaining in their home due to high level of ASB where there are no other solutions to reduce the risk.
2. The resident has a significant medical need which means their condition carries an immediate risk to life by remaining in their home or if they cannot access parts of their home due to the medical condition, or their home cannot be adapted.
3. The resident wished to downsize to a smaller property. Downsizers would need to provide 3 boroughs of choice.
The policy goes on to outline that the landlord operates 2 priority needs panels, one for temporary moves and the other for permanent moves. It is the panels’ role to decide whether to add applicants to the rehousing list. When a resident makes a request for rehousing under medical needs, the landlord will include recommendations from an independent medical advisor.
The policy states housing management and the lettings team will approve downsizers and the priority needs panel do not need to assess these applicants.
It is important to set out that there is a shortage of social housing across England. Landlords should manage their stock effectively and apply their policies and procedures when considering applications.
We have not seen the resident’s emails to the landlord or the landlord’s responses, referred to in its letter to the resident’s MP in May 2023. The landlord has informed us that it temporarily paused its rehousing list in February 2022, we are not aware when it reopened it. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP was reasonable or not.
In June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to downsize her to property A which was in the same locality. The resident said she wanted to downsize and she felt a move would resolve the ASB issues. She said property A had just become empty and it would be suitable for her because it was a 1-bedroom property, close to her family and friends whom she relied on for support.
The landlord explained that it returned its empty properties to the local council for nomination from their waiting list. Although we have not seen the landlord’s nomination agreement for this specific council, it is normal practice for landlords to return their empty properties for letting by the local council. Individual nomination agreements would dictate the percentage of properties the landlord would keep.
On 13 July 2023 the resident asked her MP to speak to her landlord about her rehousing situation. She said, following contact from the landlord, she had contacted the local council explaining she would like to downsize to property A. The council told her the landlord chose which properties it sent to the council for letting. The resident said the landlord and the local council were telling her different things, which was confusing her.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained it had a nomination agreement with the local council. It said it only held back a small number of properties which it allocated to residents who were on its internal rehousing list. It said the resident’s case did not meet the criteria of the landlord’s priority needs panel in terms of rehousing for it to be able to allocate one of those properties. It provided alternative housing options including mutual exchange, applying to the local council housing register, private rented, and over 55s accommodation.
On 9 August 2023 the resident submitted her complaint. The landlord responded on 10 August 2023 setting out its obligations in terms of percentages of properties it returned to the local council. It explained it was accepting residents wishing to downsize onto its rehousing list on the understanding that they accept the following conditions:
1. was open to any type of property
2. have at least 3 boroughs they would be willing to move to
3. make the landlord aware of any medical issues that may affect a move
4. are aware the landlord could not provide timescales for moving, which would be upwards of 24 months
5. would be given a one-off offer only, although there was a right to appeal
6. registered to downsize with the local council
7. were actively looking for a mutual exchange
The resident informed the landlord that she could not move anywhere else, other than property A. She said this was because it was situated close to her support network and she could not move out of the area because it would impact on her mental health. We have no reason to disbelieve the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be added to its rehousing list due to downsizing was appropriate because it was consistent with its policy.
In her complaint the resident referred to having an urgent medical need which she said the landlord had evidence of. The landlord responded on 10 August 2023 and explained the assessment process for residents who wished to be added to the rehousing list for medical needs. It sent her a medical assessment form and said it would pass this to the independent medical advisor for consideration when the resident returned the form. On 12 September 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had received her medical form and supporting letters which it had sent to its independent medical advisor for consideration.
However, we have seen an email from the resident to the landlord dated 8 November 2023 in which she said she had been informing the landlord since January 2023 that the noise from the neighbour was affecting her mental health. We have also seen a letter from the resident’s GP dated 23 March 2023 which referred to the neighbour’s noise affecting the resident’s mental health. This shows that the landlord was aware of this before the resident raised her complaint. While it was right that the landlord sent the medical assessment form to the resident in August 2023, there was a failure because it should have sent this to her sooner. This was a failure and a missed opportunity by the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2023 the landlord said that it had not received the resident’s medical application form and it could not uphold the resident’s complaint because of this. However, we can see the landlord had confirmed receipt of the form on 12 September 2023 and the resident was waiting for the outcome. The landlord is reminded to keep more detailed case notes to show what action it has taken. The failure to create and record information accurately can contribute to poor communication leading to the resident becoming frustrated with the landlord’s actions, which is what happened in this case.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the independent medical advisor had not approved her request. It said it understood there was a medical need in the household but it did not meet the criteria set out in its policy.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that property A would not be relet and it provided the reason for this. We can see how the resident may have been confused by the different reasons the landlord gave her in relation to property A. For example in June 2023 it said it was handing the property to the local council for allocation. This changed in September 2023 when it said it was disposing of the property. However, there is no evidence to show that the reasons given were not correct at that specific time. The landlord explained in the stage 2 response that the property had been empty for some time and several teams were involved in it reaching its final decision to dispose of the property. While the resident might not have agreed with this decision, this was a decision the landlord was entitled to make.
In summary, the resident had asked the landlord to add her to its rehousing list for both downsizing and medical reasons. In relation to downsizing, the landlord explained the criteria for this, one of which was that the resident would need to provide 3 boroughs where she would be prepared to move to. The resident refused to agree to this, stating that she would only move to property A. On this basis the landlord said it could not add her to its rehousing list and provided her with other housing options. This was appropriate because it was consistent with its policy.
She also asked the landlord to add her to its rehousing list on medical grounds. While it was reasonable that the landlord considered the resident’s request in September 2023, it is our conclusion that there was service failure because the landlord should have followed its policy and considered the resident’s request sooner. This is because it was aware of the resident’s concerns about her mental health from at least March 2023, which is when her GP wrote to the landlord. It was also aware that she had been wanting to move for some time. Therefore it should have either sent her the medical assessment form when she first enquired about property A in June 2023 or when its rehousing list reopened, whichever was sooner. While the landlord might not have reached a different outcome, it would have provided the resident with an answer to her request sooner and she may not have felt it necessary to raise her complaint.
Our remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be added to the rehousing list.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her initial complaint on 9 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 20 working days later, which was outside its 5 working day timeframe. This was also a breach of paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022).
On 18 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response which was in line with its complaint policy timeframe. However, the response contained incorrect information. For example it said the resident had not returned the medical assessment form when the landlord had received this on 12 September 2023. This would indicate the landlord had not considered all information relating to the resident’s case. This was a breach of paragraph 4.7 of the Code which says that landlords must consider all information and evidence carefully.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint procedure meant that it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
Due to the delay and the incorrect information in its stage 1 response, there was service failure. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. To reflect this we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to relet a property which it had marked for disposal is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to dispose of its housing stock is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be added to the rehousing list.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident compensation of £200 which is comprised of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be added to the rehousing list
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.