London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202318131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318131

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 March 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:
1. Arrears of rent.
2. The resident’s application for a mutual exchange.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a sole assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, that began in August 2021. She lives alone. She lives with mobility needs and breathing difficulties that arose from COVID-19.
The landlord’s account of rent due showed that arrears built gradually in the early part of the tenancy. There was regular contact between the landlord and resident about payments due. The resident disputed its calculations. It explained why it considered that money was owed. In 2022 the resident increased her monthly rent payment and began making regular payments towards the arrears. Over this time, she made the landlord aware of her financial difficulties and reminded it of her vulnerability and her benefit being subject to the under-occupancy charge. On 30 March 2023 the landlord called her to discuss payment of rent. Later that day, it issued her with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).
The resident applied to the landlord in September 2022 for permission to carry out a mutual exchange (assignment of tenancy). She explained that this was to allow her to live in level access accommodation suitable for her mobility difficulties. She described struggling with the stairs in her home. The landlord told the resident about how rent arrears may affect its decision. It later completed checks as part of its assessment. The resident told this Service that the landlord gave permission in early 2023, however that her exchange partner had withdrawn by this point due to the time taken for a decision.
On 9 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about how it handled recovery of rent due. She described concerns about its content, tone and manner during its call to her on 30 March 2023, chasing a payment that she said it knew was due that day. She expressed concerns about its issue of NOSP and handling of a £20 payment made in January.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that there may have been ‘a little confusion’ in the call of 30 March 2023 regarding payments and apologised for how she felt about its call. It stated that the NOSP was issued in line with its procedure, as rent was due in advance and there were arrears of over 4 weeks. It explained how it had handled the £20 payment made in January 2023.
The resident requested that her concerns be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure the same date. She set out concerns about:
1. The landlord’s decision to issue a NOSP despite its knowledge of her circumstances, its previous handling and her payment pattern.
2. The tone used by the call hander on 30 March 2023.
3. The level of arrears cited by the landlord.
4. How the landlord handled her January 2023 payment.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler replied to the resident on 24 April 2023. It gave an explanation for its call and NOSP with reference to its procedure. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2023, raising dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response and failure to consider her complaint at stage 2. She described wider issues with the landlord’s handling of rent recovery and accounting, listing multiple examples of transactions that she considered fraudulent. She also raised concern that it had delayed processing her application for a mutual exchange, leading to the exchange falling through.
On 30 May 2023 the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident, titled a ‘stage one’ decision. The landlord said that it was not responsible for any service failings. It acknowledged that its call handler on 30 May 2023 could have clarified their understanding of payments and apologised for how the resident felt. It found that it issued the NOSP in line with its procedure. After its assessment of the rent account from tenancy start, it said it had found no evidence of the resident’s concerns about transactions.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation. She told us that she was seeking a sincere apology from the landlord, its admission of theft and a refund. She wanted to gain access to its mutual exchange process so that she could find accommodation meeting her health needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2023. This investigation does not consider its handling of her concerns or any events or contact after this date.

The landlord’s handling of arrears of rent

This Service requested records from the landlord relevant to our assessment of how it handled the arrears of rent, including those of its contact with the resident about her rent account. The landlord’s records did not reflect the contact it had with her. Multiple phone conversations had no corresponding record. It is evident from the associated records that further contact took place, including in September 2022. A call took place on 30 March 2023. This was a key event in the landlord’s handling of arrears and the facts of the call highly relevant to its decision to serve a NOSP. The landlord retained no record of this conversation. It is a serious failure of appropriate record keeping practice that it failed to record contact with a resident against whom it warned of eviction. Its record keeping was inconsistent with the assurance in its income collection policy that it would accurately record all such communications. There was a consistent failure by the landlord to maintain appropriate records.
The resident’s correspondence to the landlord referred to her ill heath, adverse impact to her mental health, and financial difficulty. The landlord was aware from her contact that she experienced illness affecting her mobility and day to day life. It was aware that she was on a low, benefit dependent income and subject to the under-occupancy charge. The landlord was required in line with its Equality Act 2010 obligations to have regard to any disabilities and provide its service in a way mindful of their effects, making any reasonable adjustments. Its income collection policy required it to provide support to ‘vulnerable residents who are experiencing difficulties in meeting their rent payments’. For example, by referral to its tenancy sustainment teams.
While some of the landlord’s correspondence to the resident offered referral for financial support, there was an absence of evidence that it engaged with her particular challenges to understand and consider her specific needs. Its offers were made largely within its standard template letters.
The resident raised concern to the landlord during her complaint of multiple discrepancies in its rent accounting. The landlord responded that it had assessed the full account history and found no such evidence. Its engagement with this element of her concerns was insufficient. Its brief conclusion did not demonstrate reasonable exploration of the particular transactions listed by the resident. There is no record of the landlord’s assessment of the rent account to evidence its internal review as part of its investigation. In the absence of any record and noting its brief response, this Service cannot be satisfied that it completed a reasonable level of detailed review.
We reviewed the resident’s rent account, including how the landlord recorded the particular transactions raised by the resident’s complaint. We found no evidence that the landlord mishandled her payments. While the landlord’s finding of no discrepancies was reasonable, it did not provide any reasoning. The resident considered the landlord to be responsible for serious mishandling of her payments. Its complaint response was an opportunity to seek to restore her confidence in its rent management and support her understanding of the account statement. Our review found that the resident counted returned direct debits as credits, did not calculate the rent in advance and for some periods, paid at the lower prior annual rent and on a 4 weekly calculation. There was a level of misunderstanding about the account statement that drove this element of her complaint. The landlord failed to engage reasonably with her concerns to correct any misunderstanding. By failing to provide any reasons for reaching its conclusion, it missed an opportunity to restore trust and understanding.
The sole transaction concern specifically addressed by the landlord was the £20 paid by the resident in January 2023. While the landlord provided an initial reasonable explanation about how it handled the payment, it failed to engage with her escalated concerns or related queries. The resident raised concern about how the date of payment was determined on its account. This was highly relevant in the context of her being warned about missing payments and the risk of enforcement action. She requested transparency of its relevant holding account process. The landlord failed to respond to these points.
This Service requested similar information from the landlord. It failed to provide any record of its handling of the £20 prior to its receipt into the rent account. It gave no information of any existing process to support its handling of customers’ unidentified funds. In the resident’s circumstances, it was important that the actual date of payment was accurately recorded. She wanted to show her compliance with a payment agreement. There is no evidence that the landlord had appropriate mitigations in place to enable it to record or reflect that any lag caused by the holding account was not a delay of the paying customer. For example, a corresponding note on its rent management system to reflect the actual date of payment or an adjusted date of payment.
The resident complained that 2 payments had been taken by the landlord, using her card details without her consent while she was hospitalised. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed its records of these specific transactions as part of its investigation. The landlord did not respond to her concerns directly. The only record of these payments is the rent account; there is no record showing the circumstances surrounding these payments to enable this Service to assess this issue more fully. This was a failure by the landlord to keep appropriate records and respond to the resident’s concerns.
The trigger events for the resident’s complaint and the subjects of her original complaint were those of 30 March 2023. On this date, she spoke with the landlord by phone and it issued her with a NOSP. The resident complained about how the landlord handled the call, including its consideration of her anticipated payments and its call handler’s manner and tone.
We noted above that the landlord failed to keep any appropriate record of the call. The landlord’s complaint responses said that it had listened to a recording. Its investigation note was very brief and does not offer a reasonable level of understanding of the content of the call. Its investigation record noted that the resident told the call handler that her March 2023 rent payment was due to be made that same day along with a payment towards her arrears. The landlord’s understanding of any upcoming payments was a highly relevant fact for its assessment of its decision to serve a NOSP.
Ahead of the call the resident had established a pattern of paying her rent monthly, at the very end of the month. The landlord was aware that this was timed to coincide with her receipt of benefits. It would reasonably have anticipated that she would pay the rent that accrued in March in line with her pattern of payment by the end of 31 March 2023. The resident had made a payment, albeit small, towards her rent arrears in January 2023. The level of arrears at the end of February 2023, when the resident made her monthly payment, were £178.24. These were low against a then weekly rent of £155.65. The resident had since Autumn 2022 kept her low arrears either stable or reduced these gradually at the end of each month.
From the landlord’s brief record of listening to the call of 30 March 2023, it called the resident and chased her March payment. There is no evidence on its records showing that it considered ahead of the call its awareness of her pattern of payment. The decision to chase payment on this date was premature and unreasonable considering this awareness and what it knew of her financial circumstances. The call caused the resident distress. The landlord’s record noted that the resident had immediately ‘taken offence’. While the landlord’s response apologised for the resident’s feelings, it failed to identify any failing from its decision to chase a payment that it could reasonably anticipate would be received that day or the next.
The landlord issued a NOSP to the resident on the same day and subsequent to its call. The landlord relied on rent arrears grounds. The landlord’s decision to take the first legal step to seek the resident’s eviction from her home was unreasonable. The resident had advised the landlord that she was due to pay her monthly accrued rent in line with her payment pattern and an additional £20 payment towards the arrears by the end of March 2023. The landlord would reasonably be aware that this would bring the overall arrears down to below 1 week’s rent. The landlord also knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities and her low level benefit income, limited by the under occupancy charge. In all of these circumstances, service of a NOSP was not only heavy handed but without any reasonable justification.
The landlord’s income collection policy said that it will take a sensitive and case by case approach to recovering arrears of rent and make adjustments to its processes where appropriate. It also said that eviction would ‘always be as a last resort’. The landlord’s handling of the arears on 30 March 2023 was inconsistent with the approach required by its policy. There is no evidence that it considered what it knew of the resident’s case to ensure a tailored approach mindful of her pattern of payment, payments promised, and financial circumstances. There is no evidence that it considered any alternatives to eviction, for example waiting some hours to allow her payment to arrive. There is no evidence that it considered the reasonableness or proportionality of eviction in view of the low level of arrears and her personal circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint investigation failed to identify this significant failing. It considered the appropriateness of its NOSP through the sole lens of its policy criteria for serving notice. It failed to consider whether the facts of the resident’s case made strict application of the policy unreasonable. It failed to identify other highly relevant factors to assess its decision making and the other provisions of its policy that allowed for the exercise of discretion.
The landlord’s repeat and strict reliance on its 4 weeks’ arrears to serve notice policy demonstrated a lack of consideration for the ability of a benefit-dependent customer to pay their rent in advance. It used arrears figures on warnings of eviction and on the notice at points in the month when was it was aware that the level would decrease to a significantly lower figure once she had paid from her benefits. It failed repeatedly to show exercise of the discretion noted within its policy.
The above noted landlord’s failings were in their totality serious. The landlord’s failure of decision-making in its service of a NOSP was also by itself very serious. It failed to acknowledge these failings or provide any form of redress for the detriment that these caused the resident. This detriment was significant. She experienced a very high level of distress and upset from being unreasonably chased for payment and served with a legal notice of eviction. The landlord is responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of arrears of rent.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay compensation to the resident of £1,200 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she likely experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial. This Service considered that the level of distress was aggravated by the resident’s vulnerabilities, known to the landlord during the course of its failings.
We have also made a number of orders requiring the landlord’s review of its policy and practice relevant to the failings identified in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange

We requested records relevant to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled her application for a mutual exchange. Those received did not provide a full record of its contact with the resident, how it considered her application, or the actions it took. The limited copy correspondence referred to phone contact that took place between the landlord and resident discussing her application, for example on 30 September 2022. However, the landlord produced no records of any calls. The resident advised this Service that the landlord reached a decision about her application in early 2023. We received no records of any decision on the application or response to the resident’s chaser email in late 2022. These are records that should reasonably have been retained and easily accessible. This is a failure by the landlord of appropriate record keeping.
The lack of relevant records affected the ability of this Service to thoroughly assess this element of the resident’s complaint. She complained of delay to progressing her application. We have no record of how the landlord progressed the application apart from 1 email sent in September 2022. We have been unable to ascertain when it reached or communicated a decision.
The landlord’s record keeping failing is of particular concern considering that the application was made for health reasons. The resident’s application explained to the landlord that she was having difficulty using stairs due to her physical health. There is no evidence to show what, if any, regard it had to her vulnerabilities or disability in line with its equality obligations and vulnerable residents policy.
The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure required that it processed the resident’s application in 42 days. The landlord received her application on 28 September 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord processed the application within its guideline timescale and provided a decision to the resident as required. The resident chased the outcome of her application at the end of 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord returned to her in a timely manner, engaged with her concerns or replied at all.
The landlord’s complaint response of 30 May 2023 failed to respond to the concerns raised by the resident about how it progressed her application. It did not consider whether it had subjected the resident to unreasonable delay outside of its procedure timescale. Its failure to provide answers and show listening caused the resident distress and she was put to time and trouble by escalating her concerns.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange. It is ordered to apologise for its failings and to pay compensation to the resident of £150. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance when a landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right, however the impact to the resident was not permanent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s response at stage 2 of its complaint process was delayed. This was because it failed to appropriately deal with the resident’s request of 17 April 2023 for her complaint to be escalated. In line with the provisions of the landlord’s complaint policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it was required to progress her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure for review by a different person. Instead, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler responded to her complaint by email of 24 April 2023 in what was labelled a ‘further response’. The landlord then closed the resident’s complaint.
This response did not meet the conditions required of a stage 2 response by the landlord’s procedure or the Code. It was inappropriate that the stage 1 complaint handler responded in this way. There was a clear risk of actual or perceived bias by the same person reviewing and responding to concerns about their investigation and decision making. It was particularly important that it adopted a fair process considering the nature of the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to follow an appropriate and fair procedure. This caused the resident to incur further time and trouble. She had to repeat her request for escalation on 9 May 2023 before it was logged by the landlord.
The landlord failed to log her correspondence as a stage 2 request, rather as a fresh complaint. Although the resident raised some additional issues, the main substance of her concerns was the dissatisfaction set out in her original complaint.
The landlord’s response of 30 May 2023, dated 1 June 2023, was in substance a final response. It told the resident to refer her complaint to this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response, rather than escalate her concerns to stage 2. A different person reviewed the concerns outlined by her original complaint. The landlord’s labelling of the letter as stage 1 created confusion, further eroding the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint handling, acknowledge these to the resident or offer any form of redress. It did not, for example, offer an apology for its delay to respond at stage 2 or show consideration of any discretionary compensation as guided by its compensation policy. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise for its failings and to pay compensation to the resident of £120. This sum is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this when a landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. When assessing the appropriate award, we considered that the level of delay at stage 2 was relatively short. However, considerable distress was caused to the resident by the landlord’s initial unfair handling of her stage 2 request that further damaged her confidence and trust.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of arrears of rent.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident from its chief executive for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,470. This is comprised of:
  1. £1,200 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of handling of arrears of rent
  2. £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her application for a mutual exchange.
  3. £120 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her complaint.

This is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action/s it should take to prevent reoccurrence. This must include but not be limited to a review of:
1. How it ensures and records the making of proportionate decisions to issue NOSPs.
2. Whether it has sufficient internal procedures to accurately record receipt of payments that are initially unidentified.
3. The equality impact assessment for its income collection policy.

The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman and to the landlord’s governing body.