London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202427015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427015

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the suitability of the property and request for a direct transfer on medical grounds.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Reports of being unable to open the windows.
4. Reports of drainage issues in the wet room.
5. Queries about his rent.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the level of rent

Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident queried with the landlord whether his rent level was in line with his neighbours. This was separate to his other complaints, and was done just before the landlord sent its final complaint response. The landlord explained that it would separately contact him about it, which it subsequently did.
If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his query he should raise a complaint with the landlord. Once the landlord has sent its responses to his complaint, he has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate the matter. However, it should be made clear that the Ombudsman cannot make decisions about whether rent levels are reasonable or too high.
Accordingly, in line with paragraph 42.a, this issue will not be investigated here.

Background

The resident’s assured tenancy with the landlord began at the end of 2022. The property is a first floor flat. The building has a communal spiral staircase. The resident is asthmatic and is registered blind.
During February to July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the building’s spiral stairs, and the size of his property, were unsuitable for his needs. He also reported that water was pooling in his wet room, and instances of ASB. The landlord attended to wet room repairs. It opened, and later closed, ASB cases. It assisted the resident to apply for a direct transfer on medical grounds.
The landlord declined the resident’s direct transfer application in August 2023. It said that he should seek an occupational therapist (OT) report before applying again. An OT report was completed in December 2023. It noted the resident’s concerns with his use of the stairs, particularly in the event of an emergency evacuation. It further noted his concerns with the behaviour and noise of other residents, and his inability to open his “very heavy” windows. It confirmed that his property could not be adapted to meet his needs.
The resident complained to the landlord about all these points on 24 April 2024. He said that he deserved fair treatment and referred to the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s stage 1 response the following month explained its criteria for medical direct transfers and arranged to visit him. The resident continued to express his unhappiness with all aspects of his complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 4 November 2024, said that its forthcoming assessment of his transfer application would consider the OT report. It offered £120 compensation for its complaint delays.
In February 2025 the Service highlighted to the landlord that it had only responded to one aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord completed a personal emergency evacuation plan with the resident. It sent him a revised stage 2 response on 12 March 2025.
The landlord’s revised response apologised that it had not previously addressed his full complaint, and that his further transfer application had not yet been considered. It committed to do so. It said that it would inspect his windows as soon as possible. It arranged works for the following week to address his recent wet room (and kitchen) drainage issues. It stated its ongoing efforts to support him with ASB matters. It offered him £2720 compensation for his distress, inconvenience, time, and effort, and for its “poor complaint handling”.
The landlord attended the resident’s drainage repair on 17 March 2025, but did not gain access. On 30 April 2025 it told the resident that his direct transfer had been approved. The same day the resident told us that he had not heard anything further about his windows. In June 2025 the landlord told us that it had completed separate drainage works and had booked a window inspection for July 2025.
The resident asked the landlord to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. He stated that, while he appreciated its “generous” compensation, he remained concerned that the delays resolving his transfer application meant that he (and his recent wife who is also blind) may wait longer for a suitable property than he would have otherwise. HHHe further stated that, while he remained in the property, he wanted the ongoing window and drainage issues resolved.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about the suitability of the property and request for a direct transfer

The resident’s property concerns included his use of the communal stairs, particularly when they were wet as was noted they often were. In late 2023 the council’s visual impairment officer expressed concerns to the landlord regarding the resident’s use of the stairs in the event of an emergency. The resident also referred on various occasions to his rights under the Equality Act, including in his April 2024 complaint.
The Ombudsman’s approach to inequality is set out in our Equality and Human Rights Guidance. Whilst we cannot make a finding that the Equality Act 2010 was breached, we can consider if a landlord had due regard to its obligations under the Act.
In this case, the landlord was aware that the resident had a disability within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It was also aware of his associated concerns, including his ability to evacuate the building. It should therefore have given timely consideration as to whether its processes, or lack thereof, could put people with the resident’s disability at a disadvantage or at risk.
There is no evidence that the landlord fully considered this until it completed the resident’s personal evacuation plan in February 2025, following contact from the Service. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that regarding this matter, there is no evidence the landlord gave appropriate consideration to its obligations to the resident in light of his specific circumstances. However, as explained above, that does not mean the landlord breached its duties under the Act, which only a court would be able to decide.
At the time of his first application the resident was waiting for his OT assessment (from the Council). The evidence shows that that his housing officer told him he could make an application without the assessment. He proceeded to do so, and it was declined. The landlord attributed the rejection to the absence of the OT assessment. The landlord’s final complaint response in March 2025, accepted the failings that had led to the rejection of the resident’s medical transfer application in August 2023.
The OT completed their assessment in December 2023. The evidence does not show when the resident or landlord received it, but the landlord thanked the resident on 4 November 2024 for providing it a copy. Its March 2025 response apologised that his further transfer application “is not being considered until now”. It appropriately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the overall matter had caused to the resident, for which it offered him compensation.
The landlord explained that its compensation was based on a monthly amount from December 2023 (when the OT report was completed) to April 2025 (when it subsequently approved the resident’s transfer). This period included the delay in completing his evacuation plan. The time taken to complete his OT assessment was outside of the landlord’s control, and the evidence shows the landlord may not have received it until late 2024.
Basing its compensation on the period from December 2023, meant the landlord was, essentially, compensating the resident for the incorrect information about his first application, its failure to robustly consider his evacuation plan needs, and the delay assessing his second application between November 2024 and April 2025. The period was therefore reasonable.
The landlord offered the resident £2560 compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. It is not apparent how this was divided between the various elements of his complaint.
Nonetheless, the landlord’s overall compensation offer was in line with the recommended range of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the Guidance), where its failings had a “severe long-term impact” and “accumulated over a significant period of time”. It was therefore a proportionate and reasonable remedy.
The resident has explained in his complaint to us that he is concerned the delays with his application may impact the length of time he waits for a property. The evidence shows he was already waiting for his OT assessment at the time of his 2023 application. Accordingly, there was no delay caused by the landlord’s incorrect advice to submit the application without it. The OT assessment is dated December 2023, but there is no clear evidence showing it when it was given to the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged delays prior to its approval in April 2025.
It is not apparent what specific impact the delay with the second application may have on the resident’s wait time, or what options the landlord may have to remedy it in practical terms. The Guidance sets out that when a landlord cannot put a resident back in the position they would have been in had its service failings not occurred, it should consider other appropriate remedies. These can include apologies, and compensation.
In this case the landlord clearly identified what it had gotten wrong. It acknowledged the impact on the resident and apologised for its poor service. It offered a significant amount of compensation, which reflected its understanding of the serious scale and nature of its failings and the additional impact on the resident due to his disabilities. These were reasonable remedies in the circumstances of this complaint. Nonetheless, a recommendation is made below for the landlord to consider what more it may be able to do.
Overall, the landlord accepted its failings and delays, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It completed an evacuation plan and has since approved his transfer, albeit belatedly. Its significant compensation appeared to cover all aspects of his complaint, but its rationale was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it prioritises cases as ‘high’ or ‘standard’, and will log and assess them within 1 and 3 working days respectively.
While it is unclear from the evidence whether it did so within the specific timeframes in its policy, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB, and opened cases, from April 2023. The evidence further shows that it closed cases in June and July 2023, having confirmed with the resident that there had been no further issues at that time. Its handling of these reports was therefore reasonable.
The resident made further reports to the landlord from September 2023, and periodically through the remainder of his complaint. His reports formed a part of his wider concerns about the overall unsuitability of the property for his needs. These mainly concerned noise and the smell of drugs, often from nearby buildings that the landlord established were not its own, or external transport noises beyond its control.
While the actions that the landlord could take would at times have been limited, the evidence shows its empathetic responses to the resident. It further shows its liaison with the landlord of the nearby building and the police, and its efforts with all occupants of the resident’s building to establish the source of any loud music. His most recent ASB case was closed in February 2025, after he confirmed that these efforts had been successful. The landlord’s overall handling of his reports was therefore again reasonable.
However, the resident referred to his ASB concerns in his complaint to the landlord in April, and his escalation in October 2024. It was therefore a significant failing that the landlord’s original stage 1 and 2 responses did not comment at all about this element of his complaint. The landlord accepted and apologised for this in its revised stage 2 response in March 2025. It offered little comment about its previous handling of his ASB reports, but referred to its more recent actions, and committed to provide ongoing support.
The landlord offered a total of £260 compensation for its complaint handling delays and failures. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. As above, its separate £2560 compensation offer did not distinguish between the various elements of the resident’s complaint, but, broadly, was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports reasonably. It apologised that it did not respond to the related concerns in his complaint until a year after he had made it. Its compensation offers for these complaint handling failings, in addition to its overall award, was a proportionate and reasonable remedy.

Wet room drainage

In February 2023 the resident reported that water was pooling in his wet room. The evidence shows that, regarding this specific element of his complaint, the landlord identified the additional risk of his lack of sight and completed timely repair attendances during that, and the following month.
The next related report seen in the evidence was the resident’s complaint in April 2024. His escalation requests in September 2024 also further referred to drainage issues. As above, it was a failing that the landlord’s original stage 1 and 2 responses did not address this element of his complaint.
The landlord’s revised stage 2 response in March 2025 apologised for this failing. It described its wet room repairs actions from early 2023. It said that in its recent call to the resident, he had described his ongoing drainage issues. It explained the descaling works that it would complete on 17 March 2025 to address this.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended that day but did not gain access. It told us that it has since completed a related separate job, but that it closed the descaling works promised in its stage 2 response after it did not hear from the resident following its no access visit.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not state how it handles no-access repairs. Nonetheless, it would be basic customer service to either rebook the appointment before considering its cancellation, or to at least contact the resident. This would particularly apply to a visually impaired resident, who may not find a calling card if one were left. There is no evidence that the landlord considered making these attempts. The resident has told us that the landlord has recently said that there are significant drainage issues, but that its confusing communications have left him unsure of its intentions.
Overall, the landlord responded in a timely manner to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in early 2023. It is unclear whether he made further reports, before he did so in his complaint. The landlord accepted and apologised for its initial failures to address this element of his complaint. However, it has failed to demonstrate basic customer service in its handling of the descaling works it promised. This element of his complaint was therefore left unresolved.

Windows

The first evidence seen of the resident’s window concerns being reported to the landlord is the OT assessment completed in December 2023. The OT attributed his inability to open the windows to their heavy weight. As such, it is unclear whether there was a repair fault or whether the windows were simply unsuitable in the resident’s circumstances. In either case, he further raised the issue in his complaint to the landlord in April 2024. He highlighted the impact of being unable to allow fresh air into his property and the impact on his asthma.
It was a significant failing that the landlord failed to respond to the issue, either by inspecting the windows or by addressing the matter in its original complaint responses. It accepted and apologised for this in its final complaint response on 12 March 2025, and agreed to complete a window inspection “as soon as possible”. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident about this until it received an enquiry from the Service three months later. This was poor customer service. It has since arranged an inspection for 2 July 2025.
Overall, the landlord accepted its service failings, and the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. Its remedies, including its compensation, would have represented reasonable redress. However, it has failed to demonstrate that it followed through in a timely manner with its inspection promise, nor that it contacted the resident about any delays. This element of his complaint was therefore left unresolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraphs 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about his rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves his complaints about the landlord’s handling of his:
1. Concerns about the suitability of the property and request for a direct transfer on medical grounds.
2. Reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Being unable to open the windows.
2. Drainage issues in the wet room.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Confirm the results of its window inspection.
  2. Provide an action plan to address any outstanding works related to the windows and drainage, including proposed timescales.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £200. This is comprised of:
1. £100 in relation to its failure to fully complete its window complaint remedies.
2. £100 in relation to its failure to fully complete its wet room drainage complaint remedies.
This amount is in addition to the landlord’s own compensation awards of £120 and £2720 (it must pay the resident any part of those awards that it has not already done so).
The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within their respective deadlines.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks the landlord must review how the resident has been disadvantaged by its transfer application delays in relation to his position on the property waiting list. It should write to him setting out how it may put him back in the position he would have been in but for its delays. At the same time it should explain again what other housing options he can consider.