London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304259

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 December 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for storage space for her mobility scooter.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord under an assured non-shorthold tenancy commencing 3 November 2014. The property was a 2 bedroom, first floor cottage flat. Since the events related to this complaint, the resident has moved to another property with the same landlord.
The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, namely, mental health issues, reduced mobility, physical health issues and that she is unable to climb stairs. The resident uses a mobility scooter on account of her reduced mobility.
The resident appointed her son as her representative for the purpose of lodging the subject complaint with the landlord and to this Service. He is referred to in this report as “the resident’s representative”.
In 2019 the landlord gave the resident verbal permission to store her scooter in a room within a sheltered scheme building. The resident’s property was not within the scheme but the building was close to her property. It is understood that the resident used this storage facility without issue for about 4 years.
By 2023, the room had become overcrowded due to residents of the sheltered scheme using the room to store scooters. The resident experienced difficulty in accessing her scooter. The landlord’s records indicate that on at least one occasion in late March 2023 the resident contacted it to raise concerns about this and to ask whether mobility storage pods would be installed for tenants living outside the sheltered scheme.
It appears that at about this time the landlord requested that the resident no longer use the storage room within the sheltered scheme and that she remove her scooter from it, although the date this request was made is not recorded in the landlord’s records.
On 27 March 2023 the resident’s representative made a formal complaint on her behalf. The resident’s representative noted the agreement reached between the landlord and the resident in 2019 as set out above. The complaint raised a number of points, including that:
1. The resident required a space in the storage room within the scheme as there was nowhere to store her mobility scooter in her flat without impeding the exit and so causing a fire hazard.
2. There was inadequate storage space to meet the needs of the disabled residents of the scheme and the associated flats for residents with additional needs (where the resident lived).
3. The landlord had failed to fully consider the resident’s needs as she was left without anywhere to store her scooter.
4. Due to threats that her scooter would be removed, the resident had not used it resulting in her not leaving her flat which was detrimental to her physical and mental health.
5. He asked for a review into what had happened and why the verbal agreement had been broken; a fair, sustainable and written agreement for mobility scooter storage moving forward; and a fit–for–purpose place for the resident to store her scooter.
6. The complaint made clear that the landlord should liaise with the resident’s representative by email regarding the complaint.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss the storage arrangement. During this call, the landlord advised it would not install storage for the resident as she did not live within the scheme.
The landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 30 March 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. In the response, the landlord stated:
1. It had agreed that the resident could store her mobility scooter within the scheme on a first–come, first–served basis because at the time there was low demand. Over time, the storage area had become congested and there was higher demand for scooter storage.
2. The agreement reached in 2019 was a goodwill gesture and the resident had been advised it could be withdrawn should demand increase from residents within the scheme.
3. The sheltered scheme residents paid service charges and rent associated with the scooter provision and the property the resident lived in was not part of the sheltered building or service offer. If the store was at capacity, then it had to be available to residents of the scheme, paying their associated charges, over the resident’s property.
4. The landlord would not install a separate store for the resident’s scooter due to this not being a requirement.
5. It apologised for any distress and upset caused and that it could not accommodate scooter storage for the resident.
On 31 March 2023, the resident’s representative requested that the complaint be escalated. He questioned the justification for the landlord not agreeing to create a storage pod for the resident as in other schemes. He explained that the resident had spent time and money finding a scooter to meet her requirements based on the agreement for storage being in place which she would not have done otherwise. He additionally complained that the landlord had directly contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, when he had requested that the landlord provide a response to him by email. He stated that this had caused the resident anxiety and distress.
There was a delay in the landlord responding to the request for escalation. This caused the resident’s representative to chase the landlord on 20 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the request for escalation on 20 April 2023 and issued a Stage 2 response on 18 May 2023.
In the Stage 2 response, the landlord explained that, as the resident did not live within the sheltered scheme, it would not ordinarily consider creating a scooter store. However, it agreed there was a safety issue for the resident if the scooter was stored in her property and so agreed to consider it. The response stated that the landlord would be in contact with the resident within the following 2 weeks to discuss the matter further. The landlord suggested that another option for the resident to consider would be to move to a property that met her needs such as one of its sheltered schemes. It apologised that it was necessary to revoke the verbal agreement but reiterated that this was because it had to offer storage space to residents of the sheltered scheme.

Post-complaint events

The landlord did not contact the resident within 2 weeks as stated in the Stage 2 response.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord served notice on the resident requiring her to remove her scooter from the storage room within 24 hours. On the same date, the resident referred the complaint to this Service.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord, the resident and the resident’s representative had a meeting to find a solution to the issue. The landlord apologised for the delay in contacting the resident. It explained that it had looked at the outside space available and could not safely install any kind of scooter storage which would also be suitable for the resident’s disabilities. It agreed to assist the resident in moving to another property and for her to continue to use the scheme storage space while the move was arranged. The landlord’s notes show that the resident was happy with the solution.
It is understood that the resident moved to a new property after viewing it on 11 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“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.
It is noted from information provided on behalf of the resident to this Service (on 5 June 2024) that she has concerns that the scooter storage at the new property is not suitable; that she incurred expenses in moving there; and that she is being harassed by another resident at the new property. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to consider these issues. However, as they have not been considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint, these are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for storage space for her mobility scooter

The landlord’s Procedure for the Removal of Goods in Communal Areas (“the Procedure”) explains the approach and procedure it adopts to ensure that communal areas are kept clear of personal belongings and goods, including mobility aids. It also sets out the circumstances in which the landlord may give its permission for communal areas to be used for the temporary storage of mobility scooters, for example, where adjustments are being made to a resident’s property to accommodate storage within it.
Specific provisions apply where the landlord gives its permission to a resident who needs a mobility scooter but their property is unsuitable to store it. These include that the resident must be able to safely store the scooter in the communal area without hindering safe escape from the block in the case of fire or other emergency; that a designated area is allocated for safe storage which must be adhered to; and that allocation of any available space is on a “first-come, first-served” basis. There is also provision for disabled residents to be supported to move to more suitable accommodation if their current home no longer meets their needs.
It is common ground that the resident had no suitable space to store her scooter within her own property and that in 2019 the landlord gave its permission for her to store the scooter in a room which was part of a sheltered scheme near to her. Although this room was not in fact communal to the resident’s property, being part of a separate scheme, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with the spirit of its Procedure in allowing the resident to have use of the communal space on a first–come, first–served basis in order to meet her storage needs.
It is also common ground that the landlord agreed to this arrangement at a time when there was low demand for scooter storage and that, by 2023, that situation had changed such that the storage room had become overcrowded. As a result, the resident experienced difficulties in accessing her scooter, of which she notified the landlord in late March 2023.
The landlord could reasonably be expected to take steps at this stage to address the situation so as to ensure that all users of the storage facility could safely access their scooters. This was in line with the requirement in the Procedure that scooters stored in communal areas must be stored safely.
Although there is no record of the landlord’s decision making in this regard, it appears that the landlord decided to withdraw its permission to allow the resident to use the storage room as she was not a resident of the scheme. It did so by notifying the resident in late March 2023 that she could no longer store her scooter there and that she should remove it.
In itself, this was not an unreasonable decision. The storage arrangement was not permanent but was by permission of the landlord and could be revoked. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek to release space for the benefit of those residents who lived in, and paid for the facilities of, the scheme, of which the resident was not one.
However, in taking this decision, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records produced to this Service that it considered or discussed with the resident the question of where she would store her scooter, if not in the storage room where she had kept it for the previous 4 years. This was unreasonable. Whilst the tenancy agreement contained no express contractual obligation for the landlord to provide storage space for the resident’s scooter, the landlord was aware that it was bringing to an end a long-standing arrangement; that the resident required a mobility scooter for independent living; and that it could not safely be stored in her own property. In this situation, the landlord could reasonably be expected to consider and review with the resident her alternative options, which it failed to do.
Furthermore, the Procedure requires the landlord to seek guidance from its health and safety team and any agencies involved in supporting a disabled resident to consider what action needs to be taken to assist with storing their mobility aid. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records produced to this Service that it did so.
The landlord had an opportunity to reconsider the matter in response to the resident’s formal complaint of 27 March 2023, in which she drew to its attention that it had failed to fully consider her needs as she was being left without anywhere to store her scooter. The landlord did not directly address this issue in its Stage 1 response, beyond stating that it would not install a separate store for the resident’s scooter due to this not being a requirement.
It was not until the landlord provided its Stage 2 response on 18 May 2023 that it agreed to consider creating a scooter store for the resident. It also suggested as an alternative that she consider moving to a sheltered scheme which would meet her needs, in line with its Procedure.
Notwithstanding the landlord’s proposal in its Stage 2 response, on 27 June 2023, the landlord served notice on the resident requiring her to remove her scooter from the storage room within 24 hours. This was insensitive and unreasonable in circumstances where the landlord had indicated that it would be in contact with the resident to discuss the matter of storage further and this had not yet happened; and where the landlord was aware that she had nowhere else to safely store the scooter.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and arranged a meeting for 5 July 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in contacting the resident and it explained the reasons why it was unable to install suitable scooter storage. These were reasonable actions by the landlord. When the resident decided to move to new accommodation, the landlord also acted reasonably in agreeing to assist her with the move and to allow temporary storage of her mobility scooter while this was arranged.
In summary, there were failings by the landlord in that it did not properly consider or discuss with the resident her scooter storage options at the time of terminating the existing storage arrangement (in late March 2023) until after its final complaint response, a period of some 3 months. There was a further failing in that the landlord served a notice requiring the resident to remove her scooter within 24 hours when that was not appropriate or possible for her safely to do.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. She was caused distress and anxiety by the situation which made her reluctant to use her scooter which in turn resulted in her not leaving her flat. She was put to inconvenience in bringing a complaint in order to obtain a resolution of the issue.
The landlord did not recognise these failings in its complaint responses or subsequently. Under the circumstances, an award of £300 by way of compensation would be appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At Stage 1, the landlord aims to log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and to provide a Stage 1 response within 10 working days. Where a resident requests an escalation to Stage 2, the landlord undertakes to escalate the case without delay and provide a final written decision within 20 working days of the request. After confirming its decision in writing, the landlord’s complaints policy requires it to monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.
There were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as outlined above:
1. The resident’s representative had requested that the landlord liaise with him regarding the complaint. Notwithstanding this, the landlord contacted the resident directly on 29 March 2023 to discuss the matter.
2. The resident’s representative requested that the landlord escalate the complaint on 31 March 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request without delay and provided the Stage 2 response by 28 April 2023. Due to administrative oversight, the request was not acknowledged until 20 April 2023 and the Stage 2 response was not issued until 18 May 2023, being 14 working days outside policy timescales.
3. In its Stage 2 response the landlord failed to acknowledge or offer redress for the delay in escalating the complaint or for its failure to adhere to the resident’s communication preferences, which would have been appropriate.
4. The Stage 2 response did not make clear whether the resident’s complaint had been upheld or not, which would have been good practice.
5. The landlord failed to contact the resident within 2 weeks as promised in the Stage 2 response, or until 3 July 2023 which was some 4 weeks after it had stated that it would. This indicates a failure by the landlord to properly monitor progress of the complaint through to the completion of the proposed remedies as required under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy.
6. The landlord served notice requiring the resident to remove her scooter from storage within 24 hours which was inconsistent with the resolution it had proposed for the complaint. This has been dealt with in the section above.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. The resolution of the complaint was delayed, meaning that she was required to chase the landlord for a response and refer the matter to this Service for assistance. Overall, she spent more time and trouble in seeking to resolve her complaint than would reasonably be expected. Under the circumstances, an award of £200 would be appropriate compensation for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for storage space for her mobility scooter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

With 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 in respect of the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request for storage space for her mobility scooter.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £200 in respect of the failings identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm its compliance with the above orders.