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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202324056)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324056

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 May 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:
    1. The sign-up process and the resident’s request for a transfer to a more suitable property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 14 November 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor of the block. The resident lives at the property with her 2 young children.
  2. The landlord offered the resident the property on 7 November 2022 following a nomination from the local authority. The landlord sent the resident a detailed offer letter explaining the sign-up appointment details, expected rent payments and information relating to benefits, utilities and council tax. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 7 November 2022.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 November 2022. She told the landlord she felt it had rushed the sign-up, and it had not acted on her health and safety concerns. She also said she had raised concerns about paying £20 before the landlord would give her the keys. She said the landlord said it would look into the issues she raised but she had not received a response.
  4. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord on 7 December 2022 in relation to her electricity supplier. She said the landlord had given her the wrong supplier details and because of this, she had received a bill for £223.48.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023. It said there were no health and safety concerns associated with having a fuse box in a bedroom. However, it said it could box it in for the resident. It also confirmed it asked all residents to make a rent payment in advance as part of the sign-up process. The landlord accepted it had given the resident incorrect electricity supplier details and it offered the resident £309.00 compensation. This was made up of £10 for the late complaint response, £90 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for time and effort and £159 for incurred electricity costs.
  6. Following escalation of her complaint to stage 2, and contact from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. It said the resident chose to accept the property without viewing it in person. It said the resident had access to the property 7 days before the tenancy started and she did not raise any issues. It said the resident would need to provide medical evidence so it could consider her for rehousing. It also confirmed the outcome and offers made at stage 1. It acknowledged the delays in the stage 2 response and offered additional compensation of £160.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation has had on her health. We are unable to draw conclusions on causation, liability, or impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we may consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and her family.

The sign-up process and the resident’s request for a transfer to a more suitable property.

  1. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 7 November 2022 informing her that the local authority had nominated her for the property. The landlord asked the resident to complete an application form if she was interested in taking the tenancy.
  2. The resident responded on 7 November 2022 and said she was unable to complete the online application form, but she was able to provide all the other requested information. The landlord offered to complete the application form with the resident over the phone, which she accepted. Following completion of the application form, the landlord made a full offer of the property on the same day.
  3. The offer letter informed the resident she had to make a rent payment of £20 before signing the tenancy and collecting the keys. This was in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy. The policy says it expects new tenants to make a one-off advance payment at sign-up. Non-working households are usually asked to pay the minimum payment of £20.
  4. The letter also informed the resident she was responsible for contacting the utility companies to arrange connection and payment.
  5. The evidence shows the resident did not visit the property in person before she accepted it. Instead, the landlord arranged a ‘virtual’ viewing at the resident’s request on 7 November 2022. However, the resident disputes the landlord’s version of events. She told us the landlord said it was unable to arrange an in person viewing and her only option was to view the property via a video and photographs.
  6. The resident viewed the property by watching a video and accepted it on 7 November 2022. She also signed the tenancy agreement electronically on the same day. This was in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy which says applicants will be allowed up to 24 hours from the viewing date to accept the property (unless additional time is allowed under certain nomination agreements).
  7. The landlord gave the resident access to the property from 7 November 2022 even though her tenancy did not start until 14 November 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 November 2022 to ask if she had managed to get into the flat. The resident responded by email and told the landlord “everything is perfect”.
  8. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 28 November 2022. She said she felt the landlord had rushed the sign-up and it had not acted on her concerns. She said she did not feel safe because of the position of the fuse box. She said she had raised concerns about having to pay £20 before the landlord would give her the keys. She said the landlord said it would look into her concerns, but she had not received a response.
  9. The resident said she would not have moved out of her temporary accommodation and moved into the flat had she been aware of the issues. She said she was not happy living in the property and she would not have accepted it if the information given at sign-up had been clear. The resident told the landlord the situation had affected her mental health and her ability to be rehoused.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 December 2022 to make a further complaint. She said the landlord had given her false information at the sign-up and she was in debt as a result. She said it gave her the name of her electricity supplier. However, she had received a bill for £223.48 from a different electricity supplier. The landlord combined both complaints.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 11 January 2023 to chase an update on her complaint. She told the landlord she did not feel safe in the property because of the fuse box. She also said both bedrooms were single bedrooms when she believed one would be a double bedroom. She said the landlord rushed the sign-up and made mistakes. She said she was not going to pay her outstanding energy bill of £159 as the landlord had signed her up to the supplier without her knowledge. She asked the landlord to refer her back to the local authority for rehousing.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023. It said it was sorry the resident felt the sign-up was rushed. It confirmed there were no health and safety issues in relation to the positioning of the fuse box within the bedroom. It said it understood the fuse box made the resident feel anxious and it offered to arrange to box it in. It confirmed it asked all residents to make an advance rent payment as part of the sign-up process. It said it had offered the resident the opportunity to view the property before signing the tenancy agreement. It said it had also recommended the resident appeal to the local authority to review the suitability of the allocation.
  13. The landlord accepted it had given the resident details of the wrong electricity supplier. However, it said it informed residents at sign-up that they can register with a supplier of their choice. It said it also told residents to take meter readings at the start of the tenancy. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £259. This appears to be made up of £50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for time and effort and £159 for electricity costs. Although the landlord was unable to confirm the exact breakdown of the compensation.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 3 February 2023. She said she accepted its offer to box in the fuse box and its offer of compensation. She asked it to let her know when an appointment was available. The landlord responded on 8 February 2023 and said it would raise an order. However, there is no evidence to show it did this.
  15. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. This was because she had not received the compensation payment or an update as to when the landlord would box in the fuse box.
  16. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether there was any contact between the resident and the landlord after the date of escalation until she chased her stage 2 response on 2 October 2023.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord again by telephone on 22 November 2023. She told the landlord she could not cope living in her property. She asked the landlord to make urgent contact. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
  18. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 November 2023. She told the landlord she was “desperate” to go back to the local authority as the property was not suitable for her needs. She said she had told the landlord at the start of her tenancy the property was not suitable. She told the landlord she had a newborn baby and because of health issues, she could not manage the stairs.
  19. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord responded to the resident about her concerns or that it offered the resident any rehousing advice. There is no evidence to suggest it gave any information on the mutual exchange process, or the relevant criteria she had to meet to register for the scheme. This was not in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy. The policy says when a resident asks for advice on moving the landlord will provide an assessment of their circumstances and present them with a range of options which are appropriate to their needs.
  20. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor throughout the case. The landlord often did not respond to the resident’s concerns or her requests for a call back. When the landlord agreed to call her back the evidence shows, on most occasions, it did not return her calls. This was unreasonable and shows a general lack of concern and empathy with the resident’s situation.
  21. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the outcome and offer of £259 compensation made at stage 1 and said:
    1. It offered the resident a personal viewing but she declined and agreed to a virtual viewing. It had given her access to the property 7 days before her tenancy began and she had confirmed that everything was perfect on 7 November 2022.
    2. The resident did not raise any issues with the size of the bedrooms at the beginning of her tenancy. She was aware the property was on the fourth floor with no lift. Therefore, she should have been aware that she would need to negotiate the stairs with a baby at some point in the future.
    3. The resident would need to provide medical evidence to be considered for rehousing. An independent medical board would then assess her case. If her application was successful, it would add her to the list for rehousing.
    4. It had addressed the resident’s concerns about the fuse box at stage 1 and it had offered to box it in, but she had not accepted its offer.
    5. It was within its policy to ask for one month rent in advance at the sign-up. However, if a resident was in receipt of benefits, it reduced the payment to £5 per week/£20 per month. If a resident said they were unable to pay £20, it would still release the keys following sign-up.
    6. The resident had the opportunity to raise any concerns before her tenancy started on 14 November 2022.
  22. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  23. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately addressed most of the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses. However, it did not fully address the reasons she had to pay £20 in advance when she had raised concerns at the sign-up. It also did not fully address the resident’s rehousing concerns. The landlord referred the resident back to the local authority in its stage 1 complaint, which was appropriate at the time.
  24. However, the resident’s circumstances had changed prior to the landlord issuing the stage 2 response. She was a fully assured tenant at this point with a new baby and related health issues. Although the landlord did give limited advice for a medical referral, it did not provide an assessment and explain all options available to her.
  25. In summary, the landlord acted in line with its sign-up process when it allocated the property to the resident. It acted reasonably when it offered to box in the fuse box even though it was under no obligation to do so. It accepted it had given the wrong supplier information to the resident, and it offered compensation for the costs incurred. However, its overall communication with the resident was poor and it did not give the resident adequate rehousing advice in line with its allocations and lettings policy. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 28 November 2022. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 January 2023. This was almost 7 weeks from the date of the complaint and significantly outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did acknowledge the delay in its response. It also offered compensation of £50. This appears to be made up of £10 for the late stage 1 response and £40 for distress and inconvenience. Although the landlord was unable to confirm the exact breakdown of compensation when contacted for further information.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether there was any contact between the landlord and resident between the date of escalation and her contact on 2 October 2023.
  4. On 2 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to chase the stage 2 response. The landlord sent the resident a ‘holding email’ on 13 October 2023. It said it had been experiencing a high number of complaint escalations and this was causing delays. It said it would be in contact to provide a stage 2 decision as soon as it could.
  5. The resident contacted us on 13 October 2023 for help. We contacted the landlord on 27 November 2023 and asked it to provide the resident with a complaint response by 18 December 2023.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2023. This was 9 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. However, it acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and it offered the resident an additional £160 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  7. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £210 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In our opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  8. In summary, although there were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord should therefore pay the overall compensation of £210 if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the sign-up process and the resident’s request for a transfer to a more suitable property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £359 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount of compensation it has already paid) in recognition of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. If it has not already done so, arrange an appointment with the resident to box in the fuse box.
    5. Carry out an assessment of the resident’s circumstances and provide a range of rehousing options appropriate to the resident’s needs.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £210 compensation it offered for complaint handling failures in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendation.