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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202210723)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210723

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of requests for written rent statements.
    2. Complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has no internet access. The resident has a number of health conditions which can make phone calls difficult.
  2. On 27 January 2020 the resident complained that she no longer received rent statements by post. She explained that she relied on these as her proof of address for medical appointments and collecting prescriptions. She said she could not print these out from an online account as they did not serve as proof of address. She requested rent statements be sent in the post quarterly “from now on”.
  3. On 11 February 2020 she complained again. She also complained that the landlord had not acknowledged her original complaint. On 13 February 2020 she received her rent statement in the post in response to her complaints. The resident complained again on 11 April 2020. On 10 August 2020 the landlord explained that it had no way to generate automatic statements, but was “looking into a solution for residents who have no internet or mobile phone”. In the meantime, it promised to send quarterly statements manually.
  4. In October 2020 the resident complained again because she had not received her quarterly statement(s) as promised. She complained that none of her earlier complaints had been responded to. She chased the landlord that same month explaining some of the challenges posed by the situation, including that she “is not always able to call up and request written statements” due to her health conditions.
  5. The resident wrote to her MP on 31 October 2020. On 10 November 2020 a senior staff member of the landlord wrote to the MP, stating that “a quarterly rent statement will be sent by post each quarter from here on”.
  6. The resident complained again on 27 July 2021 that she had not received rent statements as promised for “eight months”. The landlord apologised for the stress and inconvenience this caused on 9 August 2021 and recommitted to sending them manually.
  7. On 15 July 2022 the resident complained that she had not received any statements throughout 2022. In June 2022 she had received statements, but they were “inaccurate”. The resident explained that the ongoing stress caused by the situation was impacting her significantly. She did not receive a response. On 13 August 2022 she wrote to the Ombudsman. The resident wanted monthly statements, an apology and compensation.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 September 2022 at the Ombudsman’s instruction. It stated that as previously advised, it could not produce automatic statements. The resident would need to ring up or make an online account. It stated that it did not receive her letter on 15 July 2022. It apologised that manual statements had been missed, citing a diary error. It pledged to send monthly statements in the post going forward.
  9. On 27 September 2022 the resident wrote to the Ombudsman. She was unhappy with the response, stating that the landlord has had “4 years to make changes to their systems so that tenants can receive regular statements”. She was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and lack of responses. She also explained that she felt it would be appropriate for the landlord to award £500 compensation in light of the time, effort and distress she had gone to. The Ombudsman escalated her complaint on 13 December 2022.
  10. On 21 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It repeated much of its stage 1 response, adding that it “would try to ensure that monthly statements are sent”. It acknowledged that due to health conditions the resident had, making phone calls to chase missed statements would be difficult and it provided the resident with a direct email address to contact in such an event. It acknowledged poor complaint handling and communication and offered £420 compensation, made up of:
    1. £30 for the delay between its stage 1 and stage 2 resolutions.
    2. £20 for the delays or failure to respond to correspondence.
    3. £50 for the time and effort gone to.
    4. £320 for distress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident informed the Ombudsman and the landlord on 5 February 2023 that she intended to reject the compensation. She explained that because the landlord had still not introduced an automatic system she had no faith that the monthly statements would always arrive. The resident reiterated the impact corresponding over this issue had on her, as well as the issues she faced if she found herself without an up-to-date proof of address, to support her view that the amount of compensation offered was “not appropriate”. She felt that by not updating its systems to accommodate for people “with disabilities, of old age, in ill health or who do not have internet access”, the landlord was being discriminatory against those residents. On 15 June 2023 the resident again began reporting issues in receiving her rent statements.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident also complained that the landlord, or its staff, had discriminated against her, under the Equality Act (2010). A finding of discrimination can only be made by the courts, in line with the Act. Paragraph 42(F) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. As such this investigation does not make any finding on whether or not the resident has been discriminated against, as this would be for the courts to decide. However, we have considered whether the resident has been treated fairly, and if the landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act.

The landlord’s handling of requests for written rent statements

  1.  The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’
  2. On multiple occasions since January 2020, the landlord promised that it would send a written rent statement “as a goodwill gesture”. The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) states that the landlord must provide a ‘rent book’, or equivalent document showing rents due and rents paid, to the tenant. Although this legislation does not make provision for how this should be provided (the landlord did have an online platform for the resident to access this information), the landlord is also required to follow The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (the Standard). This states that the landlord must “provide choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of tenants”. It also states that the landlord must “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of their tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs.” The Equality Act sets out that a landlord must not discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristic, which includes disability.
  3. The reasons the resident gave for needing timely, written statements were so that she could use these as proof of address, and because she was unable to access the online system. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by committing to sending regular statements manually, which showed it took into account the resident’s support needs and indicates that it has due regard to its obligations under the Standard and the Equality Act.
  4. The evidence shows that the individual staff members tasked with sending out statements did make every reasonable effort to ensure this was done, but the statements did not always materialise. On at least one occasion, this was due to a ‘diary error’. On another occasion, the evidence shows that the staff member successfully sent the request to the relevant team or department, but for unknown reasons the resident reported that the statement failed to arrive. It is unclear exactly how many statements the resident did not receive.
  5. The resident had been clear that she required statements regularly, because the proof of address she needed also had to be recently dated. Therefore, even one statement being missed could cause the resident a number of difficulties. The resident appeared to experience repeated and prolonged episodes of anxiety, worrying that if a statement failed to arrive, she may have difficulty collecting a prescription, for example. This is why the resident refused to accept the landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 December 2022. In view of the landlord’s attempts to put things right by making provision to send statements manually, provide a dedicated point of contact to chase missed statements and its offer of £320 compensation for the above distress, the landlord adequately ‘put things right’. The landlord therefore offered reasonable redress.
  6. However, the landlord had earlier stated on 10 August 2020 that it was “looking into a solution for residents with no phone or internet”, which was reasonable. However there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to do so. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in this case the resident has not stated that she cannot access her statements, but rather they are not in a format (paper letter) that she can use as a proof of address. The landlord is not obliged to provide the resident with proof of address, however it should take steps to ensure that it can carry out commitments made to residents.
  7. Further, the Ombudsman’s recent report ‘Spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals’ notes that social renters were the least likely of all tenures to have internet access in their homes, with 17% of social rented households having no home access. The landlord should ensure that it considers this ‘digital exclusion’ when updating and designing its systems. There also appears to have been a number of other issues with the manual system that could have contributed to issues arising, such as that there was no provision to ensure these statements would have continued being sent in the event of staff absence or staff turnover. The Ombudsman has therefore made recommendations below, to ensure the landlord is able to do everything that is reasonable to make its processes and communications accessible to all.

Complaint handling and record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), by which the landlord is bound, sets out the expectations the landlord must follow when dealing with complaints. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The landlord must acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 or 20 working days, depending on the stage of the complaint. However, the evidence shows several pieces of correspondence, both in writing and over the telephone, which constituted complaints but were neither acknowledged nor raised through the internal complaints process. Where they were, there were further delays beyond the proscribed timescales. The resident was obliged to chase complaints on multiple occasions over a 3-year period, in order to evoke a response. It was also a matter of concern that the landlord only appeared to provide detailed responses, or deal with complaints formally, following enquiries from the resident’s MP or the Ombudsman.
  2. On the 15 July 2022 the resident complained again in writing but received no response. The landlord denied that it had received the letter, however was later obliged to acknowledge that it did, because it cashed a cheque which was enclosed with it. The landlord attempted to locate the letter but was unsuccessful. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a thorough investigation into the failing, therefore it is unclear how this happened. However, to misplace correspondence of this nature and make no formal record of having received it, constitutes a serious failing of both complaint handling and record keeping. The Standard states that the landlord must “have an approach to complaints that is clear, simple and accessible that ensures that complaints are resolved promptly…” It is clear therefore that there were a number of complaint handling failures, as the landlord failed to respond to complaints and correspondence, or communicate clearly with the resident, frequently between January 2020 and December 2022. The resident was obliged not only to repeat her complaints, despite outlining the adverse impact repeat correspondence was having on her, but to repeatedly correct the landlord due to its inability to keep accurate records.
  3. The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records, but there were further record keeping concerns identified during this investigation. The resident notified the landlord of a number of health conditions and their effects several times throughout the period of investigation. However, although individual notes were made on isolated phone calls, there is no evidence that the landlord retained this information in a way which was clearly visible and accessible to staff. It appears that the resident was therefore obliged to repeat herself on a number of occasions. Further to this, when the Ombudsman made an information request to the landlord as part of this investigation it asked for “the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s health issues”. The landlord responded only that “the resident needs proof of address for prescriptions”. There is no evidence that the landlord kept a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities as would be appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. This also meant that the landlord continued to repeat unhelpful advice, such as by saying “should there be a time when a statement is missed, please call and we can order this for you”. While it is reasonable that the landlord would invite the resident to notify it that had it made a mistake, a key part of the resident’s repeated complaints had been to negate the need to call up and chase statements which she wanted sending automatically. This caused further frustration and distress to the resident. The landlord was right to address this by nominating a dedicated point of contact for the resident, who she could contact by email or text if she was having difficulty making a phone call. However, the resident had gone to significant time and effort in order to have this issue addressed. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
  5. The landlord offered £50 for the time and trouble the resident went to over an approximately 3-year period. The landlord also offered a total of £50 for delays in issuing complaint responses and in responding to other correspondence. However, this was not reflective of the time and trouble gone to by the resident. The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident sent a number of letters to the landlord and made a number of phone calls (which the landlord had been informed as early as 2020 were “extremely exhausting and distressing”, due to her health conditions). In addition, she wrote to her MP on a number of occasions and eventually had to engage the Ombudsman, in order to have her concerns properly addressed. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration, where there were failings for which the offer of redress was not proportionate, compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. Orders are therefore made below to put things right.
  6. In July 2022, the Ombudsman produced a ‘special report’ into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The report highlighted a number of themes present at a systemic level, including how the landlord handles complaints and keeps records; a number of recommendations were made. As such, there is no need for the Ombudsman to make further orders or recommendations in order to ensure the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of requests for written rent statements.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay a total of £350 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident as part of the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping failings. The £100 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if paid already.

Recommendations

  1. Pay the resident the £320 offered via the complaint process for distress and inconvenience, if it has not been paid already, as the finding of ‘reasonable regress’ has been made on this basis.
  2. The landlord should investigate what system changes can be made in order to ensure that residents without telephone or internet access can consistently receive regular, timely rent statements, should they be requested. It may then wish to write to the resident, setting out its findings and any intended next steps.