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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202210958)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210958

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 April 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 resident’s concerns about estate inspections, the local office and caretaking.
    2. A staff member contacting the resident’s GP without his consent.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 10 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and explained its staff member had been absent from work, and it had impacted some estate inspections. The landlord also explained its local office would be open for appointments for one day every fortnight, which would start in September 2022.
  3. On 15 August 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident explaining the role of its mental health practitioner lead. It also confirmed that its mental health lead contacted the resident’s doctor because he stated he wanted to harm himself. The landlord also explained how the resident could submit a formal complaint.
  4. On 23 August 2022, the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord. He stated the landlord had not carried out monthly site inspections in his area. The resident also asked the landlord to confirm when it would open the local office in his area and when it would be decorated. He asked the landlord to confirm if it would send letters to all residents about the opening of the local office. The resident also explained he was unhappy that the landlord’s staff member contacted the resident’s GP without his consent. In addition, the resident stated he was unhappy that the caretaker who worked on his estate was no longer allocated to his estate.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 August 2022. It explained its neighbourhood lead had been on extended leave, and it did not get staff cover for the inspections to be carried out. The landlord apologised for this. It confirmed it had arranged for another staff member and a surveyor to carry out an estate inspection to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord explained it would reopen the local office on 15 September 2022 and a staff member would be present once every fortnight. It also apologised for any distress caused by the change in caretaker at his property. However, it explained due to data protection, it could not disclose information regarding the reasons for staff changes. The landlord also explained that its staff member contacted the resident’s GP because of a previous report of a threat of self-harm. It stated when there are safeguarding concerns; it has a duty to report this to the relevant statutory agencies. The landlord offered the resident £70 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the limited estate inspections.
  6. On 31 August 2022, the landlord’s neighbourhood lead and maintenance supervisor carried out an estate inspection. The landlord explained during the inspection, the resident did not raise any internal or communal issues or repairs.
  7. On 29 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. He explained he was told that the office would be painted and rebranded. However, the resident stated the decoration works were still outstanding and he explained he wanted the landlord to provide a timescale for the decoration works to be completed.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 November 2022. It explained it had confirmed with the resident that an estate inspection would be on a monthly basis and a neighbourhood lead would inspect the internal and external areas. It confirmed following an inspection, a report sheet would be completed. The landlord stated it had reopened the local office on an appointment basis every second Thursday. It confirmed that the exterior renovation of the local office had started and stated it would agree dates for interior renovations in due course and it would notify residents of the start date. The landlord also explained it had contacted the previous caretaker’s manager to pass on the positive feedback the resident provided about them and their work. It also reconfirmed the role of the mental health lead and addressing safeguarding concerns.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated his desired outcome was for the landlord to improve its services and communication in relation to estate inspections and the local office.
  10. On 21 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and offered £250 compensation to recognise further missed monthly estate inspections.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about estate inspections, the local office and caretaking.

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging it had missed inspections and offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. It also acted reasonably by confirming that it would arrange an inspection. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation.  The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put this right.
  2. The landlord explained it could not provide any information about staff changes due to data protection. This was a reasonable response as staff information is considered confidential. In line with data protection law, the landlord cannot share personal information about its staff with residents including the reasons why they no longer work on a particular estate.
  3. The landlord responded appropriately by confirming when the local office would reopen and how it would operate. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an approximate date for the decoration works at the local office.
  4. Shortly after the landlord provided its stage 1 response, it carried out an estate inspection on 31 August 2022. The inspection was carried out by a neighbourhood lead and a maintenance supervisor. The landlord stated the resident did not identify any communal issues and repairs, and the resident also did not raise any of these issues during the estate inspection. In addition, the landlord employed a new neighbourhood lead in September 2022, who was allocated to the resident’s estate. The local office also reopened in September 2022, as agreed. The landlord took the appropriate steps by completing the inspection and reopening the local office, as agreed in its stage 1 response.
  5. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response sent in November 2022 that estate inspections would be monthly. It explained the inspection would be completed by a neighbourhood lead and a report sheet would be completed following the inspection.. The landlord stated the exterior renovation of the local office had already started. However, it explained dates for the interior renovations would be agreed in due course and resident’s would be notified if and when these are due to commence. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it provided an appropriate explanation about its next steps for estate inspections and the local office.
  6. On 21 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that monthly inspections were not being carried out again and there was no neighbourhood lead for his estate. The landlord responded and acknowledged it was recruiting for a permanent neighbourhood lead. However, it explained that its interim neighbour lead would carry out inspections. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. It’s a positive step that the landlord identified that there were further failings, with monthly inspections after issuing its stage 2 complaint response and offered compensation to recognise this.
  7. The landlord’s compensation offer was sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. It also complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as explained above.  The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. The landlord has provided us with evidence to show that the cheque was issued and sent to the resident on 22 September 2023.
  8. It is unclear how many monthly estate inspections have been completed by the landlord. The Ombudsman requested a copy of its inspection completion reports or sign-in sheets up to January 2025. The landlord confirmed it could not provide the information requested and could only provide an inspection completion report for March 2025. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of inspection reports. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord has failed to maintain adequate records in this instance by not being able to provide requested inspection reports. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has completed its agreed monthly estate inspections going forward, and it can provide dates and evidence relating to any completed inspections, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
  9. The landlord also confirmed to us in April 2025 that the internal decoration works to the local office were still outstanding. It also did not provide an approximate date of when the internal decoration works would be carried out. The landlord previously confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response, in November 2022 that it would update residents with a date for the internal decoration works for the local office. Therefore, there has been a considerable delay in the landlord providing details about the decoration works. Due to this, the landlord is to write to the resident to confirm the date the decoration works for the local office will take place.
  10.  For the reasons set out above, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about estate inspections, the local office and caretaking.

A staff member contacting the resident’s GP without his consent.

  1. The landlord’s website includes a copy of its privacy notice policy. The policy states it processes information about safeguarding individuals, to fulfil its legal obligations and because it is in the public interest to do so.
  2. In August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to query why it contacted his GP without his consent. Following this, the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 15 August 2022 explaining the staff member who contacted his GP and the reason for contacting them. The letter explained that the staff member who contacted the resident’s GP was the landlord’s mental health practitioner lead. It stated their role was to provide guidance and advice to front-line workers within the landlord on how to support clients with mental health concerns.
  3. The landlord also explained in the letter that the resident previously stated he wanted to harm himself. Therefore, because of this, it consulted with its mental health lead, and decided the best form of action was to write to the resident’s GP and ask them to refer him to the local mental health service. The landlord acted appropriately by writing to the resident to explain the role of the mental health lead and the reason it contacted its GP without the resident’s consent.
  4. The landlord later explained when there are safeguarding concerns, it has a duty to report this to the relevant statutory agencies. It also confirmed that it had contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about its action taken, and it agreed the landlord took the appropriate measures in line with data protection. The ICO has the power to investigate alleged breaches of the data protection law, including where organisations have shared someone’s personal information without their consent. The ICO is the appropriate organisation to investigate whether the landlord acted unlawfully in sharing the resident’s information with his GP without his consent. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate this. However, we have considered the landlord’s communication regarding this issue and its explanation of its reasons for sharing this information.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises it may have been a distressing experience for the resident finding out that the landlord contacted his GP without his consent. However, the landlord’s explanation for contacting the resident’s GP was reasonable. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its staff member contacting the resident’s GP without his consent.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about estate inspections, the local office and caretaking.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its staff member contacting the resident’s GP without his consent.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to confirm the date the decoration works for the local office will take place.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has completed its agreed monthly estate inspections, and it can provide dates and evidence relating to any completed inspections, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £70 compensation made to him, if it has not already done so.