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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218733

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of concerns about the property it moved her to and its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was the assured tenant of the property, a 3-bed house owned by the landlord. Throughout the period of this complaint, the resident lived in 3 different properties. The tenancy for “Property A” ran from December 2013 to November 2020. The tenancy for “Property B”, which was by management transfer, ran from October 2020 to August 2021. The tenancy for “Property C” ran from July 2021 to July 2022. She lived with her 3 children in the properties. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, evidence provided to this Service demonstrates that she has mental health needs.
  2. On 15 December 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an application for assistance under Section 183 of the Housing Act 1996. It stated that she should be treated as homeless due to ongoing issues in Property B relating to the previous tenants. In the application, it stated that she had fled Property A due to domestic abuse, and it had deemed the move to Property B to be suitable. It agreed to move her from Property B on 12 January 2021 but said that this may take time. The management move completed in August 2021. While she waited, she had been staying with relatives.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 February 2022 about a range of issues including finances, a lack of response to complaints and the issues she faced in Property B. It acknowledged the complaint on 23 February 2022. There is no record of the landlord’s response to this complaint, but it closed the complaint on 21 July 2022 as it deemed her request to move as fulfilled.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 August 2022. She stated in an email to the landlord that after multiple attempts, she had still not had a response to any of her complaints and felt that it was not taking her seriously. Following intervention from the Ombudsman on 24 March 2023, it provided her with a stage 2 response on 25 April 2023.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident had requested its help in moving closer to her family on 23 February 2022. It acknowledged all the points raised as part of her initial complaint from 7 February 2022 and found failing in its lack of response to several communications from the resident. It confirmed that ahead of the resident moving in, Property B was void, but that it could not disclose information relating to the previous tenant in relation to the issues she had faced at the property. It apologised if she felt it had not provided her with sufficient support. It did not find failing in its provision of service to her in relation to moving house. It apologised for the length of time taken to investigate the complaint and any inconvenience or distress this had caused. It offered compensation totalling £600, broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for inconvenience.
    2. £200 for distress.
    3. £30 for time and effort.
    4. £50 for lack of communication.
    5. £120 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
  1. The resident felt that the landlord was still not taking her complaint seriously and declined its offer of compensation. Due to this, she brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect these delays have had on her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the delays and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental and physical health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out its approach to handling complaints. It operates a 2-stage procedure. It states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will respond within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It allows escalation to stage 2 within 6 months or its stage 1 decision or all resolution actions being completed, whichever is later. It will provide a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will provide discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a customer distress or inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. It does not specify the amount it will offer for its discretionary payments.
  2. The landlord’s rehousing policy covers its approach to rehousing options. It states that when offering a permanent move it will consult with its residents on the offer, advising them of their options, rights, and consequences of refusing or delaying the move. However, when it is an emergency, its primary response will always be to ensure the safety of its residents. It will take vulnerabilities and location for specified reasons into account when making a suitable offer.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy defines mental wellbeing and personal circumstances, such as domestic abuse, as ways in which a resident could meet the definition of vulnerability. It states that it expects its staff to think about whether a resident meets the definition of vulnerability on a case-by-case basis as a person’s needs can change over time.

The landlord’s response to and handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2022, the landlord identified that a welfare check was required to ensure her safety. It attempted to call her on 8 February 2022 without success but did receive an email from her. She requested a callback on 16 February 2022, and it attempted to call her twice on 22 February 2022, again without success. It allocated and formally acknowledged her complaint on 23 February 2022. While its acknowledgement was outside of the time set in its policy, it did attempt to contact her the next day and identified a welfare concern. Following this, it spoke to her to clarify her complaint and once it had done so, it began the complaints process. As such, no failings have been identified at this stage.
  2. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 15 March 2022, 20 working days after it had sent a formal acknowledgement. On 16 March 2022, it called her and advised that it would provide a resolution the following week. No evidence has been provided to show that it did this and she chased it again on 21 April 2022. Meanwhile, a mutual exchange application was underway for her and on 21 July 2022, it closed her complaint as it deemed her request for rehousing as fulfilled when this completed. In correspondence to this Service, it stated it was unable to find its stage 1 decision as it had not been saved. No evidence has been provided to show that a complaint response was sent to the resident at all. This was not in line with its complaints policy and was not reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 29 July 2022 to state that her concerns were not resolved. She emailed it again on 1 August 2022 and followed this with a phone call on 2 August 2022 to request that it reopened her complaint. She said that it had originally told her Property B was safe, but her experience living there had shown this was incorrect and she felt that it was not taking her concerns seriously. It contacted her on 16 August 2022 and obtained further information about the complaint. Evidence provided to this Service listed the formal acknowledgement date of this complaint as 22 September 2022, 37 working days after her initial email. This delay was not appropriate, or in line with its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord did not allocate the resident’s complaint internally until 5 October 2022. There is no evidence that it took any action after allocation, and she chased it for a response on 16 November 2022. It replied on the same day stating it was taking longer than expected to respond to complaints and apologised for the delay. It sent a further email on 21 November 2022, advising that it was unable to find any complaints from her on its system. She provided the complaint reference number, and it found the complaint, advising it would be in contact to provide a response in due course. The continued delays were not reasonable and not in line with its complaints policy.
  5. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show the landlord took any further action with the resident’s complaint between 21 November 2022 and a further chasing email from her on 23 January 2023. It did not respond to this, and she chased it in further emails on 6 and 8 February 2023. Again, it did not respond, and she sought intervention from the Ombudsman. This Service emailed it on 24 March 2023 requesting it provide her with a complaint response. It allocated the complaint internally on the same day and sent a complaint acknowledgement on 27 March 2023. While the resident was no longer a tenant of the landlord at this time, it showed little regard for its own complaint policy and only responded to her following contact from this Service.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 25 April 2023, 8 months after she first requested escalation. It provided a narrative of all the issues she had reported to it to show that it had investigated her concerns. It explained its actions after her original complaint in February 2022, including that it had fast tracked her mutual exchange request so she could be closer to family. It acknowledged her concerns about Property B but stated that it could not disclose anything about the previous tenants because of data protection and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations 2018). It had previously acknowledged that there were issues in Property B, including police forcing entry to search for the previous tenants and disclosing serious incidents of violence prior to the resident moving in as part of the homelessness application it provided to her in December 2020. In this application, it also said that it thought Property B would be safe as the previous tenants had left. Once it became clear that this was not the case, it agreed to move her as soon as it could. It could not have reasonably foreseen the issues that occurred. As such, it is unclear what further information it could have provided to her as part of its complaint response and no failings have been identified in relation to this.
  7. The landlord found no failing in its handling of rehousing the resident but acknowledged that it failed in responding to her communications and in the length of time it had taken to respond to her complaint. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £600 as described previously in this report. It also said that its internal complaints learning group would assess the case to take valuable lessons forward. Its stage 2 response was fair and thorough.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, despite the evident poor complaint handling throughout the complaints process, the landlord offered remedies as part of its stage 2 response that demonstrated these principles. It was fair in its response and by offering an apology and compensation it made efforts to put things right. The resident was no longer one of its tenants and as such, there was little else it could offer her at this time. It showed a willingness to learn from the outcomes of this complaint by assessing its failings internally.
  9. In conclusion, no evidence has been provided to this Service to demonstrate that the landlord attempted to reassure the resident that it was taking her complaint seriously, especially considering her historical circumstances and vulnerabilities. While there were clear and obvious failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and record keeping relating to the complaint, it acknowledged these and offered compensation of £600 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration.
  10. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practice under paragraph 54.f in relation to managing its backlog of complaints. Some of the issues in this case are similar to case(s) already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. It should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £600 as previously offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response.