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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202223589)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223589

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 November 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for:
    1. A rent refund.
    2. Proof of permission for home improvements and compensation for the associated costs.
  2. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in May 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat.
  2. The resident has vulnerabilities. The landlord has not confirmed if these were recorded on its system.
  3. The landlord sold the property to an alternative provider in November 2022 as part of a stock transfer.
  4. On 22 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request it refund rent it had inadvertently received from her universal credit (UC) in the sum of £653.81. It replied on 3 January 2023 informing her it had processed this refund and, subject to approval, a payment of £328.81 would be paid to her bank account on 13 January 2023. The landlord asked the resident to note it had retained £325 as there was an outstanding court cost dating back to June 2019.
  5. In her stage 1 response dated 4 January 2023, the resident explained she was in the process of moving out of the property and had requested a refund of rent from the landlord that it had incorrectly received from UC. She was unhappy that the landlord had told her it had deducted some of her rent on the basis she owed a court fee. She said the landlord had not previously informed that she owed this amount.
  6. In her complaint the resident also asked the landlord to provide her with proof of its permission given for alterations to the property during her tenancy. She explained this was to avoid her new landlord from charging her for these.
  7. In its stage 1 response dated 5 January 2023 the landlord stated:
    1. Regarding the payment relating to court costs, its records show this related to a county court judgement dated 19 April 2019 whereby the resident was ordered to pay its costs of the claim in the amount of £325. It could not see any record of confirmation of this being sent to her, however, the court had a duty to notify her of the judgement and findings, as such it could not comment on this. The landlord attached a copy of the court order for the resident’s information.
    2. Regarding permission for alternations, its records indicated that on 10 March 2016 she requested permission to complete internal repairs and other works. It provided a copy of this email and its reply from its property manager (PM) at the time which shows it granted permission for all the alterations requested by the resident.
  8. In communications dated 5,16,18 and 23 January 2023, the resident queried why the landlord had not previously requested or informed her of the court cost including when the property transferred to her new landlord. She also complained that she had not received the agreed rent credit on 13 January 2023 as promised. On 18 January 2023, she asked the landlord to reimburse her with the cost of home improvements and on 23 January 2023 and 16 February 2023 she contacted it again stating she had not received any response to this request.
  9. The resident received the rent refund of £328.81 from the landlord on 18 February 2023. On 19 February 2023, she emailed the landlord listing the occasions she had contacted it to ask for the refund since 22 December 2022. She asked for compensation for the “stress and anxiety” caused during the previous 2 months.
  10. After contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 23 May 2023. This stated:
    1. Regarding the complaint about the deduction of rent, this had been resolved over the phone and confirmed in several emails.
    2. Regarding her request for compensation for home improvements, it gave permission in its response dated 14 March 2016 for the resident to undertake home improvements. Its tenancy improvement form (it had already sent this to her) stated that unless otherwise agreed in writing, the total cost of the work and related expenses were to be met by the resident.
    3. After a thorough investigation, it could find no evidence to suggest it agreed to pay for these improvements as these were made only for aesthetic purposes.
  11. The landlord said it was sorry about the impact this had on her. It would like to offer her £210 in compensation based on:
    1. Review of stage two decision £50
    2. Inconvenience and distress £60
    3. Time and effort £50
    4. Goodwill gesture £50 (this was towards the cost of the new bathroom door mentioned in her 10 March 2016 home improvement request).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a rent refund

  1. Prior to the transfer of the property the landlord received the resident’s rent payment directly from the department of work and pensions (DWP) as part of the resident’s UC. This was paid a month in advance. About a month after the transfer, the resident contacted the landlord requesting a refund of credit on her rent account (£653.81) that it had inadvertently received from her UC.
  2. The landlord told the resident a few days later that it had processed a refund and this should reach her bank account on 13 January 2023 pending approval. This was reasonable, however the landlord also said it had deducted £325 from the rent refund due to court proceedings in 2019 whereby the resident was ordered to pay its costs of the claim in the amount of £325.
  3. In her stage 1 complaint the resident disputed the deduction as she said the landlord had not previously informed her of this. In its stage 1 response the landlord reiterated that she was responsible for this cost, and it provided her with a copy of the court order. This stated the resident was responsible for the cost in question. This aspect of the landlord’s response was appropriate as it made clear the reason for the deduction. There is no suggestion that the resident had already paid this cost to the landlord, as such it was reasonable for the landlord to expect payment of this cost from the resident.
  4. However, in its response the landlord acknowledged it had not previously informed the resident of this outstanding balance but said the court would have notified her of the judgement and orders at the time. This Service accepts that the landlord was not responsible for notifying the resident of the judgement and orders in 2016. Nonetheless we would expect the landlord to have informed the resident of any outstanding balance at the point her tenancy (with the landlord) ended when her property transferred under the stock transfer. This Service has not seen the terms of the stock transfer, but this finding is in accordance with information on the landlord’s website that states that a resident must clear any rent arrears or sub-accounts before the tenancy ends. This is also echoed in the tenancy agreement.
  5. It is clear that at the point the landlord deducted the cost and told the resident it had done so, her tenancy with it had ended approximately six weeks prior. In her communications sent to the landlord over the following 2 weeks, the resident queried why it had not requested this cost earlier and said there was no mention of a deduction in the rent account transferred to the new landlord.  She asked how it intended to claim this cost from her had it not incorrectly received the rent from her UC.
  6. It is clear from the landlord’s internal communications that the court cost was placed in a “sub-account” by the landlord in 2019 which it did not inform the resident of, nor did it apply this to her rent account when the tenancy ended at transfer. This was inappropriate and constitutes a failing by the landlord. It is noted that in its internal communications, the landlord acknowledged this cost ought to have been reconciled with the resident’s rent account at the point of transfer. It stated that going forward reconciling accounts before completion of any future stock transfers was something that it would need to look at. This indicates a willingness by the landlord to learn lessons to avoid the same situation occurring. An appropriate order has therefore, been included below.
  7. In regard to the landlord refunding the remaining balance (£328.18), the resident did not receive this by 13 January 2023 as promised in its stage 1 response. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 to chase the refund as she had not been advised of any delay. After receiving no response from the landlord, she sent further emails on 18 and 23 January 2023. The landlord’s internal records show that after looking into this, it found it had used the wrong direct debit to refund the resident the rent credit. While the landlord explained this to the resident on 31 January 2023 and took steps to resolve this issue. The rent refund due to the resident was not provided until 18 February 2023, which was more than 3 weeks later. During this time the resident continued to chase the landlord for her rent refund.
  8. The resident had been clear with the landlord from the outset that she needed the landlord to refund her the rent to enable her to pay her new landlord to avoid the issue jeopardising or delaying her property move that was imminent. The landlord’s significant delay in refunding the rent credit and failure to provide regular updates to the resident during this timeframe was unreasonable and a failing.
  9. In her 19 February 2023 complaint, the resident listed the occasions she had contacted the landlord requesting the refund since 22 December 2022, and asked for compensation for stress and anxiety caused to her during the previous 2 months.
  10. In its final response the landlord stated this complaint had been resolved as per its telephone call and in emails. While the landlord’s records indicate it called the resident a few days before the date of its final response, there are no details of any resolution reached with the resident. Furthermore, there is no evidence of this complaint being resolved during emails as suggested. It is reasonable to expect landlords to keep thorough records including instances where it resolves stage 2 complaints. There is no evidence to show the landlord did so here. There are also no details given of the referenced resolution in its final response. This was unreasonable, and as such this Service is not satisfied the landlord has demonstrated that the complaint was resolved.
  11. In summary, its failure to request or deduct the court costs owed by the resident prior to the end of her tenancy was a failing. Furthermore, it did not refund the rent credit by the date advised to the resident and there was a further delay in providing this refund. This was a further failing. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging these failings to the resident during the complaints process. Neither is there any evidence to show the landlord provided suitable redress to put this right. Its failure to take these steps is indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s request for a rent refund.
  12. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to order the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is within the range recommended for maladministration (at the lower end) in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This amount is reasonable and proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and the detriment caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for proof of permission for home improvements and compensation for the associated costs

  1. In her formal complaint the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a copy of the permission it had provided for home improvements she made during her tenancy. She explained this was to avoid her new landlord charging her for these improvements when she moved out of the property. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the requested permission it had given to her on 14 March 2016, with its stage 1 response. As the landlord promptly provided the permissions information requested, it acted appropriately.
  2. A few days after its stage 1 response however, the resident asked the landlord to refund the costs of the home improvements she had undertaken as she believed this was in line with its policy. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s request within a reasonable timeframe. This caused the resident to have to chase the landlord for a response on 23 January 2023 and again on 16 February 2023. The lack of any response indicates poor communication by the landlord.
  3. In its final response issued more than 3 months later, the landlord explained that the cost of home improvements were generally met by residents unless otherwise agreed in writing. It explained that as it could not find any records to suggest it agreed to pay for the home improvements requested in 2016, it was unwilling to pay for her home improvements.
  4. Information in the landlord’s ‘tenant improvement application’ as provided to the resident, confirms the position stated by the landlord in its final response. As such the landlord’s response was reasonable. Nevertheless, in its final response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 towards the cost of replacing the bathroom door. It is clear from the resident’s 10 March 2016 home improvement request that she told the landlord at this time that there were holes in the door that had been present since the outset of her tenancy. This Service considers that its offer recognised that there was a potential failing at the time on its part to either complete the repair itself as per its obligations or to inform the resident of how to report this issue to its repair team. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord also offered to pay the resident £110 in compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and effort caused. This Service considers that the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable and as such this resolved the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. Following the landlord providing its stage 1 complaint response, in emails sent to the landlord between 5 January and 19 February 2023, the resident disputed aspects of both the landlord’s stage 1 and subsequent responses provided to her points raised about the refund of rent and home improvement permissions.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the definition of a complaint. This is echoed in the landlord’s complaints policy. Having reviewed the resident’s communications during this timeframe, it is clear they meet the definition of a complaint. This includes the resident’s 19 February 2023 email wherein she requested compensation for the “stress and anxiety caused during the previous 2 months”.
  3. There is no evidence of the landlord logging or providing a stage 2 response at this time. It was only after contact from the Ombudsman on 16 May 2023 that it provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023. Its failure to do so is evidence of the landlord not following its complaints policy while handling the resident’s complaints and constitutes a failing.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint final response, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its response which it said was because it was working through a backlog of complaints. The landlord offered to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the impact caused. Given the length of the delay in providing its response which ultimately delayed the resolution of the resident’s complaint, the amount offered fell slightly short of what was reasonable in the circumstances. This is indicative of service failure by the landlord while handling her related complaint.
  5. Furthermore, it is evident from communications seen by this Service that the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions following the date of its final response (23 May 2023) to advise that she had not received the promised compensation. It is clear that the last occasion she chased the landlord for this was in June 2024, more than 13 months after its final response.
  6. While we cannot investigate events after the date of the final response, we would expect the landlord to pay any compensation promised in its complaint responses within a reasonable timeframe of the complaints process ending. In response to our query raised with the landlord about the delay in providing compensation, it provided a screen shot indicating it raised a cheque for the compensation on the same date as the final response. While this was appropriate, the evidence shows that the resident told the landlord on 7 June 2023, 13 January 2024 and again on 6 June 2024 that she had not received the cheque. A second screen shot provided by the landlord shows a second cheque was issued on 15 August 2024 and cashed on 22 August 2024. While this confirms the landlord provided the promised compensation, it is evident there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in re-issuing the cheque after the resident chased this with it.
  7. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to order that the landlord pay the resident a further £100 in compensation for the failings identified above. This is in line with the amount recommended for service failure in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which is appropriate here.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a rent refund.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for proof of permission for home improvements and compensation for the associated costs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1.        Provides a written apology to the resident for failings identified in this investigation.
    2.        Pays the resident further compensation of £250 made up of:
      1. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings in its handling of the request for a rent refund.
      2. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings in its complaint handling.
  2. Demonstrate to this Service that it has acted upon learning it identified during the complaints process in relation to the need to reconcile residents’ accounts before completion of stock transfers. We expect to see evidence showing that the landlord has made suitable changes to its practice or processes relating to stock transfers which reflects this.
  3. Provides us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.