London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307107

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 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 resident’s concerns about parking and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident’s assured tenancy with the landlord began in July 2018. The property was part of a regeneration project that has both surface and underground parking. In November 2018, the landlord allocated the resident a surface parking bay and she signed its ‘temporary allocation’ document. The resident explained to us her health issues and disabilities. The landlord told us that it was aware of the resident’s health issues but has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. In November 2022, the resident expressed her distress to the landlord that she had been told that she had no rights to her parking bay.
3. In February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding reports from a neighbour about the resident. The allegations were that the resident had been abusive.
4. On 14 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. Her key points were:
   1. The landlord had sent her its ASB letter without getting her own “statement of events”. It had not explained how it had reached its conclusions, nor considered the neighbour’s behaviour.
   2. Its letter was its first “official” confirmation that it had reallocated her parking bay to the neighbour, for which it had provided her no explanation.
   3. It had ignored her previous contacts about the parking bay. She said that she felt she had “been discriminated against”.
   4. She asked that it makes “reasonable adjustments based on health”. She specified that all contact to her be in writing.
5. In April 2023, the resident chased her complaint with the landlord. She said it had ‘failed to accommodate her reasonable adjustments’. On 18 July 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it could have contacted her before sending her its ASB letter. It said that it had reallocated her parking bay after she did not respond to its request for vehicle documents. It offered her £25 compensation for its failure to be proactive and £25 for its delayed response.
6. On 1 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that the landlord had not responded to her discrimination concerns. She reiterated her reasonable adjustments request. She disputed that the landlord had written to her requesting vehicle documents and asked that it provide a copy of its letter.
7. In November 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and asked that she provide it her vehicle documents. On 20 November 2023 it sent her its stage 2 response. It explained the temporary basis upon which she had been allocated her parking bay. It said that it would arrange a suitable bay once it had received her documents. It apologised and offered her £100 compensation for its complaint handling and £200 for its “failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities”.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. Regarding her parking bay, she stated her belief that she feels she is ‘being singled out to provide documentation after the fact to retroactively support a decision to revoke her space’. She told us that that she was the only resident who had “lost a space” or that was “asked to provide this documentation”. She said that “other residents have since been awarded multiple surface bays”. She said that the landlord has since offered her an underground bay but she would be unable to walk to it without assistance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has referred to the impact on her health of the matters related to her complaint. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident could consider taking independent legal advice in that regard. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress.
10. The resident continued to pursue parking bay matters with the landlord through 2024 and sought support from her MP. The landlord responded to her MP in December 2024. These events were after the conclusion of her complaint in November 2023 and are not considered in this assessment. However, we have referred to the landlord’s response to the MP regarding our understanding of the current situation.

Parking bay and ASB concerns

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that you must not harass or behave in a threatening way towards your neighbours. It states that you must “comply with any parking schemes running at the estate”. The resident’s parking bay document, signed in 2018, stated that the allocation was temporary and would be reviewed at a later phase of the regeneration project.
12. The evidence shows that, in January 2019, the landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions and the serious impact that stress could have on her. The resident also referred to her disabilities and health issues throughout the complaint. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered her vulnerabilities during this period. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response sent to her in November 2023. It is therefore of concern that the landlord told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcomes of her complaint.
13. On 15 November 2022, the resident expressed her concerns about parking to the landlord. It noted that she was “very distressed as she has disability, needs space near her property”. It is a significant failing that there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until we contacted it in July 2023. She later said that this was one of several occasions from November 2022 that she had raised her parking bay concerns, without getting a response from the landlord.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will use tools such as warning letters to take appropriate action. It acknowledges that “some perpetrators of ASB may themselves be vulnerable or have been victims of ASB”. It says that “where appropriate we will work with perpetrators to understand the reasons behind their behaviour”.
15. On 23 February 2023, the landlord unsuccessfully tried to call the resident to discuss the neighbour’s ASB report. The report regarded a dispute about the parking bay. It wrote to the resident the same day but did not provide us with a copy of its letter.
16. However, the resident later included excerpts from the landlord’s letter in her correspondence with it. This included the landlord’s statements that she was “clearly in breach of your tenancy agreement” and that her “behaviour is totally unacceptable”. The landlord’s heavy-handed approach failed to demonstrate that it had acted fairly, considered the reasons for the dispute, nor whether the resident had also experienced ASB, in line with its policy.
17. It was therefore understandable that the resident’s complaint to the landlord the following month, expressed her unhappiness to receive the letter based on only the neighbour’s version of events. The landlord did somewhat acknowledge this failing in its stage 1 response to her and did so more readily at stage 2. Nevertheless, the significant delays in its complaint handling meant that it was several months before the resident received this acknowledgement and would have added to her distress with its ASB handling.
18. In July 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident explained the reasons that it had written to all residents to advise of a parking audit. It said that its letter had asked residents to provide vehicle documents, upon which parking bays would be assigned. It said that it had assigned the resident’s bay to her neighbour, as the resident had not responded to it. It acknowledged that it could have prevented the issues with the neighbour by writing to the resident to confirm its decision. It offered her £25 compensation for its failure to “take proactive steps”.
19. In August 2023, the resident disputed that the landlord had written to her about its parking audit or requested documents. She asked for a copy of its letter and repeated her request over the following months. The landlord’s repeated failure to acknowledge or respond to her requests would have added to her frustration and distress. We also asked the landlord to provide us a copy of its parking audit letter. It told us that it could not. As such, it has failed to evidence the actions that it had told the resident were the sole basis for its parking bay decision. Her feeling that the landlord had treated her unfairly was therefore entirely understandable.
20. The resident highlighted this to the landlord in her stage 2 escalation and raised queries regarding its allocation of bays. She expressed her belief that no other resident had been required to provide documents. She further highlighted that it had not required her to provide documents when it allocated the bay to her in 2018. The landlord has not shown it has asked any other resident for such information.
21. While the resident’s view was understandable, the landlord’s document that she signed at that time made clear that the allocation of her bay was temporary. The landlord was therefore entitled to make changes to its parking scheme. Its expectation that she complies with the terms of that parking scheme was also in line with the terms of her tenancy. However, it wholly failed to respond to her related queries, nor her belief that she was being treated differently to other residents. This would have further added to her frustration and distress.
22. It was not until November 2023, that the landlord asked the resident to provide her vehicle documents and committed to provide her a parking bay on receipt. However, it again failed to address her continued belief that she was being asked to provide information that no other resident had needed to. It was a significant failing that the landlord did not respond to her concerns, which is further considered in the assessment below.
23. The Ombudsman’s approach to inequality is set out in our guidance on Equality and Human Rights Guidance. Whilst we cannot make a finding there was prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010, we can consider if a landlord had due regard to its obligations under the Act. In this case, the landlord was aware that the resident could have a disability within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010, therefore, it should have considered whether its practice in the handling of the parking bays, namely, to remove and reallocate bays could have put disabled people (or people with the resident’s conditions) at a disadvantage. There is no evidence the landlord considered this prior to reallocating the bays, such that it is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence the landlord had due regard to its obligations, more specifically s.19 of the Equality Act 2010. This was, therefore, a failure by the landlord.
24. The resident’s complaint stated that she felt that the landlord had discriminated against her. She repeated this in her later contacts, including her stage 2 request made to it on 1 August 2023. It was a further significant failing that the landlord did not, at any point during its complaint process, acknowledge or respond to the resident’s discrimination concerns. It was understandable that she expressed her frustration and distress with this. Its actions, or lack thereof, failed to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised to the resident for “how this has been managed”. It offered her £200 compensation for its failure to consider her vulnerabilities, in addition to the £25 at stage 1. While it was appropriate for the landlord to make this offer to the resident, it was not proportionate to the duration or impact of its further identified failings. Nor did it show it had fully considered how its actions could have impacted those with disabilities.
26. The resident experienced time, trouble, and distress over the 13 months from when she first raised her concerns. The landlord added to her frustration by the failings in its ASB handling and by failing to respond to her in a timely manner, or often at all. When it did respond to her, it failed to address her ongoing concerns, and its explanations relied on actions it was unable to evidence.
27. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking bay and ASB concerns. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £550 compensation, inclusive of its £225 offer for its handling of the parking bay. It should pay £150 compensation for the handling of the reports of ASB. It should also keep of this report on file with its ASB letter. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord’s “offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation”.
28. In December 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s MP about the matter. It said that it could offer the resident an underground bay “designed to meet the needs of residents with mobility challenges” and add her to the waiting list for a surface bay. It repeated its claim that she had not provided “the required documents (…) before the allocated deadline”, which it has since told us it is unable to evidence. A further order has therefore been made for the landlord to address the resident’s ongoing concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

29. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage process, with responses sent within 10 and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2, respectively. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”.
30. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2023. She clearly explained the health reasons that she was requesting the reasonable adjustment of all contact being written only. As such, it was a significant failing that, 10 days later, the evidence shows that the landlord twice made unsuccessful attempts to call her to discuss her complaint.
31. The landlord then failed to further progress the resident’s complaint until we contacted it, in July 2023. It sent her its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023. This was a wholly unreasonable 77 working days longer that the timeframe of either its policy or the Code. It offered the resident £25 compensation for this delay.
32. The landlord’s contact with the resident, in the days prior to its stage 2 response, was also the first that we have seen where it referred to her request for written contact only. However, it failed to acknowledge this as a reasonable adjustment, as she had requested 9 months earlier, nor otherwise offer her assurance that it had been recorded as such for future contact.
33. On 20 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. This was again a wholly unreasonable 60 working days longer than the timeframe of its own policy, from when the resident made her stage 2 request. It was also again only after further contact from us. The landlord’s significant delays at both stages of the resident’s complaint, would have added to her time, trouble, and distress. It offered her a further £100 compensation for its delayed response.
34. The resident’s stage 2 request, and other contacts to the landlord, had expressed her unhappiness that it had not responded to many of her points, additional to her discrimination concerns. The landlord’s stage 2 response would have worsened her frustrations when it again failed to address many of her points, nor provide clear reasons for its decisions. As such, it failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Code.
35. A further finding of maladministration has therefore been made. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling and £150 for its failure to respond to her discrimination concerns. This amount is inclusive of its own offer of £125 and is in line with the remedies guidance stated above.
36. The Ombudsman has undertaken a special investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The actions needed following the completion of the special investigation included a review of the landlord’s complaint handling. Many of the issues identified in this case are similar to those in our special investigation. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with the special investigation, so we have not made any orders regarding its complaint handling. However, an order has been made regarding its handling of resident vulnerabilities, reasonable adjustment requests, and discrimination concerns.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about parking and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

38. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Writes to the resident to:
       1. Apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
       2. Confirm its position regarding her reasonable adjustment request for a parking bay and to be contacted in writing. The landlord should consider if the resident has a disability and whether it will offer her a parking bay and if not, why not.
       3. Rescind its ASB letter or keep a copy of this report on file with its ASB letter to the resident. It must confirm this to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pays the resident total compensation of £900 made up of:
       1. £550 for the time, trouble, and distress likely caused by the failings in its handling of parking bay.
       2. £150 for the upset caused by the ASB letter.
       3. £200 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.

This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £50 and £300 (if those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £900). The compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.

3. Review its parking policy/practice for the estate and whether it needs to conduct a further Equality Impact Assessment. It must update the resident and this Service with its findings within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

39. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.