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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316143)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316143

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 July 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 a back door replacement.
    2. Handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association and the property is a ground floor 1-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records show that it was to provide domestic abuse support to the resident. It has no further vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy defines a vulnerable resident as someone with circumstances that may put them at risk in their home, it includes domestic abuse as an example. The policy explains that it will tailor its services to the needs of its residents.
  2. The landlord’s safeguarding adults at risk policy says it is to safeguard adults from harm, abuse or neglect. Its aims include, amongst other things, a proportionate, timely and professional response to anyone at risk of abuse, harm or neglect.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property which includes external doors, amongst other things. It explains that for emergency work, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant, it will attend within 24 hours. For routine repairs it will aim to complete the repair in 25 calendar days.
  4. The landlord’s rehousing policy explains that a resident should contact it for advice on moving and it would assess the circumstances and give options appropriate to needs. For rehousing it explains circumstances that a resident must meet for the rehousing criteria this includes, amongst other things, the resident being at immediate risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. A stage 1 response will be investigated and responded to within 10 working days and if more time is needed it would explain why and extend to no more than a further 10 working days. It says a stage 2 response will be investigated and responded to within 20 working days of the escalation request. It explains that this would be its final decision.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it will award discretionary compensation when its mistakes or failure cause a customer distress or inconvenience. It says that when assessing the level of discretionary compensation it will take into consideration, amongst other things, the duration of avoidable distress and inconvenience and the seriousness of the impact.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord was made aware of issues with the back door at the property in October 2022. It requested an inspection at that time and asked for advice on additional security that could be added to the back door or if it needed replacing.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 31 July 2023. She told the landlord that she was a victim of domestic abuse and had been let down by it. She said:
    1. She had been waiting for a back door replacement for almost a year and how she felt her back door could be easily broken into. She said she was at high risk due to this.
    2. She had been told she would be offered a 2-bedroom property but it offered her a 1-bedroom property instead. She said she had been waiting for almost 2 years for a 2-bedroom property.
    3. She said she lived in fear of her former partner who lived “2 minutes away” and asked it to replace her back door to make it secure and move her as a priority.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 August 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days. The resident responded the same day and told it how its handling of her situation had been “appalling” and referred it to a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). She repeated her previous concerns about the damaged back door.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It apologised for the delay and said:
    1. For the back door replacement, it raised a repair on 3 October 2022 and it completed this work along with other work by 27 February 2023. It said it raised work on 4 July 2023 following reports of the door not closing correctly. It apologised for the delay and confirmed an appointment was scheduled for 6 September 2023.
    2. In relation to rehousing, it agreed it would offer the resident a 2–bedroom property. It explained that when the resident moved to the property it was advertised as a 2-bedroom property and later it was deemed that the second bedroom was not big enough to constitute a bedroom. It said that after undoing some work to make the property safe it changed the property to a 1-bedroom property and classified it as such within its records. It said it would honor a 2-bedroom offer. It detailed the action it had taken:
      1. A query was raised to its rehousing team on 16 December 2022 and the resident was asked to attend the ‘freedom programme’ on 31 January 2023 and to widen her search criteria.
      2. A further query was raised on 20 July 2023 and due to the resident’s circumstances, a second housing management review was being conducted and it would be in contact. It provided details of the other options available to the resident.
    3. It apologised for the delays and the difficulties experienced by the resident. It said repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and swiftly. It said it had passed details of the complaint to its complaints learning team.
    4. It offered the resident a total of £525 compensation which was made up of:
      1. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £200 for time and effort.
      3. £50 for its complaint handling and a further £25 for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She told it she was not satisfied with the outcome of its investigation and did not accept the compensation offer. She repeated how the back door was not safe and about her risk living at the property with her former partner living so near. She told the landlord how she had anxiety and depression. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 7 September 2023.
  6. This Service wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 14 December 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. It said it received the escalation request on 7 December 2023 and said:
    1. For the back door repair, it agreed a new back door was needed on 13 October 2022 but this was declined due to the quote being too high. It said it had escalated the door repair to its review panel as it felt the matter was of urgency and high importance and was a health and safety risk. It said it would keep the resident updated.
    2. For the rehousing, it said the resident already had a rehousing case and it did not have the authority to escalate the issue further. It referred the resident to another member of staff. It said it updated its system to show domestic abuse was a flag on the account.
    3. It said the length of time taken to complete the repair was unsatisfactory and it upheld the resident’s complaint. It increased its compensation offer to £890 and said this was made up of:
      1. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £200 for the time and effort in getting the complaint resolved.
      3. £150 for the poor complaint handling.
      4. £240 for service failure.

Post internal complaints process

  1. Following further contact from the resident and further investigation into the door replacement, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 11 June 2024. This said:
    1. It had decided to replace and secure the resident’s door and its contractor should contact the resident by 13 June 2024.
    2. A new fire door and frame would be fitted to the kitchen and said its contractor would be in touch.
    3. It was happy to hear the resident had been offered and accepted a new property.
    4. The landlord explained how learning was important part of its process and it had briefed the associated teams on the resident’s case.
    5. It explained that the initial compensation offered of £890 had been paid to the resident’s rent account and that since then further compensation of £770 would be applied due to the outstanding repair. The £770 was in addition to the £890 it previously offered. The landlord explained that the £770 was made up of:
      1. £300 for the distress for its failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
      2. £300 for the inconvenience for its failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
      3. £50 poor complaint handling
      4. £120 service failure.
  2. The resident responded the same day and said she was “very satisfied” with the outcome and additional compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Over the course of the resident’s complaint and in communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that her living situation impacted her mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments especially in light of her circumstances, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident in light of her personal circumstances.

Handling of a back door replacement

  1. It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns about damage to the back door. The landlord’s repairs log shows it was aware of the issue by, no later than, 3 October 2022. Here, the landlord appropriately raised a request for an inspection and asked for advice on how to either secure the back door or if it needed replacing.
  2. The inspection notes from 13 October 2022 describe the back door as “very poor door advice to fit UPVC multi-lock system”. However, despite what the inspection found, the repair log shows that the work to the back door was closed as “no action” on the same day. This was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s repair notes show it raised work for the door again on 14 July 2023. It followed up on the door replacement with its repairs department on 2 August 2023 and while it told the resident it would attend the property on 6 September 2023 it has not provided evidence to show it did this. This was not appropriate.
  4. It took the landlord until 13 December 2023 (its stage 2 response) to tell the resident that while it agreed a new back door was needed in October 2022, the request was declined due to the quote for replacing the door being too high. It took the landlord 14 months (December 2023) to say it had escalated the door repair to its review panel. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  5. During this time the landlord did not take account of the resident’s safety or her vulnerabilities as per its policies. It offered no interim solutions and did not tailor its services to the needs of the resident. It did this despite the resident repeatedly telling it of her concerns about her former partner living nearby and her experiences of domestic abuse. This was not appropriate.
  6. It is concerning that following the landlord’s stage 2 response it told the resident that the back garden was surrounded by private gardens only with access “not possible unless going through the house”. There is no evidence to show it assessed the risk at that time or that it used the MARAC as part of its decision making process. This was not appropriate and meant it took further communication from the resident for it to approve the work in May 2024, with work scheduled for some time before 13 June 2023.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the back door replacement was not appropriate. Its inspection found the door was “very poor” however it closed the works order due to a high quote and failed to offer any alternative support to the resident. This was despite the resident repeatedly telling it of her serious concerns about the safety and security of her home. The landlord took too long to take action in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its stage 2 response did not do enough to put things right and meant it exposed the resident to avoidable worry for a prolonged time, at least 20 months. While the landlord’s revised stage 2 response was better, this was significantly after the complaints process (over 6 months) and it remains unclear what prompted this. The landlord’s repeated missed opportunities to respond appropriately sooner, its overall handling of the back door replacement in light of the serious concerns it was told of and its lack of learning from its failings amount to severe maladministration.
  8. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £300 for the distress and inconvenience and a further £240 for its service failure. This response offered a total of £540 for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, its revised stage 2 response from June 2024 acknowledged its failure to recognise the impact of its failings due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and made a further compensation offer of £600 for the distress and inconvenience and £120 for its service failure. The landlord’s further offer of £720 means in total it offered the resident £1,260 for this aspect of the complaint.
  9. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, alongside what the landlord has already offered as well as the circumstances of the case. The amount of £1,260 falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and this amount has been considered as appropriate in the circumstances. It is understood that the resident has also accepted this amount. As such no further compensation amount has been ordered.

Handling of the resident’s rehousing request

  1. The landlord has said it was aware of reports of domestic abuse in November 2021. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether it conducted a risk assessment or if it offered the resident support at that time.
  2. The landlord accepts it received a rehousing query in December 2022 and it reviewed this on 31 January 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord over a month to review the resident’s rehousing query. The landlord has not provided details of its review, however its decision to refer the resident to the ‘freedom programme’ suggests it did not understand the resident’s situation and did not apply a victim centred approach. Furthermore, it did not assess whether the resident met its criteria for a priority move at that time. This was not appropriate.
  3. As part of her complaint the resident asked for a priority move and told the landlord of a MARAC. She repeated how she was a high risk domestic abuse resident, how her former partner lived “2 minutes away” and about her safety concerns. Despite what the landlord was told, it failed to adopt a multiagency approach, to use the MARAC as part of its decision making or consider other options/actions to support the resident at that time. This was not appropriate.
  4. Instead within its stage 1 response it said it was conducting a further housing review and repeated this within its stage 2 response, 5 months later. The landlord has not provided evidence to show the outcome of its review, when it was concluded or evidence to show it adopted a timely approach. This was not appropriate.
  5. Its stage 2 response demonstrates that it did not understand the seriousness of the resident’s concerns, despite her repeatedly telling it. It simply told the resident it did not have authority to escalate her issue and referred her to another member of staff. This was not appropriate and shows it repeatedly missed opportunities to communicate effectively about the resident’s rehousing or offer support in the interim until a suitable property became available.
  6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request was not appropriate. Despite the resident repeatedly telling it her former partner lived “2 minutes” away and that she was a victim of domestic abuse, the landlord failed to progress matters in line with its policy or communicate effectively with the resident during this time. It took too long to review the rehousing request (over 5 months) and has not provided evidence to show it prioritised the resident’s move, assessed her risk or provided her with options appropriate to her needs. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its policy or wider obligations.
  7. It is accepted that the landlord’s failings would have adversely affected the resident. Its combined failings relating to its handling of the resident’s rehousing request and the damage to the back door would have had a serious detrimental effect on the resident at that time.
  8. It is acknowledged that following its stage 2 response (6 months later) the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response which confirmed the resident had accepted a new property. While this demonstrates that the issue may have since resolved, it remains unclear how long it took to put things right and there is no evidence to show the landlord acknowledged its failings here or learnt from them.
  9. In addition to the above, the resident raised concerns about being offered a 1-bedroom property instead of a 2-bedroom property, the evidence suggests this may have been offered sometime between January and July 2023. Here the landlord acted appropriately in confirming it would offer a 2-bedroom property within its stage 1 response. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that within that timeframe a 2-bedroom property was not available, despite the resident’s concerns that it could have been. It also missed opportunities to provide the resident with some reassurance of her rehousing priority and explain what it could do to support her until a suitable property became available. It did this despite the resident’s serious concerns and missed further opportunities within its complaint responses to put things right or explain its approach.
  10. When considering the above issues combined the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 2 August 2023 and despite several chasers for a response, the landlord failed to provide a response within the timeframes set within its policy and took until 1 September 2023 to issue its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 September 2023. However, the landlord failed to respond to the complaint within an appropriate timeframe. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. The timeframe of almost 3 months was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling delays meant it took over 4 months to conclude its internal complaints process. This was not appropriate.
  4. In addition to delay, the landlord missed opportunities to provide meaningful information within its stage 1 and 2 responses. It missed opportunities to demonstrate it understood the resident’s matter and explain its approach, especially for rehousing. It took further contact from the resident for the landlord to put things right. While issuing a revised stage 2 response to revisit where its initial stage 2 response fell short was a proactive approach, especially as it shows insight and attempts to put things right, it is unclear why the landlord did not do this sooner. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
  5. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response from December 2023, it offered the resident £200 for the time and effort in getting the complaint resolved and £150 for its poor complaint handling. The amount of £350 has been considered against this Service remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. The amount of £350 falls within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance, when considering this along with the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount satisfactory resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. handling of a back door replacement.
    2. handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for an executive director to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,010 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
    1. £540 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already, for its service failure when handling the back door replacement and the distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £720 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of the back door replacement.
    3. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should be within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, including why it took as long as it did to agree a door replacement in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
      1. The findings and learning from the review.
      2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failing from occurring in the future.
    3. The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pay the resident £400 compensation it previously offered for its complaint handling failings, this amount includes what it offered in its revised stage 2 response, if it has not paid this amount already.