London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323184

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about her housing situation and request to be rehoused.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her sibling have held a joint assured tenancy with the landlord since 2012. The property is a 2 bedroom flat where she also lives with her child. The resident has mental health issues, and her child is asthmatic. Her child was born some years after the tenancy began. The landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
In November 2019, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf. The MP stated that the resident wanted to split her joint tenancy for a variety of reasons. The MP said that this included that her infant child was asthmatic, and her sibling was a “regular indoor smoker”. The landlord told the MP that the resident and her sibling would need to mutually agree to any change to their tenancy. It advised that they seek legal advice, or “come to a joint agreement regarding lifestyle habits”.
On 16 May 2022, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. Her key points were:
1. She said that she had to share a bedroom with her child. She stated her belief that the limited space, and her sibling’s smoking, were worsening her child’s asthma. She described her relationship with her sibling as “non-existent”. She emphasised the impact of all of this on the mental health issues that she was receiving treatment for.
2. She referred to the landlord’s 2019 response to her MP. She complained about the landlord’s lack of support with her housing situation. She asked if there was a medical form that could help support her situation.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, which it said it had upheld. It enclosed a form to change the tenancy from joint to sole, which it said that her and her sibling would need to jointly agree to. It enclosed a form for her to complete if she wished to apply to be rehoused on medical grounds.
On 16 September 2022, the resident sent her completed medical form to the landlord. In January 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had not heard from it since she had sent it her medical form and asked that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained her housing options but that it could not split her joint tenancy and offer her alternative accommodation. It said that it had found no grounds to uphold her complaint.
At the time of this investigation, the resident told us that she had had no further contact with the landlord since its stage 2 response. She stated that her housing situation remained the same. She described how her and her child’s wellbeing had worsened. She asked us questions about her housing options that she was still unclear on. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the events above.

Assessment and findings

Housing situation concerns and request to be rehoused

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy set out the housing options available to residents. The policy stated that it will “ensure our residents have access to clear and relevant information about their housing options”. It further stated that it would identify and assess the needs of vulnerable residents and “support vulnerable residents with rehousing applications”.
The policy explained that, where the landlord needed to directly rehouse residents, it would do so through its ‘rehousing list’. It listed the necessary criteria for a resident to be added to its rehousing list. This included where a resident’s medical need was such that it “carries an immediate risk to life by remaining in their home”.
The policy quoted the statutory definitions of overcrowding from the Housing Act 1985. It said that it could not “commit to solving overcrowding issues through our allocations and lettings policy due to limited housing stock”.
On 16 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that she had received “no actual support” from it regarding her housing situation. As she did on several occasions, she referred to the specific medical treatments that her and her child were receiving for their mental health and asthma respectively.
It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord told us that it had “no vulnerabilities recorded” when it provided us with its information about the resident. It was a failing that the landlord did not have the processes in place to appropriately record the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, on the many occasions that she advised it of them.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in a timely manner but then took almost 3 months to further respond to it. Its complaint handling has been separately assessed below. Nonetheless, she had explained to it the impact on her and her child of their housing situation, and of the limited space. She had also enquired whether there was “some type of medical form that could help evaluate my issues/situation”.
As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident in a timely manner and advised her about her housing options. It would have been further appropriate for it to have explained its process and criteria regarding applications to be rehoused on medical grounds, and its position regarding overcrowding. This would have demonstrated its effort to provide her with “clear and relevant information” in line with its policy. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord made any further contact with the resident until it issued her its complaint response on 15 August 2022. Its response explained that its rehousing service (list) was slowly reopening after a period of temporary closure due to overwhelming demand. It enclosed a medical assessment form “to assist with your request to be rehoused under medical grounds”. It advised her that the associated process could take “up to 12 weeks for an outcome”. However, it failed to advise her of the ‘medical need’ criteria of its policy, nor otherwise make appropriate efforts to manage her expectations.
The landlord’s complaint response to the resident referred to “overcrowding in your home”, but failed to offer any information regarding its position on this. It did offer assurance that it took health and wellbeing seriously, and asked that she let it know if she wanted a visit or call to discuss this. However, its response was addressed to her sibling rather than her. It was understandable that this, and the 3 months it had taken to respond to her, left the resident feeling that it had not taken her situation seriously.
The landlord’s response also explained that, without the agreement of both her and her sibling, only the courts could order that a joint tenancy be changed to sole. However, its failure to proactively contact her, nor provide her any other information regarding the implications of this, would have left the resident uncertain and added to her time, trouble, and distress.
All of this was evidenced when the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2023. She referred to the medical assessment forms, which she had completed and sent to it 16 weeks earlier, on 16 September 2022. She complained that this was well beyond the 12 week timeframe that it had advised her and about its lack of contact. She referred to its advice regarding changing her tenancy from joint to sole, which she said she “couldn’t wrap my head around”. She queried that if the joint tenancy was separated “then what?” and “how would that help me and my child?”. She understandably summarised that “I have so many questions, but not enough answers are being given, this is just putting more stress on me”.
It was therefore again unreasonable that the resident found it necessary to further chase the landlord, on 20 January 2023, having still not heard from it. She resent it her previous letter and added that “I just feel like I am being ignored”.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 8 February 2023. It maintained that its previous housing advice had been accurate, which it somewhat expanded upon. However, its response lacked empathy and failed to make any offer to discuss or clarify the housing options that the resident had expressed her confusion with. It also failed to make any reference at all to the medical assessment form that she had sent it, almost 21 weeks earlier.
We asked the landlord for information for the resident’s case in May 2024. It was only then that it appeared to realise that it had not progressed her medical application. Its internal communications from that time acknowledged that its stage 2 response to her did not “mention anything about a medical assessment or to be rehoused under medical grounds”. It noted that it had received her medical form in September 2022 but speculated that her application “could have been missed” and “gone unnoticed”. It noted that the medical information that she had provided “would not meet the criteria for a medical assessment” but that it “did not appear that the resident has been informed of this”.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s ability to resolve the resident’s housing concerns may have been limited. Nevertheless, its failure to respond to her in a timely manner with clear and relevant information, in line with its policy, would have added to her time, trouble, and distress. This was evident in the resident’s recent contact with us, in which she expressed her continued uncertainty regarding her housing options, and what had happened to her medical application.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her housing situation and request to be rehoused. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report and pay her £400 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or attempted to put right over a significant period.
The landlord is further ordered to write to the resident to clearly explain her housing options and the status of her medical application. This must include an offer to visit or call her, in line with her preference, to provide her the opportunity to clarify her understanding.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It stated that it would issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It said that it would issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request.
Following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, it took 59 working days to issue her its stage 1 response. This was a wholly unreasonable 49 working days longer than the timeframe of its own policy, or of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident stated that it was “writing to uphold your complaint”. However, it would have been confusing to the resident that it failed to provide her any explanation of its reasoning or basis for this. As above, its stage 1 response was also addressed to her sibling. It was further unreasonable that it offered her no apology or explanation for its significant delay.
On 6 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It would have added to her time, trouble, and distress that it failed to respond to her at all, and that she found it necessary to repeat her escalation request 2 weeks later. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023. This was 3 working days longer than the 20 working day timeframe of its policy, or the Code, from when she had first asked for her complaint to be escalated. As it later recognised, its response entirely failed to address her concerns about its failure to respond to her medical application.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord’s stage 2 response to apologise to the resident for the delays at both stages of its complaint process. It would have been further appropriate for it to offer her compensation for this. As such, it was unreasonable that it again failed to refer to its delays and instead stated that it had “found no grounds” to uphold her complaint.
The resident’s complaint presented the landlord with an opportunity to put right the confusion and delays in its handling of her housing concerns. It could have used this opportunity to clearly and empathetically explain its position, confirm her understanding, and manage her expectations. Instead, its delayed and poor complaint handling would have further added to the time, trouble, and distress that she was already experiencing. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation in line with our remedies guidance stated above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about her housing situation and request to be rehoused;
2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Writes to the resident to clearly explain her housing options and the status of her medical application, and offers to meet her to discuss these points.
3. Pays the resident £600 compensation made up of:
  1. £400 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of her housing concerns and request to be rehoused.
  2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
4. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord must evidence its compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.