London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202328590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328590

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord.
3. In April 2023, the resident complained about receiving a Notice of Seeking Possession (NoSP). He believed the officer issued it in retaliation for a complaint the resident had made about him. He also felt it was inappropriate for the officer to continue to contact him about his rent arrears.
4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 26 April 2023. It explained the NoSP was authorised by a manager in view of the increasing arrears on the resident’s rent account. It said it had undertaken a review of the resident’s concerns about the performance of the staff member and would ensure that, where appropriate, it would put measures in place to address any issues. It confirmed it sent him copies of the available calls between the resident and the officer via a Subject Access Request on 6 April 2023.
5. The resident felt the stage 1 response was biased in favour of the staff member. He raised several questions and concerns to the landlord throughout May 2023.
6. The landlord issued a revised stage 1 response on 20 June 2023 which addressed 5 complaints made by the resident, including this matter. It accepted that as the resident did not want a particular member of staff to call him following a complaint, it ought to have adhered to that. To improve relations with the resident going forward, it agreed a ‘communications plan.’ It offered compensation of £465, which mainly related to his other complaints. £60 of this was to recognise the impact of its lack of empathy and understanding, which is relevant to this case.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in August 2023. He said it caused him a lot of stress to receive a telephone call from the officer he had complained about, and he felt unsupported when he reported the matter to a manager. He did not escalate his other complaints.
8. On 20 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would pass on the resident’s request to remove the NoSP and to receive a formal apology. It offered a further £20 for the distress experienced by the resident and £30 for the complaint handling delay.
9. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord clarified its stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It confirmed that after speaking with the relevant team, it would not revoke the NoSP as it was issued for valid reasons. It revised its stage 2 offer of compensation from £50 to £150, comprised of:
   1. £50 for complaint handling failings.
   2. £30 distress.
   3. £20 inconvenience.
   4. £50 for time and trouble.
10. In relation to this specific complaint, the landlord offered a total of £210 encompassing £60 at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2, as outlined above.
11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident described the stress and upset caused by the matter. The Ombudsman empathises with him. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because parties appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
13. We recognise the resident had made several complaints to the landlord around a similar time. This case focuses on the complaint that he referred to this Service in November 2023 concerning staff conduct and the NoSP.

Staff conduct

14. The Ombudsman considered whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff misconduct complaints, we expect a landlord to investigate and make an informed decision based on its findings.
15. The landlord’s Code of Conduct sets out specific conduct required of all individuals involved in delivering its business activities. It ensures it engages in a professional manner, with dignity and respect, showing integrity. It expects staff to treat everyone they meet in the performance of their role with equal respect, care, and consideration.
16. The landlord’s call records show the resident complained about the conduct of a staff member on 1 February 2023. He explained the officer talked over him and he did not like the way they spoke to him. Records show that the same officer, accompanied by another staff member, served a NoSP on 15 February 2023 and followed this up with an outbound call on 21 February 2023. The call record from the conversation states the resident was unhappy with the officer’s use of colloquial language.
17. Evidence shows the officer’s manager contacted the resident to discuss his concerns on 22 February, 24 February, and 13 March 2023. During these calls, the resident explained he found the officer to be rude, insulting, and unprofessional. He said he has anxiety and depression and felt bullied. The manager explained that while its system does not record outgoing calls, they made enquiries with a colleague who sat next to the officer. The colleague stated that while they did not hear the resident’s side of the conversation, they did not observe rudeness or any conduct issues by the officer. The manager said it would arrange for another rent officer to contact the resident if needed. This was a reasonable outcome in the circumstances.
18. The resident remained unhappy and so the landlord arranged for a more senior manager to contact him. Records show the second manager attempted to call the resident and left a voicemail. The landlord accepts that it ought to have attempted contact on more than one occasion here.
19. We find it was reasonable for the first manager to call the resident and give him several opportunities to discuss his concerns. In the absence of call recordings for the outbound calls, it was appropriate for the manager to speak with other staff who may have witnessed the conversation, in addition to the officer involved. Further, the manager explained the NoSP was issued due to the arrears on the account and not as a personal vendetta against the resident. In view of the debt on the account, it was within the landlord’s rights to take this action.
20. Followings the landlord’s initial stage 1 response on 26 April 2023, the resident raised several questions and additional comments to the landlord throughout May 2023. He said he had asked for the rent officer to stop contacting him in July 2022 during a home visit as there had been issues with previous interactions. Additionally, he said he had asked for the copies of call recordings between the parties which the landlord had not yet provided. He also stated that he never refused a payment plan for his arrears. Instead, he felt forced into speaking with a particular member of staff.
21. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it was inappropriate for the officer to contact the resident while the complaint was under investigation and recognised this was distressing. It also apologised that the second manager only made one attempt to contact the resident. It confirmed the request for call recordings was being handling as a Subject Access Request and said he would receive the inbound call recordings by 30 June 2023. It confirmed a payment plan for the arrears and provided details of a different rent officer for the resident to deal with going forward. The landlord’s identification and acceptance of its shortcomings indicates it had properly considered the complaint. We also note there is no obligation on a landlord to record or store call recordings, so we do not consider the absence of outbound call recordings to be a failing.
22. While we do not dispute the resident’s experience, we have not seen any evidence which demonstrates that staff had behaved inappropriately or in a manner that was deliberately unhelpful. In our opinion, the landlord took the concerns raised by the resident seriously and sought to respond to the issues he brought to it. Based on the evidence available, the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct were proportionate.
23. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In investigating this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
24. Within its complaint correspondence of 20 June and 16 November 2023, the landlord apologised for its shortcomings and offered total compensation of £210 comprised of:
    1. £50 for complaint handling failings.
    2. £90 distress (£60 at stage 1, £30 at stage 2)
    3. £20 inconvenience.
    4. £50 for time and trouble.
25. The compensation offered by the landlord falls within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) for complaints where there was a failing that adversely impacted a resident. Furthermore, we note the landlord had several discussions with the resident to listen to his concerns and explain its decision. Also, it issued a communications plan outlining who he needed to contact if he needed support going forward. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrates the landlord’s intention to rebuild the landlord/resident relationship. Overall, we conclude that the landlord has offered fair compensation for its shortcomings.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

Recommendation

27. The landlord should pay the resident the £210 it previously offered. This recognised genuine elements of service failure. We have made the reasonable redress finding on this basis.