London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202201490)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201490

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 June 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s request to transfer.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started in 2010. For ease of reading the resident and his wife will both be referred to as the resident in this report.
The property is a first floor, two-bedroom flat in a three-storey block. The rear of the block backs onto a row of commercial businesses. One of these businesses is a funeral parlour.
The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household. The resident says that his children suffer from anxiety and nightmares which is affecting their mental health.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy sets out when and how a resident can move. The options for existing residents to move are through mutual exchange, application to the council for rehousing, shared ownership, private renting, other schemes, or direct offer via the landlord’s rehousing list. It states that it closed its transfer service in May 2021.
To be eligible for a mutual exchange, the landlord’s policy states that the resident must have a secure, assured, or assured shorthold tenancy. Permission must be given by the landlord for a mutual exchange to take place within 42 days of application, unless one of the grounds for refusal exists. For assured tenancies, the grounds are contained within Schedule 14 of the Localism Act 2011 and include a ground for rent arrears.
The criteria and procedure for applying for the council’s rehousing list are determined by the council. To be eligible for the landlord’s rehousing list, the resident must meet one or more of the criteria for an emergency, temporary or permanent move. The criteria are:
1. Being at risk due to domestic abuse, gang violence or antisocial behaviour.
2. Significant medical condition or disability.
3. Severe overcrowding which is making a medical condition or disability worse.
4. Resident wishing to downsize to a smaller property.
5. A decant is needed.
6. Resident’s home is to be demolished or disposed of due to its condition.
7. Exceptional circumstances approved by senior management.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by” the landlord. The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within ten working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. The landlord also has a compensation guidance document, which sets out when compensation will or might be paid, and values. Payments can be made as consolatory or goodwill gestures for inconvenience, distress and the time and effort in making a complaint. It includes a table for single discretionary payments for service failure with banded values based on impact on the resident.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord can off-set any compensation payable against any sums owed to it by the resident.

Summary of events

The tenancy started in 2010. The landlord’s records say that on 28 June 2013 the resident called the landlord to say that he was “fed up with looking at the dead bodies going into the funeral parlor”. The records say that the landlord said that the resident’s only option would be to apply for a transfer but did not explain any other options to move to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident signed up to a third-party mutual exchange website and was approved to use it by the landlord on 1 July 2013. The landlord renewed its approval on 22 December 2014.
On 8 April 2015 the landlord called the resident to advise on options to move. It discussed internal transfer, making an application to the council, and mutual exchange. It said that it would send a transfer form, but advised the resident did not have priority and that it could take “several years”. It also said that the application would be suspended its the resident was in rent arrears of over £1,000. The resident called the landlord on 23 April 2015 and 24 April 2015 to chase up the transfer application he had sent in.
The resident called the landlord on 1 August 2016 and was told that he would not be able to move if he had rent arrears, but the resident said he had been told he only needed to reduce them by half.
On 30 July 2020 the resident called the landlord to ask for his transfer application to be updated as he was now eligible for a three-bedroom property, based on his children’s ages. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 August 2020 to say that it had updated his eligibility, but that transfers had been suspended due to Covid-19. The landlord closed its transfer list completely in May 2021.
The resident’s GP provided a letter stating that the resident’s daughter had “been having some emotional disturbance” on 11 April 2022. It said that she had nightmares and was tired due to seeing the bodies going into the funeral parlour.
On 21 April 2022 the resident emailed his MP to ask for help with moving from the property because he no longer wanted his family to live opposite the funeral parlour. The resident also emailed this Service.
The resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form on 23 April 2022 and complained that his family were suffering from living opposite a funeral parlour. He said that this was having an impact on his children and that he had contacted the landlord asking to move. The landlord replied by email on 5 May 2022. It said that it had closed its internal transfer list in May 2021 due to the number of households waiting to transfer. As a result, it had also stopped accepting new transfer applications. The landlord suggested that the resident try to find a mutual exchange or register with the council for rehousing. The landlord did not state that this was a complaint response or give details on what to do if the resident was not satisfied with the response.
On 13 May 2022 the resident emailed his local councillor for help. He said that his family had been living at the property for 12 years. Due to overlooking the funeral parlour and seeing coffins daily, his children had been suffering from nightmares and anxiety. He said that the children would not sleep in their room or use the garden, were sleep deprived, and he had concerns for their mental health. He included the letter from his daughter’s GP.
On 16 May 2022 and 24 May 2022, the councillor emailed the landlord and asked it to investigate the resident’s issue. The resident’s MP also emailed the landlord on 24 May 2022, to ask it to investigate the resident’s issue and respond. In internal emails the landlord said it did not have an active complaint on its system but had advised the resident that it had stopped transfer applications. The landlord decided that the MP’s email was not a complaint but would be responded to as a stakeholder response. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s response to the MP and the landlord’s records show that it did not have a copy of this.
This Service emailed the landlord on 12 July 2022 following contact from the resident. We asked the landlord to provide information on the resident’s complaint.
The landlord called the resident on 13 July 2022 to discuss the issue and raised a stage one complaint. It then responded to the councillor by email. In its email it said it understood the resident’s concerns and that it could be disturbing for a young child living next door to a funeral parlour. However, it could only “offer a direct move if there [were] severe and urgent circumstances which make the property unsafe” and that the resident’s “circumstances [did] not meet this threshold.” The landlord also said that it encouraged the resident to register for the council’s rehousing list and to continue to look for a mutual exchange.
Following its call with the resident, the landlord emailed the resident on the same day to provide its stage one complaint acknowledgement and response. In its response it said:
1. That it had responded to the councillor that day.
2. It understood that it was a difficult and distressing situation for the family. It set out the issue and effects the resident said it was having on his daughter.
3. Options to move were limited and there was a shortage of properties. That 90% of its unoccupied properties are given to the council to advertise and so advised the resident to register with the council for rehousing.
4. That the resident’s circumstances did not meet the threshold, of an immediate impact to someone’s safety within the home, to be able to offer a direct transfer.
5. The resident should continue to look for a mutual exchange.
6. How to ask for the complaint to be escalated if the resident was not satisfied with the response. The landlord also gave details on how to contact this Service.
On 17 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. He said that he was not eligible to register with the council for rehousing. He also said that his children’s schoolwork was suffering. He believed that as the landlord had given him the property, it was responsible for finding a solution for him and his family.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 20 September 2022 by email. In its email it said the stage two complaint would be dealt with by a different team to the stage one complaint. It also said that there was a backlog in escalated complaints.
The resident approached this Service, and we wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2022 requesting the stage two response. An internal email from the landlord noted that the stage two complaint had not been allocated at that time. The landlord allocated it that day and sent an email to the resident to acknowledge the stage two complaint for the second time.
The landlord’s records show that it investigated the complaint between 4 October 2022 and 10 October 2022. The landlord considered whether any of the resident’s circumstances had changed since the stage one response and concluded that they had not.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord called the resident and followed this with an email. The landlord asked the resident to send a photograph of his view of the funeral parlour, and for any other information, to help it investigate the complaint. The resident sent a photograph by email the same day. The photograph, which has been seen by this Service, shows a view from height of the rear of a building with an open door. A trolly or stretcher can be seen in the doorway. There is also a van parked in a service road in front of the building, which is separated from the garden of the property by a high fence. The resident said that this is where the bodies enter and leave the funeral parlour and the van is a private ambulance.
Following receipt of the photograph, the landlord consulted its senior management, however it decided on 11 October 2022 that there was no immediate risk to the resident or his family.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage two response letter to the resident by email. In its response it:
1. Set out the issues at stage one of the complaints process and the reasons for escalation.
2. Noted that the resident’s desired outcome was to be moved to a different property.
3. Said that it had considered the issues at senior management level.
4. Had looked at the photograph provided by the resident and other photographs of the area.
5. Concluded that the response at stage one was upheld.
6. Explained that were was a shortage of social housing and that most of its properties were offered to the council. It encouraged the resident to register for rehousing with the council. It also encouraged the resident to continue to look for a mutual exchange.
7. Was empathetic of the resident’s situation and provided details of mental health support services available in the area.
8. Apologised for the delay in its response and escalation and offered £50 in compensation to be credited to the rent account.
9. Provided details of how to contact this Service.
On the same date the landlord also decided that a local officer should visit the resident. This visit would be to provide support, and to help with registering for the council’s housing list.

Events following the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident contacted this Service again on 20 October 2022 and we accepted the complaint for investigation.
The resident has told this Service that he has applied to join the council’s housing list for rehousing. He said that he was told by the council that it would take a long time to be accepted for a property. The resident is also continuing to try to find a mutual exchange, however, is finding this difficult as his family require a three-bedroom property and currently have a two-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer

When the resident asked about moving in 2013, the landlord told him his only option was to apply for a transfer. It would have been helpful if the landlord had provided advice on all the resident’s options.
In response to the resident’s request to move, on 5 May 2022 the landlord explained that it had closed its transfer list in 2021 and this is stated in its allocations and letting procedure. It suggested other options to move such as mutual exchange or registering for the council’s rehousing list. That was appropriate advice to give to the resident.
The landlord’s reply to the resident’s complaint, and the councillor’s enquiry, were consistent and set out the issues complained of, and the landlord’s response. The landlord showed empathy for the resident’s situation. It offered options to move to the resident but explained that the resident did not meet its threshold for a direct transfer. It is not clear what, if any, information was given to the resident by the landlord when the transfer list was closed in May 2021, and it would have been helpful if the landlord had addressed this within its complaint response. However, the landlord followed and explained its allocations and lettings policy and its decision was reasonable in all of the circumstances.
At stage two, the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances again and sought advice from senior management. It asked the resident to provide a photograph and any other information to help with the investigation. In its stage two response the landlord, in upholding the stage one decision, again explained the difficulty in finding social housing. It set out the options available to the resident and encouraged him to register with the council, as well as continuing to try to find a mutual exchange. The landlord’s response was reasonable, appropriate and in line with its policy. The landlord also showed empathy for the resident’s situation and gave information on local mental health support services available, which might have helped the resident or his children. Accordingly, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling

While the resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s online complaints form on 23 April 2022, the landlord did not treat this as a complaint, and did not explain to the resident that it did not accept it as a complaint. Under paragraph 1.7 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Under paragraph 1.9 the landlord must give reasons why it does not consider the matter a complaint and explain that the resident could bring the matter to this Service. Under paragraph 4.2 the landlord must set out its understanding of the complaint and outcome being sought or ask the resident for clarification if this is not clear. The landlord replied to the resident on 5 May 2022, but it did not provide a complaint response and did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
The resident asked to escalate his stage one complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process on 17 July 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this request until 20 September 2022, 45 working days after it was made. The landlord did not provide its response at that time and the resident contacted this Service. After we wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request again the same day and allocated the case; 55 working days after the request to escalate. This was an unacceptable delay, which would have caused frustration and inconvenience, and further time and effort for the resident to pursue his complaint.
The resident’s complaint was reviewed at stage two by a different member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord also did fully review the complaint and considered a photograph sent to it by the resident.
However, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 12 October 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord did not meet this timeframe and instead responded after 61 working days. This was an unreasonable delay and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
In its stage two response, the landlord apologised for the delay in escalation and completion of the complaints process. It offered compensation of £50 to be applied to the resident’s rent account. Under the landlord’s compensation guidance this amount is the lowest amount for time and effort caused to the resident by service failure. The landlord did not say what, if any, information was given to the resident when the transfer list was closed in May 2021, and it would have been helpful if the landlord had addressed this within its complaint response.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the stage two complaint and respond within the timeframe set out in its policy. This also meant that the resident had to use more time and effort in pursuing his complaint and in contacting this Service for assistance. While the landlord did accept this failing and offered compensation, there was maladministration and there was not reasonable redress. An order has been made that the landlord pay further compensation of £200 to reflect the additional inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as the landlord delayed in acknowledging and responding to the stage two complaint. This caused further inconvenience and time and effort for the resident, who needed to approach this Service for assistance in progressing his complaint. However, the landlord did acknowledge the failure and the failure did not have a bearing on the outcome of the complaint. The landlord also failed to provide information on what happen regarding its transfer list and pre-existing applicants.
The was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer, as its responses were reasonable and appropriate. It followed its policy and explained this to the resident. It offered possible options for the resident to move and empathised with the resident’s situation.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to take the following action, and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £200 to reflect the inconvenience, further time and effort caused to the resident because of the complaints handling failure.
3. Conduct a review into what information was given to residents already on its transfer list when it was closed in May 2021 and provide the outcomes to this Service.