The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207570)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207570

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. request for a move.
    2. reports of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB).
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. complaint handling.
    2. consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since August 2019. He was the sole occupant of a 1-bedroom basement flat which is accessed by 13 steps. The resident advised the landlord he cannot use computers.
  2. On 2 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he was recovering from a stroke and had difficulty accessing his property because of poor mobility. He said that noise nuisance from his neighbour was also affecting his recovery. An MP wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 9 March 2022 and asked if the residents request for a housing move could be expediated because of his mobility issues. The resident provided supporting medical evidence for a move in March 2022.
  3. On 6 April 2022 the police emailed the landlord advising that it had conducted several welfare visits and he struggled to get out of the flat and due to the steps, he was unable to use his walking aids. The police reported he constantly lost his balance. On 6 April 2022 and 10 April 2022, the resident phoned the landlord and requested assistance with online application for mutual exchange as he cannot use a computer.
  4. On 11 April, the landlord replied to the resident’s MP and confirming that it would contact him to discuss housing options. On 19 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that its rehousing list was suspended and advised him to complete an application with the local authority. On 30 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would assess his rehousing request when the rehousing panel is up and running again. It noted that the resident got stuck in his bath the day before and internal notes show that additional support was required.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2022 about the landlord’s handling of his reports of his current ASB case. The landlord contacted him on the same day and agreed to speak with his neighbour and find out about his request for a move. On 12 July 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he wished to escalate the complaint if it took no action.
  6. On 27 July 2022, the police asked the landlord for a response on what it was doing to support the resident. The police had conducted several welfare visits and observed a significant decline in his mobility and health. It noted that the resident was becoming isolated and unable to get out of his flat which was potentially affecting his mental health. The police advised that he struggled to walk and living in the basement made it hard for him to leave his flat for a walk to assist his recovery or do shopping. The police advised that it had made several reports to make social services aware of health decline.
  7. On 27 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP advising that it had not assessed the resident’s medical evidence it received in March because its rehousing list was suspended. It agreed to fast track his independent medical assessment and confirmed that it understood that the resident struggled to access his home. The landlord advised the MP to encourage the resident to explore mutual exchange websites and to approach the local authority for priority housing on medical grounds. 
  8. On 2 August 2022, the medical assessment noted that the current home was affecting recovery and mental health. Although many medical problems would remain irrespective of relocation, his prospects would improve significantly if he was rehoused to a level access home (ideally ground floor) with walk-in shower/wet room or similar facilities.

 

  1. Throughout August 2022 there is evidence that the resident wished to escalate his complaint and contacted this Service for assistance. On 20 September 2022, the police contacted the landlord requesting a reply from its previous correspondence, highlighting the resident’s poor mobility.
  2. On 20 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service and advised that he was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and his request for a property transfer. He advised that he had not received a stage 2 complaint response from the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord on 23 September 2022 who then acknowledged the complaint on 4 October 2022.
  3. On 19 October 2022, after further intervention from this Service, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It advised that it met with the police at the end of September 2022 who confirmed several noise complaints were reported to them, but they were satisfied it was only household living noise. It advised that its ASB investigation had not found any evidence to prove the noise nuisance was deliberate. It apologised and advised that it could not move him to another property right away. It offered £30 for its delay in complaint handling.
  4. On 03 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested a complaint escalation as he did not accept the outcome of the stage 1 complaint.
  5. On 21 December 2022, after the intervention of this Service, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It again confirmed that there was no evidence found of deliberate noise nuisance and it suggested that the resident continue to gather evidence if noise nuisance worsened. It advised that his request for a housing move would be heard at a panel, and it would advise him if he joined the re-housing list. It offered £50 compensation for its delay in handling his complaint.
  6. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he remained unhappy about how the landlord handled his ASB reports and his request for a property move. As a resolution, he wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and he wanted a move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. There is evidence that the resident had been reporting ASB noise nuisance since October 2019 and had previously requested a housing move, which is referred to for context in this report. For fairness, this investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a move on 2 February 2022, and his ASB reports that gave rise to the complaint in June 2022.
  2. After the stage 2 complaint response, there is evidence that the resident continued to report ASB noise nuisance from and on April 2023 the rehousing panel agreed to look for a direct offer of accommodation. This investigation will assess how the landlord responded to resident’s request for a move after he suffered a stroke up until it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2022.
  3. This Service cannot determine if the resident’s rights have been breached under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The resident may wish to seek legal advice in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move

  1. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states that it will offer practical housing options advice to existing residents when they wish to move and will promote mutual exchange and downsizing opportunities. It will only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation. It says that vulnerable applicants will be given additional support and referred to the tenancy sustainment team where appropriate.
  2. The landlord’s rehousing procedure says that, where a resident claims a medical need to move, it will ask them to obtain the necessary evidence to support a referral to its independent medical advisor. If the medical advisor recommends that the resident should be offered alternative accommodation, then the landlord will advise them of this outcome and present the report to its rehousing panel for a final decision.
  3. This Service would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of its investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. This investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a move in line with its policies and procedures and consider if it treated the resident reasonably and fairly in the circumstances. 
  4. On 2 February 2022, the resident first advised the landlord that he had mobility issues and was recovering from a stroke. The landlord posted him a medical assessment form to apply for a medical move. While this was an appropriate step to take, the landlord should have advised the resident that its rehousing list was suspended at that time and provided information on other options including mutual exchange and applying to the local authority.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord did not advise that its rehousing list was suspended until 19 April 2022. The landlord’s failure to effectively communicate its rehousing policy and other moving options when he first requested a move was inappropriate and it failed to follow its own policy of providing practical advice on his housing options. Furthermore the landlord failed to show due regard for its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. This left the disabled resident in a significantly distressing and debilitating situation.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 6 April 2022 and 11 April 2022 to request assistance with applying for a mutual exchange as he could not use a computer. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s request, provided any additional support, referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team, or signposted him to third party support. The landlord failed to identify a vulnerability through his request for additional support. This was inappropriate and the landlord did not treat the resident reasonably in the circumstances. This failure caused frustration and distress to the resident.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord did not assess the resident’s medical evidence for over 3 months, after an MP’s enquiry, on the basis that its rehousing list was suspended. Waiting for its rehousing panel to be open again only served to delay the referral for an independent medical assessment which would have been required in any case. The landlord’s reasoning for not assessing the resident’s medical evidence was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord was aware that the resident had suffered a stroke and reported mobility issues, as such, it would have been reasonable to review medical evidence and assess if it could have provided additional supports to the resident while he awaited a move. The landlord’s approach was dismissive and unsympathetic in the circumstances.
  9. In the same correspondence to the resident’s MP the landlord advised that it would encourage the resident to explore other options such as using mutual exchange sites and contacting the local authority for priority housing on medical grounds. While this was appropriate advice to the landlord’s elected representative, there is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to provide him with the same advice. This was a further failure by the landlord because the resident had specifically requested assistance in applying for a mutual exchange.
  10. After the landlord received the resident’s independent medical assessment recommending a move for the resident, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to make him aware of the outcome, as it should have in line with its policy. This Service understands that its rehousing panel was suspended at that time, however, it should have provided the resident with this information so he could consider his options accordingly. This was a further failure by the landlord in not following its policy.
  11. On 29 September 2022, the landlord called the resident and confirmed that it was actively seeking alternative accommodation for him. The resident was unhappy as it had not involved him in the process. Based on the evidence, this Service cannot determine what actions the landlord had taken at that point when seeking alternative accommodation. There was no internal correspondence to evidence that it was actively seeking alternative accommodation, nor was there any update provided to the resident.
  12. This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the handling of the resident’s request for a move. This is because it has failed to show that it appropriately or meaningfully communicated the resident’s options for a move and it delayed in providing information on his housing options. It failed to offer reasonable support to access the local authority choice based lettings system and mutual exchange system. It delayed in assessing his medical evidence and failed to provide him with the outcome of the assessment. It also failed to communicate how it was seeking alternative accommodation.
  13. The resident suffered considerable distress and frustration due to the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable assistance with his housing options throughout the 11 month scope of this investigation and the final complaint response indicates that no further action was taken at that point to assist the resident with his housing options.  This investigation identified several missed opportunities by the landlord to provide housing support to the resident which it failed to take. The landlord’s dismissive and unsympathetic approach to the resident’s request for assistance with his housing options intensified the distress felt.
  14. The landlord demonstrated an over reliance on its own housing list being suspended and failed to adopt a resolution focussed approach to the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s assistance could have potentially expediated a move through mutual exchange or with the local authority. Its failures caused detriment, frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident in particularly challenging circumstances, which has been recognised with an order of compensation in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will investigate noise where it is persistent, deliberate, or targeted. It will not investigate as ASB noise caused by people going about their daily lives. The landlord will assess the evidence to prioritise the reports of ASB. High priority ASB will be assessed within 1 working day. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days. Once an ASB case had been opened, the landlord’s policy states that it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party. The policy states that it will always try to contact the resident before closing an ASB case and that it may close the case if there is insufficient evidence.
  3. A risk assessment will be completed on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases) to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm. The policy states that it may close an ASB case if there is insufficient evidence.
  4. This Service notes that the landlord previously investigated ASB reports of the resident’s neighbour making deliberate noise since 2019. Those investigations included review of noise logs from the resident, noise logs received from the police, and liaising with environmental noise team who provided noise monitoring equipment. After review of the evidence in previous cases, the landlord concluded that there was insufficient evidence of noise beyond everyday living noise and as such, closed those ASB cases. 
  5. It is not clear if the landlord assessed the ASB case as high priority or standard priority. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment in this ASB investigation. Given the concerns raised by the police, his MP, and the medical assessment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify and apply its vulnerable persons policy. It also failed to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  6. On 27 June 2022 the landlord opened an ASB case after the resident reported deliberate noise from his neighbour. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out a plan of action it was willing to undertake to investigate and find a resolution to the reports. This would have helped manage the residents expectations.
  7. On 4 August 2022, the landlord called the resident’s neighbour who denied the allegations and made counter allegations. This was the first action the landlord took, 5 weeks after it opened the ASB investigations. This was unreasonably long. The landlord called the resident on 8 August 2022 to advise that it would close his ASB case because of lack of evidence. It was unreasonable for the landlord to consider closing the case at this point as the resident had advised that the police were involved and had sent noise diary sheets. It is noted that the landlord did keep the ASB case open on this basis.
  8. Throughout the ASB investigation the resident advised the landlord that the police were sending it copies of his noise diaries. There appears to have been a miscommunication as the landlord did not receive these reports. It contacted the police and arranged a virtual meeting to discuss the case. This was an appropriate action to take when it learned that it had not received the noise diary sheets.
  9. The landlord noted on 8 September 2022 that it had not received any evidence of ASB and confirmed that if the resident called back it would explain the evidence required to consider ASB and it would offer mediation. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with its offer of mediation before closing the ASB case. The option of mediation may have provided each party with a better understanding of each other’s perspective and improved relations.
  10. The landlord advised the resident in its complaint response that the ASB case was closed after meeting the police. It was positive that the landlord demonstrated a multi-agency approach to the ASB case, however, this Service has not been provided with any evidence of the outcome of the meeting with the police. The landlord does refer to the meeting in its complaint response noting that the police found no evidence of deliberate noise nuisance.
  11. It is recognised that in July 2023, this Service published a special report which identified that the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory complaints handling service to its residents. Recommendations were made to carry out a review to see why its ASB procedures were not followed and to carry out training. The landlord has since completed the training roll out, with yearly refresher training scheduled.
  12. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It failed to show due regard for their duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. It failed to carry out a risk assessment despite concerns raised from the police, his MP, and the independent medical assessment. Its responses were delayed, it failed to set out how it was going to investigate the reports, and failed to communicate and keep the resident up to date with progress of his case. It could have taken more steps to gather information from the police at an earlier stage and it could have offered mediation as an option to improve relations.
  13. Its failings in its ASB investigation was another missed opportunity for the landlord to apply its vulnerable residents policy and provide additional support needs. These failings contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress which has been considered with an order of compensation below.

The landlord’s complaint handling 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy advises that it will deal with stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and explain the outcome in writing. After escalation it will deal with stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and explain the outcome in writing.
  2. In its complaint response the landlord stated that the resident first complained on 23 September 2022 through this Service. However, its own records show that the resident first complained on 8 July 2022 and attempted to escalate his complaint 15 August 2022. Although the landlord identified the complaint on 8 July 2022, it failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint in writing at stage 1. This was inappropriate and caused delay and time and trouble to the resident. The landlord did not adhere to its own complaint policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.  
  3. The landlord delayed in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint escalation and this Service intervened at each stage to progress the complaint. This failure exacerbated the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing his complaint and caused a delay. The landlord recognised the delay and offered £50 compensation, however, it did not compensate the resident for the delay and time and trouble caused in responding to his initial complaint.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were dismissive and lacked empathy. The complaint investigation was an opportunity to identify, address, and put things right for the resident. While the landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaint handling, it failed to identify or acknowledge the issues in its handling of the housing request and its ASB investigation. While acknowledging that the landlord had a stroke, it again failed to put things right for the resident by considering other supports that may be available.
  5. It is recognised that in July 2023, this Service published a special report which identified that the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory complaints handling service to its residents. Recommendations were made to carry out a review of its complaint policy and retrain its staff. The landlord has since completed the training roll out, with yearly refresher training scheduled.
  6. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it when it identified a complaint on 8 July 2022 it failed to appropriately progress the complaint through its complaint’s procedure. In its complaint responses it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint before this Service’s intervention. It is not clear if the landlord would have progressed the resident’s complaint but for the intervention of this Service. The complaint responses were dismissive and lacked empathy. The landlord failed to put things right for the resident in its complaint investigation. This caused further distress, delay, and time and trouble to the resident in pursuing his complaint. A compensation order has been made below to reflect this failing.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability

  1. The landlord defines a vulnerable resident as someone with any condition or circumstance that puts them at risk in their home, puts them at risk of being unable to comply with the condition of their tenancy, or affects their ability to access its services.
  2. The landlord’s vulnerable resident policy sets out how it can identify a vulnerable resident and states that “Our wider suite of policies and procedures reflect the need to tailor services to the different needs of residents, including vulnerable residents. There are many ways in which we can support our vulnerable residents to retain their home and well-being; and live as independently as possible, such as:
    1.  Communications – provide materials in a range of formats.
    2.  Service adjustments – providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
    3. Aids & Adaptations – providing minor and major adaptations to support our residents to live safely and independently in their homes.
    4.  In-house support– referring residents to our Tenancy Sustainment Team as well as other commissioned services which can help address issues of financial vulnerability and exclusion.
    5.  External referrals or signposting to statutory agencies and other external support organisations.”
  3. This investigation identified several instances in which the landlord should have responded to the resident’s vulnerability. The resident advised the landlord on 2 February 2022 that he had a stroke which affected his mobility, particularly in accessing his basement home. Thereafter, there were multiple contacts with the resident through its ASB investigations and housing requests in which the resident refers to his mobility issues. The resident requested the landlord’s assistance with mutual exchange applications because he could not use a computer, reported that he struggled to get his post because of his mobility, and reported that he got stuck in his bath.  
  4. There was no evidence that the landlord considered an assessment of a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan in the event of a fire for vulnerable residents. Given the resident’s reported mobility issues, it was a significant failure for the landlord not to consider the resident’s safety in the event of a fire.
  5. The residents MP and the police also raised concerns with landlord. Of particular concern was the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s vulnerability after it received police emails raising concerns for his welfare. On 6 April 2022, the police raised concerns about his mobility, advising he could not use his walking aid. On 27 July 2022, the police advised that it had conducted several welfare visits and noticed a significant decline in his mobility and health and enquired about the landlord’s support for the resident.
  6. The landlord failed to respond to the police enquiries until it met with the police at the end of September, and it is unclear to this Service what outcome of this meeting was. The landlord’s failure to respond to this information was unreasonable and unsympathetic.
  7. There is evidence that the landlord had identified the resident’s vulnerability. On 30 May 2022, its ASB notes state that additional support was required while its rehousing panel was suspended. On 14 July 2022, the landlord noted on its system that ‘Resident had a stroke’. The landlord refers to the resident’s mobility issues in its letter to the resident’s MP on 29 July 2022 and further acknowledges his mobility issues in its complaint responses. Despite recognising the vulnerability, the landlord failed to put any supports in place.
  8. On 2 August 2022, the medical assessment noted that the resident’s property was affecting his recovery and his mental health. It noted that a move to another property would significantly improve the resident’s prospects. Despite this information, the landlord took no action to either improve his current living condition or assist him with his housing options. This was inappropriate, unsympathetic and the landlord failed to consider the resident’s individual circumstances.  
  9. The landlord has an important safeguarding duty towards vulnerable adults. Had the landlord applied its vulnerable persons policy correctly, the resident could have benefited from a range of services, including aids and adaptions, in-house assistance, or support from external organisations. This assistance may have improved his recovery and his quality of life while he awaited a move. Internal assistance through its tenancy sustainment team or external assistance with his housing options could have potentially progressed his move to a more appropriate property. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s vulnerability exacerbated the frustration and distress he experienced and further damaged relations between the landlord and resident.   
  10. This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is because the landlord failed to apply its vulnerable resident policy. The landlord missed several opportunities to apply its policy which had the potential to significantly improve the resident’s recovery, living conditions, and quality of life. This failure caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident who found himself in particularly vulnerable circumstances.
  11. The landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident. The resident reported difficulty accessing his property, accessing his post, the police reported he was having difficulty shopping and his inability to use his walking aids was affecting his recovery. The resident also reported getting stuck in his bath. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to information provided on the medical assessment. The landlord showed no regard for the resident’s health and safety and failed to consider a PEEP assessment when it became aware of the resident’s mobility issues.
  12. The resident received no supports from the landlord throughout the 11 month scope of this investigation and the landlord demonstrated no learnings or commitments in its final complaint response to demonstrate that it would consider his needs going forward. Application of landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy had the potential to significantly improve the residents living conditions and his recovery, as evidenced by the medical assessment. The landlord’s failure to apply its policy had the opposite effect and heightened the distress, frustration, and inconvenience felt by the resident.  An order for compensation has been made below to reflect the landlord’s failures in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service Guidance on Remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered for a senior director of the landlord to apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to appropriately apply its vulnerable persons policy to identify and provide practical support to the resident in improving his property and providing assistance with his rehousing request.  
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to carry out a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan for the resident if he still resides in the property.
  4. It is ordered for the landlord to pay compensation of £4200, compromising:
    1. £1500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a move.
    2. £500 for distress caused by the failures in its ASB investigation.
    3. £2000 for distress and inconvenience in its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    4. £200 for time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. (This is further to its previous offer of £50).
  5. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is noted that the landlord has committed to reviewing its policies and procedures and how it embeds its policies throughout its organisation, following a special investigation from this Service in July 2023. It is recommended that the landlord review this case to identify any learnings and improvements it can make considering its commitment.