London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (201914143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914143

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a management transfer from October 2019;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in December 2015. The property is a four bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident occupies the property with her children. The family have a number of vulnerabilities relating to their physical health. For example, the resident suffers from “extreme” asthma and her daughter also has a breathing condition.
The landlord’s housing management policy shows temporary or permanent management transfers are approved in cases where any undue delay to rehousing is “untenable”. They can be prompted by “life and limb” emergencies verified by a qualified professional, or other management reasons such as domestic abuse. Decisions on transfers are taken by a lettings panel. Only one offer of suitable accommodation will be made. However, reasonable grounds for refusal will result in a further offer.
The landlord’s domestic violence policy shows it takes a victim centred approach to domestic violence. It says the landlord will prioritise the resident’s immediate safety. Further, it will give them the right to choose actions and outcomes that are safe for them.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. It shows legal action falls outside of the complaints procedure. If a legal claim is made against the landlord after a complaint has been raised, the landlord will close the complaint.

Summary of events

In September 2019, an Ombudsman determination found the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer amounted to maladministration. The resident made the request following an incident of domestic violence. We ordered the landlord to reconsider the resident’s management transfer request and pay compensation. We said, as part of its decision-making, the landlord should consider police advice concerning the resident’s safety.
On 1 October 2019 a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) meeting recommended moving the resident. The landlord’s correspondence shows the resident reported a number of threating incidents to the police around the same time. Within days, the resident gave the landlord an email list of safe districts which she could move to. It shows only four areas around London were considered safe. Her email listed over 50 unsafe areas by name.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 November 2019. Its contact records suggest it discussed temporary accommodation as an interim solution. They show the resident was also trying to obtain a move through her local authority. The landlord said it would get in touch when it identified a suitable property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 December 2019. It said she recently declined to attend two property viewings on 9 and 12 December 2019. As a result, it was withdrawing the resident’s “direct-let” status. The letter said the landlord’s policy was to make a single offer. It included the address of the identified property. The location was not included in the resident’s list of safe or unsafe areas.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2020. The subject heading was “complaint and appeal”. The resident said ongoing damp and mould in her current property had affected her health. Further, this situation, in addition to an imminent operation, made her feel too unwell to attend the viewings. She said she never refused the identified property or refused to view it. She also said repair works were outstanding from 2018.
The resident chased the landlord on 11 February 2020. She said she felt ignored because it didn’t respond to either her rehousing or repair concerns. The landlord subsequently told the Ombudsman it was investigating the damp and mould complaint. However, it would not revisit the resident’s management transfer given the Ombudsman’s previous determination.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 March 2020. This was around 26 working days after the resident’s complaint email. The response largely addressed damp and mould. It included information around managing these issues. The landlord said mould it previously identified at the property “was minor and…easily removed”. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The main points were:
1. The resident made three reports of damp and mould between February and June 2019. The landlord was unable to find any previous reports in its repair records. Following the first report, the landlord was unable to access the property to complete an inspection. Following subsequent reports, it checked the ventilation system and later completed treatment works. The resident should wipe away any condensation.
2. In November 2019, a repair order was raised to address kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. An operative attended and found parts were required. These parts were installed in January 2020. The resident reported the fans again following this repair. An appointment scheduled for 5 March 2020 was cancelled because additional parts were required. A new appointment would be arranged soon.
3. The landlord previously arranged a surveyor to inspect the property on 26 February 2020. It was awaiting a copy of the survey report and it would update the resident in due course about the outcome. The resident could provide evidence to dispute the landlord’s timeline. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint on 24 January 2020 and wrote to her the same day. It looked forward to receiving the resident’s email evidence about the management transfer.
The landlord emailed the resident the following day. It acknowledged receiving her December 2019 emails about the viewings. It said it typically offered one viewing appointment. Nevertheless, it had offered the resident two different appointment dates. Further, the identified property was now let and no additional offers would be made. However, the landlord would consider any new updates from the police.
On 11 March 2020 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She reiterated being unable to attend the viewings for medical reasons. She said, given her condition, it was unreasonable to expect her to travel the required distance using public transport. Further, the landlord declined her request for help to attend (the resident previously asked the landlord to cover her taxi fare, which she estimated to be around £200). Her request referenced disrepair issues at the property, which she said were exacerbating the family’s medical conditions.
In early April 2020, the resident gave the landlord permission to approach another region’s local authority with a view to sourcing a property. In mid-April 2020, she chased an update through a local councillor. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s response.
The landlord updated the resident on 28 April 2020. It said, “following an updated review of information (the resident) recently provided”, it would make a final direct offer of accommodation. However, there were currently no properties available and it was unable to provide a timescale. Further, it had stopped attending non-emergency repairs due to the pandemic. However, the resident’s case would remain open until the fan repairs were complete. The landlord’s correspondence was not a formal complaint response.
On 29 May 2020 the landlord emailed a local MP acting on the resident’s behalf. It said the resident had been advised a reciprocal agreement with an alternative housing provider was not possible because they did not own any properties in the resident’s requested area. However, the landlord would make similar approaches to other providers in different districts.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 2 and 25 June 2020:
1. The resident reported an intruder had “ransacked” her bedroom. The landlord’s records show she was afraid it was her ex-partner. They said the police attended following a report from the resident. Further, the landlord would contact the police for an update. Later that day, the landlord emailed the resident a video of an alternative property. It said the property was “not decorated or carpeted”. However, it was an “emergency temporary placement”.
2. During an email on 10 June 2020, the resident said the emergency property was uninhabitable and the landlord’s video was misleading. She said the landlord should reimburse her expenses, including: van rental and fuel, along with rail and Uber travel. Further, it should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. She said the family packed their belongings at short-notice only to return from the temporary property in the early hours.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident had moved back to the property. It issued a notice to quit on the temporary accommodation.
4. The landlord told the resident it was “unable to uphold” her request for expenses. It also said her concerns about ventilation repairs had not completed its complaints process. Further, she should contact its insurance department in relation to any damaged items. The landlord’s email was not a formal complaint response.
The Ombudsman has seen an undated video tour of the temporary property. The audio commentary suggests it was the landlord’s video from 2 June 2020. The tour appeared to include every room and a view of the garden through a downstairs window. From the video, it was evident the property was undecorated and lacked flooring such as carpets. Overgrown grass was clearly visible in the garden.
We have also seen a number of the resident’s own videos showing the temporary accommodation. Overgrown grass and some litter could be seen in the area around the front door. Some external UPVC areas also appeared in need of cleaning. Inside the property, the videos appeared to show scuff marks and cracked plaster on the walls. Cracks were also apparent in paintwork above skirting boards. From the footage seen, there was no indication of any safety or structural issues. Nor was there any indication the property needed significant repairs.
In July 2020, the landlord received notice of impending legal action from the resident’s legal representative. The representative’s letter listed around seven defects including: damp and mould throughout the property, heating and electrical faults and insect infestation. It said the property was in disrepair and the landlord should arrange an urgent inspection. Within days, the landlord told the resident it had closed her repair complaint. This was on the basis it concerned the same issues and legal matters fell outside of its complaints process.
The landlord’s records from August 2020 show the resident was also seeking housing through an external victim support agency. In September 2020, the agency asked the landlord to amend its records to reflect the resident’s safe areas. From the information seen, it is unclear what prompted the agency’s request. However, it did not result in any changes to the resident’s October 2019 list. In other words, no information was either added or removed.
The Ombudsman contacted to the landlord on 8 October 2020. We said it should issue a stage two response to the following issues within ten days: length of time taken to rehouse the resident, landlord’s handling of repair requests and landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation. Our correspondence confirmed legal disrepair proceedings had not yet begun because the resident’s legal letter was issued under the pre-action protocol.
The landlord responded on 20 October 2020. It said the resident had a legal disrepair case. Further, the Ombudsman knew that, once legal proceedings had started, residents were unable to pursue a simultaneous complaint about the same issues. It said its legal representative was in touch with the resident’s solicitor. However, its damp specialist had been unable to attend the property because the resident was not answering the phone or responding to messages. The landlord said it needed engagement from the resident to progress matters.
Around 11 January 2021 the landlord identified an alternative property. Its related internal correspondence suggests it promptly notified the resident. The correspondence said the resident confirmed the property’s location was suitable. The information seen suggests the resident was subsequently advised it was going through the landlord’s voids procedure. The information seen indicates she chased the landlord for updates on more than one occasion over the next two months.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord made a formal offer of accommodation. Its letter said, if she chose to decline the identified property, the resident would not receive any further offers. The identified property’s address details referred to a district on the resident’s list of unsafe areas. However, Google searching confirmed the property was in a smaller neighbouring district. Searching the relevant local authority’s website confirmed it was located in an area the resident listed as safe. Nevertheless, the address alone suggested the property was unsuitable.
On 7 April 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman by phone. She said it refused to investigate her complaint based on her legal disrepair claim. However, her rehousing concerns were an entirely separate matter. She said her current property was unsafe and the landlord deliberately made an unsuitable offer. The landlord’s correspondence from 9 April 2021 shows it spoke to the resident and agreed to make another offer of accommodation. This was on the basis its identified property was near an unsafe area.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord two days later. Our correspondence said it should respond to the resident’s rehousing concerns, including: letting the December 2019 property to another tenant; making offers of accommodation in unsafe areas and the overall time taken to rehouse her. It noted we previously contacted the landlord about the complaint. Further, the landlord said it would not log a complaint while it was handling the matter as a disrepair claim. However, the resident had “confirmed her request to be rehoused (was) separate to her disrepair claim”.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord issued the resident a stage one acknowledgement. It said it would respond within ten working days. It also said it was unable to buy the resident out of her tenancy.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord issued an informal complaint response by email. This was around 17 working days after the Ombudsman’s notification. It was also ten working days after the landlord’s acknowledgment. The response did not include details of the relevant complaint stage. The landlord acknowledged the time taken to source an alternative property. It denied offering the resident a property in an unsafe area. The main points were:
1. The landlord was unable to identify any failures in relation to its recent offer. This was on the basis the identified accommodation was located in one of the resident’s specified safe areas.
2. The landlord was pleased the resident was also attempting to source accommodation through the external agency. This would increase her chances of moving. The timeframe for sourcing alternative accommodation was unknown because larger properties were not frequently available.
3. The landlord’s decision was not open to “further consideration, appeal or review”. The email was its “final response” to the matter. Nevertheless, the resident could escalate her complaint. Once a further offer had been made the resident’s priority transfer application would be withdrawn.
Following contact with both the resident and the landlord, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint 1 July 2021. Our request was based on the resident’s concerns about around the overall timeline and her safety whilst waiting for rehousing. On 5 July 2021 the landlord confirmed the escalation. It said it would respond by 2 August 2021.
On 2 August 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. It awarded the resident £20 in compensation to acknowledge its previous response was delayed. Though it apologised for the time taken to rehouse the resident, the landlord did not uphold her complaint. It restated its commitment to making a final offer of accommodation. The main points were:
1. The landlord had not offered the resident a property in an unsafe area so its previous response was fair.
2. The availability of four bedroom homes was limited in the resident’s chosen areas. The resident should continue bidding through the support agency. The landlord understood the bidding process had not generated any offers so far.
The resident updated the Ombudsman within days. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the property was in poor condition. Further, she was worried a restraining order against her ex-partner was due to expire. The resident said there was mould at the property and repairs were outstanding. She also said she may need to contact a solicitor about the repair issues. This suggests legal proceedings had not begun at this point.
On 2 September 2021 the resident reported a brick was thrown at the property. The landlord’s call notes show the police attended. Further, they said the object was a “silicone brick” that was likely bought from a DIY store. They said the resident was unsure if the incident related to her ex-partner or a neighbour. Further, she felt “very unsafe”. During another phone call later the same month, the landlord advised the resident it would not split her tenancy. In other words, it would not divide the household into two separate properties.
On 22 September 2021 the resident asked whether a reciprocal arrangement was possible with a housing provider in another district. This was a new area that was not specified on her October 2019 list. The resident felt she would have a better chance of obtaining a four-bedroom property in this area. In a follow-up email later the same month, the resident said only parts of this district would be safe.
The resident chased the landlord for an update in early December 2021. She said her last housing offer was in December 2020. The following day, the landlord replied there were currently no four bedroom properties within her safe areas. In an email around two weeks later, the resident said it was unacceptable she was still living in an unsafe property. Further, the landlord should provide a supporting letter to help her obtain temporary accommodation. Additionally, it had not complied with her previous request to approach a preferred local authority to obtain a reciprocal offer.
The parties exchanged emails on 14 January 2022. The exchange was prompted by correspondence from the landlord that said the resident’s rehousing case would be closed. This was on the basis: a “non-molestation order” against the resident’s ex-partner had expired, a recent police report advised there was no current evidence of risk and the third party agency confirmed it had closed the resident’s case in July 2021. The resident replied she was still at risk and a restraining order was still active. Overall, she said the landlord was failing in its duty of care.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord issued a formal letter overturning its previous decision. It thanked the resident for providing a copy of the restraining order. It said the document was not previously on its case file. The information seen indicates the landlord previously held a copy of the non-molestation order which was issued beforehand. The landlord said it would continue looking for a suitable property. Further, it would also request stock information in relation to the resident’s preferred district.
On 28 June 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman she was still waiting for a management move.
In early March 2023 we contacted the resident several times to discuss her complaint. Since we were unable to reach her, we asked the landlord to clarify the current situation. It subsequently provided several comments and a recent case review letter. The landlord’s main points were:
1. Following a case review in January 2023, the landlord withdrew its offer to rehouse the resident. The letter said, since joining the landlord’s waiting list, there had been no further reports of anti-social behaviour and the risk had reduced.
2. The resident issued legal proceedings in 2022. The landlord was defending the case, which was currently adjourned by the courts. The landlord was awaiting inspections from each parties’ surveyor. The landlord’s last inspection took place in April 2021 and it had been unable to gain access to the property since then.
3. There was no evidence of damp at the property but there was evidence of “tenant or visitor damage”. The landlord’s surveyors and contractors had been unable to access the property after “numerous” attempts. The landlord was considering applying for an access injunction.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It suggests the risk to the resident changed at different points during the events described above. In other words, there was no evidence to indicate the resident was subject to a high level of risk for the full duration of the timeline. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
In accordance with our remit, the Ombudsman can only typically consider complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. No information was seen to show the landlord issued a final response in relation to the resident’s disrepair concerns. Whilst these concerns are beyond the scope of this assessment, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s related complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of a management transfer from October 2019

The timeline shows the resident has been waiting to be rehoused for at least 33 months since the Ombudsman’s previous determination. This is based on the period between 1 October 2019 and 26 June 2022. It indicates her total wait time could be around 41 months based on the timing of this assessment. Regardless of the exact duration, it is accepted this is a lengthy timescale overall. However, the landlord has limited control over the availability of four bedroom properties, which is broadly based on the rate at which current occupants vacate them for various reasons.
There was also a comparatively small number of specified safe areas in the resident’s 2019 list. In contrast, over 50 districts in and around London were ruled out. It is reasonable to conclude the limited number of safe areas restricted the number of properties the landlord could potentially offer the resident. In general, some districts may contain larger numbers of four-bedroom properties than others. The landlord’s housing management policy does not specify any timescales for management transfers. Overall, the duration of the resident’s wait time does not, in itself, evidence a failure by the landlord.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that errors by the landlord could have extended the overall timescale unnecessarily. For example, wasting several months on a clearly unsuitable offer may have temporarily halted the landlord’s search for alternative accommodation. This example could represent a failure that unfairly impacted the resident and her family. The Ombudsman checked the timeline for evidence of any similar failures. In other words, we considered whether the landlord progressed the resident’s case accordingly in line with its policies.
The timeline shows the resident was offered a property within ten weeks of the October 2019 MARAC meeting. The identified property was not located in a district the resident confirmed was unsafe. Nor was it located in one of her listed safe areas. The landlord’s relevant policies confirm it should prioritise safety in both management transfer decisions and cases involving domestic violence. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say its initial offer was inappropriate. No information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to pay the resident’s taxi-fare.
Following the above offer, in line with the landlord’s housing management policy, the onus was on the resident to show she had reasonable grounds to refuse the identified property. The timeline confirms she was ultimately able to do this, in April 2020, through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman was unable to say the landlord’s approach between January and April 2020 was unfair.
On 2 June 2020 the resident notified the landlord an intruder had entered the property. The timeline shows it consulted the police, and sourced temporary accommodation the same day. This timescale demonstrates the landlord prioritised the resident’s safety. The timeline also shows the resident was advised the property was offered on an emergency basis. Further, it was undecorated and there were no carpets. The resident was given a video of the property before she agreed the offer. These were appropriate actions from the landlord given the confirmed risk to the resident.
The information seen suggests the temporary property was not in an ideal condition. However, from a comparison of each party’s footage, the Ombudsman was unable to identify any evidence of misrepresentation on the landlord’s part. This was broadly because there were no significant differences between the videos. For example, we were unable to identify a major repair which the landlord failed to highlight during its video tour. Since the resident’s videos appeared to show a number of relatively minor cleaning and decoration issues, we were unable to fairly say the landlord’s video was misleading.
No information was seen to show the resident asked to view the temporary accommodation in person before moving the family’s belongings. The landlord’s previous offer letter indicates viewings were part of the landlord’s management transfer process. It is accepted the situation was both urgent and distressing for the resident. The information seen indicates the landlord did its best to facilitate a swift move under the circumstances. Overall, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures in respect of the landlord’s above offer. Further, despite its limited condition, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the temporary property.
Based on the timeline, there was no evidence of any avoidable delays between June 2020 and March 2021. For example, no information was seen to show the landlord halted its property search based on the resident’s legal disrepair proceedings. The timeline suggests the landlord discussed its next offer with the resident informally when it identified another property in January 2021. This suggests it wanted to keep her updated about its progress.
As mentioned, the Ombudsman confirmed the landlord’s March 2021 offer was not located in an unsafe district. This information was confirmed through a small number of Google searches, including Google Maps and the relevant local authority’s electoral information. It was recognised the property’s address referenced an area the resident said was unsafe. The timeline suggests the offer subsequently upset the resident. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have explained the situation better.
Nevertheless, the evidence shows its offer was not inappropriate. Nor was any information seen to show there was a related communication failure on the landlord’s part. Regardless, the landlord’s subsequent complaint correspondence said the landlord would make a further offer. This was apparently because the identified property was near an unsafe area. The landlord’s approach was not unreasonable given the circumstances.
From the information seen, there was no evidence to show the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the brick incident in September 2021. In contrast to events in June 2020, there was no indication the police felt the situation warranted urgent action. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say the landlord should have swiftly offered another temporary property at this point.
However, the timeline indicates the landlord failed to promptly comply with the resident’s September 2019 request to try and obtain a reciprocal agreement. This was based on the wording of its correspondence on 17 January 2022, which said the landlord would contact providers in this district. Though a potential delay of around four months was noted, there was no guarantee this approach would yield a successful match for the resident. It was also noted the resident confirmed only part of the district would be safe.
As a result, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say the landlord should have prioritised this approach over other search methods. Nevertheless, it could have reasonably acted sooner to pursue the resident’s request, which was referenced in a number of her emails from September 2021. Given the circumstances, the length of the identified delay represents maladministration on the landlords part. The Ombudsman will award proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
From the remaining timeline, there was no evidence the landlord was responsible for any significant failures. For example, the wording of its relevant correspondence suggests its January 2022 decision to close the resident’s case was based on a reasonable amount of information. The timeline shows the landlord overturned its decision within days after the resident provided a copy of the restraining order. This was a reasonable approach given the circumstances. No information was seen to show the landlord should have held all the relevant documents beforehand.
The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient information to make a fair assessment of the landlord’s January 2023 decision to withdraw the resident’s rehousing offer. The timeline shows the withdrawal took place around 38 months after the resident’s January 2020 complaint. Given the circumstances, the resident will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord if she is unhappy with this decision.
Overall, the timeline shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer was largely appropriate given the circumstances. However, it could have reasonably acted sooner to comply with the resident’s September 2021 request to try and obtain a reciprocal agreement in another district. The information seen indicates a delay of around four months which was inappropriate given the circumstances. This represents maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, in July 2020 it advised the resident her disrepair complaint was closed based on correspondence from her legal representative. The landlord felt its actions were consistent with its complaints policy, which said legal matters fell outside of its complaints procedure. However, in October 2020 the Ombudsman notified the landlord the pre-action protocol did not constitute legal proceedings, so it should issue a stage two response.
The Ombudsman considers correspondence from the courts to represent legal proceedings. Our approach is that landlords should not disengage their internal complaints procedure on receipt of correspondence initiating the protocol. This has several benefits including reduced costs for both parties. For example, residents do not incur legal costs and associated costs for landlords are reduced. This approach was set out by our “New guidance for landlords on disrepair claims” document in November 2021. However, as shown above, it was already in place when this document was published.
The evidence shows the landlord prematurely disengaged its complaints procedure to the resident’s detriment. In its recent update to the Ombudsman, the landlord said the resident issued legal proceedings in 2022. In contrast, the timeline suggests the landlord received the resident’s initial legal letter in July 2020. This suggests an avoidable delay of up to 30 months between July 2020 and December 2022. Further, based on the timing of this assessment, the timeline shows the resident’s disrepair concerns remain unresolved around 38 months after the were raised in January 2020.
Regardless of its exact duration, the above identified delay was both inappropriate and unfair to the resident. This Service will order the landlord to amend its complaints policy in line with our guidance to avoid similar situations going forwards.
The timeline also shows the landlord displayed an inappropriate tendency towards informal complaint handling. For example, its email update on 28 April 2020 followed a formal escalation request from the resident. The landlord said the update was by prompted a review, which suggests it was imitating its complaints procedure. Given the resident’s specific escalation request, an informal response was inappropriate.
It is accepted the pandemic impacted the landlord’s repairs service. However, the evidence suggests the landlord should have, instead, issued a stage two response detailing the findings from its February 2020 survey. The landlord agreed to communicate these findings in its stage one response on 2 March 2020. A stage two response could have: explained the landlord’s position, awarded redress if appropriate and set out an action plan for any outstanding repairs. It would have also allowed the Ombudsman to consider the resident’s complaint.
Another informal email on 25 June 2020 said the landlord was unable uphold the resident’s request to reimburse expenses she incurred during the temporary move. Its wording again evoked the landlord’s complaints procedure. Unlike the complaints procedure, the resident was not informed how she could challenge the landlord’s decision. Since this was a matter of procedural fairness, the landlord’s informal response was inappropriate. The landlord subsequently failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s, October 2020, request to address this matter at stage two.
A further informal response was issued on 5 May 2021. Given its wording, it is reasonable to conclude the resident found it confusing. It said the email was the landlord’s final response to her rehousing request, but the resident could escalate her complaint. For clarity, some complaints can be referred to the Ombudsman at stage one providing the response is clear. This approach is usually suited to simple issues where a landlord’s position is unlikely to change at stage two. In these circumstances, landlords can avoid prolonging matters by making an early referral to the Ombudsman.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord’s informal complaint handling resulted in significant delays and unresolved issues for the resident. The above assessment suggests the landlord should have reasonably issued a final response around April 2020. As mentioned, the timeline indicates the resident’s disrepair concerns remain unresolved. It points to a similar situation in relation to the resident’s expenses. It is reasonable to conclude the resident ultimately sought legal assistance because the landlord failed to respond to her concerns through its formal complaints procedure.
Crucially, assessing these matters was problematic for the Ombudsman without a final response letter confirming the landlord’s position and completion of its complaints procedure. This shows the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns in full was an inappropriate barrier to resolving them. Regardless of whether this was achieved internally or through the Ombudsman, it is reasonable to conclude they could have been fairly addressed during the above timeline. The landlord’s approach was therefore inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord unfairly disengaged its complaints procedure in July 2020. While the evidence suggests they are now being considered by a court, the resident’s disrepair concerns remain unresolved. This points to avoidable and unfair delays of around 37 months from January 2020. The landlord also tended towards informal complaint handling, which resulted in delays, missed complaint issues and likely caused confusion. This was a barrier to resolving the resident’s concerns.
Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a management transfer from October 2019.

Reasons

Though its handling of the management transfer was broadly appropriate, the landlord could have reasonably acted sooner to comply with the resident’s September 2021 request to try and obtain a reciprocal agreement in another district. The evidence points to a delay of around four months which was inappropriate given the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord unfairly disengaged its complaints procedure in July 2020. While the evidence suggests they are now being considered by a court, the resident’s disrepair concerns remain unresolved. This points to avoidable and unfair delays of around 37 months from January 2020. The landlord also tended towards informal complaint handling, which resulted in delays, missed complaint issues and likely caused confusion. This was a barrier to resolving the resident’s concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident, for the failings identified in this report, in person within four weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £425 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £75 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s failure to act sooner in relation to the resident’s September 2021 request for a reciprocal agreement.
2. £350 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord can deduct the £20 it awarded the resident in August 2021 if it has already paid this amount.
The landlord to establish whether it ever formally addressed the resident’s request for reimbursed expenses. If not, the landlord should address them through its formal complaints process The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to review the Ombudsman’s “New guidance for landlords on disrepair claims” and amend its complaints policy to reflect its approach to legal proceedings. The landlord should also share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.