London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217010

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Decisions regarding the disposal of the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident lives with her 2 children who are over the age of 10 and are opposite sex.
In October 2019, a developer began work to demolish a building behind the property. The works included the demolition of another property. The Health and Safety Executive closed the site temporarily due to issues with the removal of asbestos. Due to concerns the works had impacted the property, the resident was instructed to contact the landlord. Which she did. She told the landlord that it would need to send a surveyor or inspector to the property. She gave details about the plans to demolish the building and the impact they could have on the property.
The landlord put the resident on its permanent decant list on 9 November 2020. The form listed the reason for the request as “issues with development of block directly behind property”. There were no recommendations made regarding property type or suitable areas.
In May 2021, the landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation of a 3 bedroom house.
The resident refused the landlord’s offer on 22 February 2022. She said the property was not large enough for her family and she was concerned about the security at the rear of the property. On the same day, the landlord replied it felt the offer was reasonable. It said it had made the resident a final offer. The landlord said she would be removed from its rehousing list if she refused the offer.
The resident appealed the decision on 27 February 2022. She said:
1. She was told that she was being moved because the works behind her property made it unsafe.
2. The landlord’s proposed property was too small. It would not fit all the family’s furniture.
3. There were water marks in the bedroom which lacked a radiator. The resident felt the marks were caused by damp.
4. The family’s current property was overcrowded. Given their age, her children should not be sharing a room.
5. She was previously told the landlord would make 3 offers of accommodation.
6. She was also told, if she refused the landlord’s proposed property, it could take up to 18 months before the landlord made another offer. She had considered this when declining the offer.
7. She had refused a mutual exchange in April 2021 because she was told by the landlord not to exchange while the property was being considered for disposal.
8. She found cracks in the walls of her property that were getting worse since the works began.
The landlord upheld its original decision on 4 March 2022. It said the property met the resident’s requirements. It said that if the resident refused the offer of accommodation it would remove her property from the disposal list and she would be made no other offers. It directed the resident to the local authority for rehousing and gave some advice regarding mutual exchanges. The resident was given until 8 March 2022 to accept or decline the offer.
The resident responded on the same day. She asked if the landlord would give her until 24 March 2022 to respond. The landlord replied on 8 March 2022. It said it would hold the property until 24 March 2022 and no later.
The resident sought help from third parties. Subsequently, on 11 March 2022, a local councillor contacted the landlord asking for it to confirm:
1. Why it had decided to dispose of the property.
2. What it was doing about cracks in the property.
3. What it was doing about the reported overcrowding.
4. If the landlord were willing to extend its deadline so the resident could appeal.
The landlord responded on the same day. It said:
1. It decided to dispose of the property because the resident complained about disturbance from the development. It put the resident onto a permanent rehousing list. In relation to permanent moves, the landlord’s approach was to make 1 offer of alternative accommodation. When the resident declined the offer the landlord decided it no longer needed to dispose of the property.
2. A repair had been logged for a surveyor to inspect the cracks reported by the resident.
3. To manage the overcrowding, the resident was encouraged to apply to the local authority and/or seek a mutual exchange.
4. The appeal had been considered and the offer upheld. The property was now ready to let. It needed the resident to provide a response by 18 March 2022.
The resident replied on 17 March 2022. Her new points were:
1. She had never complained about noise and disturbance. She was told to contact the landlord because the developer had to take down a building at the end of her garden. She had also been exposed to asbestos from the developer.
2. The landlord had made the decision to permanently decant her because she should not be living in the property while the works were going on.
3. The landlord told her to stop bidding with the local council because the property was listed for disposal.
4. She had been told she could not have a mutual exchange because the property was listed for disposal.
5. The landlord’s responses were unfair and the situation was distressing.
The resident complained on 1 April 2022. She reiterated many of her previous concerns. She also said:
1. She was told 2 years prior that her home was unsafe and she needed to move.
2. She was offered a property in May 2021. The landlord failed to respond to questions about other properties she was interested in.
3. She felt the landlord had built up her hopes and wasted her time.
4. She was taking medication because the situation had been stressful.
5. She felt the appeal response lacked any detail.
A local MP wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2022. They asked the landlord to reconsider the resident’s rehousing request.
On 15 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord for a response to her complaint. On 17 May 2022, both the resident and a local councillor chased the landlord’s complaint response.
The landlord called the resident on 24 May 2022. It said that the complaint had been allocated for investigation and it would provide a response. An acknowledgement letter was sent the next day.
The resident chased the landlord again on 29 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2022. This was around 3 months after the complaint was made. The response was dated incorrectly as 27 May 2022. It said the complaint was about a lack of communication from the landlord. It set out the following response:
1. A request for rehousing was opened on 26 September 2020. This was after the landlord listed the property for disposal. The decision was made due to the impact the development work would have on the resident.
2. The resident was offered a 3 bedroom house on 25 January 2022. When she viewed the property on 25 February 2022 she said it was too small and refused the offer.
3. Since the demand for properties outweighed supply, the landlord’s policy was to make 1 offer only. The resident’s appeal was heard on 3 March 2022 and the decision was upheld.
4. The landlord no longer had an open rehousing list. It allocated its properties through the local authority housing register. This was to manage demand and so it could prioritise its own urgent cases.
5. The resident was directed to seek further help with rehousing from the local authority. She was also given information about the mutual exchange process.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2022. She said its stage 1 response did not answer most of her questions. She wanted to know:
1. Why she was told that if she refused the property she would have to wait 12-18 months for another offer.
2. Why the property was unsafe to live in, until she refused the offer of accommodation. She was told her property was listed for disposal and nothing had changed with the development.
3. Why she was previously told not to look for a mutual exchange. She felt it was unreasonable for her to exchange with another party at that time. The development works were causing a lot of disruption to her. The impact would be the same to any new resident.
4. What the landlord had done to schedule a surveyor’s inspection. She was told that the landlord had arranged this to happen and had no updates.
The resident’s correspondence prompted the landlord to investigate further on 13 July 2022. The records show a surveyor had not been scheduled. The case was sent to a relevant team to decide if a further offer would be considered. The landlord found it had previously told the resident “at the beginning” that a mutual exchange could not go ahead it if was disposing of the property.
On 14 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was frustrated by its lack of communication. She had received no update from the landlord since 11 July 2022.
On 31 October 2022, the resident asked the Ombudsman for help. She felt that the landlord was treating her unfairly. She broadly reiterated her previous concerns. We wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2022 and told it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 8 November 2022. It said it would issue a final response by 1 December 2022. It called the resident the next day to discuss the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 December 2022. This was around 5 months after the resident raised additional concerns about the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord listed the resident’s specific questions and responded in turn as follows:
1. Why was the resident told that if she refused the property she would have to wait 12-18 months for another offer:
  1. The landlord was unable to confirm the details of any discussion between the resident and its employees. It had reviewed its records and noted an email sent on 31 January 2022. It said that if the resident refused the property she was told it could take between 12-18 months for another offer.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 February 2022 after she refused the offer of accommodation. The email set out that she would not be offered another property. She was given the opportunity to request a review of the decision.
  3. The landlord considered the resident’s appeal and found that it had provided a reasonable offer of accommodation. No further offer would be made. She had until 8 March 2023 to accept or decline the offer. This was extended to 18 March 2023. The resident refused the offer on 24 March 2023.
  4. The landlord accepted it had told the resident it could potentially make further offers. However, it was later made clear to the resident that she would only receive 1 offer of accommodation. It had given the resident additional time to consider the offer in view of this information.
  5. The landlord apologised for the stress it caused and for being unclear with the resident at the start of the process.
2. Why was the property considered unsafe until the resident refused the offer of accommodation. She was told her property was listed for disposal and nothing had changed with the development.
  1. The landlord’s decision to dispose of the property was not because it was unsafe for her to live there.
  2. The landlord planned to review the decision to dispose of the property only once the resident moved out. As she chose not to accept the alternative accommodation the property was removed from its disposal list.
  3. The landlord would arrange for an inspection to determine if there were any changes to the risk to the resident and update her separately.
3. Why was the resident told not to look for a mutual exchange. She felt it was unreasonable for her to exchange with another party at that time. The development works were causing a lot of disruption to her. The impact would be the same to any new resident.
  1. The landlord found no evidence that it told the resident to leave any mutual exchange lists or decline any offers for an exchange. It asked the resident to send any records that she thought it had not considered. It noted that some of its correspondence was unclear and this could have caused confusion.
  2. The landlord recognised that the development may cause some difficulties in finding a third party that would exchange properties. It said that there were many reasons that someone may wish to move, so she should continue to use the mutual exchange sites.
4. Had the landlord scheduled a surveyor to inspect the property.
  1. The landlord apologised for not sending a surveyor to her home. It was making further enquiries regarding this request and would contact the resident separately.
5. Lack of communication.
  1. The landlord apologised “if there has been a lack of communication” and if the resident failed to receive a response to her enquiries.
  2. The landlord recognised that when the resident felt ignored, it made the situation more difficult for her.
6. Delays in responding to the resident’s complaints.
  1. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling at stage 1. It did not provide responses in agreed times. It recorded the complaint on 1 April 2022 and should have responded in 10 working days.
  2. The complaints process had not been followed. After raising a complaint, the landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2022. This was outside the 1 working day set out in the landlord’s policy. It recorded 2 further emails from the resident that received no response. The stage 1 response was incorrectly dated 27 May 2022.
  3. The stage 1 complaint did not adequately address all the issues raised by the resident.
  4. The landlord recognised that the resident had to contact the Ombudsman to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It did not respond to emails that could have escalated the complaint.
  5. The landlord said its complaint handling was below the standard the resident should expect. Feedback would be provided to try to avoid this happening again.
7. The landlord offered at total of £300 compensation. This comprised:
  1. £60 compensation for the distress caused to the resident.
  2. £50 in compensation for the lack of communication and the resident’s time and effort.
  3. £150 in compensation for its complaint handling.
  4. £40 for not responding to 4 emails sent as part of the complaint.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 January 2023. She disputed the findings made in the landlord’s stage 2 response. She highlighted the statement made by the landlord that it planned to inspect the property for disposal only after she moved out. She felt that the landlord had changed its mind because she refused the offer of accommodation. She felt “bullied” because she refused the offer and it was the landlords way of “punishing” her. She said that the situation had impacted her health.
The resident wrote to the landlord the same day disputing the findings set out in the stage 2 response. The landlord replied on 17 January 2023. It told the resident that a surveyor would be visiting her and directed her to the Ombudsman regarding her complaint.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it completed 2 surveys of the resident’s home. The first was on 24 January 2023. The surveyor did an inspection of the exterior walls and found there was no evidence of structural damage. The second survey was on 9 June 2023. The surveyor inspected the inside of the property and found no evidence of structural issues.
The resident continued to report issues with movement inside the property. She reports that there have been cracks in the ceilings of the bedroom and kitchen that required plastering by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The landlord had several allocations and lettings policies between October 2019 and January 2023. Each policy stated that a resident whose property is scheduled for demolition or disposal could be added to its rehousing list. In addition, the landlord can offer a permanent move to residents who fit these criteria.
Any offer of alternative accommodation would have had regard to the suitable alternative accommodation criteria contained in the Housing Act 1988, schedule 2, Part III. Residents could have 1 offer of accommodation. If a resident refused an offer their rehousing case would be closed. Residents would be offered the opportunity to appeal the landlord’s decision. Appeals were heard by a manager not involved with the offer. If an appeal was refused the case would be closed and the resident would not be matched to any further properties.
The landlord’s complaint policy shows it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It responds at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It could ask to extend both by 10 working days with consent from the resident.

The landlord’s decisions regarding the disposal of the resident’s property.

The reasons for the landlord to add the property to its disposal list were unclear. The landlord’s records show it considered that there may have been a risk to the property while the neighbouring works were ongoing. It also referred to the disruption the works would cause to the resident. There was some discussion internally by the landlord to sell the property because of the works.
There was no inspection report, or survey that the Ombudsman could observe which outlined what risks were present when it made its decision. The landlord should have conducted an inspection and sent some notification to the resident regarding its decision to dispose of the property.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would have reviewed its decision to dispose of the property once it had vacant possession. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that show this was part of the landlord’s decision making at any time prior to the stage 2 response.
The landlord decided to remove the property from its disposal list once the resident refused an offer of accommodation. The landlord did not make any visits to the property or arrange for any inspection of the property to consider the impact the works could have before making this decision. There are no records that show the landlord conducted any formal review of the decision to dispose of the property. It would have been fair and reasonable to have arranged the inspection, or survey from a suitably qualified person before making this decision.
The landlord eventually carried out surveys of the property in January and June 2023. There was an unreasonable amount of time taken to conduct the surveys. This was nearly 12 months after its decision to remove the property from its disposal list. The landlord found no evidence of movement in the property or risk to the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any written reports that show the outcome of these surveys. The resident disputed the landlord’s findings, saying that there were further repairs to the property. She believed that the repairs may have been caused by movement related to works behind the property.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s decisions regarding the disposal of the resident’s property. It did not clearly state its reasons for the decision to dispose of the property. Once it had made the decision that the property should be disposed of, it then decided that it was no longer necessary because the resident refused an offer of accommodation. There was no evidence to show that it conducted any surveys to make either decision. It treated the resident unfairly, by contributing to her feelings that she was unsafe in her home and then changing its decision with little regard to the impact it had on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation of £300 to reflect the impact on the resident. The landlord should instruct an independent surveyor to determine whether there is any structural damage to the property, the impact the works have on the property, and the impact to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a request for rehousing.

The landlord operated a closed waiting list. Some properties were held for direct offer, while most were advertised through the local authority. The landlord took the correct approach by directing the resident to the local authority to join the housing register. The operation of and time taken to be offered a property through that register was not within the landlord’s control. Once the landlord decided that it would need to add the property to its disposal list it looked for alternative means to rehouse the resident. The decision to offer a property by permanent decant was appropriate and allowed the resident an expedited route to secure alternative accommodation.
The landlord put the resident on its permanent offers list in 2020. The landlord’s policy shows that where residents are to be rehoused via its permanent offers list, they would be allowed 1 offer of accommodation only. It would have been reasonable to set out its position in writing to the resident. It should have confirmed she was on the permanent move list and that she was allowed 1 offer of accommodation. There was no evidence seen by the Ombudsman that the landlord made this clear from the outset to the resident. It should have been clear with the resident. It was not and this caused frustration later in the process.
The resident said that she was told by the landlord in person, that she would be made 3 offers of accommodation. This was disputed by the landlord and there are no records available to the Ombudsman that refer to this conversation. In the absence of any evidence the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding in this regard.
Once the resident was offered alternative accommodation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to send out details of the offer in writing. This would have been an opportunity to clearly state that there would be 1 reasonable offer of accommodation. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord did so in this case. If it had, the resident would have had more opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the offer and be able to make a fully informed decision when viewing the property.
Aside from a lack of clarity at times, the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding her dispute about the offer was broadly reasonable. It recognised that it had been unclear with the resident about its procedures. It clarified that the offer she received was the only offer it would make. It correctly directed the resident to seek a review and allowed additional time for her to submit her request. The landlord then continued to hold the property for a short time after its decision that the offer was reasonable. The landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy in this regard. It gave additional time to consider the offer of accommodation to put things right for the resident.
However, the communication following the landlord’s decision to remove the resident from its permanent offers list was poor. There were significant delays in its responses. Between 17 March and 24 May 2022 the landlord did not respond to the residents emails. This occurred again between 11 July and 8 November 2022. The resident had to frequently contact the landlord for information. She was clearly distressed by the situation, she told the landlord how frustrated she was in her emails and that she felt hurried into making a decision.
The landlord recognised that some of its communication regarding mutual exchanges caused confusion. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to see where it had told the resident not to continue with a mutual exchange. This suggested that the resident should have continued to look for a mutual exchange while the property was listed for disposal. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that shows the landlord did tell the resident not to continue with a mutual exchange in 2021. The advice is conflicting. It was unfair for the landlord to expect the resident to pursue an exchange while the property was listed for disposal. It should have been clear whether this was its position from the start, or if it had changed when the property was no longer listed for disposal.
The landlord recognised there were some related failures. It noted that the emails sent had included errors regarding its processes. It apologised and offered £60 compensation for the distress caused to the resident. The landlord offered £50 for the lack of communication and the resident’s time and trouble. The redress offered did not adequately address the distress and inconvenience caused, or the time and trouble taken by the resident. There were significant delays in responding to the resident and there were communications that received no response.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a request for rehousing. The landlord did not appropriately manage the expectations of the resident. It did not provide clear information to her that would have assured her understanding of the landlord’s policy and procedures. The communication following the review decision was poor and caused the resident undue time and trouble. The compensation offered did not address the impact on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 in additional compensation to the resident.

Complaint handling.

The landlord did not comply with its policy and procedures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were considerably outside those timeframes.
The landlord took 35 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 response and a total of 63 working days to provide a response. This was significantly above the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. The resident took considerable time and effort asking for updates and then seeking help from representatives to get a response. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge the delay or the additional inconvenience the situation had on the resident.
There was a delay of around 102 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This too was substantially above the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The delay was unreasonable and continued to cause the resident time and trouble seeking assistance from representatives. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 when the landlord had not responded to the stage 2 request nearly 3 months after it was made. The resident said she felt ignored by the landlord and treated unfairly.
The landlord sought to address its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. It recognised that there had been delays in responding at both stages. It considered the failing to respond to all complaints at stage 1. It referred to failures in its communication and the lack of responses. The response was detailed and addressed each part of the resident’s complaint individually. It considered each of the issues raised by the resident. The offer of compensation that was reflective of the detriment caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the responses were provided outside of the timescales set out in its policy, the landlord’s offer of £190 compensation was reasonable in this case. It recognised that there were failings and offered means to put things right for the resident.

Record keeping

The evidence reviewed as part of this investigation shows issues with the landlord’s record keeping regarding surveys and the decision making around the decanting of its residents. It is noted that there were no detailed inspection reports to inform the landlord’s decision to decant the resident. There were no reports reviewing the risks to the resident when the landlord decided to remove her from its decant list.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that could have been shared with the resident.
In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the disposal of the resident’s property and her request for rehousing. This impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s decision regarding the disposal of the resident’s property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for rehousing.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct an independent surveyor to determine whether there is any structural damage to the property, the impact the works have on the property, and the impact to the resident. Provide a copy of the survey to the resident and to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay compensation of £800 (this includes the £300 already offered). This sum includes:
  1. £360 for the distress caused to the resident
  2. £50 for the lack of communication and the resident’s time and effort.
  3. £140 for its complaint handling.
  4. £200 for the distress caused in the handling of the request for rehousing.
3. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

When adding residents to the permanent offers list, the landlord should ensure that this decision is made in writing within a reasonable period.
When making offers of accommodation, the landlord should provide details of the offer and any conditional clauses in writing within a reasonable period. This should ensure that future residents are fully informed of the decision.
The Ombudsman has recently made orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about its record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of record keeping.