London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311071)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311071

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 May 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 response to the resident’s concerns about her transfer to a new property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has since moved from the property at the time of the complaint, which was a 2-bedroom property. Her household included her partner and her 4 children, 3 of whom were under 10, and 2 of whom have ADHD, autism and a learning disability.
  2. The resident sought to be moved from her previous property since at least 2020, due to overcrowding and her children’s disabilities, and was assessed around that time by the local authority as needing a 3-bedroom property. In July 2021, a medical assessor recommended a direct let on medical grounds, with a bedroom size based on the landlord’s policy, after which the resident was again noted to need a 3-bedroom property. Following this it is understood that she will have been placed on a waiting list for the next 3-bedroom property that became available in her desired locations.
  3. In early 2022, the resident reported that her daughter had been sexually assaulted at school and asked to be urgently moved as perpetrators lived nearby. Following this, the landlord raised an antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) case on its system to ensure the issue was looked at quickly and agreed an action plan which included requesting further information from the police and arranging further assessment of the resident’s housing. In May 2022 the landlord closed the case, noting that there was no potential risk. It said that the resident was on the highest priority to be rehoused on medical grounds, and it would contact her as soon as suitable accommodation became available.
  4. In December 2022, the resident was offered a 3-bedroom property, which she was told was undergoing void works. In February 2023, she queried what was being done at the property, when she would move in, and if any other properties were available. She said she had understood that she would move by January 2023 so she had packed lots of belongings. The landlord said it had never stated the property would be ready in January and said it would have recommended against packing if the resident had said she was going to do this. It provided an estimated completion date of early March 2023, but said “do not take the date as gospel.” In early March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the completion date was pushed back to late March 2023, as there were issues with the water supplier. In April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about a lack of update and was informed that there were still believed to be delays with the water supplier.
  5. In June 2023, the resident made a complaint. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her report of her daughter’s assault, including classification of it as ASB. She detailed that she had been contacted in late 2022 and told a 3-bedroom property had been found which she could view. She noted that staff had explained she was unlikely to get a 5-bed property due to stock availability, so she had accepted the 3-bed property. She noted that when contacting for updates, she was repeatedly told some works needed to be done by the water supplier, however she had contacted the water supplier and been told the work had been completed for several months. She said that the landlord lacked transparency, and she queried why the property was still vacant after 6 months and why she was still waiting to move in. She said that she had been living out of boxes and said that the landlord had failed in its duty of care and affected her and her family’s physical and mental health. She asked the landlord to move her into the property she had accepted in late 2022, or to look for a property she could move into without further delay.
  6. The same month, the landlord informed the resident that the water supplier was not helping with issues, so it was getting its own contractor to assist. At the end of the month, the landlord informed the resident that the works were now completed, and it was just waiting for a debt on the gas meter to be cleared so that the boiler could be checked. Around this time, the landlord’s internal correspondence indicated that the property had been void for 10 months due to a £120 gas debt, which had cost it £1,500 in council tax and £5,000 in loss of rent.
  7. In July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It apologised that the resident felt the need to complain. It said that it was unfortunately taking in excess of 6 months for void works to be completed, and the property the resident was offered had needed health and safety works that took longer than expected. It said that the works were near completion, and staff would be in contact as soon as the property had been handed back from void team.
  8. The resident requested escalation of the complaint. She raised dissatisfaction that the response was delayed and did not address the complaint she had detailed or that it had noted in its acknowledgement of the complaint. She raised concern that she had a viewing of the property and that she had been told she had to make a decision about whether to accept it within 24 hours. She said she was still looking for a 4 to 5 bedroom property. She asked for her original points to be addressed and compensation for the issues and delays with the stage 1, the handling of the rehousing issue, her daughter’s assault being categorised as ASB, being overcrowded, living out of boxes for 8 months, and the impact on her and her family.
  9. There were internal discussions about the complaint. In some correspondence, it was stated that in December 2022, issues had been noticed with water pressure which were referred to the water supplier, and this should have been checked by the voids team before marking the property as ready to let. In some other correspondence, it was stated that there had been a meter issue related to the outgoing tenant’s debt, and that such issues could take up to a year to resolve. It was stated that a major leak occurred in January 2023, which took over a month to resolve with a water supplier, and then required drying out, redecoration and recarpeting of the property. It was also stated that the real issue was that the property was offered without the voids team being consulted or being categorised as ‘ready to let’ on the system.
  10. In August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the time it took to get the property ready. It said that it appeared there had been a problem with a meter, but this should have been remedied a lot sooner. It said that in terms of property size, its policy was to offer properties on a like for like basis, unless its independent medical advisor recommended otherwise, and it noted that in the resident’s case a 3-bedroom property had been recommended. It said that the resident would be expected to make a decision quickly once viewing a property, but to ask at the time of the viewing if she needed more time. It noted that it understood the property would be ready that week so hopefully the resident would be able to view it shortly. The landlord said it recognised the resident’s frustration, apologised, and awarded £250 for the inconvenience of waiting so long.
  11. The same month, the property became ready to let, and the landlord asked the resident to make a decision about whether she wanted to move in. The Ombudsman understands that the resident subsequently raised concern about whether the property was suitable for her and her family’s needs, and in mid-September 2023 the landlord said it was referring the issue to a rehousing panel. In early October 2023, it is understood that the landlord told the resident that the rehousing panel had met and held that the property was suitable for her needs. The resident was informed that its offer of the property would be held for 3 days before it was offered to another resident on the waiting list. It is understood that the resident accepted the property and moved into it later in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that in cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to definitively determine whether a tenant should be rehoused or what priority or bedroom size they should be given. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and responded reasonably, which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her transfer to a new property

  1. The resident complained about her daughter’s sexual assault being categorised as ASB. The landlord should have responded to this aspect or explained if the issue was too historical to consider as a complaint. The Ombudsman understands how distressing this must have been to the resident and family, and the landlord not acknowledging this aspect will have caused frustration to the resident and led her to feel ignored. From what the Ombudsman can see, there is limited evidence that the categorisation of the incident adversely impacted the landlord’s response or consideration of the housing needs at that time. The landlord closed the case as it considered that there was no potential risk, but it confirmed that the resident was on the highest rehousing priority, and she would be contacted when accommodation meeting her assessed need became available.
  2. The resident complained about being given a 3-bedroom property need rather than a larger one. The landlord said that its policy would be to provide a 2-bedroom property, but in her case a 3-bedroom property was recommended. The Ombudsman understands that a property is overcrowded if 2 people have to sleep in the same room and they are not a couple, or are of a different sex. Children under 10 do not count and rooms considered acceptable to sleep in include lounges and dining rooms. The landlord’s recommendation for a 3-bedroom property seemed to consider the resident’s need for additional sleeping space due to the children’s disabilities, as this seems to exceed her legal housing entitlement and reflects what she said a local authority had recommended. It was also considered reasonable on further independent review, as it was upheld by the housing panel in October 2023 before the resident finally moved into her current property.
  3. The resident complained about the delay moving her into the property. The resident was offered her current property in December 2022, and she was told it was finally ready in late August 2023, almost 9 months later. This was clearly an unreasonable delay which the landlord was right to acknowledge, apologise and compensate £250 for. However, the landlord’s response was not entirely satisfactory as it does not demonstrate it went far enough to acknowledge issues evident in the complaint.
  4. The communication with the resident was poor and her expectations were not effectively managed. The stage 1 complaint response was over 3 weeks late and required chasing from the Ombudsman, and neither response addressed all issues she had raised. The landlord provided updates after it offered her the property, but these were limited in content and focused around when the property was estimated to be ready. The landlord comes across as insensitive at times, apologising that the resident “felt the need” to complain, and in trying to rush the resident into a decision in August 2023 about accepting the property after the works were completed. While the landlord has a responsibility to minimise empty properties, this was not entirely reasonable given the length of time she had been waiting, but the resident having until October to decide will have afforded her more time.
  5. The matter would have benefited from the landlord establishing what works were required and communicating this in more detail. This would have helped in the resident’s understanding of what was going on, helped more effectively manage her expectations, and helped inform the resident’s decisions such as packing. This would have also helped in the landlord’s understanding and effective management of matters, as these were lacking due to the unclear and contradictory information about matters.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response said there were health and safety issues, while its stage 2 response said it “appeared” there had been a problem with a meter. The evidence seen refers to additional reasons. There was an issue which was referred to a water supplier, who told the resident when she contacted them around May 2023 that the issue had been resolved for some time. There was a water pressure issue (possibly the same issue). There was allegedly a leak in January 2023, which meant the property had to be dried out, redecorated and recarpeted, although no further information is provided about when this was identified and resolved. The outgoing tenant also left a £120 utility debt, which some correspondence indicates was a main delay and cost the landlord £7,000 in council tax and loss of rent.
  7. The landlord seemed to place responsibility for resolution of water issues on the water supplier, but then said it would get its own contractor to resolve these. The landlord also seemed to place responsibility for resolution of meter issues on a utility supplier, but then said it would pay a debt and change the meter to a new supplier. After such decisions by the landlord in June 2023 and the resident had complained, progress of matters was much quicker than they had been. This suggests that the landlord could have resolved some issues that apparently contributed to the lengthy delay earlier than it did. Given issues evident, it is not satisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate it fully acknowledged these and identified relevant learning to try to prevent similar issues happening again.
  8. The information provided suggests that there is scope for the landlord to review relevant processes in respect to voids, to ensure that voids completions do not unreasonably delay for issues it may be cost effective for it to resolve rather than utility suppliers. The information provided also suggests that there is scope for there to be clearer communication between voids and lettings teams, as well as between the landlord and its tenants, about any works to a property that a tenant is waiting to move into.
  9. The information provided also raises questions about the landlord’s letting procedures, as there is contradiction in whether the property was ready to let. The information provided advises that staff felt a water pressure issue meant the property should not have been marked ‘ready to let,’ while other staff say the property was offered to the resident without it being marked as ready to let and without any consultation with the voids team. This suggests that there is scope for the landlord to review relevant processes, to ensure that properties are not marked ready to let without sufficient checks, and to ensure that properties are not offered to residents when they are not ready to let or may not be for some time.
  10. There is further concern that the landlord did not address the resident’s requests to move her to another property if it could not move her into the one it had offered. While it is understood other suitable properties being available may have been unlikely, it is not satisfactory that the landlord did not respond to our information request about whether any other properties became ready to let during the period of delay, to help assess if the resident was caused any further detriment by failing to be considered for other properties she could have moved into earlier.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s response was not satisfactory, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion did not go far enough to acknowledge the impact on the resident and relevant learning. The almost 9 month delay it took for the property to become ready was not reasonable, and the communication to the resident was poor and did not help manage her expectations. The landlord’s handling and inadequate responses will have caused frustration and distress to the resident, and this will have had an additional impact due to issues she had highlighted such as her children’s disabilities, struggles with the housing situation and the ongoing impact of her daughter’s assault. This is compounded by other issues evident, such as unclear reasons for the delays, ineffective management of the matter, errors in respect to the property being offered at all, and the lack of learning demonstrated.
  12. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration and makes a number of orders, which includes for further compensation of £350 to be paid to the resident for the failures identified and the distress and inconvenience caused. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her transfer to a new property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making an effective apology.
    2. pay the resident £350 compensation. This is in addition to the £250 it previously offered, which should also be paid if it has not been.
  2. The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks, review the case and relevant voids and lettings processes, and consider implementing changes which ensure that:
    1. properties are not marked ready to let when they are not ready to let.
    2. properties are not offered to residents, when they are not ready to let or will not be for some time.
    3. there is clearer communication between voids and lettings teams, as well as between the landlord and residents, about any works required to a property that a resident is waiting to move into.
    4. voids completions do not unreasonably delay for issues it may be cost effective for it to resolve rather than water or energy suppliers.
    5. high priority residents are considered for other suitable properties that become ready to let where void works become similarly protracted.
  3. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman about the outcome to the above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review its complaint handling, to ensure that it appropriately responds to issues raised in a complaint, and that it communicates any delays if it is unable to provide a response in a timely manner.