From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202421619)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421619

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 August 2025

 

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 concerns about:
    1. Staff conduct, communication, policies, culture and services, management of her tenancy agreement, and her vulnerabilities.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 April 2024 about 3 of its senior staff members and their communication. She also raised concerns about its culture and services, management of her tenancy agreement, adherence to its policies and procedures, and its failure to track performance or implement quality checks. She said she had raised over 100 complaints which it had not addressed and she was not seen as vulnerable.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 April 2024. It provided a response to each of the resident’s concerns as set out above.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 June 2024. She provided no additional context to her complaint.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 August 2024. It apologised for its delayed response and offered £80 compensation. It said that it was satisfied with its stage 1 response and explanations.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to adhere to its policies and procedures.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about staff, communication, policies, culture, and vulnerabilities

  1. In the resident’s complaint she said that she sent “constant” emails and evidence to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). She said that the CEO was aware of her issues and continued to “pass the buck”. She added that:
    1. She had a tenancy agreement that management did not adhere to, and she was constantly ignored.
    2. It did not follow its policies and procedures and there was a disconnect between policy and practice.
    3. It failed to track performance or implement quality assurance checks.
    4. She sent over 100 complaints which it failed to address, and its staff were lying, stating she was unavailable when she was.
    5. It did not see her as vulnerable despite this being the reason she moved to the property.
    6. It continued to fail to address issues and its business cultural failures led to a prolonged period of a decline in services.
    7. She requested “compensation for everything”.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it tried to telephone the resident on 23 April 2024 to discuss her complaint. It left a voicemail message and sent an email the same day. It asked her to confirm the reasons for her dissatisfaction with its staff members and the service they provided. It asked which parts of her tenancy agreement it had not adhered to and where it had failed to follow its policies. It wanted her to clarify her comments about the lack of quality assurance checks and her reference to compensation. It stated it had no recorded vulnerabilities and asked if she would like to confirm a change in circumstances.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to understand her concerns and enable it to respond appropriately. There is no evidence to show that the resident responded to the telephone call or email.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it explained that its CEO was unable to respond to each communication personally. It explained that it had dedicated processes and teams in place to respond to queries and provided contact details. Its response was reasonable given it has a complaint process to address resident dissatisfaction.
  5. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident felt there was a disconnect between its policies and procedures in practice. It said that all staff were trained to understand its policies and procedures and it was committed to delivering excellent customer service in line with these. This was reasonable given it had no specific detail about which policies and procedures she was referring to in her complaint.
  6. The landlord noted that the resident had another complaint relating to antisocial behaviour which it escalated to stage 2. It also said it had reviewed her current active complaints and that its team was working to address her concerns. While the resident had not mentioned antisocial behaviour in her complaint, it was helpful for the landlord to confirm the status of her complaint and apologise for any delays.
  7. The landlord assured the resident that it had a dedicated housing quality assurance team in place to manage complaints, performance, and service improvement within its housing management department. Its response was reasonable given it had no other context regarding this matter.
  8. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident felt there had been miscommunication about her availability. It said it was “eager” to work with her to adjust its service to meet her needs. It asked her to share her availability so its teams could communicate effectively or visit at convenient times. It would note this on her account so it knew how best to deliver its services. Its apology was appropriate, as was its offer to note her availability to improve future communication.
  9. The landlord said that it recognised that some residents would openly tell it about a support need or vulnerability. Where it identified vulnerabilities, it would keep a record on its system, often in the form of support flags. It would review this periodically to ensure the information was up to date. As it had been unable to see any support flags, it asked if she would like to inform it of a change in circumstances so it could add this to its system. This was appropriate given it had no record of any vulnerabilities. Landlords are only able to adapt their services where they are aware of any specific requirements or reasonable adjustments.
  10. The landlord referred to its organisational culture and provided a link to its 5-year corporate strategy. It explained that this provided an insight into its path over the next 5 years across 5 core values. It said it cared about the happiness and wellbeing of its customers and employees and strived to own problems and deliver effective lasting solutions. As it had no context for the resident’s assertions, its response was reasonable.
  11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint but provided no additional context about her concerns. The evidence shows that the landlord tried on 2 occasions to contact her for additional information. While residents do not have to provide reasons to escalate complaints, this was reasonable to assist the landlord in understanding her concerns.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it apologised that it had been unable to resolve her concerns. It explained that no reasons had been given as to why she wanted to escalate her complaint. It was satisfied with its stage 1 response and explanations. Given it had no further context to her complaint, it would have been challenging for it to have provided a different response.
  13. In summary, we find that the landlord has provided a reasonable response to each of the resident’s concerns given the limited context of her complaint.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process within its complaint policy timescales. However, it is not disputed that there was a delay in its stage 2 response.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 June 2024. It requested an extension of 20 working days to provide its response on 19 July 2024. This was 4 working days after when it should have provided its response. It responded on 15 August 2024, 19 working days later and within the agreed extension timescale. It apologised for its delayed response and offered £80 compensation.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its delayed response and offer redress. Its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and communication, policies and procedures, culture and services, management of her tenancy agreement, and her vulnerabilities.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £80 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.