Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202403569)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403569

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 September 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 Right to Buy application from 2023.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association since 6 January 2003.
  2. Between 1991 and 1998 the resident lived in a different property under a secure tenancy with the local council. In 1998 the council transferred the property to a housing association, who then became his landlord. He then moved to his current property in 2003 under an assured tenancy with London and Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q).
  3. In October 2023 the resident applied to purchase the property under the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme. Initially the landlord approved his application and began the RTB process. Then in March 2024 it rejected its application. It said further checks had found it had issued him the incorrect tenancy agreement at the start of his tenancy in 2003. Therefore his correct tenure, assured, meant he did not qualify for the RTB scheme.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 March 2024. He disagreed with its decision to reject his application. He said he had a Preserved RTB that carried over from his prior tenancy with the local council. He also raised concerns about the conduct of a particular member of its staff who had been handling his application. He wanted it to reinstate his application.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. It acknowledged the confusion at the start of the resident’s application. However, it stood by its decision and provided an explanation. It found no fault with the conduct of the staff member. It said it would update its records to ensure it had the correct information on file. It apologised and offered him £60 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 April 2024 during a call with the landlord. He felt its decision on his application was incorrect and should not be rejected. He also raised concern about it changing details about his tenancy without his permission.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 April 2024. It maintained its decision to reject his application was correct. It also explained it had a responsibility to update its records with correct information about his tenancy and did not need his permission to do so.
  8. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord’s decision to reject is RTB application was incorrect. He also said it needed to agree any changes to his tenancy with him rather than updating its records without his permission. He wanted it to reinstate his application and proceed as normal.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s right to buy application from 2023

  1. A Preserved Right to Buy is a right a former secure tenant of a local council has to buy their home at a discount even if the tenancy is passed to a different housing provider. One way a tenant loses this right is if they then move to another property with a different housing provider.
  2. The resident’s complaint was that the landlord should not have denied his 2023 RTB application. He said as he previously had a secure tenancy with the local council, his right to purchase the property remained with him through any transfers of tenancy. This included when the local authority transferred his tenancy to a housing association. He also queried how it had failed to recognise his tenancy agreement was incorrect during the past 20 years of his tenancy.
  3. The resident also pointed out he had previously applied to purchase the property in 2003 when he had the same tenancy agreement. The landlord had approved this application and was at the point of sale when he had to withdraw. He also raised issue with the conduct of a particular member of its staff, saying they were not knowledgeable about the RTB process and refused to review evidence he sent them. In his stage 2 escalation he added a concern about it updating its records about his tenancy. He felt it was fraudulent for it to make any changes to his tenancy without mutual approval.
  4. Across both the landlord’s complaint responses it maintained its decision to deny the resident’s application was correct. It said he may have had a preserved RTB when his previous tenancy was transferred from the local authority to another housing association. However in 2003, when he moved properties and signed a tenancy with it he then lost this right. It said this complied with the statutory guidance for RTB applications.
  5. The landlord also said it had found no issue with the conduct of the named staff member but apologised if the resident had found they were not empathetic. It also said it had a responsibility to ensure its records about his tenancy were correct. As such it did not need his permission to update its records. It recognised that the overall issue had caused him distress and offered £60 compensation. This comprised of £20 each for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the application being denied was reasonable. It offered a clear explanation around its decision to deny the application. It also explained why it had originally approved the application and that further checks in the process then found he was not eligible. It acknowledged the impact its decision had on him, apologised and offered compensation it felt reflected this impact, which was appropriate to do.
  7. Additionally the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a named staff member was also reasonable. The landlord has not provided evidence of its actual investigation of the issue. However the Ombudsman has seen the correspondence between the staff member and him. While this was, in parts, formal, nothing objectively appears inappropriate in how the staff member communicated with him. Therefore its response was reasonable.
  8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about changes to its records was also reasonable. The resident’s 2003 tenancy agreement states the agreement is for an assured tenancy. The records the landlord intended to amend appear to have had different information that did not accurately reflect the tenancy. Accordingly, the landlord’s explanation that it was changing its records is supported by the facts, and there is no indication any changes were intended to the tenancy itself. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure its records were correct.
  9. However, in its complaint responses the landlord failed to acknowledge that between November 2023 and March 2024 the resident believed his application had been approved. Had it had the correct information in its records in November 2023, it would have been able to inform the resident of his ineligibility much sooner. While this would have likely been disappointing to the resident, it would have prevented the 4 months that passed before the error was found. The circumstances of the issue, involving buying his home, was such that the landlord’s £60 compensation cannot be said to have been proportionate or reasonable when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint of this nature, and the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident.
  10. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge the residents comments about a prior RTB application he made in 2003. The landlord would likely have been unable to explain how that decision was made 20 years previously. However, an explanation should have been provided in its responses. Doing so would be in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which expects landlords to provide a response to each area of a resident’s complaint.
  11. Overall the landlord offered reasonable and appropriate responses to most of the resident’s complaint. It explained its decisions and addressed most of the points he raised. However, it failed to fully acknowledge the impact the data error had on him between November 2023 and March 2024 when he believed his application had been approved. It also failed to address his comments about how a prior application he made had been approved, which was a missed opportunity to provide clarity about its decision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s right to buy application from 2023.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation. This is for the impact its data error had on the resident between November 2023 and March 2024. It is in addition to the £60 the landlord offered during the complaints process.
    2. Provide evidence of the above to the Service.