London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202504227)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 1-bedroom flat. She informed the landlord she wanted to move home. Her reasons included the risk of recurring domestic abuse and a change in her health. The landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing
   2. the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. did not make a proportionate offer of redress for the delays caused by its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing
   2. did not demonstrate steps to learn from its handling of the resident’s rehousing request
   3. identified complaint handling delays, apologised, and made an offer of compensation consistent with our remedies guidance

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. The local council made the decision not to grant the resident’s emergency rehousing request. As the landlord did not make this decision, we will not investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction with the local council. The resident may be able to complain about this matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
6. The resident says the landlord’s handling of her rehousing need caused her stress and anxiety. We are unable to say what caused an illness or injury or prove legal liability. Any detrimental effect on a resident’s health requires a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states its priority rehousing panel would review a resident’s request for permanent rehousing. The panel met weekly and informed residents of the outcome within 1 working day. In cases involving domestic abuse, the landlord says it would only make offers to move a resident to another borough.
8. The landlord states that the local council has 100% nomination rights over its available housing stock. Therefore, any decision to rehouse a resident within the same borough required a decision by the local council’s emergency housing panel. The landlord would support a resident to apply to the local council in these cases.
9. On 17 October 2024 the landlord’s own priority panel granted the resident a move out of area. It provided its decision the same day, which was consistent with its policy.
10. The resident informed the landlord of her desire to remain within the same borough. It was therefore consistent with the landlord’s policies to inform her of her housing options. This included its offer to support her application to the local council’s emergency rehousing panel.
11. That said, it is unclear why it took between July 2024 to 17 October 2024 to grant the resident a priority move. Given the landlord’s policy states its priority panel met weekly, the wait of approximately 3 months was unreasonable without any explanation from the landlord.
12. The landlord considered the council’s emergency rehousing route appropriate for the resident in July 2024. Evidence shows the landlord had supporting documents from the resident and her support worker in July 2024. The landlord also submitted a disclosure request to the police on 31 July 2024. It is therefore unclear why it did not progress its application to the local council until October 2024.
13. We have been unable to identify why the landlord did not respond to an email from the police on 1 August 2024. Its request for the landlord to provide more information left unanswered by the landlord. Although the landlord resubmitted a request to the police in October 2024, it may not have needed to, had it resolved its first enquiry. This demonstrated poor monitoring and record keeping by the landlord which may have caused an avoidable delay to the resident’s rehousing application.
14. A contributing factor for the resident’s rehousing application delays may have been the absence of the landlord’s staff. The evidence shows the landlord needed to reassign work to staff unfamiliar with the resident’s case. That said, had the landlord demonstrated effective communication and record keeping, the covering staff may have had the necessary information to progress matters. This did not happen and caused further delays.
15. Between August 2024 to December 2024 the evidence demonstrates consistently poor communication, monitoring, and record keeping by the landlord. The resident’s application to the local council may have experienced further delays, but for her efforts to chase the landlord for updates. It was unreasonable that she needed to do this to prompt action.
16. On 19 November 2024 there is evidence a member of the landlord’s staff identified that it had not added rehousing applications from October 2024 to its systems. This included the resident’s application. This further demonstrates the landlord’s record keeping failures in this case.
17. Between December 2024 to April 2025 the landlord did not demonstrate any learning or improved handling of the resident’s case. Evidence shows the local council returned incomplete rehousing applications and requested further evidence from the landlord. While it is reasonable that the landlord would rely on evidence from the resident, the landlord’s failure to correctly check and submit the applications indicate a training need.
18. When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress put things right and whether it was in line with our remedies guidance. We also recognise that the distress caused by maladministration is unique to each resident. Not all residents will experience the same impact, which may be due to their circumstances or vulnerabilities (aggravating factors). Where such factors exist, we may consider these to justify an increased compensation award.
19. While the landlord increased its offer for this matter from £40 to £150 at stage 2, it did not identify learning or training to prevent similar failures happening again. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s recurring communication failures, ineffective monitoring, and record keeping.
20. Furthermore, given the evidence of the assessed risks to the resident, the delay of approximately 10 months was unreasonable. Although the landlord acknowledged failings, its offer to put things right was not proportionate for the failings identified.
21. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident and additional sum of £150, increasing its offer for this complaint point to £300.

22. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, effective from 1 April 2024, requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to issue a stage 1 and stage 2 response within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
23. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and response on time. It apologised for poor communication and identified learning to prevent similar failings happening again.
24. However, there is no evidence that the landlord successfully applied this learning via its complaints process. The evidence shows the resident continued to experience recurring issues, which required her time and trouble to chase the landlord for updates. Given her circumstances, this was unreasonable.
25. The landlord treated the resident’s escalation request as 31 March 2025. In doing so, it acknowledged and responded to her request within the expected time.
26. However, the evidence shows the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 2 occasions before 31 March 2025. The first being 20 December 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not act on the resident’s feedback and escalate her complaint sooner. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with the Code.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted failings with the service it provided to the resident and its delays with its complaint handling. We may therefore have found some level of maladministration, but for the landlord’s apology and offer of £120 compensation. This sum is consistent with our remedies guidance.
28. Therefore, based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Learning

General Learning

29. The landlord should consider how it communicated, monitored, and recorded information about this as a learning opportunity.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. There were opportunities for the landlord to improve its record keeping with this case. Had the landlord learned from its stage 1 findings and applied steps to monitor the resident’s rehousing applications better, it may have progressed her enquiry sooner.

Communication

31. There were gaps within the landlord’s communication throughout its handling of the resident’s 10-month enquiry. Given her vulnerabilities, it was unreasonable that she needed to chase the landlord to progress matters.