London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202423763)

Background

1. The resident had lived in a property since 2020, when she was re-housed due to domestic abuse. In July 2024, the resident told the landlord that her ex-partner posed a significant risk to her and her children if she continued to live at her current address. It said it would support her being moved to alternative accommodation and gather evidence for her case to be referred to a panel. The resident also reported some security concerns to the landlord while waiting to be moved. The resident completed a mutual exchange on 27 October 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports about safety concerns at the property and a managed move.
   2. Communication about her request for a managed move.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of safety concerns at the property and a managed move.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s communication about her request for a managed move.
   3. Maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about safety concerns at the property and a managed move

4. The landlord responded to reports of security issues and followed its process by collating evidence in support of a referral for the resident to be re-housed as soon as possible.

The landlord’s communication about her request for a managed move

5. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations. It told her when it passed her case to a panel to consider, that it may take some time and what the outcome was. The landlord was clear that finding a suitable property may take up to 2 years and it would tell the resident when a property became available.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond to the complaint for 4 months. It failed to acknowledge the delay or try and put things right.

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.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord contacted the resident the day after she explained she was at risk from her ex‑partner and then wrote to confirm the steps it would take. It explained it would secure her flat and the main entrance doors, contact the police for information, and refer her case to the priority needs panel (PNP) once it had the documents it needed. It would also speak to social services about possible support, consider temporary accommodation, work with her independent domestic violence adviser (IDVA), and keep her updated.
8. The landlord recorded any safety issues the resident reported as high priority. It arranged repairs to the resident’s door within 24 hours, in line with its repairs policy, as the resident was at risk.  When reports were made about the communal door and gate to the car park not closing properly, the landlord usually raised jobs and responded promptly.
9. On 6 and 10 September 2024 the resident reported that the door leading to the car park had been broken for a few days. Although the landlord created an emergency job to address it, this was not until 13 September 2024. Therefore, its response was slightly delayed. It adjusted the door and carried out further work a week later. It is not clear what action it took to fix the door, but the landlord did send a block text reminding residents to secure communal doors. The inspection reports for the building after that say there were no issues with the communal door or gate.
10. In addition to addressing issues with doors and gates, the landlord’s repaired a gas cupboard door and security light. It also offered to fit security glaze film to the resident’s balcony door. This shows it took several other steps to try and alleviate the resident’s security concerns.
11. We do not know whether the landlord contacted the police or social services directly, but they were already aware of the situation. The resident said the landlord told her it would make a MARAC referral but didn’t. The landlord’s 26 July 2024 email did not promise that, but it did say it would review documentary evidence. The resident gave the landlord a copy of the non-molestation order that she obtained against her ex-partner. The police also gave it copies of letters confirming the outcome of a MARAC. This shows a referral for a MARAC had already been done and the IDVA also told the landlord the resident’s case had been heard at MARACs 7 times due to the high-risk nature.
12. On that basis, the landlord made a referral to the PNP, which was approved in December 2024. The landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations, it explained it could take between 2 to 3 years to move her. Taking all the landlord did into account, there was no maladministration.
13. After its final complaint response the landlord offered the resident a property less than 6 months later, on 2 June 2025. The resident rejected this, as it was in an area her ex-partner was associated with and it was not near enough to family support. The landlord continued to liaise with the resident and her IDVA as there were at least 13 high-risk areas, where the resident could not move to. This limited the properties available to the landlord and was likely to have been a factor in how long it took to find a somewhere suitable.
14. The landlord found a suitable property and the resident moved in October 2025. The resident says there are issues with the new property. She should raise this with landlord, and it is not something we considered as part of this complaint. It took 10 months from the PNP approval for the resident to move, but the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation in the meantime. The resident rejected the offer and explained this was because of the disruption to her children as well as the risk from her ex-partner.
15. The resident was going through a very difficult time, but the landlord addressed her security concerns and followed both its domestic violence and allocations and lettings policies. It liaised with other agencies and referred the case to the PNP. It was difficult for the landlord to find a suitable property for the resident and her family, but it did manage to find one within a few months and offered alternative accommodation in the meantime.

16. On 26 July 2024, the landlord told the resident that it would keep her regularly updated about the managed move. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2024 about a repair and because she said she had been waiting nearly 3 weeks for information to help with her housing application. There is no evidence of a 3-week wait, but the landlord responded on 9 September 2024. It questioned whether it had been copied in on an earlier email but offered to help. The landlord sent the information to its specialist team and copied the resident on the email.
17. It sent the resident’s case to the PNP for a decision and updated the resident about this on 25 September 2024. Her IDVA followed up with the landlord on 25 October 2024. The landlord spoke with them on 28 October 2024 and explained there would be a long wait for a decision. It also met the resident the following day.
18. Both the resident and the IDVA followed up with the landlord again in December 2024.  On 12 December 2024 the PNP approved the move, and the landlord told the resident on 16 December 2024. It said it would make every effort to rehouse her, but it could take up to 2 years to be moved due to availability of properties.
19. The landlord told the resident on 2 occasions that it could take up to 2 years to find a property. The resident was understandably keen to move, but there was nothing for the landlord to report on until a property became available. There was a wait for the PNP decision, and for a property, but the landlord had told the resident and the IDVA to expect that. It told the resident when the first property became available and communicated with her about her concerns. It also told her when it found a suitable property and liaised with her until she moved in.
20. In March 2025, while waiting for a property, the resident told the landlord that at a joint meeting a senior member of landlord staff made a comment that upset her. The landlord promptly addressed this and apologised and said it had referred the matter to a team leader.
21. Any disciplinary action against a member of staff would be for the landlord to deal with. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the resident was upset by what was said.
22. The landlord was sensitive to the resident’s position and took steps to try and manage her expectations about timescales. It provided updates at key stages of the process its communication was clear and reasonable, so there was no maladministration.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. At either stage the landlord can extend the response time by an additional 10 working days but must explain this to the resident. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 October 2024 and received no response. The resident contacted us and we sent a copy of her complaint to the landlord and asked it to respond to her complaint. It acknowledged the complaint and replied promptly with a comprehensive response. However, the landlord failed to recognise it had overlooked the complaint originally.
25. The resident was vulnerable and dealing with a very difficult situation. The landlord should have apologised for overlooking the complaint for 4 months and considered whether a remedy was appropriate. Its failure to do that, amounts to maladministration. To recognise the inconvenience it caused the resident having to escalate her complaint through us, the landlord must pay her £125 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

26. The landlord was sensitive to the resident’s concerns over security and her need to move, at what was a very difficult time for her.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should review why the complaint submitted in October 2024 got overlooked and put measures in place to prevent that from happening again.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear throughout and it ensured the resident’s expectations were properly managed.