London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202404400)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord breached reasonable adjustment agreements with him, in its approach to arranging repairs and communicating with its contractors. He was also concerned it had recorded a visit its contractor attended on the incorrect date, as ‘no access.’ The resident brought his complaint to us as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final responses to his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reasonable adjustments including notifying its contractors of adjustments required and its record keeping.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary of reasons

4. The resident complained that the landlord notified him that a gas contractor appointment was due to take place on 24 May 2024. However, the contractor attended on 24 April and the resident said the landlord had not informed them about his broken doorbell (meaning the resident had not been aware of the visit).
5. In its stage 1 complaint response of 14 June the landlord referred to the 24 April appointment as ‘no access’. In its stage 2 response of 10 October the landlord stated the contractor changed the appointment without its authorisation. It confirmed it introduced a new system for residents to manage appointments. It apologised it did not inform the contractor about the broken doorbell and that it had stated the appointment was ‘no access’ when this was inaccurate.
6. On 1 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to rectify the information it shared with third parties. He asked that it remove any inaccurate recording of him denying access to his property. On 16 August 2024, the County Court made a judgement which confirmed a settlement between the resident and landlord. This was for the landlord to:
   1. Pay damages.
   2. Remove all contact restrictions and normalise relations between the landlord and tenant. Take steps to rectify recent records and be more mindful over record keeping and sharing information to prevent further misunderstanding.
7. The court judgement of 16 August 2024 did not specifically detail the appointments of 24 May and 24 April 2024. However, during the settlement discussions, the resident discussed referred to removing the ‘no access’ records and its sharing of information with contractors.
8. On 25 February 2025, the resident raised a new claim with the County Court. He said he had taken a planned ‘respite break’ in August and September 2024 in respect of his disability and the landlord had contacted him during it in regard to the contractor visit in 2024. and its contractor disrupted this. He said this disrupted his break and undermined reneged on the August 2024 settlement to normalise relations between him and the landlord. He sought compensation. The landlord has told us a hearing is set for January 2026.
9. It is clear from the evidence that the resident’s 2025 claim relates to the contractor visit in 2024 and the landlord’s subsequent reference to the visit resulting in no access. These are either the same issues in his complaint or are related to them. Following from that, as the resident is seeking remedies through the courts, he will have the opportunity to raise there the same issues he has raised with us.
10. The resident had the opportunity to raise the full details of his complaint as part of the legal proceedings in February 2025. As such Because of that this complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.