London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202416740)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202416740 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
4 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a bedsit and requested a transfer to a larger property on medical grounds. She complained to the landlord after it removed her from its rehousing list following her refusal of a property offer. The landlord is aware the resident has mental health vulnerabilities, and she felt it did not fully consider these in its property offer.
What the complaint is about
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that there was:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s transfer request
- The landlord followed its policy in assessing the resident’s request. Whilst we appreciate the discretionary offer did not fully meet her needs, the landlord provided support and advice to her. However, it failed to acknowledge that it did not respond to the resident’s communication preferences, which likely caused her distress.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s stage 2 response was significantly delayed and required our involvement. However, the landlord apologised and the compensation offered was proportionate to any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the late response.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 01 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her transfer request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 01 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Learning Order The landlord must write to the resident setting out what it has learnt from the communication failures identified in this report in relation to the resident’s transfer request, and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. |
No later than 01 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
Our finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that its offer of £260 compensation is paid to the resident, and we receive evidence of the payment. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
April to September 2021 |
The resident requested a transfer to a larger property to support her mental health. Following an independent medical assessment, the landlord said she did not meet the criteria for a medical transfer to a new property. It later approved a direct offer and said it would make 1 property offer and if the resident refused it, she would be taken off the rehousing list. |
|
11 September 2023 |
The landlord offered the resident a new property. Following a viewing, the resident refused it on the basis that it was too small. |
|
24 October 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said it approved the transfer but upon viewing the new property, she said the rooms were too small and she felt claustrophobic, which she felt would worsen her mental health. She said she felt pressured to accept it or risked removal from the rehousing list. She said she felt the landlord was not considering her mental health and wanted to remain on the list until a suitable property became available. |
|
6 November 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It empathised with the resident’s situation and said it offered a property that met her criteria. It acknowledged she was unhappy with the room sizes but said that did not justify a second offer. It confirmed that if she declined it, she would not remain on the rehousing list. It suggested she seek a mutual exchange or reapply with further supporting medical evidence. It also gave details of 6 services to support with her mental health. |
|
8 November 2023 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said she refused the property for medical reasons that the landlord was aware of. She said it was unfair the landlord would not offer a more suitable option. She also noted that it had called her many times despite her asking for communication via email. |
|
9 December 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the late response and said it offered the new property on a discretionary basis. The new property had 3 rooms and a garden in comparison to her current property of 1 large room. As she had refused it, she was taken off the rehousing list in line with its policy. It said her medical application had not met the criteria for a medical transfer so she would have to reapply with more evidence. It offered to support her in applying to the local authority for rehousing and with a mutual exchange. It provided further support services and offered £260 compensation for the late response. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told us she was unhappy the landlord removed her from the rehousing list after it offered what she felt was an unsuitable property. She said she wanted to be put back on the list as a priority and wanted more compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The resident’s transfer request |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we did not investigate
- The resident said she had been requesting a property transfer soon after her tenancy started. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back so far. Considering the passage of time, availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on events from September 2023 onwards. Any references made to events prior to this is to provide context.
What we did investigate
- The resident applied for a property transfer on medical grounds, stating that the lack of space in her property was negatively impacting her mental health. The landlord used an independent medical assessor to assess her application, which found she did not meet the criteria. This was in line with its allocations and lettings policy which states it will assess the needs of vulnerable residents and support them with rehousing applications.
- The landlord later approved the resident for a direct offer on a discretionary basis. It said it would find a suitable property but would only make 1 offer.
- In her complaint, the resident said she refused the new property as the small rooms would be detrimental to her mental health. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it had offered her a property that met her criteria. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out its position in its response.
- The resident said she felt pressure to accept the property, or risked removal from the rehousing list. The landlord confirmed that was the case in its stage 1 response. This was in line with its allocations and lettings policy which states it will make 1 offer of accommodation. It adds that should a resident refuse an offer because they think it is unsuitable, their rehousing case will be closed.
- In her complaint, the resident said she felt the landlord had not considered her mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord demonstrated its consideration by approving a discretionary offer despite her not meeting the medical criteria. It also suggested alternative rehousing options and provided details of support services for mental health.
- In the resident’s escalation, she noted receiving calls from the landlord. The records show that on 25 October 2023 she requested communication via email only. Between 6 and 9 November 2023, the landlord contacted her at least 7 times, either by phone, or follow up emails to say it was calling with ‘urgent good news’. When the resident asked for the news via email, the landlord said it would prefer to speak on the phone.
- Whilst the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication preference in its stage 2 response, it made no reference to the calls made to her. This likely caused distress to the resident. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to the resident to put things right.
- In her escalation, the resident said it was unfair that the landlord would not offer her a more suitable property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that she could reapply for a transfer on medical grounds. This aligned with its transfers policy, which requires residents to have a significant medical need that makes them unable to stay in their home to qualify for the rehousing list.
- The landlord offered support with applying for both its own and the local authority’s rehousing lists. It also offered further support services and gave details on how to apply for a mutual exchange, in line with its mutual exchange policy.
- It is not our role to determine whether the landlord should have approved the resident’s requests, however we can assess whether it reasonably considered the requests in line with its policies. In summary, the landlord followed its policy in assessing the resident’s request and took positive steps in offering her a discretionary transfer when her medical application failed. Whilst we appreciate the new property offer did not fully meet her needs, the landlord provided reasonable support and advice to her.
- However, the landlord ignored the resident’s communication preferences and insisted on delivering information by telephone. This was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to apologise, set out its learning and pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have no permanent impact.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the complaint period covers both the 2022 and 2024 editions.
- The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day it was raised and provided its stage 1 response 9 working days later, in line with its policy.
- The landlord took over 2 weeks to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request but explained there had been a “substantial influx of complaints” to deal with and apologised. It said the resident would receive a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
- The resident chased the landlord for a response in January and February 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which likely caused her distress. On 12 March 2024 the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss her complaint. The resident had requested contact by email only. There is no evidence that the landlord emailed her.
- Following contact from the resident, on 2 December 2024 we asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response. The 2024 Code sets a 20-working day response time for stage 2 responses. It also states that landlords must decide whether an extension to this time is needed and inform the resident of the expected time for response. The landlord provided its response to the resident on 9 December 2024, 277 working days after her escalation. There is no evidence that it informed the resident of an extension.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay. It offered £260 compensation in line with its compensation policy which states it will consider paying compensation where it fails to respond to a complaint within agreed response times.
- Whilst the landlord’s stage 2 response was significantly delayed and required our involvement, it apologised and the compensation offered was proportionate to any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was also above the range of recommended redress in our remedies guidance for failures that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
Learning
- Whilst the landlord recognised its failure to provide a stage 2 response in a reasonable time, it did not outline any meaningful learning. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right for the landlord to set these out to the resident within its internal complaint procedure.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping enabled a thorough investigation of the issue.
Communication
- The landlord failed to reasonably communicate with the resident regarding her complaint and did not respond to her communication preferences. The poor communication likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.