London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202305570)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305570

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 March 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:
    1. the level of service charges.
    2. the landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The level of service charge

  1. The resident did not raise concerns about service charges in her initial complaint to the landlord. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had asked it to look into lowering her energy bills and to reimburse her for additional charges she had paid. The landlord said that this had not formed part of the original complaint, and it had contacted its energy team for advice. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had charged her too much for heating and should reimburse her for this.
  2. Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This means the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the level of the charge or the increase at the beginning of each year.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or variable service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to contact the First–Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s tenancy began in June 2017. Her tenancy was transferred to another housing association in January 2024.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 16 May 2023, in which she stated that:
    1. If she had been aware that the landlord required an advance rent payment, she would not have signed a contract due to her financial position.
    2. Universal credit paid her rent a month behind and so she was always 1 month in arrears.
    3. She had previously tried to pay an amount that was affordable. However, the landlord had overlooked her financial difficulties and universal credit had taken money directly out of her account that she needed to live off.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2023. It stated that the resident’s sign-up papers confirmed that she agreed the rent would be paid in advance. The landlord said that it must inform universal credit of the resident’s new rent, service charges and any arrears that she owed and universal credit would decide whether to pay directly for the rent and contribute to the arrears.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and said that she had never seen or signed the document confirming rent would be paid in advance. On 20 June 2023, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023 and said that the tenancy agreement stated that rent needs to be paid in advance. The landlord said that it had contacted its energy team regarding the resident’s query about energy bills as this had not formed part of her complaint. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint, made up of:
    1. £30 for time and effort.
    2. £20 for the stage 2 delay.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 30 June 2023 and stated that the landlord had not properly addressed her concerns. On 17 July 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, and said that:
    1. She needed help due to the rent being required a month in advance and that she was querying the service charge amount.
    2. She did not remember signing the documents dated June 2017 and that she did not agree to pay the rent in advance, which has now put her at a financial disadvantage.
    3. The landlord should refund her the full rent arrears already paid and stop further payments as this was not part of her original tenancy agreement.
  7. On 17 February 2025, the resident informed the Ombudsman that she had not signed the document agreeing to pay a month’s rent in advance and that her signature had been forged by the landlord. She stated that she should have been paying a week in advance only. The resident also stated that the landlord had offered her a £150 decorating voucher which she never received, despite the landlord saying it had provided it to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. We consider events that happened within the 12 months before a complaint. In this case, the resident complained in May 2023. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in the 12 months before the complaint and its complaint responses. We may refer to actions taken by the landlord prior to this in our report for context, but they will not form part of the investigation.
  2. The investigation will not audit the rent accounts or make a decision about historical rent charges. It is not our role to decide if the resident is liable for rent payments or charges. We can consider complaints about the management of a rent of service charge account.
  3. The resident did not raise her concerns about the decorating voucher within her May 2023 complaint, and the landlord therefore did not consider it within its complaint responses. We are not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord.
  4. The resident’s tenancy was moved to a different housing association in January 2024. The complaint was raised against the resident’s previous landlord and this investigation will not consider the actions of the resident’s new landlord.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account.

  1. The terms and conditions of the tenancy state that the resident must pay the rent every week in advance. The tenancy sign–up document titled ‘paying your rent’ states that as housing benefit is not paid in advance, the resident had to make additional weekly or monthly payments to build up credit to keep the rent account up to date. The document states that the resident would need to build up £479.92 credit to keep her account paid 1 month in advance. The document contains the resident’s signature and is dated 28 June 2017.
  2. The resident informed us that she did not sign the document and she believes that the landlord forged her signature. We cannot determine whether the landlord forged the resident’s signature. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this matter and her request to be reimbursed for any money she believes she is owed for payments made.
  3. The resident was living in the property and the landlord received housing benefit, so it was accepted that she was liable for rent payments and charges. The tenancy agreement states that charges were due on Monday of each week in addition to the weekly rent. It states that the landlord may increase the charges and the resident would be liable to pay.
  4. It is standard practice for social landlords to require rent to be paid in advance. Service charges are not usually covered by housing benefit, and so the resident was responsible for making some direct payments alongside the housing benefit. We are unable to determine whether the landlord clearly communicated this information to the resident when she signed her tenancy. This falls outside the timeframe of our investigation. However, we have considered whether the landlord offered sufficient support and explanation to the resident regarding her rent account during the timeframe considered by this investigation.
  5. The evidence indicates that the resident was paying a monthly direct debit towards the arrears. In May 2022, the resident raised concerns to the landlord that she was unable to afford the payments and she cancelled her direct debit. The landlord advised the resident that she would still need to try and pay off the arears to bring her rent account into a month’s credit. It advised her that her rent account was debited each week and universal credit was paid in arrears. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide information about the rent account, there is no indication that it referred her to any financial support services at this stage, which it should have done. This was a missed opportunity.
  6. Landlords can request for all, or part of, a resident’s universal credit entitlement to be paid directly to the landlord to cover rent payments and arrears. This is known as an alternative payment arrangement (APA). In June 2022, the resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord about the APA that was in place. It is for universal credit staff to decide whether to award an APA and this decision is therefore not within our remit. The landlord explained that universal credit calculated these payments from her personal allowance, and that it did not ask for this amount to be taken. Following the communication from the resident, the landlord contacted universal credit to request arrears deductions to stop.
  7. On 17 October 2022, the resident again expressed concerns to the landlord about her financial situation. The landlord stated it would set up a payment plan for the resident to pay the arrears. The landlord offered to refer the resident to supports services, which was appropriate. However, the resident said she had already spoken to them. The rent account indicates that the resident paid a monthly direct debit of £33.54 between October to March 2022. However, this was insufficient to clear the arrears.
  8. On 1 March 2023, the resident said that she wanted to complain about the increase of the service charge amount from £7.74 to £14.25. The landlord advised that utilities had increased across the country and that, as her account was in arrears, she would be asked to agree a payment plan as per the terms of her tenancy.
  9. The landlord applied for an APA in April 2023, which the resident asked it to remove. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord notified the resident that it had applied for this before the changes were made. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have communicated with the resident so that she was aware of upcoming changes to her housing benefit. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.
  10. The resident stated that £73.74 was taken from her universal credit. The landlord advised the resident it requested this due to arrears on her account and the application could not be revoked. It said that the APA was to cover her service fee which was £61.74 and the remaining £11.99 would go towards her rent account to put it 1 month in credit. The evidence indicates that the landlord made reasonable efforts to explain the charges and arrears on the rent account at this stage. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident to its support services in July 2023 after she again raised concerns about the rent account.
  11. We are not auditing the statements as part of the investigation and do not have specific information about the rent and heating figures at each stage other than within the rent statement. We recognise that the resident disagreed with the service charge amounts and that she was concerned about her financial situation, which is likely to have caused her distress. However, we have not seen evidence to show that the resident wrongly overpaid into the accounts based on the information provided. If the resident feels that the charges and arrears on the rent statements were incorrect, she may wish to seek independent advice to audit the accounts.
  12. Overall, while there were some shortcomings by the landlord, the evidence indicates that it made reasonable efforts to explain the rent account to the resident. It also set up payment plans to assist her with paying the arrears and referred her to its financial support services, which was appropriate. There is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charges is outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account.