London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202319709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319709

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that contractors had disposed of her personal belongings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint the resident lived in a 2-bedroom house, which she had occupied since February 2022. She was a tenant of the landlord. The records show that the landlord merged with another in March 2023, which was around the time the resident raised her initial complaint. Following conclusion of the complaints process the resident moved to another property.
The evidence shows that the resident had a fire at her property on 19 November 2022. It is unclear what had caused it. The landlord placed her in temporary accommodation between 19 November 2022 and 13 March 2023 so it could carry out repairs.
On 14 March 2023, the resident called the landlord to raise a complaint about the local council’s refusal to accept her application for assistance in replacing her white goods. She said she also wanted compensation for personal items that operatives had “thrown…out in error”. On 17 March 2023 she wrote to the landlord to ask for additional concerns to be added to her stage 1 complaint. She stated that:
1. someone had “deliberately” unscrewed her video doorbell from the wall and “stolen” it.
2. operatives had “ripped out” lead holders from the wall and “shoved” them back in.
3. there were still holes in the walls where shelves had been removed that the operatives had not filled.
4. a pipe in the kitchen needed to be boxed in and “pipe boxes” above the radiator did not look stable.
5. blinds that the operatives had taken down and not put back up were “nowhere to be found”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 to say that it had tried to contact her to discuss her complaint. She responded on 29 March 2023 explaining she was still in hospital following the birth of her baby. On 11 April 2023 the landlord spoke to her on the telephone. It told her that:
1. its insurance team were unable to progress her claim for belongings due to its contractor’s involvement.
2. it did not hold any record of conversations that had taken place between it and its contractors regarding which items should have been disposed of. It was therefore unable to “uphold a decision either way”.
3. it had looked at her list of items she had reported lost or damaged. It stated that it would not be able to authorise a payment at stage 1 to cover the amount she stated the items were worth.
4. it would therefore escalate her complaint to stage 2 so its head of property services and contractor could consider her request.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 18 April 2023. It stated that:
1. since she made her complaint, the local council had approved her application for assistance with replacement of white goods.
2. it was unable to find any record of the conversation between it and the contractor regarding her personal items that remained in her home while it carried out repairs.
3. its contractor had sent it a statement. It attached a copy of this with its response.
4. without any record of the agreement made regarding her belongings or “admission of fault” from its contractors, it was unable to uphold her complaint.
5. as the list of damaged or lost possessions she had sent included items of sentimental value, it was unable to “place a value” on them.
On 26 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she remained unhappy because it was unable to award compensation for damaged items. The landlord escalated her complaint and issued its stage 2 response on 22 May 2023. It stated that:
1. there were no detailed records of conversations and agreements regarding works and the recovery of possessions from the property before the works were started.
2. contents insurance would normally protect the loss of personal items and personal property.
3. it would review its procedures to ensure effective record keeping and liaison between its contractor, affected customers and its insurance team in situations like this. As a result. it hoped that the issues affecting the resident “should not be repeated in future”.
4. it recognised that this had been a stressful time for the resident and that she had faced distress and inconvenience.
5. It wanted to offer her £700, which it broke down as:
  1. £240 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £200 for time and trouble.
  3. £10 for poor complaint handling.
  4. £250 as a “goodwill gesture”, which was the “sum likely to match the excess required on an average contents insurance policy”.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 May 2024. She said she felt the landlord had treated her “very unfairly” and that the amount it had offered did not cover the loss and damage of all the items she had listed. She said that it was the “poor communication” between the landlord and its contractor that led to all her belongings being disposed of. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for all her lost items, “some of which were of immense personal value”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the experience of losing her personal possessions has negatively impacted her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman recognises the resident said that many of her personal possessions cannot be replaced because of their sentimental value. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for loss or damage to personal possessions, or impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of damage, loss, personal injury or damage to health, and their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a claim for damages or personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that contractors had disposed of her personal belongings

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not cover compensation in relation to damage to a resident’s home and/or belongings. It adds that, “in very exceptional circumstances only”, a discretionary payment to cover lost or damaged items is appropriate. “Exceptional circumstances would usually mean financial hardship and for purchase of necessities” such as beds.
The same policy pays discretionary compensation of between £20 and £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused, and a resident’s time and trouble. This will depend on the severity of impact on the resident due to the landlord’s failings. It also awards compensation of between £20 and £100 in recognition of poor complaint handling.
The landlord does not have a policy that sets out its approach to its responsibilities when dealing with residents who may have to leave belongings behind in emergency situations. While this is not an expectation, the landlord and its residents may benefit from a policy for this situation for transparency and to ensure that the risk of items being disposed of without prior discussion taking place is minimised.
The landlord could also benefit from implementing a temporary accommodation policy that outlines the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities regarding the removal of belongings from a property. This could reasonably cover emergency situations, particularly where fire or water damaged belongings are identified by the landlord or its contractors.
In the absence of such policies, we can only assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her lost belongings.
The records show that, after the resident reported some of her belongings missing, the landlord promptly got in touch with its contractor to discuss her concerns. In its stage 1 response, it sent her a copy of the contractor’s statement detailing what actions it took following instructions from the landlord. This was appropriate.
On 22 March 2023, the contractor provided the landlord with a call log. This contained contemporaneous call records between the landlord and contractor on 4 January 2023. The records show that operatives had made enquiries about what it should do with the belongings that had been left in the property. At 11.06am, the landlord called the contractor to advise that “all items other than the washing machine could be disposed of as per emails”. The landlord has not provided copies of the email it had referred to.
The same log shows that the resident attended the property later that day. The resident promptly became aware of the landlord’s advice to the contractor, and confirmed that this was incorrect. It is also evident from internal records that, on the same day, the landlord instructed its contractor to “retrieve items from the skip, clean them down and return them to the property”. As a result, the contractor retrieved some of the items that it had disposed of, although some were still unaccounted for.
The landlord has not provided records of any communication it had with the resident about her belongings, prior to works taking place. Furthermore, it has not provided any evidence it discussed what arrangements should be made for the resident’s items before the contractor attended the property on 4 January 2023. It therefore has failed to demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to ensure there was sufficient clarity as to how the contractor should have handled the items in the resident’s home while she was in temporary accommodation.
The landlord should have made reasonable efforts to liaise with both the resident and contractor at the outset to establish which items should be retained. This would have avoided any misunderstanding and resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident needed to highlight the issue for the landlord to act. She should not have needed to do this because the landlord ought to have been clear about its responsibilities and explained this to the contractor. The landlord’s poor communication around the care and storage of the resident’s possessions was a failing.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a disclaimer or asked her to sign a waiver to advise of its intention to clear the property and dispose of any items damaged by fire. Had it done so, the resident would have been able to retrieve any items she wished to keep prior to contractors clearing the property. The landlord’s approach was unfair because the resident was not given the opportunity to make a decision before her belongings were disposed of.
The records show that the landlord’s insurance provider declined to accept a claim for the resident’s belongings. As such, the landlord decided instead to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement through its complaints process. As part of its stage 1 process the landlord said it could not authorise the level of payment the resident had requested. Therefore, it would automatically escalate her complaint so it could consider her request further. The landlord’s compensation policy states that that the landlord may exercise discretion to consider reimbursement for lost or damaged items. As the insurer declined to consider the resident’s claim, the landlord had exercised its discretion in this case to consider compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process. This was reasonable. However, at stage 2, it was decided that the resident had included items of sentimental value and therefore the landlord was unable to quantify the loss.
The evidence shows landlord acted appropriately by supporting the resident to apply for assistance from the local council to replace the white goods she lost in the fire. However, it could have done more to manage her expectations by clarifying at the outset that there was no guarantee it would fully reimbursed for her lost and damaged possessions. This would also have prevented giving her false hopes over whether the landlord would reimburse her in full. That it failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations at an early stage was a shortcoming.
The resident reported to the landlord that her video doorbell had been stolen. There are no records to show that the landlord signposted her to the police, who would be best place to investigate possible theft. This was a failing. As her landlord, it could also have considered liaising with the police to discuss her report. This would have demonstrated it was being customer-focused and supportive.
Overall the landlord took some steps in responding to the resident’s reports and investigating her concerns. However, it failed to communicate appropriately with the resident and contractor at an early stage to ensure clarity and transparency around which items in the property the resident wanted to keep and which she was happy for it to discard. Had it done so, this may have helped to resolve the matter at an early stage.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response, although it did not accept liability for any missing possessions, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the resident had suffered. It also offered her £700 compensation, which included redress in recognition of distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and a payment in recognition of the excess the resident would have had to pay had she made a home contents insurance claim. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would award for similar failings.
In addition, the landlord outlined the learning it had taken from her complaint. It acknowledged the lack of any records regarding conversations and agreements regarding recovery of possessions in advance of repairs taking place. It stated that it would review its procedures to ensure effective record keeping and liaison between its staff and affected residents in similar situations. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
We will recommend that the landlord considers drafting a policy that covers how it will handle residents’ personal items following situations where they have to vacate their property in an emergency. This would provide clarity to its residents and help to prevent situations like this arising in the future.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will:
1. acknowledge stage 1 complaints by the end of the next working day.
2. respond within 10 working days from when the complaint is first logged or 20 working days if an extension is agreed.
3. acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 days from when the complaint is escalated.
4. respond within 20 working days of the request, or 40 working days if an extension is agreed.
The records show that the resident’s stage 1 complaint was logged on 14 March 2023, when she made her initial call about her belongings being discarded. The landlord told the resident on 13 April 2023 that it would escalate her complaint because it could not authorise the amount of compensation she was requesting at stage 1.
There is no evidence the landlord sent the resident a formal acknowledgement at either complaint stage. Furthermore, although both responses were delayed by only 5 and 6 days respectively, there is no indication the landlord made any effort to agree an extension with the resident. It did not warn her that it would not be able to meet its initial timescales or provide any explanation for the delays. This was a departure from its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. On 17 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to add some additional concerns to her stage 1 complaint. These mainly related to the condition of her property following completion of the works.
The landlord did not address those issues in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses, nor did the landlord raise a new complaint. That the landlord failed to address those aspects of the resident’s complaint was a further departure from the Code.
The landlord offered £10 in recognition of its poor complaint handling as part of its overall compensation figure. It did not explain what aspect of its complaint handling this was in recognition for. Its compensation policy states that discretionary payments for failings in complaint handling start from £20. Its offer was therefore a departure from its policy and given the absence of explanation we cannot assess whether the landlord’s offer was proportionate.
The landlord’s departures from policy and the Code amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident further redress to recognise this and put things right.
On 27 July 2023 the Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord, which included the findings of our investigation into its complaint handling. We made some recommendations, which included the roll out of regular, periodic refresher complaint training. It also recommended that the landlord ensure quality assurance checks on complaint responses. This report has not made any further orders with regard to complaint handling but the Ombudsman will continue to monitor the landlord against the recommendations made in the report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the complaint handling failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
2. pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already the landlord should pay the resident the £700 it offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would review its procedures to ensure effective record keeping and liaison between its staff, affected residents, contractors and its insurance team. It should tell the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of receiving this report when it intends to carry out its review and then provide this Service with the outcome of the review once it has been completed.
The landlord should consider drafting a policy that covers how it will handle residents’ personal items following situations where they have to vacate their property in an emergency. This would provide clarity to its residents and help to prevent situations like this arising in the future.