London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202325759)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325759

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be moved to alternative accommodation.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has several vulnerabilities, including mental health issues.
  2. The resident said she moved into temporary accommodation in February 2021 due to domestic violence. The resident chased a permanent move several times and said she was being treated unfairly by the landlord.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 13 October 2022. She said she had been in temporary accommodation since 2021, as she was awaiting a management transfer following domestic violence. She said the lettings team had not responded to her. In a subsequent call to the landlord about the complaint, the resident said she wanted confirmation of when her personal belongings would be delivered.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 7 November 2022, it said the resident was currently safe and on the waiting list for rehousing, which could take up to 2 years. It had arranged for her personal belongings to be delivered to her temporary accommodation. It signposted her to the local housing authority for further advice.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 21 November 2022 as she had not received an update on her personal belongings being delivered. She further chased the complaint on 6 December 2022. The landlord escalated the complaint on 15 December 2022 but advised there was a backlog. It subsequently made 2 offers of accommodation in March 2023 and July 2023.
  6. The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response on 18 September 2023.
    1. It said the first property was offered in error, which it apologised for.
    2. It acknowledged there were repair issues with the second property at the time of the viewing. It said the repairs had since been completed. The was no carpet in the property but it would provide £250 decoration vouchers, the resident could take the carpet from her previous property, and it tried to get funding through tenancy sustainment to aid with the carpets.
    3. The rehousing panel assessed the resident’s refusal of the property on 7 September 2023, and it recognised there was a delay in doing so. It denied the resident’s request to decline the property and said it would be the final property offered. It provided an extension until 21 September 2023 for the resident to accept or revisit the property.
    4. It said the level of service was not up to standard. It could have managed her enquiries more effectively and there were delays in responses.
    5. It offered £1030 compensation comprised of £280 for distress, £280 for inconvenience, £100 for time and effort, £50 for service failure, and £320 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  7. The resident raised a new complaint on 28 November 2023 as she said the landlord had communicated with her social worker without her consent. She said she had previously asked the landlord not to share information about her housing with the social worker as it was causing her emotional distress.
  8. In its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023 the landlord said it was standard practice for the rehousing team to liaise with third parties that provide support when there is a safeguarding risk. It contacted the resident’s social worker and the police to determine if the area of the proposed property was a risk area, which it was not. The property offer was therefore suitable. It did not offer any further information, so it was not a data breach. It would not make any further housing offers but the resident could seek a mutual exchange.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint the same day. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024. It was satisfied its stage 1 response was correct. It recognised the delays in its complaint handling. It offered £25 compensation for the stage 1 delay and £180 for the stage 2 delay.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she did not think either of the properties the landlord had offered were suitable. She said the landlord’s handling of the case had caused her mental distress, emotional harm, and financial difficulties. She added that the landlord only offered compensation for the delay caused during the complaint, not the full length of time the issue was ongoing. She wanted to be moved to a permanent ground floor property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that as an outcome of the complaint, the resident wants to move. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to move a resident immediately or tell it how to allocate its housing stock as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties or details of any other prospective tenants or applicants that may have higher priority for rehousing. Nonetheless, the Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a housing transfer, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be moved to alternative accommodation

  1. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that a resident may be added to the rehousing list for several reasons including domestic violence. It states, “Residents have different needs and circumstances and we will consider these on an individual basis when making an offer of accommodation”. When making an offer it will consider vulnerabilities, household composition, and preferred location.
  2. The resident told the Service she moved into temporary accommodation in February 2021 due to domestic violence. The landlord’s records show it opened a rehousing case on 23 September 2021. It is unclear why there was a delay. Social landlords often have limited housing stock so it may not always be possible to immediately permanently rehouse residents. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord transferred the resident to temporary housing to remove any immediate danger before seeking a permanent move through the rehousing list. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it could take up to 2 years to rehouse the resident. It was reasonable that it informed her of the expected timeframe. However, it should have done so at an earlier date to manage her expectations at the earliest opportunity and prevent her incurring additional time and effort pursuing the matter.
  3. The resident said she chased the matter numerous times, including phone calls. The landlord has not been able to provide a record of the calls as it only keeps recordings for 3 months. The Service would expect the landlord to make and retain contemporaneous records of telephone conversations. While it may not be practical to retain the recordings for an extended period, it should ensure it keeps a written record of the content of phone calls. Due to the lack of evidence, we are therefore unable to assess this correspondence.
  4. The resident was pre-allocated a direct offer on 21 March 2023 and the landlord advised she needed to compete the online housing application. This slightly exceeded its 2-year timeframe, albeit not significantly. On 27 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unable to accept the property as it was 6 mins away from her previous flat, which she left due to domestic violence. She was concerned that moving there would impact her safety.
  5. The allocations policy states that if a resident refuses an offer of permanent accommodation, they will have the opportunity to appeal the decision. The landlord reviewed the decision on 30 March 2023 and determined the property was not suitable. In its complaint response, it explained that its system did not highlight the proximity to her previous property as it was in a different borough. It apologised for the oversight. This was a reasonable response and showed that it fairly considered the resident’s concerns in line with its policy.
  6. The landlord made a second direct offer of accommodation on 4 July 2023, and the resident viewed the property on 6 July 2023. The resident said the property was unsuitable as there was mould in the kitchen, wires coming out of the floor, no carpet, the boiler was making noises, and there were people using drugs outside the property. The case went to the landlord’s rehousing panel hearing on 7 September 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay.
  7. The landlord advised the resident on 14 September 2023 that it deemed the property to be a suitable offer of accommodation. It said it was unable to control local crime rates and there is no indication that the property was unsafe, there were no antisocial cases in the area, the property was outside of the resident’s risk area, and it had resolved all the repair issues which were identified during the visit. The landlord took reasonable action to address the issues within its control and explained that it would not accept a refusal of the property based on factors outside of its control.
  8. The resident said that the second property was unsuitable as her ex-partner often worked in the area. The landlord contacted the police for information about whether the resident would be at risk if she moved to the proposed property. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord discussed her case with the police and her social worker. The landlord explained in the complaint response that it is standard practice to contact third parties providing support when there is a safeguarding risk. Further to this, the police were the appropriate authority best placed to assess whether the property would be safe. The landlord confirmed it did not provide any details that would pose a data breach. It therefore acted reasonably.
  9. In its complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns that there were no carpets in the property. It said it would provide £250 in decoration vouchers which could be used for carpets, the resident could take the carpets from her previous property, and it was trying to gain funding for carpets. The landlord is not obliged to provide carpets, as in line with its repairs policy they are the resident’s responsibility. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that it demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and tried to find an alternative solution.
  10. The landlord’s allocations policy states if it rejects an appeal the rehousing case will be closed, and the resident won’t be matched with any further properties. The landlord gave the resident multiple opportunities to view the property again to see the changes made following the repairs. On 14 September 2023 it advised the resident to confirm within 48 hours if she wanted to accept the property. The landlord extended this deadline to 21 September 2023 in its final response. This was reasonable. The landlord told the Service it has since closed the resident’s rehousing case as she refused a suitable and safe offer of accommodation. It is important to note that the landlord is obliged to offer a suitable offer of accommodation, which it determined to be safe based on the available evidence, but it is not required to meet all the resident’s preferences.
  11. The landlord advised the resident that she could seek a mutual exchange. It was reasonable that it provided alternative advice on how to move as the resident rejected the offer of suitable housing. If the landlord determines the resident has to return to the original property in line with its rehousing policy, it should consider whether it can put in place any additional safeguarding or target hardening measures to improve her safety. It could also signpost her to domestic violence support agencies.
  12. In its final response, the landlord recognised that the level of service provided was not reflective of the high standards it sought to provide. It said it could have managed the resident’s enquiries more effectively as the resident requested updates on numerous occasions which it failed to provide. This meant the resident incurred additional time and effort pursuing the matter. It would also likely lead her to believe the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and could have a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship.
  13. The landlord offered £710 compensation in its stage 2 response comprised of £280 each for distress and inconvenience (£35 per month for 8 months), £100 for time and effort, and £50 for service failure. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident. The landlord has therefore reasonably redressed the complaint as it exceeded the expected compensation level.
  14. While it is understood that the resident felt the level of compensation was not suitable, as she had been waiting to be rehoused for almost 2 years prior to the complaint, this delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to existing waiting lists. Its failings were not providing regular updates or responding to the resident’s queries, and the delay in referring the matter to the rehousing panel.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to resolve the complaint within its timeframes, it will write to the resident, explain the reasons for the delay, and respond within a further 10 working days. It notes in exceptional circumstances it may need even longer. If the resident is not happy with the extension they can contact the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 13 October 2022, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022. This therefore took 17 working days, which slightly exceeded its response timeframe. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to advise of the delay and extend the response timeframe to manage the resident’s expectations, but there is no evidence it did.
  3. Following further correspondence from the resident, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 December 2022. It explained that there was a backlog of complaints. It issued its stage 2 response on 18 September 2023. This significantly exceeded its response timeframe as it took 190 working days to issue its response. Although the delay was excessive, the landlord somewhat acted appropriately as it managed the resident’s expectations from the outset that there would be a delay, apologised for the delay in its final response, and offered £320 compensation.
  4. There were also delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s second complaint. The resident complained on 28 November 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023. This was 4 working days outside of its response timeframe. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 December 2023, and the landlord did not respond until 23 September 2024, which exceeded the response timeframe by 174 working days. It offered £205 compensation for the delays, which was reasonable.
  5. The resident also raised concerns to the Service that the landlord had not responded to her most recent complaint at both stages of the complaint process, so it remains unresolved. We have not seen any evidence of a complaint that has not completed the complaint process. However, the landlord told the resident that it would not accept a new complaint as it previously addressed the matter at stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider complaints which it has previously considered. It was therefore reasonable that it told the resident the issue had exhausted the complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be moved to alternative accommodation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £1235 compensation as offered in its final responses.
  2. If the resident moves back to the original property in line with the rehousing policy, the landlord should consider whether it can put in place any additional safeguarding or target hardening measures to improve her safety.
  3. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps a written and contemporaneous record of the content of phone calls.