London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202334372)

Background

1. The resident owns a 30% share in the property as a shared owner. He has two children who share a bedroom. He asked the landlord for permission to convert the loft but the landlord declined this. The resident made a complaint that the landlord had discriminated again him as it had permitted a neighbour to convert their loft.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to permit the resident to convert the loft.
   2. We have also considered the handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to permit the resident to convert the loft.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision not to permit the resident to convert the loft

5. The landlord’s decision making was based on the terms of the resident’s lease. The lease contains restrictions on making changes to the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not act contrary to the lease.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord provided the complaint responses in line with the timeframes stated in its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

7. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord:
   1. Discriminated against the resident by treating him differently from his neighbour. We cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord has complied with the Equality Act 2010. This is a matter only a court has the authority to decide upon.
   2. Appropriately interpreted whether a loft conversion would fall under the restrictions of the lease. The interpretation of the lease is a matter only a court has the authority to decide upon.
8. For these reasons, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about discrimination or whether the loft conversion would fall under the restrictions of the lease.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s complaint responses set out that decisions about loft conversions were governed by its resident home improvement policy and the resident’s lease.
10. It explained that despite its policy, the lease would take precedent. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident in accordance with the lease, that the resident could not make structural alterations. This is because the lease is a legally binding agreement.
11. The landlord advised the resident on how to staircase the property (buy the shares in the property owned by the landlord) so that the lease restrictions would no longer apply if he owned 100% of the property. This demonstrated that the landlord explained a way to resolve the issue and for the resident to be able to convert the loft.
12. The evidence shows it took on board the resident’s concerns that it had treated him differently from a neighbour. It explained the reasons for the discrepancy and irrespective of the difference between the parties it did not change the lease agreement the resident had with the landlord.
13. The landlord explained that the error it had made in giving permission to a neighbour did not set a precedent for its subsequent decision making. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that an error made which did not change the legal agreement the resident has with it.
14. Our investigation of the evidence has found that the landlord appropriately advised the resident in respect of the lease and how this prevented it giving him permission to convert the loft. It advised that this restriction would no longer apply if he owned 100% of the property. It appropriately signposted him to legal advice as he remained dissatisfied with its response. As such, there was no maladministration.

15. The landlord responded at stage 1 in 8 working days and at stage 2 within 11 working days. Both of these responses were provided in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. As the landlord responded in line with its complaints policy, there was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

17. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.