London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202403327)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403327

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 April 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:
1. Request for permanent rehousing and concerns it misplaced sensitive personal documents.
2. Request for temporary accommodation.
3. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her 2 children. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that the resident and her son have health vulnerabilities.
The resident reported repairs and housing concerns to the landlord throughout 2023. She complained on 28 May 2024 that it had failed to resolve her concerns. She said that it had misplaced sensitive personal documents that she provided to support her request for a permanent move. It declined her initial request for temporary accommodation while it completed repairs, without explanation. She said she had problems with the internal doors, ongoing issues with her boiler, cracks in the walls, damp and mould, electrical faults, drainage issues, and her kitchen was falling apart.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. It said it had assigned the electrical issues to its contractor. It had no reports relating to drainage issues but had raised an order to its maintenance team. It had previously completed kitchen repairs but would reinspect. It explained its transfer policy and options for moving home and assured her that her personal information was secure.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 4 December 2024. She repeated her repair and housing concerns and believed it was treating her differently from other residents due to her race and disability. Her home was too small for her family “by law”, due to her children sharing a room. The Ombudsman had previously given an order to fix the boiler and mould which it had not done.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 December 2024. It provided a detailed explanation for each of the resident’s concerns. It explained the options it had given regarding temporary accommodation. She had advised that her ideal solution was for a permanent move, thus it asked its neighbourhood lead to contact her. It offered to complete work while she waited for an update. It had completed some repairs and apologised that some remained outstanding. It offered £840 compensation comprising £300 for distress and failing to recognise the impact, £300 for inconvenience, £120 for time and effort in resolving the complaint, and £120 for poor complaint handling.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to provide a response to her request for a permanent move with medical priority and provide a solution to resolving the repairs in her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she said that the landlord had failed to consider her and her son’s health conditions. She has a lung condition, asthma, and other medical vulnerabilities which cause her to be prone to infections. Her son has autism, asthma, and other diagnosed conditions. She believes their conditions have deteriorated due to poor living conditions.
The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s inaction affecting her family’s health is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The resident’s concerns about the landlord misplacing or sharing sensitive personal information would be a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to consider. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.
We also note the resident’s correspondence raised concerns that the landlord had treated her differently due to her race and disabilities. She believed the landlord was moving other residents in less need before her. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
The resident previously brought a complaint to us about boiler repairs and damp and mould which we determined in May 2023. The complaint was subsequently closed following the landlord’s compliance with our orders. We are unable, therefore, to reconsider this timeframe. However, we can consider events following May 2023 and how the landlord has responded, up to its final response on 10 December 2024. Any previous events, or events following its final response, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Request for permanent rehousing

The landlord’s allocation policy says that it houses applicants via the local authority nomination process and from its internal rehousing list. Its existing tenants are eligible to transfer to another property where they meet the criteria. This includes where a resident or member of their household has a significant medical need or disability and are unable to remain in their home, and where the household is severely overcrowded and has a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding. Applications are considered by its rehousing panel and independent medical advisor.
The resident wrote to the landlord in August 2023, stating that she was bidding on properties but finding it difficult to find a new home. Her 10-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter were sharing a room. It responded suggesting that she try moving via homeswapper. She said that she could not use this service as she was a victim of domestic abuse. It would put her at risk of the perpetrator locating her and her children. It said it would “flag” this to its rehousing team.
In the resident’s complaint in May 2024, she enquired about empty 3-bedroom properties near her home. She said she had sent medical documents about her and her son’s health conditions which supported her request to move home. She explained that her son needed an enclosed garden and equipment which her home was not big enough to support. She had sent hospital and GP letters, letters from the school, occupational therapist, and other professionals. It had misplaced her personal documents which contained photographs of her son and other sensitive information.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the transfer process was resident-driven and relied on her actively seeking a move by registering with the appropriate sites and agencies. It recommended registering with homeswapper and explained the mutual exchange process. It advised her to contact its customer service helpdesk to discuss moving options. It said if her home were no longer suitable due to medical conditions, she could apply for a medical priority move. It provided a medical assessment form for her to complete and explained its independent medical advisor would review this.
The landlord said that it was sorry to hear the resident’s comments about misplacing sensitive documents. It had a number of systems for storing data and it could be confusing and difficult to locate information. Its IT department were aware of these difficulties and were working to streamline this. It reassured her that it treated all personal and sensitive data with care and followed the ICO guidelines. It disposed of paper copies in its confidential waste to ensure they remained secure.
It was reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that her personal information was secure and explain how it was working to improve its record keeping. It gave appropriate advice on moving home. However, it failed to acknowledge that she had previously stated she could not use the homeswapper service or that she had already provided her medical information.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s medical form on 12 June 2024 and said this would be sent to the relevant team to process.
The landlord wrote further on 18 July 2024 stating that it had received the medical form, but it required supporting evidence. It said it awarded medical priority if residents met the criteria. This included a medical need that was “so severe” the resident was unable to access parts of her home, where an occupational therapist had stated that the home was not suitable for adaptations, and where additional space was needed for medical equipment.
The landlord listed the evidence it required and said the medical assessment took approximately 12 weeks. It was unable to resolve issues of overcrowding or provide larger properties. Residents accepted onto its rehousing list were allocated the same number of bedrooms as their current home. It encouraged residents to speak to the local authority about housing options.
It would have been helpful for the landlord to have included this information in its stage 1 response. That said, this information appears to contradict its rehousing and allocation policy. Its policy states that if a resident has a medical need, and this is impacted by overcrowding, it will consider a permanent move. It has removed “like for like” from its policy following consultation with staff and residents. When seeking to make an offer it will consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, household composition, and preferred location. Its rehousing panel will make a final decision on the size of property to be allocated. Where a resident is overcrowded, they should be considered for a property which is appropriate for the size of their household.
In the resident’s escalation request she said that the landlord was not helping, despite the opposite sex of her children sharing a room or on medical grounds. She believed it was treating her differently to other residents due to her race and disabilities. The property was too small for her family “by law” and it had moved many other residents for the same reasons.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it repeated that it had sent a medical assessment form and asked her to complete this. It spoke with its neighbourhood housing lead who advised that her application had been in relation to temporary accommodation while it completed repairs. It was not for a permanent move. It said it would review the information and contact her to provide further information on next steps. It repeated its stage 1 response in relation to the security of her personal information and acknowledged her Subject Access Request.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in relation to its handling of the resident’s personal information. However, while it assessed her request for temporary accommodation, it failed to assess her request for a permanent move with medical priority. It is not known why her request for a permanent move was not progressed at the time given she requested this in her complaint. There is no evidence to show that it reconsidered her request, contacted her about next steps, or provided her with an outcome. It also failed to address her concerns that she was being treated differently to other residents due to race and disability.
It should be noted that the landlord’s rehousing policy is aimed at supporting residents to move who meet specific criteria, such as a medical need. It would not have an obligation to rehouse residents solely based on overcrowding. A permanent move to another home is not something that we are able to order a landlord to do. This is because it may affect other applicants who have a higher priority need and would be unfair to those applicants.
In summary, there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a permanent move. It failed to assess her application in line with its policy or provide a decision. It provided conflicting information and failed to communicate effectively. It failed to respond to all of her concerns. We have, therefore, made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to re-assess the resident’s application for a medical priority move and provide her with its decision.

Request for temporary accommodation

The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy states that there will be situations where it needs to directly rehouse existing residents on an emergency or temporary basis. In these cases, it will match the resident to a property through its rehousing list. This includes where a temporary move is required to carry out repairs to a resident’s home. It will encourage residents to stay with family or friends and, where this is not possible, it will consider another property or alternative temporary options. Where hotels or serviced apartments are used it will allocate costs for meal allowances.
In her complaint the resident said her first request for temporary accommodation was declined and she had not been told on what grounds. She wrote further on 13 June 2024 stating that it would be difficult to complete the work while her family remained in the property. The children’s bedroom furniture would need to be taken out due to the size of the room and her son required specific equipment daily.
The landlord’s records of 20 June 2024 referred to its panel accepting the need for hotel accommodation. But no agreement had been reached with the resident. It asked to be updated once an agreement was reached to enable it to complete the repairs. Its records of 10 September 2024 referred to the work being delayed and on hold as there had been no agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2024, stating it had discussed options during a visit to her home. It considered that the work should be done while the children were at school. It would take 5 days to do the bedroom and 8 days to complete the living room. There would be no access to the kitchen while it was working on site, and personal items would need to be removed before works started on the day. It would cover furniture and take all precautions to minimise dust. There would be some dust which could be a concern, but this was not a reason for a “decant” and would not stop the work. It suggested that she plan her days to be outside if possible. It had eliminated concerns about noise, which was a concern for her son, as the children would be at school.
The landlord’s records of 6 December 2024 referred to its minor works team visiting the property multiple times to discuss options with the resident. It had considered both temporary accommodation and works in situ. It said it was happy to start the work and had explained what needed to be done. However, its rehousing team needed to carry out arrangements with the resident. Its surveyor had sent a schedule of the work and timescales to assist her in making a decision. The hotel had been unable to accommodate the large items she needed to take with her, but it was “up to her” whether she wanted to use the hotel or stay at home.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address her request for temporary accommodation. However, in its stage 2 response it said it had provided 3 options for a temporary move. This included staying with family or friends, staying in a hotel, or remaining at home. She advised she could not stay with family or friends and if she were to go to a hotel or remain at home there would be obstacles. This was due to her requiring her nebuliser and son needing a rocking chair and other specialised equipment. She was advised that the hotel would not be able to accommodate all of the equipment.
The landlord said that the resident had concerns about remaining in the property while it completed the work. This was due to the bedroom furniture needing to be dismantled and placed elsewhere while the bedroom work was done. It advised that it could carry out the works during school time to minimise disruption. It sent a schedule of works in September 2024 with timescales. There was a caveat that there would be no access to the bedroom for the whole 5 days and she would need to arrange her son’s physical exercise in another room. Beds and all belongings would need to be removed to make the walls accessible. This would be her responsibility to do. Its contractor would assist in dismantling beds and putting them back together with a disclaimer from her that they would not be responsible for any damage.
The landlord said there would be no access to the kitchen while the work was being done. It repeated its earlier correspondence that personal items should be removed, she should plan her days outside, and it would cover furniture. As no agreement had been reached the work had been put on hold. Its neighbourhood lead would contact her about her request for a permanent move but it was ready to complete repairs while she waited for an update. It invited her to provide suggestions as to what would help it complete the repairs to her satisfaction.
The landlord’s response lacked empathy and did not consider any detriment to the resident or her family. It did not consider the difficulties she may face going to a hotel without required equipment, or that remaining at home may have caused concerns to her health with dust and her lung condition. It did not consider where her children would sleep for the 5 days there was no access to the bedroom.
The resident told us in March 2025 that no agreement has been reached, and the work remains outstanding. We appreciate that this would likely be distressing and frustrating for the resident. She and her son have specific medical needs and require specialised equipment.
We also appreciate that this would be challenging for the landlord to find a suitable solution. The evidence suggests that the situation appears to have reached a position with the landlord waiting for the resident to suggest solutions and the resident waiting for the landlord to provide them.
While we understand that the situation is challenging for both parties, we have made a finding of service failure. The landlord did not demonstrate that it fully considered alternative solutions to a hotel or remaining in the property. It could have considered a serviced apartment or alternative temporary home, as set out in its policy. It failed to consider any detriment and left the resident with outstanding repairs which were likely contributing to damp and mould. It should have continued to pursue the matter and reach an agreement with the resident to find a resolution.

Reports of multiple outstanding repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. Its damp and mould policy states it will inspect reports of damp and mould within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. Any remedial works identified will be raised to its internal and external maintenance team within 10 working days.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident had reported issues with waste coming up through the kitchen and bathroom pipes for a considerable length of time. She made multiple reports of low pressure on the boiler, no heating and hot water, and boiler leaks. She also reported electrical issues in the kitchen.
The resident wrote to the landlord in August 2023, stating that there were numerous repairs outstanding to her home. It had fitted a new part to the boiler, but she did not know whether it had resolved the issue. It had cut back bushes to the outside to assist with the damp and mould, but no one had come back to her to say how they would resolve it. She had to move furniture due to mould and throw away items. She was “shocked” that she was not entitled to a new kitchen or bathroom. She had waste coming up through the bath and toilet and issues with smelling drains from the kitchen sink. She had cracks in the walls which kept reappearing despite previous repairs.
The landlord’s records from August 2023 show that it cut back shrubbery, removed ivy and cleared the gutters but the damp problem was still present. It spent an hour with the resident discussing the problems and her ideal solution was for a permanent move. It said there was no evidence of water ingress, and it had recently repaired a leak on the boiler. The home was humid with very few windows open despite being warm outside. The bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not working well. There was a patch of mould on the bedroom ceiling and although no leak, it needed to investigate. Its opinion was that the humidity and mould was due to poor heating and ventilation. It would arrange replacement of the fans, investigate the venting of the tumble dryer, repair the heating system so that all radiators could be turned up when required, and investigate a possible leak from the flat above.
In September 2023 the landlord raised an order for a mould wash of the bedroom, hall, and living room ceilings and walls. In October 2023 its contractor attended to repair the cracks in the walls and paint it. It noted cracks in the bedroom walls and that the plasterboard was not correctly installed. The plasterboard adhesive was damaged and no longer holding the boards to the wall. This was causing a draught behind the boards and could be a contributing factor to the mould in the flat. It recommended having the wall in living room and partition in the bedroom removed and redone as the cracks would continue happening. It completed mould treatments in October 2023.
The resident continued to report issues with her heating and hot water in January 2023. The landlord’s records of May 2024 refer to ongoing repairs and the loss of boiler pressure which was contributing to the damp and mould. It said the resident was vulnerable and the repairs needed to be completed urgently.
In the resident’s complaint she repeated her repair concerns. She said the landlord was going to replace a kitchen door but had failed to do so. The living room door was jamming. She had ongoing issues with her boiler and this Service had instructed it to complete repairs. The cracks in the walls had been made good in 2021, 2022 and again in 2023 but it only ever completed temporary repairs. There was no insulation and she had holes in the walls. Her electric kept tripping and she had drainage issues throughout the property. She repeated her health concerns and said it was not taking this seriously.
The landlord’s records of 20 June 2024 referred to the required work to the walls and it had agreed to insulate 2 external walls to help with damp and mould. It had agreed temporary accommodation in a hotel, but the resident had not agreed to this.
A further 24-hour repair was raised in June 2024 for the boiler and the landlord asked its contractor to provide a full report of the heating system within 20 days. We have not had sight of the report or its findings.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the repairs as well as the issues the resident raised in her previous complaint. It said the Ombudsman had reviewed her previous complaint, but she said that the work was outstanding. It had highlighted this to its senior managers and its customer liaison officer would be her point of contact. It understood that they had been in contact and were dealing with these matters separately to this complaint.
The landlord said that it had assigned a contractor to arrange an appointment to check the electrics. It apologised that it had not resolved the issues on previous visits. The last order related to an issue in September 2023 which was showing complete the following month. It was unable to see any orders for the toilet or sink blocking or smelling drains. It raised an order with its maintenance team who would attend on 27 June 2024. It had completed a previous inspection for the kitchen and completed repairs but would revisit to carry out another inspection on 26 June 2024.
The landlord’s response did not fully consider all of the repairs the resident raised in her complaint. While it said that her previous concerns were being dealt with separately, this was not appropriate as she had raised her concerns in her complaint. It failed to respond to her boiler concerns, damp and mould and repairs to her doors. It did not demonstrate that it reviewed its repairs history which would have shown the repeated issues with waste and pipework, boiler issues, and damp and mould issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2024 with its schedule of work and proposal to complete the repairs. The work was on hold until it reached an agreement (as set out in the previous section of this report).
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 December 2024 repeating her repairs and housing concerns.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had raised repairs for the living room door and its contractor would arrange an appointment. It attended in January 2024 to look at the holes in the walls and said its contractor needed to replace the plasterboard. It provided options for temporary accommodation. Its contractor attended in July 2024 and advised that the reason the electrics kept tripping may be due to the moisture from the ongoing damp and mould.
The landlord said it attended on 30 October 2023 to carry out a clean and shield of the damp and mould. However, it was unable to clean the bedroom as she was unable to move furniture. As it had not attended since, it had raised a job to clean while it awaited the other repairs in her home which were likely contributing to the problem. It raised repairs on 20 June 2024 to inspect the toilet and sink. Its operative said that the toilet “backed up” and it needed to raise a new repair. It attended on 23 September 2024 and the operative extended the washing machine point, renewed the kitchen sink, tap, base unit, and fitted a new fire door. A new repair was raised to clear blockages on 3 July 2024 and advised to replace pipe between the property wall and inspection chamber which was completed on 19 July 2024.
In the landlord’s response it said it raised boiler repairs and asked its contractor to complete an inspection of the heating system. It spoke with its gas team who advised that the boiler was working. As a result of the ongoing low pressure and heating issues it asked for a heat loss inspection survey. It would arrange an appointment and monitor this until completion. Its surveyor inspected the kitchen on 26 June 2024 and advised that edging strips were needed, cupboard door hinges and the kitchen internal door was to be replaced. However, it failed to raise the follow-on work. It spoke with its supervisor to arrange the work.
The landlord apologised that some repairs remained outstanding and acknowledged it had at times failed to complete them. It understood this caused inconvenience and distress. It awarded £600 compensation for distress, failing to recognise the impact of the situation, inconvenience, time and effort.
The landlord’s response set out the actions it had taken to complete some of the repairs. It was reasonable to apologise for its failings and offer some recompense. While it did not specifically state which element of the complaint its compensation offer related to, we have made a reasonable assumption that it related to her outstanding repairs. Had it completed the repairs at the time of its stage 2 response we would have made a finding of reasonable redress as its offer was in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration.
However, the repairs remain outstanding and are likely contributing to damp and mould in her home and causing electrical issues. The repairs had been outstanding for over a year likely causing detriment to the resident. We have, therefore, made a finding of maladministration.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
There were some minor delays with the landlord’s complaint responses. It appropriately apologised and offered £240 for its poor complaint handling. This was in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the delay experienced by the resident. We therefore find that it has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a permanent move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must take the following actions within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. Pay to the resident the sum of £1,100 broken down as follows:
  1. £600 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience for failings to provide an outcome to the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
  3. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its failure to consider alternative solutions for temporary rehousing.
  4. £300 for distress and inconvenience for failing to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale.
2. Send a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
3. Arrange to meet with the resident to discuss her and her son’s specific medical needs and consider alternative solutions for a temporary move while it completes repair work. It must provide a timescale to complete the repairs.
4. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must
1. Assess the resident’s request for a permanent move on medical grounds through its rehousing policy and provide its decision. It must provide its decision in writing to both the resident and us.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay to the resident the sum of £240 for its complaint handling failures if not already paid.
The landlord should consider what options it can provide in relation to temporary housing, taking into consideration the needs of individual families with medical needs to accommodate any required specialised equipment.
The landlord should consider how it sets out its compensation offers to explain how it related to each complaint point. This will improve clarity and understanding to all those reading it.