London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202404250)

Decision
Case ID	202404250
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	2 June 2026

Background

1. The resident is a former shared owner of the property. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her queries about her lease. She felt there were delays which impacted the sale of her property and its value.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Enquiries about her lease.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her lease.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her lease

4. The landlord initially gave incorrect information but took reasonable steps to clarify the position. It awarded appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.

 

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £60 offered within its final complaint response if it has not yet done so. We have made the reasonable redress finding on the basis that it pays this to her.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 April 2024	The resident complained that the landlord did not identify or disclose a covenant at the start of the sales process. She said it failed to inform her that she needed a further agreement with the local council to buy or sell 100% of the property. She said delays caused financial loss. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
29 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident’s solicitor was responsible for obtaining, reviewing, and explaining all property documents and restrictions before purchase. It set out that the covenant existed at the time of purchase and should have been identified before exchange and completion. It said leases can be complex and issues may only become clear after legal review. It confirmed the council may grant permission to staircase or sell at 100% through a Deed of Release.
30 April 2024	The resident said she was aware of the covenant at the time of purchase. However, she was concerned the landlord was not aware of it when she intended to sell her flat, as its legal team had to revert to the Land Registry for more information. She was unhappy with its communication concerning a Deed of Release and whether she could sell her 50% share of the property.
17 May 2024	The resident told the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint.
21 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 of its procedure.
31 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained its position on the covenant. It stated that its resale and homeownership teams were not legally trained and could only provide advice as best as they could with the information held. It further explained that solicitors are responsible for reviewing title deeds, Section 106 agreements, and transfer documents during purchase, staircasing, or sale. It confirmed the resident’s solicitor had advised her of the restriction at purchase and the potential challenges when selling. It offered £60 compensation, £20 each for inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. She referred her complaint to us. To resolve matters, she seeks   compensation in the region of £1,000.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her lease
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

 

What we have not considered

6. The resident explained the landlord’s handling of the matter impacted her mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. In correspondence with us, the resident raised concerns about matters arising after the complaint concluded in May 2024. This included the information provided by the landlord in the Memorandum of Sale and communication during the sales process. We cannot investigate issues it has not had the opportunity to address. There is no evidence that she raised these matters as a complaint or that it considered them through its internal complaint procedure. Accordingly, we cannot investigate them.

What we have considered

8. We recognise the resident’s frustration about the difficulties she has experienced when seeking to sell her property. The evidence shows that the restriction on the property was established in 2000, when the land transferred from a council to a housing association. This covenant, restricting use to social housing, forms part of the transfer. The title register reflects this.
9. The resident’s evidence confirms her solicitor made her aware of the restriction at the point of purchase. Her solicitor advised that it represented a defect in the title and could affect resale. It is not clear whether she sought more information about this at the time.
10. When the resident later contacted the landlord about selling her home, we understand it initially gave incorrect information by stating there was no covenant. This was a failure. However, it then took appropriate steps to clarify the position by seeking documents from the Land Registry. Although there were delays in receiving this information, the evidence indicates these were outside its control. It responded promptly to the resident’s emails on the matter and explained the reason for the delay.
11. The landlord evidenced that it sought legal advice on the matter and relied on the professional advice given. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
12. Once the landlord had confirmed the legal position, it advised that, if the resident wished to explore staircasing to 100%, she or her legal representative could approach the council to seek a Deed of Release. This was reasonable. The landlord cannot amend or remove legal covenants itself and appropriately directed her to seek legal advice on her options.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that its staff in its resale team are not legally trained and that it is a solicitor’s responsibility to review title documents and advise on restrictions during purchase, staircasing, or sale. This was appropriate and reflects the limits of its role. However, we have made a learning point regarding this.
14. We have seen no evidence that the landlord’s actions directly reduced the property’s value, affected applicable interest rates, or increased the cost of selling. These factors are driven by external market conditions, including fluctuations in the housing market, lender criteria, and broader economic trends. In the absence of evidence linking the landlord’s actions to these outcomes, we cannot reasonably attribute any such financial impact to it.
15. We also have not seen evidence that the matter complained of, in isolation, prevented the resident from marketing her share of the property at the time she originally intended. While the situation may have formed part of the wider context, decisions about when to market a property are influenced by a range of factors, including personal circumstances, financial readiness, and prevailing market conditions. As such, we are not satisfied that the issue alone stopped her from marketing her home.
16. Overall, while there was a minor failing in the initial provision of information and some delay outside the landlord’s control, it took reasonable steps to investigate the matter, communicate with the resident, and provide appropriate explanations. Its offer of £60 compensation was proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance for failures which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

17. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
18. The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was not in line with the Code in terms of its stage 2 extension timescale of 10 working days. However, it has since amended this and is now compliant. The other timescales were in line with the Code.
19. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with the timescales above. Therefore, it acted in line with both its procedure and the Code.

Learning

General learning

20. The landlord ought to ensure frontline staff verify property title information before commenting, to avoid giving inaccurate initial responses and reduce resident confusion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

22. The timeliness of the landlord’s communication was satisfactory.