From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202405373)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405373

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 September 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:
    1. request to succeed her mother’s tenancy.
    2. complaint.

Background

  1. The resident’s mother had a sole assured tenancy with the landlord which began in August 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property has 3 bedrooms. The resident lives with her child.
  2. On 6 May 2023 the resident told the landlord her mother had passed away and requested to succeed her mother’s tenancy. She sent a written succession application to the landlord on 24 May 2023. She attached evidence that her child had vulnerabilities including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and significant global developmental delay. She detailed the severity of her child’s difficulty coping with any change.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 10 July 2023. She referred to her previous email to the landlord on 3 July 2023 and said:
    1. it had not provided updates and had delayed in making a decision on her succession application. She asked it to confirm when it would decide.
    2. the delay created uncertainty, and she could not make improvements to the property for her child’s needs. She said she wanted to stay in the property.
  4. On 18 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
    1. it had approved her application, and she had succeeded her mother’s tenancy by law.
    2. a 2-bedroom property was more suitable, and it would let her know when one became available.
    3. in the meantime, she could stay in the property, but it could end its permission for her to stay at any point.
    4. it would be in contact with her soon with an appointment for her to sign the paperwork.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2023. She said:
    1. it delayed in processing her succession application.
    2. it delayed in responding to her and communicated poorly.
    3. it had not confirmed whether or how she could challenge its decision.
    4. it had not considered her circumstances and was discriminating against her child, who would not be able to adjust to a new home.
    5. she could not make improvements the property which delayed her child’s development.
    6. she wanted it to grant her succession of the property.
    7. it saying that it could end its permission for her to stay at the property at any point in its letter of 18 October 2023 caused her distress. She said she thought it should improve its training to deal with issues sensitively.
  6. On 7 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy it had not responded to her complaint. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024. It said:
    1. it had reopened her complaint and apologised for the delay in responding.
    2. it outlined the succession process and factors it considered.
    3. the property had 3 bedrooms, and the resident only required 2. It confirmed its position on her succession application had not changed. It said it had to ensure homes were let according to housing need.
    4. it confirmed it had considered her child’s diagnoses and the impact of change on them but said it had to apply its policies consistently.
    5. it would take her personal circumstances into account to find a suitable 2-bedroom property, but this could take up to 3 years. It confirmed she could stay at the property in the meantime.
    6. it recognised delays and communication failures and their impact on her.
    7. it explained some of the wording in its decision letter of 18 October 2023 and agreed to review the wording used in these letters.
    8. it offered compensation of £80 for time and effort, £160 for distress, and £80 for complaint handling delays. It said it would apply this to the arrears on her account.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2024. She said:
    1. she thought it was unacceptable that she had to wait 3 years for the landlord to find a suitable property.
    2. she was unhappy about the impact on her child in the meantime as she could not make improvements to the property for their development.
    3. it was causing her anxiety, and she was taking antidepressants as a result.
    4. the extra room was small and did not justify moving.
    5. she was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in responding to her complaint.
  8. On 2 April 2024 the resident questioned why the landlord had applied the compensation to her account as she said she was not in arrears. On 7 April 2024 she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and its decision on her succession application. She confirmed her household’s requirements and the length of time she had been at the property.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 1 May 2024. It said:
    1. its decision on her succession application remained unchanged.
    2. it had not found a suitable property but would support her to move.
    3. it increased the compensation to a total of £500, including £110 for time and effort, £160 for distress, £100 for inconvenience, and £130 for complaint handling. It offered to pay this towards to the resident’s arrears.
  10. In referring the complaint to this Service on 9 May 2024, the resident said the landlord’s handling of her succession request caused her distress and impacted her sleep and mental health. She said she felt she was in “limbo” and her child’s development was impacted. The resident said she wanted to remain at the property and to be able to make improvements for her child’s development. She also said she wanted increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised some issues in her complaint that were not brought to the Ombudsman for investigation, such as her reports that the landlord delayed in creating and dealing with her use and occupation account. This investigation will not consider these issues but will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to succeed her mother’s tenancy and its complaint handling.
  2. The resident said her mental health was impacted and she experienced significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and a resident’s health. We do not determine liability in the same way as a court may, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, where we have identified a landlord’s failures, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  3. The resident said that the landlord had discriminated against her child. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered whether the landlord had regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). We have also considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, whether it communicated clearly and acted fairly based on its duties, policies and procedures.

Succession request

  1. There is no statutory right of succession to a sole tenant’s assured tenancy for a family member who is not a spouse or civil partner. There was not a term in the resident’s mother’s tenancy agreement which enabled a family member to automatically succeed her tenancy. The tenancy agreement said the landlord would consider whether to offer a new (discretionary) tenancy of the property or another property to a family member if they fulfilled specific requirements.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy changes policy said that:
    1. contractual and discretionary offers of a tenancy could be for the same or a different property.
    2. if a property was too big, it may offer alternative accommodation to ensure best use of its stock, and tenancy sustainability.
    3. following the death of a tenant, it would act in a sensitive and empathetic way and ensure the next of kin were clear about the process.
  3. The Equality Act 2010 (the EA) protects people from unfair treatment based on 9 protected characteristics, including sex and disability. If on notice, landlords must consider whether their decision making, or actions could put someone at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. Landlords are also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments. They must have regard to residents’ protected characteristics in line with their obligations under the EA.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy said that when offering discretionary compensation, it would consider how it communicated with a resident, and the household circumstances and vulnerabilities if they caused a greater impact.
  5. The landlord’s policies do not specify timeframes for responding to succession requests. In response to the resident’s query on 3 July 2023 about how long it would take to make a decision on her succession application, the landlord confirmed on 14 July 2023 that it was a long process, and it was “in progress.” It did not confirm how long it would take or provide updates, which was unreasonable. Nor did it respond to her concerns about being unable to make improvements to the property for her child’s needs. As it had not made a decision on her succession application or confirmed how long it would take, this was unreasonable and a failure to have due regard to the EA.
  6. The resident sent evidence with her application to succeed her mother’s tenancy including a letter from a paediatrician which confirmed her child’s diagnoses and difficulties. On 13 July 2023 the child’s school sent a letter to the landlord which said they had complex needs and struggled significantly with minor changes. The school said they thought a change of address would be deeply distressing for her child. The landlord did not evidence its consideration of the child’s conditions in its decision making before making the decision on her succession application. In doing so, it did not show due regard to the EA.
  7. The resident could not succeed her mother’s tenancy by statute and there were no terms in her mother’s tenancy agreement granting automatic succession. The landlord’s decision letter of 18 October 2023 suggested it was agreeing to grant a discretionary tenancy of a different property. It may have been confusing for the resident for it to confirm in its letter that she had succeeded her mother’s tenancy “by law.”
  8. The resident’s follow-up correspondence confirmed she did not understand the implications of this. The landlord later noted its reasoning for the decision not to grant her a tenancy of her mother’s property including tenancy sustainability and ensuring the best use of its stock. This reasoning was in line with its tenancy changes policy.
  9. Following its letter of 18 October 2023 the landlord did not arrange an appointment or explain any delays in doing so to the resident. She said this made her feel uncertain about her future. She said she was worried about not having a tenancy, losing her home and being unable to make improvements to the property to assist her child’s development. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage her expectations by arranging an appointment as agreed in its letter or providing timescales or updates.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. it remedied its failure to document its decision making. It did this by confirming it had considered her child’s diagnoses and their impact but that it must apply its policies consistently.
    2. it was reasonable for it to confirm the resident could stay in the property whilst it found a suitable property and estimate how long it might take for one to become available.
    3. its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about being unable to make improvements to the property for her child’s needs was unreasonable.
    4. it was in line with our dispute resolution principles of put things right and learn from outcomes for it to explain and agree to review the wording of its letters.
    5. it was reasonable for it to acknowledge and apologise for its delays and communication failures and attempt to put things right by offering redress.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s:
    1. concerns about the length of time it was taking to offer her a property and that she could not make improvements for her child in the meantime.
    2. reports that the extra bedroom was small and did not justify moving.
  12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns that it had not taken her child’s circumstances into account in its succession decision. However, it had already responded to this concern at stage 1. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the additional impact of delays due to her child’s circumstances and consider this in its revised compensation offer.
  13. The landlord explained its decision not to grant the resident a tenancy of her mother’s property in line with its policies and procedures, and it showed due regard to the EA. It acknowledged, apologised for and identified learning in relation to delays and poor communication.
  14. However, it did not respond to all the resident’s concerns. Its failure to respond to her concerns about being unable to make improvements to the property for her child’s development was unreasonable and a failure to have due regard to the EA. Due to this repeated failure over almost 10 months and the reported impact on the resident and her child, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her request to succeed her mother’s tenancy.
  15. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £180 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have ordered the landlord to provide an update on its offer to grant her a tenancy of another property. We have ordered it to respond to the resident’s concern about the length of time taken to offer her a tenancy and that she was unable to make improvements to the property for her child in the meantime, and her reports that the extra bedroom was small. We have recommended that the landlord keeps clear, contemporaneous records of its decision making.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policies effective from 17 August 2023 until 1 April 2024 were in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) and said it would:
    1. define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction.
    2. acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
    3. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of logging a complaint.
    4. issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of escalation requests. It said if it needed longer, it would explain why and respond within a further 10 working days.
    5. confirm its decisions in writing.
  2. On 11 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the Code’s timescales and spoke to the resident. On the same date, the resident asked for the landlord to correspond and send its complaint response in writing. It was unreasonable for it to close the complaint without issuing a written response. It may also have delayed resolution of the complaint and the resident’s access to this Service. This is because it reopened the case at stage 1 in November 2023 as it had not yet issued a stage 1 response.
  3. When the resident asked the landlord on 19 October 2023 whether its decision had reached a “deadlock” so that she could take further action and said on 24 October 2023 that she was unhappy that it had not given her an option to appeal, it would have been reasonable for it to refer her to its complaints process or log a complaint. That it did not may have delayed resolution.
  4. When the resident complained on 7 November 2023, the landlord did not log or reopen her complaint until 12 December 2023, after she chased it on 7 December 2023. This was unreasonable. The landlord issued a stage 1 response more than 4 months after she made the complaint which was an unreasonable delay. It was in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right for the landlord to apologise for this delay and offer redress in its complaint response. However, it did not provide an explanation or learning.
  5. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord sent an acknowledgement email and said it would respond by 2 May 2024. It issued a stage 2 response 35 working days after the escalation request. It did not provide a reason for the delay or attempt to agree an extension. This was unreasonable and outside the Code.
  6. It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of put things right for the landlord to offer further redress for its complaint handling at stage 2. However, it did not show any learning. It also failed to respond to the resident’s query as to why it had applied the compensation to her account, which was unreasonable. The landlord did not acknowledge its stage 2 delays. Nor did it acknowledge its failures to send a written response to the resident’s complaint in July 2023 or refer her to its complaints process in October 2023.
  7. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered it to pay an additional £120 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also ordered it to respond to the resident’s query about the compensation being applied to her account and set out its learning.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to succeed her mother’s tenancy.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. write to the resident and:
      1. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
      2. provide an update on its offer to grant her a tenancy of another property.
      3. respond to her:

(1)  concerns about the length of time it was taking to offer her a property and that she could not make improvements for her child in the meantime.

(2)  reports that the extra bedroom was small and did not justify moving.

(3)  query as to why it had applied the compensation to her account as she said she was not in arrears.

  1. pay the resident a total of £750 compensation inclusive of the offer made in its complaint responses, made up of:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed her mother’s tenancy.
    2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. the landlord may deduct the £500 it previously offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation amount, if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
  2. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord keeps clear, contemporaneous records of its decision making.