London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202420420)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420420

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 July 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 be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns.
  2. request for her neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed.
  3. complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 1–bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began on 18 December 2017. The landlord is aware that the resident has several physical and mental health conditions.

3.             On 20 August 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the suitability of her home. She said she required a private garden due to complex mental health needs. She said she had accepted her home with a communal garden on the basis that the landlord would fit a partition fence to provide security and privacy. She said the landlord had changed its position on this after the COVID-19 pandemic and her home was now unsuitable for her needs.

4.             The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 13 November 2023 and referred to a previous complaint she had made. She said:

  1. nothing had been done to follow up or communicate with her about the suitability of her home and she felt the landlord had been negligent.
  2. she felt that the landlord did not care about its vulnerable residents.
  3. she wanted to speak to a senior manager of the relevant team as she felt she could not get answers otherwise.
  4. her mental health was severely deteriorating because of the landlord’s inaction.

5.             The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident and said:

  1. it had discussed the resident’s complaint with all relevant staff members.
  2. it had discussed the presently available rehousing options with the resident and would assist her with the following actions:
    1. approaching the local authority.
    2. providing a medical form.
    3. providing a supporting statement.
    4. the landlord also said it was assessing opening further rehousing options through its priority panel.
  3. it was offering the resident £180 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £60 for its failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    2. £60 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    3. £60 for complaint handling failures.

6.             The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said she felt the landlord had not resolved her complaint due to a failure to address its “years of neglect” and the negative impact on her mental health.

7.             The landlord made a further complaint to the landlord on 9 December 2024. She said she felt the landlord had neglected her for over 2 years and had ignored her complaint for months. She asked the landlord to address her original complaints and provide compensation and wellbeing support.

8.             The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 January 2025 and confirmed it had received her medical application for rehousing. It said her application was under review, and it would provide a written outcome by 21 March 2025.

9.             The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025. It said:

  1. it was unable to view the status of the resident’s rehousing case due to confidentiality but had liaised with the relevant department, who confirmed that it was in contact with the resident and progressing her case.
  2. it recognised that the delays in resolving the issue had impacted the resident’s mental health and was sorry for this.
  3. it would call the resident and arrange a meeting to discuss the issues listed in the complaint, including her request for her neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed.
  4. it would seek to ensure that the resident felt safe in her property.
  5. it had upheld the complaint and was offering the resident £720 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £240 for distress caused by its failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    2. £240 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    3. £240 for the delayed resolution.

10.        The resident confirmed that she would like this Service to investigate her complaint on 17 March 2025. She said she felt that the complaint was not resolved as the landlord had failed to provide a clear plan or deadline for her to be rehoused. In recent correspondence, the resident has said she would like the landlord to either rehouse her or provide extra security to her current property, including a partition fence in the garden. She would also like the landlord to request that her neighbour takes down their video doorbell.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11.        The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on events from 2023 onwards.

12.        In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which decides the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for permanent housing and whether this was reasonable, taking into account its policies and procedures. 

13.        In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the issues in her property had impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Request to be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns 

14.        The landlord’s transfers policy says:

  1. the landlord operates a choice-based lettings scheme (CBL) to help existing residents move to another property.
  2. residents applying to the CBL scheme will be banded according to their priority, with the bands as follows:
    1. band 1: decants
    2. band 2: under-occupiers
    3. band 3: priority cases including medical issues
    4. standard cases
  3. it will offer viewings to top priority applicants for a property, then offer the property to interested residents in priority order.

15.        The landlord’s “safeguarding adults at risk” policy sets out that an adult at risk may be a person who has mental health needs. The policy says that the landlord will:

  1. be alert to concerns for residents’ welfare and indicators of abuse or neglect.
  2. signpost at-risk adults to appropriate external support including legal advice and advocates.
  3. appropriately vet, train and support all staff members dealing with safeguarding.

16.        In her complaint to the landlord on 13 November 2023, the resident expressed suicidal feelings in relation to her housing situation. The landlord called the resident the next day to discuss her complaint and recorded that the resident had support in place through an external organisation. The landlord said it had offered to call the resident an ambulance but the resident said no. The landlord acted reasonably in calling the resident quickly and logging thorough call notes once it was made aware of her safeguarding concerns.

17.        The landlord spoke to the resident again on 28 November 2023. The landlord said it tried to get hold of the resident before this date, however there is no evidence of this. Given the seriousness of the statements made by the resident in her initial complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to check on her wellbeing sooner after it last spoke with her.

18.        The landlord kept a clear and thorough record of its conversation with the resident on 28 November 2023. The landlord assured itself that there was no immediate risk to the resident and agreed to meet with her care team to discuss an action plan for moving forward. The landlord agreed with the resident that they would speak again later that same week. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances.

19.        The landlord called the resident to discuss her wellbeing on 5 December 2023. The landlord recorded that the resident asked for the upcoming multi-agency meeting to be scheduled after a certain date and was comfortable with waiting as she felt supported. The landlord arranged a follow up discussion with the resident for the next week. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and showed due regard for the resident’s mental health needs.

20.        In its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined the steps it would take to support the resident with her request to be rehoused. This was reasonable. However, it is unclear whether the landlord did provide the support it had offered to the resident and if so, when. There is no evidence of any action relating to a rehousing application until 15 November 2024, on which date the landlord said it supported the resident to submit a medical application. This was over 1 year after the landlord provided its stage 1 response.

21.        The resident contacted the landlord and this Service on several occasions between July and December 2024 to request an update on her request to be rehoused. The resident frequently expressed that her mental health was suffering because of the delays from the landlord. The landlord failed to provide an explanation for the delays at any point throughout the duration of the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable. The landlord failed to consider the impact of the delays on the resident’s mental health needs.

22.        The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 January 2025 to confirm it had received her medical application. It said it expected to provide an outcome by 21 March 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord provided an outcome by this date.

23.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that the length of time taken to resolve the resident’s complaint about rehousing had a “devastating impact” on her mental health and apologised for this. The landlord signposted the resident to a third-party support service and provided contact details. This was reasonable.

24.        It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

25.        Overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns amounts to maladministration. This is because:

  1. there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns. These delays caused distress, inconvenience, and time and effort to the resident.
  2. the landlord failed to provide any explanations for the delays identified.
  3. the landlord failed to appropriately consider the impact of the delays and its lack of communication throughout the case on the resident’s mental health needs. This caused prolonged distress to the resident.

26.        The impact of the failings identified on the resident has been significant. The resident has that the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused has caused her extreme distress and triggered her complex mental health needs. She has voiced feeling a lack of support from the landlord. The resident has been inconvenienced by having to contact both the landlord and this Service for updates on several occasions over the span of a year.

27.        Although the redress and apology offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response showed that the landlord tried to put things right for the resident, the Ombudsman considers that the amount of redress offered was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by the failings identified.

28.        To acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £600 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £240 it has already offered the resident from this amount if it has already been paid.

29.        We would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information about the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord or details of other tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority for rehousing. However, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to provide an update on her rehousing application if it has not already done so.

Request for a neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed

30.        The resident first raised concerns about her neighbour’s video doorbell in a stage 1 acknowledgement call with the landlord on 14 November 2023. The resident said that she felt unsafe in her block’s shared garden due to a video doorbell being present. She said her family and friends were not comfortable coming over because of the video doorbell.

31.        The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related. Although the video doorbell was discussed during the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement call with the resident, the landlord failed to address this in its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable.

32.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would call the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues she raised in her complaint, including the video doorbell. This was the first time the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the video doorbell, 337 working days after she raised them. This was a significant delay and there is no evidence to explain why the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns before this. This was unreasonable.

33.        The landlord failed to consider the impact of this delay on the resident’s vulnerabilities. Given that the resident said the video doorbell was a contributing factor to her feeling unsafe in her home, the landlord’s delayed action in the circumstances was a significant failure in service.

34.        Overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed amounts to maladministration. This is because:

  1. the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response even though they were raised as part of complaint correspondence. This was not in line with the Code.
  2. the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns until more than 1 year after she first brought them to the landlord. This was a significant delay.
  3. the landlord failed to consider the impact of its delayed action on the resident’s vulnerabilities, which likely contributed to her distress.

35.        To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £200 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

36.        We have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she may have about her neighbour’s video doorbell, if it has not already done so.

The resident’s complaint

37.        In accordance with the Code, landlords must ensure they:

  1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
  2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
  3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.

38.        The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.

39.        The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 14 November 2023. The landlord therefore had until 28 November 2023 to provide its stage 1 response.

40.        The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024. This was 61 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate.

41.        The landlord escalated her complaint in an email to the landlord on 12 February 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 July 2024 and 12 August 2024 to request an update on her complaint. She said she was “disgusted” that the landlord had not checked that she was okay.

42.        The resident contacted this Service on 24 October 2024 to request help getting a stage 2 response from the landlord. The resident told us the landlord’s handling of her complaint had impacted her mental health. We wrote to the landlord on 18 December 2024 and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 27 January 2025.

43.        The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgment to the resident on 26 February 2025. This was 266 working days after the resident first escalated her complaint, and 47 working days after this Service wrote to the landlord. This was inappropriate.

44.        This Service provided 2 chasers to the landlord on 26 February 2025 and 6 March 2025. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025, 276 working days after the resident first escalated her complaint and 57 working days after this Service first wrote to the landlord. This was significantly outside of the timeframes for stage 2 responses set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. This was inappropriate.

45.        The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that if an extension is required to provide a complaint response, the extension should be agreed with the resident and take no longer than a further 10 working days beyond the original target date. In this case, the landlord failed to agree an extension with the resident at either stage of the complaints process or keep the resident updated at suitable intervals. The landlord failed to provide any reasons for the delays in its complaint handling. This was inappropriate.

46.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered her a total of £480 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved, and the delays in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers this to be a fair and reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

47.        Overall, there were several significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord recognised and apologised for these failings in its stage 2 response and compensated the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

48.        Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £480 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns.

50.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

52.        Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

  1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
  2. pay the resident a total of £800 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £600 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by the failures identified in its handling of her request to be rehoused and associated safeguarding concerns. The landlord may deduct the £240 it has already offered the resident from this amount if it has already been paid.
    2. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request for her neighbour’s video doorbell to be removed.
  3. contact the resident to provide an update on her rehousing application, if it has not already done so.

53.        The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

54.        It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she may have about her neighbour’s video doorbell, if it has not already done so.

55.        The finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint is based on the offer of £480 at stage 2, which should be paid to the resident if the landlord has not done so already.