London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202124346)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124346

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 June 2024

 

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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.
    2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property was a one bedroom flat on the second floor, which he occupied with his wife and 3 young children. He has since moved to alternative accommodation. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident; however, the resident has advised that he was recently diagnosed with autism and his son suffers from a respiratory condition.
  2. On 23 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said it required him to temporarily decant the property. This was due to health concerns of the family following reports of damp and mould which required remedial works. There were delays in sourcing a void property, and the resident did not move out until 30 December 2022.
  3. On several occasions throughout February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise he was unhappy with the temporary property he had been moved to. On 2 March 2023 he sent the landlord an email entitled “urgent help” and explained that he felt that the landlord had placed his family at risk by allocating them a property on the 15th floor. He explained that the double pram he had for his children was unable to fit in the lift, and he had been provided with no parking. He said communication had been poor and alleged he had been given no support. He said the situation was keeping him “awake with stress”.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 17 March 2023 and apologised for the delay in handling his complaint. It said whilst it acknowledged there were initial failures relating to when he was first placed in hotel accommodation, he was moved to a serviced apartment and later offered a permanent tenancy elsewhere. It offered the resident £300 in compensation for distress, time and trouble caused in relation to his decant and £40 for its complaint handling failures. The landlord explained that the compensation amount would be applied to his rent account, which was in arrears.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and explained he was dissatisfied with its response. He felt the amount it had offered in compensation was insufficient and it was unfair that it had been credited to his rent account, rather than paid directly to him. The resident’s temporary accommodation ended on 26 March 2023, and he moved to a 2 bedroom property via a permanent transfer.
  6. A final response from the landlord followed on 18 April 2023. It said that it had reviewed his concerns and upheld the stage 1 response with no change. In his contact with the Ombudsman, the resident requested that further compensation be considered for stress, loss of wages and utilities he had to pay on his property during the time he was decanted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident experienced damp and mould in the property and the matter was referred to the local authority, who served the landlord with a section 12 notice on 14 March 2022. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp, mould and associated repairs. The landlord opened a complaint for investigation, which was treated separately to the resident’s complaint about the temporary decant. As a result, the resident had 2 open complaints, both of which he has referred to the Ombudsman. This investigation will only focus on the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant and the associated complaint handling.
  2. In contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that one of his desired outcomes is to be reimbursed for loss of wages related to days he took off work during the time of the decant. The Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment. This is explained in our Remedies Guidance. We can however consider the time and trouble caused to the resident by any failures in the landlord’s service.
  3. The resident has advised that the situation caused him considerable stress and anxiety, and potentially placed his family at risk of health complications when they were placed in temporary accommodation on the 15th floor. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact the situation had on his health or that of his family, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, the impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury, or damage to health, their investigation and requests for compensation are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed via the courts through the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.

  1. It is evident that the resident had concerns about overcrowding which he discussed with the housing officer during an estate inspection in August 2022. The resident was advised to register with the local authority or consider a mutual exchange (MEX), which was consistent with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy. The landlord followed up the advice it gave to the resident in writing on 8 September 2022, which was appropriate and helped manage his expectations.
  2. It is not disputed that there were a considerable amount of remedial works required to the resident’s property to rectify damp and mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to have arranged to move the family out of the property whilst it completed the works. When the landlord explained to the resident on 23 November 2022 that it required him to move, it acknowledged that he was overcrowded but explained that he would only be offered a like for like property for the period of the temporary decant, which was consistent with its rehousing policy. However, after further discussions with the resident and because of ongoing concerns about overcrowding impacting the likelihood of further issues with damp in the property, it agreed to move the family permanently to a 2 bedroom property once one became available, which was reasonable.
  3. Records show from the 23 November to 12 December 2022 the landlord was in regular communication with the resident about the move. It explained the void process for the property he had been permanently allocated to and kept him informed of the next steps, which was reasonable. However, the landlord failed to fully manage the resident’s expectations. For example, on 7 December 2022 it informed the resident that the void property would be ready “by the end of the year”, yet at the time works were still in progress and a completion date had not been agreed with the voids team. This led to the resident feeling worried and distressed about the pending move when delays were later encountered.
  4. Due to the delays in the property being ready to move into, and because of ongoing concerns about the impact the damp was having on the health of the family, the landlord arranged to temporarily decant the resident to a hotel on 30 December 2022. The decision to do so was reasonable as it safeguarded the resident from the damp conditions within his property and would have allowed the landlord the opportunity to progress with remedial works as soon as possible.
  5. It is noted that arrival to the hotel, there was confusion about the type of room that had been booked and the family were placed in separate rooms rather than one family room. Whilst it is acknowledged that the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress, it is unclear from records seen whether the error was caused by the landlord’s booking or the hotel’s administration. Once the hotel became aware of the problem, it was rectified within 2 days and the family were reallocated a family room, which was reasonable.
  6. It is unclear from the landlord’s records how it later communicated that it had arranged for him to move to a serviced apartment on 3 February 2024, as there is a gap in its communication records between 30 December to 2 February 2024. The lack of communication left the resident feeling worried and unclear as to what to expect. This is evidenced in email exchanges between the landlord and the resident throughout the remainder of February 2024, where despite several requests from the resident for a call back from a manager, he received email responses advising him to await a further update. This was unreasonable, as in accordance with its rehousing procedure the landlord should have made the length of stay clear to the resident from the outset and been available to provide guidance and support.
  7. It is clear the resident was dissatisfied with the serviced apartment he had been allocated, which prompted his complaint on 2 March 2023. The resident alleged that his family were “at risk” by being placed on the 15th floor with unsuitable parking arrangements. The landlord’s rehousing procedure makes it clear that any offer of temporary accommodation may be on a different floor or property type to the resident’s permanent home. With no supporting medical evidence to suggest that a higher floor had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
  8. However, there is no evidence that the landlord had considered in consultation with the resident how the family could access the lift with 3 young children, of which 2 shared a double pram. It is acknowledged that this oversight caused the resident considerable inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord responded unsympathetically to the resident’s concerns about the impact the situation was having on him. For example, in response to the resident’s reports that he was unable to sleep due to stress and worry, the landlord simply replied “you have been provided with reasonable accommodation available to you” on 10 March 2023. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate empathy towards the resident.
  9. There were a number of failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s repeated requests for a call back, both around the time he raised his complaint and when he requested an escalation to stage 2. The lack of response was unreasonable and did not demonstrate an empathetic, customer centric approach.
  10. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his dissatisfaction that he had to pay utilities on his property during the time he was decanted. The landlord’s rehousing policy explains that it will compensate residents for “reasonable expenses or losses caused by the move”. It also says that it will pay for gas and electric at the resident’s home during the time remedial works take place. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord expressly set out to the resident what expenses it would cover during the time he was decanted. An order has been made for the landlord to review this specific concern using its disturbance payment schedule.
  11. In responding to a resident’s complaint, landlords should adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the situation had caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and effort. Whilst its offer of compensation of £300 was reasonable and made in accordance with its policy, it did not demonstrate that it fully understood what its service failures were, nor did it explain what it would do to improve its service in the future. As a result, it did not demonstrate any learning from the resident’s complaint which was unreasonable.
  12. Records show that in requesting an escalation to his complaint, the resident raised specific concerns about the amount of compensation it offered him and queried why it had not offered to pay compensation directly to him. The landlord had an opportunity to revaluate its investigation into the resident’s complaint and put matters right by responding to him, explaining its rationale. However, the landlord’s final response was lacking in considerable detail. It missed an opportunity to explain to the resident that the amount of compensation it had offered, and its decision to add it to his rent account, was reasonable and made in accordance with its compensation policy.
  13. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant. It is not disputed that there were communication failures which caused the resident inconvenience and distress, and he was compensated appropriately for these. However, there were missed opportunities for the landlord to have better managed the resident’s expectations. The landlord failed to set out in its complaint responses what it had identified its specific failures to be and took no learning from the resident’s complaint. As a result, it failed to put matters right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord]”. In this case, the evidence shows that the resident expressed he was unhappy with the level of service on several occasions in February 2023. For example, on 10 February 2023 the resident said that “the lack of contact is unacceptable…nothing is being done”. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s earlier communication as a complaint. It was not until he sent an email entitled “urgent help” on 2 March 2023 that it raised a complaint. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident distress.
  2. After acknowledging the resident’s complaint, it did not respond to him for a further 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this which was appropriate and offered him £40 in compensation which was proportionate to its service failure. However, it did not demonstrate any learning from his complaint, and failed to explain what measures it had put in place to ensure that it would respond to complaints in a timely manner in the future.
  3. In requesting an escalation of his complaint on 17 March 2023, the resident raised specific points, querying how it had calculated his compensation which he felt was unfair. The landlord was delayed in acknowledging his request and a final response did not follow until 18 April 2023. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to reconsider its investigation into the resident’s complaint and put matters right by responding fully to him. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident prior to issuing its final response, and it did not explain what steps it had undertaken to review his concerns. As a result, its response lacked considerable detail which was unreasonable.
  4. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The stage 2 response failed to apologise for the delay in acknowledging his request for an escalation and it did not respond specifically to the concerns he raised. Its final response lacked considerable detail and did not explain to the resident its rationale for not upholding his complaint. As a result, the landlord failed to act fairly or put matters right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £515 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The amount is comprised of:
    1. £340 it offered the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 17 March 2023, if not already paid.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.
    3. £75 for the time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case and provide an update on its learning to both the resident and the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include, but is not limited to:
    1. an explanation of how it has applied its discretionary rehousing payment schedule to the resident’s specific circumstances and confirm its stance with regards to his utilities during the time the resident was decanted, as referenced in paragraph 20 of this report.
    2. an explanation of how it will ensure oversight of residents subject to the decant and rehousing process. Include an explanation of what measures it has in place to ensure residents are regularly communicated with and to manage expectations.
    3. conduct a review of its final complaint response to the resident and set out what learning it has taken to ensure future complaint responses are comprehensive, taking into account the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to update its vulnerability records for the household.