Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202227796)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227796

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 November 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s personal information as she believes that it provided her information to a third party without her consent.
    2. A tenancy transfer from a joint tenancy into a sole tenancy following a court order.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 18 April 2011. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
  2. On 8 April 2021 the court ordered that the joint tenancy between the resident and a third party be transferred with immediate effect into the resident’s sole name.
  3. The resident received a threatening and abusive phone call from a third party in April 2022. As there were only 2 organisations that had the resident’s telephone number at that time, the resident believed that the landlord had provided the third party with her phone number. She also believed the landlord provided other information to the third party in relation to her children.
  4. The resident said it came to her attention on 23 January 2023 that the tenancy information had not been changed on the landlord’s systems in line with the court order. She raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2023.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said it had checked the resident’s tenancy records and it confirmed that the third party had been removed from the tenancy when it had received a copy of the (tenancy transfer) court order. It said its contact centre carried out security checks on every phone call it received. As the third party was no longer a tenant, they would not have the authority to discuss the account.
  6. Following escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2023. It said there was a note on the resident’s tenancy records dated 28 May 2021 indicating that its records had been amended to reflect the sole tenancy. It said that on 6 January 2023 a further note was added to the resident’s records to say that the tenancy was a sole tenancy. This was a result of an enquiry made by the resident. It acknowledged that the resident had spoken to its staff about the matter, and that she had received confusing and incorrect information. It said to put things right it would provide the resident with a letter to confirm that she was the sole tenant. It would also remove the name of the third party from the front screen of its tenancy records. It offered compensation of £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and effort. It also offered an additional £50 for its delay in its stage 2 response and lack of communication.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal information, as she believes that it provided her information to a third party without her consent, sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord did or did not pass the residents personal information to a third party, as that would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). If the resident believes that the landlord passed her information to a third party, she can refer her concerns to the ICO, as the ICO has the power to investigate whether there has been a data breach.

A tenancy transfer from a joint tenancy into a sole tenancy following a court order    

  1. It should be noted that the tenancy transfer took immediate effect following the court order under Part IV Family Law Act 1996. The Act allows the court to ‘vest’ a tenancy in one of the tenants, rather than ordering the tenant to transfer it. Vesting differs from assignment in that the order of the court effectively brings about the transfer of the tenancy from one tenant to another as if it were a conveyance. No deed of assignment is necessary when the court orders the tenancy to be vested in the other tenant. This means that the subsequent issues were with the updating of the landlord’s systems, not the tenancy itself.
  2. It should also be noted that the landlord was asked by the Ombudsman to provide evidence around its handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to the information held on its systems. It was also asked to provide copies of emails and all other correspondence with the resident in relation to this matter. However, the landlord has provided minimal information to show how it dealt with the resident’s concerns to this Service. It is important that landlords keep detailed, robust and accurate records relating to residents so that it can provide an effective level of service. The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has not only affected its service provision to the resident, but it has also affected our investigation as we have been unable to draw conclusions on certain aspects of this case. A finding of poor record keeping has been made in the circumstances.
  3. A court order was made on 8 April 2021 to transfer a joint tenancy, between the resident and a third party, into a sole tenancy under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. A copy of the court order was sent to the landlord so that it could update its systems. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord made the relevant changes to its systems. Although the landlord says this was on 28 May 2021.
  4. Sometime in April 2022 the resident received a threatening and abusive telephone call from the third party. As the resident had only given her telephone number to 2 organisations, and one was her GP, she concluded that the landlord had given her telephone number to the third party.
  5. The resident has told this Service it came to her attention on 23 January 2023 that the landlord had not updated its systems to reflect the change in her tenancy. She said she believed the landlord had failed to follow the court order even though it had assured her that it had.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2023. She said the tenancy had been transferred into her sole name in April 2021. She said she had been told by the landlord that the necessary changes had been made to its systems. However, she now believed that the systems had not been updated, which had allowed a third party to obtain her telephone number.
  7. The resident has told this Service that the landlord contacted her by telephone on 9 February 2023 and confirmed that the tenancy was still in joint names. This information was incorrect, misleading, and confusing for the resident. As although the tenancy agreement itself would still be showing both names, the effect of the court order was to transfer the tenancy into a sole tenancy from 8 April 2021. It was therefore inappropriate and unreasonable of the landlord to inform the resident that the tenancy was still in joint names. This caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty for the resident.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said it had checked the tenancy and could confirm that the third party had been “removed from the tenancy” when it received a copy of the court order. It said its contact centre carried out security checks on each phone call to confirm who was calling and to check whether they had the authority to discuss the account. It said as the third party was no longer a joint tenant, and there was a flag on the tenancy records, the third party would not pass the security checks. It said it had not received any requests for the resident’s information and due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it would not give out the resident’s details.
  9. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2023. It said the court ordered the tenancy to be transferred “with immediate effect” into the sole name of the resident on 8 April 2021. There was a note on its records dated 28 May 2021 indicating that its records had been amended to reflect the new sole tenancy. This involved setting the third party’s status to “not current”. It said it had added a further note on the tenancy records, to confirm the tenancy was a sole tenancy, on 6 January 2023. This was as a result of an enquiry that had been received from the resident. The landlord explained that the tenancy had not ended, it had been transferred into a sole tenancy. Therefore, a new tenancy agreement would not be issued. It confirmed that it had checked this with its legal team.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had spoken to a number of staff regarding her case and that she had received correspondence which was confusing and incorrect. It apologised for this and for its service failures. To put things right it said it would provide the resident with a letter to confirm that she was the sole tenant. It said it would also remove the third party’s name from the front screen of its computer records. By way of an apology, it offered the resident compensation of £300 for distress and inconvenience, and the time and effort it had taken to resolve the matter.
  11. Although the stage 2 response apologised for the service failures and offered the resident compensation, it did not fully reflect the distress caused to the resident due to the circumstances surrounding her case. It also said it would provide the resident with a letter to confirm that she was the sole tenant and it would remove the third party’s name from the front screen of its computer records. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with any reason as to why these matters could not have been concluded as part of the stage 2 response due to the nature of the complaint. This would have ensured that there were no further issues going forward and avoided a further incident on 29 July 2023, when the resident received a letter from a company acting on behalf of the landlord. The letter was addressed to the third party only.
  12. In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping and its inability to provide the relevant information and evidence impeded our ability to fully determine this case. At times it also provided incorrect, misleading and confusing information to the resident in relation to the status of her tenancy. Although it promised to remove the third party’s name from the front of its system in the stage 2 response, the resident received another letter in the third party’s name.
  13. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. This was just outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints.
  3. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident said she escalated it in February 2023. She said the landlord informed her that her complaint had been moved to stage 2 on 24 April 2023. However, as she had not received a response, we contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2023. This was around 4 months from the date the resident said she escalated her complaint and significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
  5. Given the delay at stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed the resident’s ability to escalate the matter to this Service. It did, however, acknowledge its delayed stage 2 decision and its lack of communication within the stage 2 response. It also offered the resident £50 compensation.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy for the stage 2 response. Although it acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response, the compensation offered did not fully reflect the length of the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As a result of this failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of her personal information, as she believes that it provided her information to a third party without her consent, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a tenancy transfer from a joint tenancy into a sole tenancy following a court order.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £650. This must be paid directly to the resident. This is made up of:
      1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of a tenancy transfer from a joint tenancy into a sole tenancy following a court order.
      2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. If it has not already done so, provide the resident, and this Service, with a copy of the letter confirming that the resident’s tenancy is a sole tenancy. The landlord must also confirm that the name of the third party has been removed from the front page of its system.
    4. Carry out a full system audit to ensure that there is no possibility of a contractor, or anyone else with authority to access the records, accessing or receiving tenancy records in the name of the third party. The landlord must provide evidence of the audit and details of the systems checked to this Service. It must also provide details of any further changes it has to make as a result of the audit.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.