London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306125)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306125

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 October 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 the resident’s:
    1. Request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident’s mother had an assured tenancy for a 3-bed property, which began on 23 March 2015. The resident told the landlord her mother had passed away in October 2020 and asked to succeed to the tenancy. She remained in the property with her younger sister.
  2. The landlord is a housing association and was aware of the vulnerabilities within the household.
  3. The landlord accepted a complaint from the resident on 21 October 2021. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 28 October 2021 it:
    1. Acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication and empathy in its handling of the resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy, and for the delay in acknowledging and responding to the complaint.
    2. Offered £180 compensation, which was broken down as:
      1. £130 for the distress, inconvenience, time and effort.
      2. £50 for its complaints handling.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in resolving the complaint and its poor communication. To resolve the complaint, it had made the decision to allow the resident to remain in her mother’s property and would contact her to arrange a new tenancy.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord granted the resident a tenancy with a 12-month probationary period on 7 October 2024.
  2. At the time of this investigation the resident told the Ombudsman she had not yet received the £180 compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and feels the amount of compensation offered does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.

  1. The resident’s mother had a sole assured tenancy which began in 2015. The Housing Act 1988 states that a spouse, civil partner or cohabitee is entitled to succeed to a sole assured tenancy. Another family member can only succeed if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord did not contain such a clause, therefore, no statutory succession could take place. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman to show the landlord explained or discussed this with the resident.
  2. The landlord’s succession procedure stated it would allow a discretionary succession where an applicant could evidence, they had lived in the property as their only residence for 12 months, they met the housing needs, and met the financial criteria or did not have another tenancy or financial interest in the property. It stated a new tenancy would be given for the current property or an alternative suitable property.
  3. The succession procedure states the landlord would write to anyone who asked to succeed to a tenancy to confirm it was carrying out the checks and its letter must include an application form, succession guidance with frequently asked questions, and a copy of its policy. The landlord failed to explain to the resident that she would need to apply for a discretionary succession. There was also no evidence it sent her a copy of its guidance and policy. This was a significant failure which caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she did not know what rights she had to succeed to her mother’s tenancy, and therefore was unaware if she could challenge the landlord’s decisions and actions.
  4. When the resident told the landlord her mother has passed away there was no evidence it showed any empathy for the resident’s situation. The landlord’s succession procedure states its staff must be sensitive and compassionate, and condolences are to be offered on behalf of the landlord. There was evidence that the resident had to continuously chase the landlord for information and updates about the succession when she was grieving the death of her mother. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to acknowledge the resident’s feelings of grief, anxiety and distress.
  5. The landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities. There was no evidence it considered this when looking at whether it would allow the resident and her sister to remain in her mother’s property. The household’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the succession. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident. When the resident told the landlord that her and her younger sister were both struggling with their mental health, no evidence was provided to show the landlord offered the resident any support or referred her to local services. This was a significant failing.
  6. There was evidence of poor communication throughout the complaint. In May 2021 the resident chased an update and was told she had been granted a discretionary succession and could remain in her mother’s property. The resident then received written communication from the landlord stating it would need to move her to a 2-bed property as she was under occupying her mother’s property. This resulted in the resident making a complaint as she said the landlord had failed to explain what was happening and she was left having to chase information and updates. The landlord failed to respond until October 2021. It is noted this was after the resident had contacted her local MP. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident with the insecurity of not know if she would have to move home with her sister who had vulnerabilities following the distress of losing their mother.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 28 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged and offered £130 compensation for its lack of communication and the distress, time and effort this had caused the resident. However, the landlord showed a lack of learning. Between February and September 2022, the resident chased a response to her emails and asked for updates from the landlord several times, she also raised that she had not received the compensation it had promised her. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to respond to her. This was not customer focused.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 21 September 2022, it said it had decided to allow the resident to remain in her mother’s property and would contact her to grant her a new tenancy. The landlord granted the resident a new tenancy on 7 October 2024, this was 2 years later. This was an unreasonable delay which left the resident with limited tenancy rights for a significant period.
  9. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of its communication, the decisions it makes as well as the action it is taking. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Despite the resident chasing the landlord for updates for 2 years, the landlord failed to recognise that it had not kept up with its promise to grant the resident a new tenancy. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to keep adequate records, which contributed to the significant delays.
  10. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord granted her a tenancy with a 12-month probationary period. The resident told the Ombudsman she was disappointed that she was not offered a fully assured tenancy considering the significant delays, that she has been paying use and occupation charges for 4 years, and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. Although the landlord offers tenancies with a 12-month probationary period to all new residents, the landlord failed to explain to the resident why it did not consider offering the resident a fully assured tenancy. The Ombudsman recognises that this is outside the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, but due to the significant failures identified in this investigation it has made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss why it has granted her a tenancy with a 12-month probationary period.
  11. In summary the landlord left a vulnerable household without a tenancy and reduced tenancy rights for 4 years. It failed to provide the resident with the relevant information about her rights to succeed to her mother’s tenancy. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. It failed to consider the households vulnerabilities. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 1 complaint response, however, showed no learning as there was continuous poor communication and delays. The landlord offered compensation, but failed to pay this and did not offer any further redress for the failings identified in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman feels the £130 compensation offered does not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. It is also not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
  12. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord states it will acknowledge complaints within 1 working day and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. On 24 May 2021 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about how it was handling her request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy. The landlord accepted the complaint on 21 October 2021, 5 months later. This was an unreasonable delay. Although the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, there was no evidence it acknowledged the complaint in writing, and it did not provide a date for when the resident should expect a response. This was an extremely difficult time for the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge this, it did not effectively communicate with her or manage her expectations.
  3. In a letter to the resident’s MP dated 29 October 2021 it said it had failed to pick up the resident’s complaint as it had been sent to the wrong department. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and complaints. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 October 2021. This was within its 10-working day target timescale.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 25 May 2022, 3 months later. This was a significant delay which resulted in the resident chasing a response to her complaint several times. The landlord told the resident it would contact her by 10 and 26 June 2022, but it failed to respond by either of these timescales. It told the resident its lack of communication was due to staff sickness. The landlord should have effective systems in place, so residents are not impacted by staffing issues.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 September 2022, 82 working days later, which was outside its 20-working day timescale. The stage 2 complaint response gave incorrect dates for the resident’s mothers death, and its stage 1 complaint response. A landlord must ensure the information it gives in its complaint responses is clear and accurate. In the response the landlord said it would contact the resident to complete the new tenancy process. The landlord contacted the resident in October 2024, which was after the resident had contacted the Ombudsman. This was not customer focused and left the resident without a resolution to her complaint for over 2 years. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
  7. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord accepting the complaint, acknowledging the resident’s escalation of the complaint and issuing its stage 2 response. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord acknowledged the delay in accepting the complaint and offered £50 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord did not show any learning as at the date of this investigation the resident had not received the compensation offered. It did not acknowledge any of its failings in its stage 2 response, and failed to carry out the actions it promised in its stage 2 response for over 2 years. This left a vulnerable household without a tenancy and reduced tenancy rights, causing the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1130 compensation. This is broken down as:
      1. The £180 compensation offered to the resident in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response if it has not already been paid.
      2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.
      3. £450 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her associated complaint.
      4. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not added to her rent account, unless she requests this.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a case review of its practices in relation to responding to succession requests from residents. The landlord must provide a copy of this case review to the Ombudsman. The review must consider (but is not limited to):
    1. Why the resident was not provided with the relevant guidance and policies when she initially asked to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.
    2. Its lack of communication with the resident.
    3. Why there was a significant delay in the resident being granted a new tenancy and what action it will take to ensure this does not happen again.
    4. Its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond to succession requests appropriately, understand resident’s rights to succeed, and act in accordance with legislation and its relevant policies and procedures.
    5. Its record keeping practices to ensure that all staff are accurately recording resident’s requests and rights to succeed to a tenancy. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss why it offered her a tenancy agreement with a 12-month probationary period rather than a fully assured tenancy, considering the failings identified in this investigation.