London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202003007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003007

London & Quadrant H T

13 May 2021

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s offer of redress in relation to the repairs service it provided to the resident between 2015 and 2017.
2. The landlord’s response to remove rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

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 aspects of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
As part of the resident’s complaint he complained that the landlord’s offer of redress in relation to the repairs service it provided to address damp and mould in the property between 2015 and 2017 was unsatisfactory. The resident said it was unsatisfactory as the amount did not cover the rent due on the property whilst the repairs were outstanding, which led to arrears, and did not consider inconvenience and distress.
The Ombudsman can see from an internal record by the landlord, dated 10 February 2017, that its offer of redress was £1710 compensation. The landlord set out that the compensation was for “major repairs that were not carried out for over one year”. The landlord confirmed that it was therefore able to offer £5 per day from the period 13 January 2016 to 19 December 2016. The landlord stated that the compensation should be credited to the resident’s rent account to offset his arrears totalling £2471.97.
If the resident was not happy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property between 2015 and 2017, and its subsequent offer of compensation to put matters right, it was open to him to make a formal complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident made a complaint to the landlord when the matter was “live”.
In accordance with paragraph 39(d) and 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about the landlord’s offer of redress in relation to the repairs service it provided to the resident between 2015 and 2017. As the issue has become historic it is increasingly difficult for the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken by the landlord to address them.
While the Ombudsman cannot determine this aspect of the complaint it will be referred to within the summary as it provides context to the other matters which the Ombudsman can consider.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns until his death in September 2020. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s daughter (the representative) made the complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident prior to his death and has pursued it following his death.

Summary of events

On 2 March 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord to request that it consider the resident for a managed move to sheltered accommodation as he had been diagnosed with cancer. Within their correspondence the representative stated that the request should be met due to the way that the landlord had historically managed repairs at the property. In summary the representative said:
1. The resident reported extensive repairs in April 2015 however the repairs were not resolved for approximately 20 months.
2. While the repairs were outstanding the property was uninhabitable however the resident was not offered alternative accommodation and therefore he was “forced” to stay with family and friends.
3. The landlord agreed to refund the resident’s rent for the period however “only a portion of the rent” was refunded which left arrears on his account.
4. In 2018 the resident had applied to be rehoused however his request was refused due to the “existence of the incorrect arears”. The representative stated that the resident had contacted the landlord on many occasions to try and resolve the rent arrears however it had not responded.
The representative concluded by confirming that the landlord should remove the incorrect arrears on the resident’s rent account so that he could move to sheltered accommodation as soon as possible.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord acknowledged the representative’s correspondence. The landlord apologised that the resident felt ignored however it was not able to locate any contact regarding the rent arrears. The landlord confirmed that it would it look into the resident’s case.
On 13 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord advising that he had not been contacted regarding his case. In response the landlord confirmed that it had attempted to make contact with the resident by phone however it had been unsuccessful.
On 5 June 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord setting out that the resident had not been contacted regarding his housing request. The representative requested that the landlord immediately remove the £900 rent arrears from the resident’s rent account so that he may move to sheltered accommodation. The representative noted that the resident was receiving “end of life care”. The landlord acknowledged the correspondence on the same date setting out that it was sorry that the resident had not been contacted and it would investigate the delay.
On 23 June 2020 the representative made a complaint to the landlord about its “treatment of [the resident]”. In summary the representative said:
1. The resident had recently been diagnosed as “terminally ill”.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs, damp and mould, in 2015 was poor which had resulted in the resident being unable to live in the property for a period of 20 months. The representative stated that the landlord “abnegated [its] responsibility” towards the resident during this time, including by not offering temporary accommodation.
3. The landlord did not offer compensation to make good its handling of the repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property. The representative stated that the landlord only refunded a portion of the resident’s rent which left £900 rent arrears.
4. In 2018 the resident became ill (later diagnosed as cancer) and he asked to move to a property that was “in better condition” and where he would not have responsibility for a garden. The representative explained that the resident was denied the right to move due to the rent arrears.
5. “For years” the resident had been requesting for the rent arrears to be removed however no action had been taken. The representative explained that the most recent contact was in March 2020.
6. The resident would like to move to a two-bed property so that his other daughter (the daughter) may live with him to provide care.
7. The resident would like the rent arrears removed from his account and compensation for lack of care.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. It took over responsibility of the property from another housing provider in 2018. The landlord explained that it had therefore been unable to investigate the complaint “as thoroughly as [it] would have liked to”.
2. Rent was not waived for the period which the resident was not living at the property between 2015 and 2017. The landlord explained that the resident would still have been liable for any rent payments due on the property.
3. In 2017 the resident was awarded £1710 compensation for “any out of pocket expenses he may have incurred during the time he was away from [the property]”. The landlord confirmed that this was in line with the temporary decant policy which was in place at that time.
4. It was unable to make a determination about its response to its handling of the repairs between 2015 and 2017 for the reason given in point (a).
5. It was usual to “actively encourage” residents to stay with family and friends in a temporary decant situation and provided them with a small daily allowance for additional expenses.
6. Following a review of the resident’s rent account it showed his payments were “sporadic” and did not always cover the full amount due.
7. It was aware that sheltered accommodation was offered but withdrawn in 2018. The landlord explained that this was due to the resident’s rent arrears.
8. Following the representative’s contact in March 2020 it had attempted to call the resident however it had been unsuccessful. The landlord confirmed that it had not identified emails which it had not responded to.
9. While it was unable to clear the resident’s rent account, considering his ill health, it had approached its sheltered housing team to seek agreement for a move with arrears. The landlord confirmed sheltered accommodation had been approved for the resident and he would be contacted shortly.
On 15 July 2020 the representative responded to the landlord as she was not happy with its response. In summary the representative said:
1. Between 2015 and 2017 the property was uninhabitable as “the structural repairs were not completed in a timely manner”. The representative stated that the “experience negatively impacted” on the resident’s health which forced him to live away from the property during the period.
2. The landlord did not follow its decant policy as it did not ensure that the resident had somewhere suitable to live while the repairs were undertaken and it did not offer a daily allowance.
3. The £1710 was awarded to “placate” the resident’s request to refund all rent due while the repairs were outstanding.
4. The landlord should clear the outstanding £900 rent arrears of the resident’s account due to its handling of the repairs to address damp and mould.
5. The landlord had ignored historic correspondence from the resident trying to resolve his rent arrears.
6. The resident required a move to a two-bed property not sheltered housing. The representative explained that this was so that the daughter could provide live-in care to the resident.
On 22 July 2020 the landlord responded to the representative following a phone conversation with her. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was willing to waive the £900 arrears on the resident’s rent account as a gesture of goodwill “based on the experiences [the resident had] experienced over the last five years… and not being able to reside in the property due to its condition”.
2. It would like to inspect the property for any outstanding repair work.
3. It requested that the resident complete a medical form to enable it to seek an independent view on his housing needs and request for a two-bed property.
In late July 2020 the representative referred the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman for assistance as they were not happy with the landlord’s response. Following the representative’s contact the Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord regarding the status of the resident’s complaint.
On 31 July 202 the landlord wrote to the representative setting out that it had registered a stage one complaint. The landlord confirmed that it would consider the following matters:
1. Outstanding repairs.
2. Moving options.
3. Rent arears.
Within its correspondence the landlord confirmed that it would not consider matters which had occurred over 12 months ago in line with its complaint policy. The landlord noted that the most recent repair request was logged in November 2016. The landlord also invited the representative to provide any other information in relation to the resident’s complaint.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Since the Ombudsman’s contact it had been in regular contact with the representative.
2. It had waived the remaining £900 rent arrears as a gesture of goodwill.
3. It was working with the representative and the resident to arrange a transfer to a suitable property.
4. It had inspected the property on 4 August 2020 for any outstanding repairs.
5. It would progress the resident’s complaint to ensure all the actions agreed were fulfilled.
On 11 August 2020 the representative chased for an update regarding the resident’s housing request.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative setting out that it had prioritised the resident’s housing move and would be in touch shortly. The landlord confirmed that the resident was being considered for a two-bed property.
On 19 August 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. In summary the representative said:
1. It was not until the Ombudsman contacted the landlord that it took steps to investigate the resident’s complaint.
2. The resident would like compensation for “the years of being ignored, the undue stress placed [on his] family and the negative toll on [his] health”.
3. The resident required an urgent property transfer due to his health.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative acknowledging that the resident should not have had to make contact with the Ombudsman for his concerns to be addressed. The landlord therefore apologised. The landlord confirmed that it would review the resident’s request for compensation.
On 21 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had completed all necessary paperwork in relation to the resident’s housing move and it was liaising with its housing team.
On 8 September 2020 the representative chased the landlord for an update on his housing request.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative to confirm that it had identified a two-bed property for the resident and it would be in touch to arrange a viewing.
On 22 September 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord to confirm that the resident had passed away on 16 September 2020.
On 24 September 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord to chase for its decision on the resident’s request for compensation which he had made prior to his death. The representative chased again on 28 October 2020.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s request for compensation.
2. Since 2013 the resident had accumulated arrears on his rent account for “non-payment of rent”.
3. The resident moved out of the property without informing it of his intentions between 2015 and 2017.
4. In 2017 the resident was awarded £1710 as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord explained that this amount “cleared the arrears of £900 and furthermore gave [the resident] a daily living allowance while [he] vacated [the property]”.
5. It had offered the resident sheltered accommodation however he declined as he wanted to be re-homed independently with space for the daughter to live with him. The landlord confirmed that it agreed the resident’s request despite having no legal responsibility to house the daughter.
6. Since the resident had passed away it had ensured that the daughter had a home.
7. It would not consider any further compensation. The landlord noted that any additional compensation would have to be directly awarded to resident which was not possible.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the representative may refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response. As the representative was not satisfied with the landlord’s response she referred to the complaint to the Ombudsman for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the representative reports that the resident tried to discuss his rent account and request for a housing transfer with the landlord on many occasions prior to his complaint in June 2020 however it did not engage. While this may be the case, in line with the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as set out above, the Ombudsman will only consider the resident’s complaint since the start of 2019, which is approximately 18 months prior to the formal complaint.

The landlord’s response to remove rent arrears on the resident’s rent account and

The landlord has provided statements documenting the resident’s rent account dating back to 2018. The statements show that the resident’s rent account has been in arrears since that time.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident believed that the rent arrears on his account were incorrect as he should not have paid rent while he was unable to stay in the property between 2015 and 2017 due to the repairs.
While the landlord’s decant policy covering the period 2015 to 2017 is not available to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman is aware that it is normal practice that a resident will continue to pay rent for their home while they are in temporary accommodation. This is documented in the landlord’s current Decant policy. The resident was therefore liable for any rent payments due on the property between 2015 and 2017 regardless of whether he was staying there or not. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that it was not responsible for the resident’s rent arrears which accumulated between 2015 to 2017 and that it was not obliged to remove them from his account.
The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the resident on several occasions regarding the arrears on his rent account and inviting him to contact him to discuss the matter, including February 2019, April 2019, June 2019, July 2019, August 2019, October 2019, December 2019, February 2020 and March 2020, in addition to attempting to make contact by phone. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as a landlord should take steps to assist a tenant where they are having difficulties managing their rent.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord agreed to clear his rent arrears as a goodwill gesture. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as it was aware that the repairs service it had historically provided the resident had been unsatisfactory and in order to assist the resident’s housing request on medical grounds.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move

The evidence shows that in April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that his earlier request to move to sheltered accommodation was put on hold due to rent arrears on his account. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as it was in line with the landlord’s Transfer policy which sets out that it may refuse a transfer application where a tenant has rent arrears. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident requested a housing move again until March 2020, as detailed in the summary of events.
From March 2020 until the resident’s complaint in June 2020 the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord response to the resident’s request for a management move was appropriate. While the evidence shows some contact with the resident during the period the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was proactive in actively engaging with him regarding his request to see how it may support and assist him to progress a move at that time. This is unsatisfactory noting that the resident had reported a medical need. The landlord acknowledged this shortfall itself in correspondence to the representative in August 2020, providing an apology. This was appropriate to acknowledge the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that overall the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing move from July 2020 was reasonable. This is because the evidence shows that the landlord approved a move to sheltered accommodation, despite the resident’s rent arrears, and later agreed a move to a two-bed house on notification that this was his preference. The Ombudsman notes that the two-bed property was not identified until September 2020 however also notes that the landlord’s stock is limited and therefore a property may not have been immediately available which met the resident’s needs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 23 June 2020 the resident registered a formal complaint with the landlord. While the landlord did respond to the complaint and the resident’s later escalation request within its published timescales for complaints, it is not clear if the landlord’s responses were given under its complaint procedure as the landlord did not confirm this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unsatisfactory. As the resident had requested a formal complaint the landlord should have responded to his concerns formally.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman in July 2020 the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint formally under its complaint procedure. The evidence shows that the landlord did not however respond to the complaint in a timely manner, specifically as it delayed in providing its final response by approximately three months after the representative requested to escalate the complaint on 19 August 2020. In addition, the evidence shows that, in order to have the resident’s escalation request responded to, the representative had to chase the landlord. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a tenant’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and that this timeframe assures the tenant that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay. The delay was also contrary to the landlord’s complaint handling principle to “put things as quickly as possible”. While the landlord did apologise for the delay in providing its response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion its apology alone does not amount to reasonable redress as it does not reflect the inconvenience and distress the resident would have experienced as a result. Given the resident’s health it was especially important that the landlord progressed the complaint through its complaint procedure in a timely fashion as doing so might have resulted in a successful resolution at an earlier stage, thus providing assistance to the resident and representative at an incredibly difficult time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to remove rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to remove rent arrears on the resident’s rent account

The resident was liable for any rent payments due on the property between 2015 and 2017 regardless of whether he was staying there or not. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that it was not responsible for his rent arrears which accumulated between 2015 to 2017 and that it was not obliged to remove them from his account.
The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the resident on several occasions regarding the arrears on his rent account and inviting him to contact him to discuss the matter. This was appropriate as a landlord should take steps to assist a tenant where they are having difficulties managing their rent.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord agreed to clear his rent arrears as a goodwill gesture. This was reasonable as the landlord was aware that the repairs service it had historically provided the resident had been unsatisfactory and in order to assist his housing request on medical grounds.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move

It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident in April 2019 that his earlier request to move to sheltered accommodation was put on hold as it was in line with its Transfer policy which sets out that it may refuse a transfer application where a tenant has rent arrears.
While the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move between March 2020 and June 2020 was unsatisfactory, as it did not proactively engage with the resident, the landlord acknowledged its service failure and apologised. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has taken steps to put matters right.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing move from July 2020 was reasonable. This is because the evidence shows that the landlord approved a move to sheltered accommodation, despite the resident’s rent arrears, and later agreed a move to a two-bed house on notification that this was his preference.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not inform the resident if its responses to his complaint dated 23 June 2020 were given under its complaint procedure.
The landlord significantly delayed in providing its final response following the resident’s escalation request.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay £200 compensation to the resident’s estate in respect of its complaint handling. The compensation can then be administered in line with intestacy rules. The landlord should contact the representative within four weeks of the date of the determination to obtain the details needed to process the payment.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that it responds to complaints in accordance with best practice.