London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202120968)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120968

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 June 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rehousing request.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord whose tenancy began on 24 November 1997. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house.
The resident has stated that “since at least 2018”, she and her family have been experiencing antisocial behaviour from their neighbours – they are tenants of the local authority.
The resident has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. She has described the antisocial behaviour as having a “devastating” impact on her “deteriorating mental health”. On 28 January 2020, the resident applied for an internal transfer of property with the landlord on these grounds.
On 21 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had awarded her a priority banding on its internal transfer list based on medical need. It recommended that she also complete an application to join the local authority’s housing register.

Relevant policy and procedure

Prior to 3 May 2021, the landlord operated an internal transfer list. This was open to all existing residents who wished to move, and allowed them to bid for available properties within the landlord’s stock. Residents applying for the list were placed in a ‘banding’ according to priority need, and ‘ranked’ within this banding based on time spent on the list. Those claiming medical priority were assessed by an independent medical advisor and, if successful, placed in the third of the 4 bandings.
The landlord operates a rehousing list which it uses to directly rehouse existing residents on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. The landlord nominates residents on this list for available properties without the need for them bidding. From 3 May 2021, the landlord expanded the eligibility criteria for the rehousing list to include cases where “either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home”.
The landlord’s rehousing procedure says that, where a resident claims a medical need to move, it will ask them to obtain the necessary evidence to support a referral to its independent medical advisor. The independent medical advisor will then recommend whether or not the resident should be given an offer of alternative accommodation. If the medical advisor does not recommend a resident being offered alternative accommodation, then the landlord will advise them of this outcome and offer advice on other ways they can pursue a move.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. Complainants may escalate their complaint to stage 2 up to 6 months after the stage 1 decision. The landlord says it will provide its final complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated, however in some cases it may need an additional 10 working days and will contact the complainant to explain why.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider compensation where it has failed to respond to, or process, a complaint within agreed response times and has not complied with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy allows the landlord to make a single payment of up to £200 for complaint handling, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
The policy also includes guidelines for awards for ‘distress’ and ‘inconvenience’. These are set at a maximum of £60 each. This can be offered as either a single amount or, for ongoing issues, calculated monthly. Awards for ‘time and effort’ can be made up to a maximum of £200.

Summary of events

On 4 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update on her transfer. It advised that it currently had no suitable properties available, but that there was a meeting due to be held about some properties in the borough and it would receive an update in the next 10 days, after which it would update her accordingly.
On 21 March 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s email, advising that she was still waiting for an update. She expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time rehousing her was taking, and said that she had been informed on 14 January 2021 that properties were available and just awaiting remedial works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2021. It advised that:
1. It had taken the decision to close its internal transfer list from 3 May 2021 due to a lack of available properties, therefore the resident would no longer have a transfer application after this date.
2. It would be prioritising those with a severe and urgent need to move who would be matched directly with properties through its rehousing list.
3. Eligibility for the rehousing list had been expanded to include those who had a “severe medical need which means they cannot remain in their property”.
4. The resident would need to submit a new medical application and supporting evidence to be considered for the rehousing list. This would be assessed by its independent medical advisor.
5. Residents could still seek to move by mutual exchange and by approaching their local authority requesting to be added to the housing register.
On 28 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord expressing confusion about the letter. She stated that she had been awarded medical priority for a transfer in October 2020 and was told by the landlord that she was “at the top of the list for rehousing”. She said she did not understand why the landlord was now saying that this was not the case, when her circumstances had not changed.
On 26 April 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. They asked for the landlord to provide some clarity regarding the resident’s position following the letter of 23 March 2021, which conflicted with previous information she had been given, and what would be done for her in light of her vulnerabilities.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP providing its response. It advised that it had closed its internal transfer list due to demand far outweighing the supply of homes available, but would continue to support residents who could no longer reside in their current home. It said that the resident had been incorrectly advised about being at the top of the previous transfer list as this was based upon priority banding and waiting time. The landlord said it had offered the resident support to seek a mutual exchange and join the local authority’s housing register and could assist her with completing a medical application to join its rehousing list. The resident’s MP provided her with a copy of the landlord’s response on 15 May 2021.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, advising her that her medical application had been assessed by its independent medical advisor and, based on their recommendations and consideration of her circumstances, it had not approved her for a direct offer via its rehousing list. It said that, due to a shortage of properties, the qualifying criteria was extremely high and prioritising those not safely able to access their homes. The landlord advised that the resident could appeal the decision but would need to provide further medical evidence to do so.
On 28 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express dissatisfaction at its decision that she was not eligible for the rehousing list. She said it had previously promised to rehouse her as soon as works had been completed to vacant properties in the area. The resident advised the landlord that she was unable to consider a mutual exchange as she did not want to deceive any potential exchange partner about the issues with the neighbours. She asked what further medical evidence she could provide to be accepted for rehousing.
On 12 July 2021, the landlord received a second medical assessment report on the resident’s case from its independent medical advisor. Although this Service has not been provided with a copy of this report, internal landlord emails state that the medical advisor had “determined this case as more of an antisocial behaviour issue that needs to be dealt with by management”.
On 15 September 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint through the landlord’s online complaint form. She expressed dissatisfaction at having her previous transfer status revoked and being refused access to the rehousing list despite her medical need. She accused the landlord of ignoring her medical evidence and failing to respond to her attempts to appeal its decision. She requested that the landlord honour its previous promises by placing her on the rehousing list and moving her to suitable accommodation.
On 21 October 2021, the local authority’s multiagency safeguarding hub (MASH) contacted the landlord by email. It advised it had visited the resident, following a referral, and discussed the ongoing issues with the neighbours and impact on her mental health with her. MASH requested that the landlord revisit the matter of rehousing the resident and contact her to discuss this.
On 3 December 2021, MASH contacted the landlord again. It advised that the resident had informed it that she had still not heard from the landlord, and asked it to provide an urgent update to the resident on her rehousing.
On 11 December 2021, the resident first approached this Service for assistance in progressing her formal complaint with the landlord. On 12 January 2022, this Service emailed the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint of 15 September 2021.
On 5 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident providing its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and said that:
1. Its records showed that the resident applied for an internal transfer under medical grounds on 28 January 2020.
2. 2 medical assessments were completed and the resident was not deemed to meet the criteria for medical priority. Letters had been sent to the resident on 25 March 2021 and 22 June 2021 detailing these outcomes.
3. It could not find any correspondence regarding the resident previously being awarded medical priority and believed this may have been recorded in error.
4. It had notified the resident of its decision to close the internal transfer list in writing and understood this would have been disappointing for her.
5. It had reviewed the information submitted for her medical assessment and felt it was unlikely she would meet the threshold for its rehousing list.
6. It could support her with seeking a mutual exchange, and urged her to report to it any antisocial behaviour that was still ongoing from her neighbours.
7. Her complaint was not upheld.
On 6 April 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She disputed the claim that her medical priority had been recorded in error and referred to the letter of 21 October 2020 which evidenced this. She stated this had been awarded before the new list was implemented and unfairly rescinded. The resident repeated that she was unable to pursue a mutual exchange as she was unwilling to mislead any potential swap partner about the issues with the neighbours. She advised the landlord that she had recently been diagnosed with a severe medical condition and was due to have an operation shortly, after which she was dreading returning to her home.
On 12 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. She chased a response to her email of 6 April and attached a copy of a letter from her GP.
On 12 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord providing a further letter from her GP supporting her request for rehousing. She advised that the landlord had still not responded to her email of 6 April 2022.
On 22 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord requesting it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had revoked her medical transfer priority, broken promises made to her whilst she had been waiting to be rehoused and ignored medical evidence of the effects of the antisocial behaviour on her health. She also pointed out that the landlord had continually suggested she seek a mutual exchange despite her making it clear on numerous occasions that she did not consider this an option.
On 23 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service again for assistance in progressing her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord by email on 29 September 2022 asking that it respond to her complaint at stage 2 by 13 October 2022.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord apologised again for the delay and said that:
1. It had written to all residents on its internal transfer list informing them that, from 3 May 2021, the list would be closing.
2. It had advised those with an existing medical priority (of which there were nearly 900) that they would need to reapply for access to the rehousing list as it was changing the process for awarding medical priority due to a shortage of available properties.
3. It was aware she had been awarded medical priority in 2020, allowing her to bid for properties on its internal transfer list and could appreciate her frustration at having to be assessed again for the rehousing list.
4. It had assessed her medical evidence twice and, unfortunately, she did not meet the new threshold for medical priority. However, due to the further medical information she had provided since the last assessment, it would arrange for her to be reassessed.
5. It appreciated the reasons that she did not wish to mutual exchange, but that she could still access the local authority’s housing register.
6. It had also contacted the local authority for an update on its progress in dealing with the antisocial behaviour caused by its tenants.
7. Having reviewed her complaint it was clear that its communication with the resident could have been managed more effectively and “fell short of acceptable standards”.
8. It had also made errors in stating that her medical priority had been awarded incorrectly, and advising her that it had empty properties awaiting works which she could be offered.
9. It had awarded her compensation of £1,230 composed of:
  1. £150 for the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.
  2. £100 for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.
  3. £100 for failing to respond to this Service.
  4. £100 for failing to escalate her complaint to stage 2 when requested.
  5. £130 for delays in communication.
  6. £130 for time and effort.
  7. £520 for distress and inconvenience.

Events since stage 2 complaint response

On 2 November 2022, the resident advised this Service that she had not yet had any contact from the landlord regarding the reassessment it had agreed to carry out in its stage 2 complaint response. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day asking it to update the resident accordingly.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would send her a new medical assessment form to complete.
On 7 June 2023, the resident advised this Service that she had still not received the medical assessment form, or been reassessed for medical priority by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Handling of rehousing request

The central issue of the resident’s complaint is the landlord’s decision to remove her previously awarded medical priority upon closing its internal transfer list. It is not for this Service to determine whether or not the landlord should have reinstated the resident’s medical priority, only whether it acted appropriately in the process of deciding not to.
The landlord’s letter of 23 March 2021 appropriately explained the reasons behind its decision to close the internal transfer list. The version of the letter sent to the resident was also appropriately tailored to include extra information relevant to those who had been previously awarded medical priority. This information was reiterated in its response to the resident’s MP.
The landlord advised that any residents with previous medical priority would need to submit a new medical application and evidence to be assessed for the rehousing list. In light of the fact that the landlord had taken the decision to close the internal transfer list due to it being oversubscribed, it was reasonable for it to increase the threshold for obtaining medical priority for the rehousing list to ensure that it was able to assist those most in need.
The landlord advised that nearly 900 residents held medical priority on its internal transfer list. It would have taken significant resources to reassess all of these. Residents’ circumstances and needs may also have changed significantly since they were awarded medical priority and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask that residents reapply for medical priority under the rehousing list.
The landlord’s records show that by July 2021 the resident’s application had been assessed twice by its independent medical advisor, who had recommended that it was not approved. The fact that the independent medical advisor described the case as “more of an antisocial behaviour issue” indicates that the landlord provided them with the all the relevant context to the case. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the recommendations of a medical professional, and act in keeping with its rehousing procedure.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to approach the local authority for access to its housing register on several occasions, which was also in keeping with its rehousing procedure. It also offered advice about pursuing a mutual exchange, which was initially appropriate, prior to the resident explaining why she did not view this as an option.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that its communication with the resident should have been managed more effectively. This was apparent on several occasions where there is no evidence the landlord responded to queries and concerns raised by the resident. These include the resident’s emails of 28 March 2021 and 28 June 2021, and the emails from MASH on 21 October 2021 and 3 December 2021.
The landlord offered an appropriate apology for this and awarded £130 compensation for ‘delays in communication’. When considered in conjunction with the separate awards totalling £650 for ‘distress and inconvenience’ and ‘time and effort’, this represents a reasonable offer of redress which is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman would recommend compensation within this range where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on a resident; the landlord’s compensation offer was therefore proportionate given the impact of its inadequate communications.
The stage 2 response also offered an apology for the resident being given misleading information about the availability of empty properties in early 2021. Whilst it is clear that whatever information was relayed gave the resident false expectations, leading to her feeling disappointed and let down by the landlord, the only evidence seen by this Service regarding this (the email of 4 March 2021) does not contain any commitment to her being offered such a property.
The distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this forms part of the largest element of compensation offered by the landlord (£520) which is reasonable considering that no evidence has been provided of a promise or offer being made of new accommodation.
However, the landlord committed in its stage 2 complaint response to reassessing the resident’s eligibility for the rehousing list, in light of new medical information she had made it aware of since the last assessment in 2021. The resident has advised as recently as this month that the landlord failed to follow through on this commitment, and the landlord has provided no evidence to dispute this. Indeed, it committed to completing a further assessment in October 2022, only to request a new assessment form be completed the following month.
Where it is not disputed that there has been a service failure by a landlord, the Ombudsman will apply its Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) to consider whether any redress was appropriate. Although the landlord made a proportionate compensation award in October 2022, it failed to put things right as there is no evidence that it followed up on its promise for a medical reassessment and this indicates that it failed to sufficiently learn lessons from its earlier maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her formal complaint through the landlord’s online complaint tool on 15 September 2021, and it is evident from the fact the landlord provided this Service with a copy of the complaint that it was received. When the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the complaint, the resident approached this Service, which contacted the landlord on 12 January 2022.
Despite this, the landlord took until 5 April 2022 to issue its stage 1 complaint response. Whilst it apologised for this delay, the landlord offered no explanation as to why it took in excess of 6 months to respond to the complaint. Nor did it offer any redress for this severe delay of process. This demonstrated a failure to consider the impact of the delays on the resident and the time and trouble she had taken in approaching this Service for assistance.
The stage 1 complaint response also stated that it appeared the “medical priority box had been ticked in error”, stating that the landlord “could not find any correspondence that confirmed medical priority was awarded”. This was evidently not the case, as the stage 2 complaint response later confirmed. Although this error had no bearing on the outcome of the complaint, the resident said that the claim left her “absolutely appalled and deeply distressed” in her email response of 6 April 2022. It also indicates that the landlord failed to fully consider all available information and evidence relevant to the complaint.
The landlord also signposted the resident towards a mutual exchange in the stage 1 complaint response, despite the fact that it had acknowledged in its response to the resident’s MP (and further been advised by the email of 28 June 2021) of the reasonable grounds why she did not consider this an option. This again indicates that correspondence pertinent to the complaint had not been appropriately considered by the landlord.
In her email of 6 April 2022, the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the contents of the stage 1 complaint response; as such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to immediately escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process based on this alone. However, it failed to do this, or even to respond to the email – despite the resident asking it to do so on 12 April 2022 and 12 June 2022. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints process.
On 22 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord again, asking explicitly for it to escalate her complaint to the next stage and outlining why she remained dissatisfied. The landlord again failed to appropriately acknowledge or respond to this request. It was only following a second intervention from this Service on 29 September 2022 that the landlord finally escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process. By this time, a full calendar year had passed since the resident first logged her complaint on 15 September 2021.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was thorough in its analysis of the proceeding events and addressed all of the issues raised by the resident in her escalation request. It acknowledged failures in its communication with the resident and complaint handling, and the detriment she had experienced due to these. Its combined award of £450 for the various failures and delays related to complaint handling was in excess of the maximum under its policy. This showed recognition of the ‘exceptional circumstances’, which was appropriate given the length of delay and impact of this on the resident.
However, the landlord again failed to offer an explanation for why such unreasonable delays occurred, or show consideration of any learning points to avoid it happening again going forwards. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are clear in that it expects landlords to demonstrate improvements in service delivery as a result of lessons learned from complaints and there is no evidence that the landlord took the opportunity to consider how it could avoid such unreasonable delays in future complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately informed the resident of changes to its internal transfer process and the reasons for this, and made its decision to reject her application based on independent medical advice in accordance with its policy. There were subsequently multiple failures in the way the landlord communicated with the resident albeit these were recognised during the complaints procedure and a proportionate compensation offer was made. However, the landlord failed to appropriately follow up on its commitment to reassess the resident’s eligibility for its rehousing list and did not therefore demonstrate that it had learned any meaningful lessons from its handling of this case.
The landlord acknowledged its failures in handling the resident’s complaint and made a reasonable offer of compensation for these. However it did not evidence any wider consideration of why such lengthy delays occurred, or any learning it could take from this case to prevent these in future.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Make payment to the resident of £1,380 compensation composed of:
  1. The £1,230 awarded at stage 2 of its complaints process (if not already paid).
  2. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its maladministration in failing to follow up on its commitment to reassess her eligibility for its rehousing list.
2. Apologise to the resident for failing to follow up on its commitment to reassess her eligibility for its rehousing list.
3. Make arrangements with the resident to ensure that it gathers all necessary information and evidence for the resident to be reassessed and submits this to its independent medical advisor.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review and produce an action plan to demonstrate:
1. How it will ensure that medical assessments for rehousing are conducted promptly.
2. How it will ensure that unreasonable complaint handling delays are avoided in future.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord assist the resident in making an application to the local authority’s housing register, including providing appropriate supporting evidence of the antisocial behaviour she has reported from the neighbours.
The landlord should advise this Service how it has acted upon this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.