Lambeth Council (202111576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111576

Lambeth Council

25 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer to a four-bedroom property.

Background

2. The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The property is a three-bedroom terraced house and the tenancy commenced in June 2012. The landlord advises the resident has no vulnerabilities.
3. In September 2017, a violent crime took place in close proximity to the resident’s property. The resident’s son was a witness to the crime and the resident said he now experienced anxiety, paranoia, and sleepless nights. In February 2018, the resident’s housing application was Band A, the highest priority band. On 22 May 2018, the resident submitted an application requesting an additional bedroom as her son was now having difficulties sharing a room with his brother. The landlord rejected this application on 25 May 2018 and asked the resident to send in medical evidence. The resident appealed the decision on 4 July 2018.
4. In July and November 2018, two separate medical assessments were carried out on the resident’s son by the landlord’s housing medical advisor; this did not alter the overall banding of the household which remained as Band A. The advisor did not grant an additional bedroom but advised the resident to ask her GP to refer her son to a psychologist or psychiatrist as they were willing to reassess the case upon receiving relevant medical evidence.

5. On 15 July 2019, a support worker contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and provided it with a number of documents including a letter from the GP, school counsellor, and the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) dated 10 July 2019; the support worker’s view was that this letter recommended the resident’s son should have his own room. On 1 September 2020, the landlord noted internally that it had received some medical evidence from the resident, but that its decision based on that evidence was that it did not agree that her son should have his own room, and it had not received the further evidence that it had asked for.
6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in August 2021. Following correspondence from us, the landlord logged a formal complaint regarding the handling of her request to move to a four-bedroom property on 4 April 2022, and issued its stage one response on 4 May 2022. It said:
   1. The resident’s application had been on the highest priority band, Band A, since 26 February 2018 and she was authorised to bid on three-bedroom properties.
   2. The resident had asked for a four-bedroom home; however, the decision to grant an additional bedroom on medical grounds required strong evidence of need to be provided, and the housing medical advisor had decided not to grant an additional bedroom in respect of the resident’s request of May 2018.
   3. The resident was offered three three-bedrooms properties in 2018 that were not in the vicinity of the current property. However, the resident did not accept any of them nor had she placed any bids on properties during this time.
   4. It had not received the requested medical documentation. It had been provided with a letter from CAMHS, but it considered that this did not show there was a pressing need for the resident’s son to have his own bedroom.
   5. The resident had the option to bid for three-bedroom homes or to receive a direct offer straightaway, but she had not responded to this option.
   6. It was happy to see any new evidence that may change its decision.
7. Following correspondence from the Ombudsman on 26 May 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2022, and it issued its stage two response on 13 July 2022. The landlord repeated its position in its stage one response. In addition, it said:
   1. Medical assessments were carried out by the housing medical advisor in 2018: it stated the resident should provide a letter from the appropriate medical professionals to enable a comprehensive assessment to be made.
   2. No medical documents from mental health professionals had been provided, and without these the housing medical advisor could not make an informed assessment of the resident’s son’s need for his own bedroom.
   3. If no further evidence was received, it would make a final direct offer of alternative accommodation and, if this offer was unreasonably refused, it would remove the resident’s Band A status.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said she would like the landlord to grant her permission to bid for four-bedroom properties, and that she had submitted medical evidence to the landlord in March and April 2021, but it said it had not received this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has said she feels an additional bedroom is required due to her son’s mental health. The Ombudsman cannot make judgements on medical evidence, or otherwise make an assessment of medical conditions and how these may affect housing need. However, this investigation will primarily focus on whether the landlord followed its allocations policy, and whether it treated the resident fairly in the circumstances.

Housing allocation scheme

10. The following are the elements of the landlord’s allocation scheme that are relevant to this case:
    1. The landlord assesses the size of home each applicant requires, according to the applicant’s household size and composition, and any other special considerations. The allowed property size is normally one bedroom for the applicant, and one bedroom for two children of the same sex aged under 21.
    2. Tenants may be placed in Band A (emergencies and strategic priorities) for reasons such as risk of violence; a life threatening medical emergency; or a referral from the council’s adult and children’s services where housing is required to prevent significant harm to a child in the family. Such tenants are allowed to bid or be offered an emergency transfer to a property with the same number of bedrooms as their current home.
    3. The landlord’s medical advisor will take into account relevant circumstances including the effect of housing conditions on health. Should there be exceptional circumstances, the landlord may at its discretion allocate to an applicant a property smaller or larger than their allowed property size.
    4. The landlord may limit the number of direct offers, and sanctions may be applied if a property that is suitable is unreasonably refused: these may include suspension from being able to bid or receive further offers, or the placing of the resident in a lower priority band.
    5. If an applicant is dissatisfied with its decision, they can request a review; such a request must be made within 21 days of the date of the decision.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a management transfer to a four-bedroom property

11. It is important to set this case in the context of the chronic shortage of social housing across England, particularly in London. Landlords are required to apply their policies and procedures, which are based on the risk to occupants, when considering applications. This inevitably means that some residents who apply to move home will be given higher priority than others.
12. On receiving a request for a management move, the landlord has an obligation to respond in a reasonable timescale, setting out the resident’s options to enable a successful move. The resident in this case first requested an additional bedroom by way of a management move on 22 May 2018, and the landlord responded to this request within a reasonable timeframe on 25 May 2018.
13. The landlord’s allocation scheme sets out the position relating to tenants who have been placed in Band A. In the absence of evidence from suitably qualified medical professionals, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its housing medical officer, who had carried out two medical assessments of the household. The housing medical officer concluded that an additional bedroom was not warranted in the circumstances.
14. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident stated she had submitted medical evidence to the landlord. We have seen an internal landlord email of September 2020, in which the landlord acknowledged it had received some medical evidence, but it did not specify the nature of that evidence. It is likely that it was referring to the CAMHS letter dated July 2019, and/or to the letters from the GP and school counsellor submitted with it. The CAMHS letter was written by a CAMHS practitioner. The landlord has demonstrated that it took this evidence into account, since it made reference to it in both its stage one and two responses, and noted it did not confirm a pressing need for the resident’s son to have his own room.
15. In the resident’s complaint referral to the Ombudsman, the resident’s representative said that they had sent medical evidence on behalf of the resident to the landlord in 2021. She advised that the resident had previously submitted this evidence to the landlord. The landlord’s responses did not refer to any evidence submitted in 2021, however its records show that it had received some medical evidence previously and that, based on this evidence, its decision was that an additional bedroom could not be agreed.
16. It is unclear whether fresh evidence was submitted to the landlord in 2021. The Ombudsman requested documents from the resident that she had submitted to the landlord between 2019 and 2021. In response, the resident provided a number of documents from CAMHS, the GP’s surgery, her son’s school counsellor, and a health and wellbeing practitioner, dated 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023. The document dated 2022 was a GP referral letter. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any medical documents dated 2020 or 2021.
17. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged that various documents were submitted and, when reviewed by the allocations manager, the landlord considered it appropriate to reject the request for a four-bedroom property. In light of this and the above information from the resident, it is reasonable to conclude that the documents dated 2018 to 2019 were resubmitted in 2021, and that the landlord took this medical evidence into account when making its decision. However, the landlord should have made it clear if the medical evidence received in 2021 was simply copies of evidence previously submitted.
18. Additionally, the landlord’s terminology in its complaint responses was unclear. It stated that the resident had not supplied any documentation from mental health professionals. However, the resident submitted evidence from CAMHS, GP referrals, and school counsellor’s letters. It was therefore understandable that the resident believed that this evidence would have been adequate. This would have caused confusion and distress to her. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s language in this respect could have been clearer, and therefore a recommendation about this has been made below.
19. Having said that, the landlord did consistently and specifically request an assessment and referral from a psychologist or psychiatrist, and made it clear to the resident it was prepared to reconsider its decision if this type of medical evidence was received. Given that such evidence was not received, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its own housing medical officer.
20. The landlord explained its position in its responses to the complaint, and offered information on additional options to help facilitate a move. While the resident’s home situation was clearly distressing and frustrating for her, the landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectations by making her aware that the demand for secure and affordable housing outweighed the supply.
21. It was also reasonable for the landlord to recommend alternative housing options, and to make the resident three offers of alternative accommodation, each being a three-bedroom property not in the vicinity of the location where the crime witnessed by the resident’s son took place, which would therefore serve to mitigate the resident’s concerns. This was in line with its housing allocations scheme, which considers the composition of this particular family, and that tenants in Band A are allowed to bid or be offered an emergency transfer to a property with the same number of bedrooms as their current three-bedroom home.
22. As the resident did not accept the offers but stated that she required a four-bedroom house, the landlord again asked for medical evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist to support an assessment for an additional bedroom. The landlord has stated that such this evidence had not been provided and, without this evidence, a need for an additional bedroom cannot be reassessed.
23. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with an email of a CAMHS assessment summary of her son by a senior counselling psychologist. This summary is dated July 2023 and indicates a comprehensive assessment letter will be shared in due course. The resident has indicated she had submitted this to the landlord. With respect to the landlord’s handling of the request for a transfer to a four-bedroom property, its final response was dated July 2022. As such, the landlord had not had sight of this medical summary and therefore was unable to take it into consideration in its final response. With this in mind, another recommendation has been made below.
24. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the approach taken by the landlord was satisfactory, and that there is no evidence to suggest that the resident has been treated unfavourably. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident; however, the evidence available has shown that, overall, the landlord acted promptly and fairly and in accordance with its policy when responding to the resident’s requests for a managed move.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a management transfer to a four-bedroom property.

Recommendations

26. The landlord should ensure it uses clear terminology in its complaint responses to avoid possible misinterpretation about the nature of medical evidence required.
27. The landlord should continue to work with the resident to enable a move and, should it be provided with medical evidence from a mental health professional, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, that it considers demonstrates a pressing medical need for an additional bedroom, then the landlord should seriously consider granting permission to the resident to bid on four-bedroom properties.