Peabody Trust (202128179)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128179

Peabody Trust

19 April 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred on medical grounds.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom flat with his partner and their two children. The resident has been classed as vulnerable by the landlord, as he receives care and support services for his mental ill-health.
  2. The resident reported that he applied to the landlord from 2015 onwards to be rehoused from his property to larger alternative accommodation, on the basis of the above overcrowding there, and the effect that this had on his pre-existing mental health conditions. His requests to it for priority for his application for a transfer on medical grounds were declined by it, however, after assessments of the evidence that he provided to it by the external medical advisers that it contracted.
  3. The resident then reportedly made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2022 about its handling of his transfer application. He complained that it had not considered that his one-bedroom property was overcrowded by him, his two children and his partner, nor his mental health conditions.
  4. The resident subsequently obtained supporting evidence from his mental health centre’s crisis service on behalf of his consultant psychiatrist on 10 May 2022. This outlined that he had serious long-term mental health conditions, that he was being treated for a recent relapse, and that the stress of his family’s housing situation had contributed to this. The evidence therefore requested that the resident’s and his family’s mental health be taken into account when resolving their current accommodation.
  5. After being asked to respond to the resident’s complaint by this Service on 28 June 2022, the landlord’s stage one complaint responses of 7 to 8 July 2022 nevertheless explained that he had again been declined medical priority for his transfer application by its medical advisers in May 2022. It stated that he had not responded to its request for further supporting medical evidence for this from him on 29 June 2022. As the landlord added that the resident did not appeal the medical advisers’ decision within the 28 days that he had to do so, it would follow their decision as its staff were not medically trained, unless he provided further evidence.
  6. The landlord also corrected its initial complaint response’s mistake that the resident had a two-bedroom property that meant that he was not overcrowded, and it confirmed that he had low band D priority for a transfer for overcrowding. This was because he required one extra bedroom for his children until his oldest child was ten years old, when his priority band would change to B4 for severe overcrowding for requiring two extra bedrooms, for which it asked him to contact it at that time to update this. The landlord additionally stated that the resident could consider completing a new medical assessment if his conditions became worse, and it advised him to seek a mutual exchange due to its very large transfer list and lack of available properties.
  7. The resident then escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 9 August 2022, as he was dissatisfied that it was not assisting him further with his family’s overcrowding and his disability. He also requested another medical assessment from iton3 August 2022, for which its medical advisers moved him from low overcrowding priority transfer band D to high medical priority transfer band B1 on 1 September 2022.This was because they noted the impact of the overcrowding on the resident’s mental health, which meant that he should have his own bedroom.
  8. The resident subsequently chased a response to his final stage complaint from the landlord on 2 September 2022, outlining that its delays were affecting his physical and mental health. Its final stage complaint response of 7 September 2022 then outlined that, although he had been moved to a high priority banding, this did not mean that he would be rehoused imminently. This was because of the shortage of housing stock available to the landlord. It therefore again advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange.
  9. The landlord also awarded the resident £150 compensation for his time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter, and for the delay in its final stage complaint response and its incorrect initial stage one complaint response. It additionally apologised to him for these failings, and it agreed to recommend that its complaints team ensure that details were correct when drafting complaint responses.
  10. The resident then complained to this Service because he was unhappy with how the landlord had handled his request to be rehoused for his property being overcrowded and his medical conditions. He believed that its handling of his request, and its delays in updating his priority band, had led to him missing out on suitable properties. The resident therefore sought an immediate urgent priority band A management transfer to larger alternative accommodation to avoid the overcrowding and lack of space making his mental ill-health worse.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is very concerning that the resident has requested to be moved into a different property immediately, due to the overcrowding in his current property and the impact of this on his mental ill-health, which is not disputed. However, this Service is unable to consider his request to be moved for this immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have the authority to order this under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within our authority to provide. What this investigation can look at is whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s rehousing request, and his formal complaint about this, which are addressed below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred on medical grounds

  1. The landlord’s rehousing policy states that its transfer applicants will be placed in the B1 health and disability priority band for a transfer if they or a member of their household are assessed as having a need to move due to a medical condition, in order to avoid or significantly reduce the likelihood of permanent damage or disability. It is obliged to arrange for this to be independently assessed where it believes that this is applicable, which can be appealed within four weeks.
  2. The landlord’s priority move panel has discretion under the rehousing policy to assess its transfer applicants for the highest band A priority for decants, or for management transfers for likely threats of violence, abuse, harassment or hate crimes, as well as for exceptional social, educational or economic needs. Applicants without the above priority, or who are not under-occupying or severely overcrowded by two or more bedrooms, are placed in the D lower priority band for its residents without priority. The policy confirms that an adult couple with two children who can share a bedroom require a two-bedroom property to avoid being overcrowded.
  3. Therefore, while the resident reported to the landlord, including from 21 March 2022 onwards, that he and his partner and their two children aged under ten years old were overcrowded in their one-bedroom property, its rehousing policy only obliged it to place him in priority band D for a transfer for this. This is because they were only overcrowded by one bedroom under the policy, which did not permit it to place him in a higher priority band for this. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident of this on 7 to 8 July 2022, and that he had to wait for his oldest child to turn ten years old in order to be placed in a higher priority band for severe overcrowding by needing two bedrooms.
  4. The fact that the landlord also explained that its external medical advisers had assessed the resident’s medical evidence in May 2022, and did not give him health and disability priority for a transfer, meant that it was required by the rehousing policy to not place him in priority band B1 for this either. It is of concern that this was the outcome of the assessment when he had supporting evidence of his housing situation affecting his serious long-term mental health conditions, provided by his mental health centre’s crisis service on behalf of his consultant psychiatrist on 10 May 2022.
  5. However, the landlord additionally confirmed that the resident had not responded to its request for further supporting medical evidence from him on 29 June 2022, or appealed the medical advisers’ decision within the 28 days permitted by its rehousing policy. It was therefore reasonable that it informed him that it would follow their decision unless he provided it with further evidence, particularly because it invited him to complete a new medical assessment to seek health and disability priority for his transfer application if his conditions became worse, which he did not do at that time.
  6. When the resident then requested another medical assessment from the landlord on 3 August 2022, its medical advisers confirmed that he had a high medical priority to be rehoused by placing him in priority band B1 for his health and disability on 1 September 2022. This was because they noted that the impact of the overcrowding by one room at his property on his mental health, which meant that he should have his own bedroom, which it appropriately confirmed to him on 7 September 2022.
  7. While the resident reported that the landlord delayed upgrading his transfer priority, and that this in turn led to him missing out on suitable properties, it was not responsible for the lack of further supporting medical evidence for this, or of an appeal of its medical advisers’ decision in May 2022. It was additionally not responsible for the length of time that it took for another medical assessment to be requested from it on 3 August 2022, for which there is no evidence that it delayed the medical advisers’ acceptance of his priority on 1 September 2022, or its communication of this to him on 7 September 2022.
  8. Moreover, the landlord acted appropriately in the meantime by advising the resident from7 to 8July 2022 onwards that he should seek a mutual exchange to try and move to more suitable alternative accommodation, as it had a very large transfer list and a lack of available properties. It was also reasonable that it subsequently explained to him that, although his transfer priority had been upgraded, this did not mean that he would be transferred imminently because it still had a shortage of housing stock.
  9. With regard to the resident’s request for band A priority for his transfer application, there is no evidence that he met the criteria under the landlord’s rehousing policy for its priority move panel to consider this. This is because there is no evidence that he was being decanted, fleeing likely threats of violence, abuse, harassment or hate crimes, or moving for exceptional social, educational or economic needs. As the landlord also had discretion under the policy to decide whether or not to award such priority for these reasons, it would not have been obliged to award this to the resident if they had been present in his case. Although it has been recommended below to contact him to discuss whether any of these reasons apply to his case, and the evidence required to show this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its stage one complaint responses within ten working days. The resident reportedly made his stage one complaint it on 21 March 2022, and it issued its response on 7 to 8 July 2022, which was at least 73 working days later. Therefore, while neither party provided this Service with evidence of when the stage one complaint was made or received, the landlord’s stage one complaint response was well outside of the timeframe in its complaints policy, by up to 63 working days, for which this Service also had to chase it on 28 June 2022. It was additionally required to correct its incorrect reference to the size of the resident’s property in its initial stage one complaint response.
  2. In relation to its final stage complaint response, the landlord responded to the resident’s final stage complaint of 9 August 2022 within its complaints policy’s 20-working-day final stage response timescale on 7 September 2022. While it offered him £100 compensation for a delay in this response, as well as for the above incorrect details in its stage one response, it appeared to have mistaken this for the delayed stage one response. Under the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy, awards of between £51 to £150 are appropriate where there has been a failure to follow its complaints policy, or to correctly investigate a complaint, resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress this.
  3. Therefore, as the landlord also awarded the resident £50 compensation for his time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter, it recognised its above failings appropriately in accordance with its compensation and remedies policy. This amount is additionally in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, where compensation from £100 is recommended for failures which adversely affected the resident, and so it has been recommended below to pay him the £150 that it previously awarded to him, if he has not received this already.
  4. Moreover, the landlord showed that it had learnt from the outcome of the resident’s complaint by apologising in its final stage complaint response that it had provided incorrect information about his circumstances in its initial stage one complaint response, as well as for its complaint handling delay. It therefore explained that it had recommended learning for its complaints team to ensure that details are correct when drafting a complaint response, which was appropriate for it to seek to prevent this from occurring again in the future.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be transferred on medical grounds.
  2. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved his complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £150 compensation that it previously awarded to him, if he has not received this already.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss whether there are exceptional social, educational or economic needs in his case for an assessment by its priority move panel, and the evidence required to show this.