London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207948

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 May 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 application to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has confirmed medical vulnerabilities that affect his mobility.
3. The resident resided in a second floor flat, which was accessed by stairs. On 19 August 2021, the resident submitted a medical assessment form as part of an application to move properties. He stated that he wished to relocate to a ground-floor property for ease of access. The resident confirmed with the landlord on 27 August 2021 that he had sent his form with all relevant information attached from his GP. The landlord acknowledged receipt of his application on 6 September 2021, and stated that once processed the resident would receive a response in four to six weeks. The resident did not receive a response within that timeframe. He chased the landlord for an update and re-sent the medical evidence on 1 November 2021.
4. On 24 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and asked for his supporting medical documents again. The resident made a complaint on 27 February 2022 because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication in this matter and the delays in processing his medical assessment. After the landlord failed to respond, the resident complained again in July 2022. The landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement on 5 July 2022.
5. After intervention from this Service, the landlord sent a stage two response on 2 August 2022. It stated that the resident had failed to attach medical evidence on his application in August 2021. Shortly after, its rehousing service had been frozen and all medical applications placed on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It reopened the service in February 2022, and contacted the resident about his application. The landlord explained that the resident’s medical form was due to be sent off for assessment that week. It stated that due to the service being frozen, there had been a backlog of cases. The landlord offered the resident a total of £290 compensation, in recognition of his distress, inconvenience, time and effort and its failings in complaint handling.
6. On 24 August 2022 the landlord confirmed with the resident that it had sent his medical assessment and supporting evidence to be reviewed. It stated that the resident would have a response by 13 October 2022. The landlord also explained that due to a shortage in available properties, those available would be prioritised for residents with a severe or urgent need to move. It advised that the resident’s application would be assessed in-line with the new criteria; therefore. it was imperative that the resident considered a mutual exchange in order to move homes.
7. In his complaint to this Service in October 2022, the resident stated that the landlord had still not responded to him regarding his rehousing application. He explained that this was despite submitting the appropriate documentation 13 months prior in August 2021. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor communication and complaint handling throughout the process.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. Under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has mentioned in his complaint to this Service that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision regarding his Mutual Exchange application. Within the evidence, it does not appear that this matter has been raised as a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident should raise this matter formally with the landlord if he remains dissatisfied with the outcome, in order for the landlord to have the opportunity to respond accordingly. The focus of this assessment will therefore centre on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused based on his medical assessment, and its complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused.

9. The landlord’s transfer policy states that it operates a rehousing list in order to rehouse existing residents on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. This is following the closure of the landlord’s central based lettings system, due to a property shortage. The landlord aims to allocate homes to those in the greatest housing need. It will offer practical housing advice to its existing residents when they wish to move and will promote mutual exchange opportunities. It will only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation.
10. According to the landlord’s Rehousing (Maintenance Disrepair and Asset Management) Standard Operating procedure, residents may be applicable to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list if their circumstances meet certain criteria. Given examples include where a resident has significant medical needs or disabilities which mean that they are unable to remain in their home.
11. The same policy states that where the resident has medical requirements, the landlord will ask the resident to obtain the necessary evidence to support a referral and to complete a medical assessment form. This will then be sent to an independent medical advisor. If the advisor recommends that the resident is given an offer of alternative accommodation, the landlord will advise the resident of this outcome, explaining that their application will be presented to a rehousing panel for a final decision.
12. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the above rehousing policy, by asking the resident to fill out a medical assessment form and to supply evidence to support his application in August 2021. The landlord also explained to the resident on 6 September 2021 that he should pursue a Mutual Exchange of his property while waiting for his application to be processed. The landlord has stated that it needed to close its rehousing list shortly after the resident sent in his application, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It has explained that it followed up with the resident about his application once the list reopened in February 2022.
13. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord notified the resident of the closure of the re-housing list. In contrast, the evidence shows that the resident continued to chase for an update on his application. The landlord in turn responded to the resident supplying varying estimations on timescale for his application, without explaining to the resident that it was not processing applications for rehousing at that time. This was not reasonable.
14. While it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have closed the rehousing list, the landlord should have continued to manage the resident’s expectations during this time. In-line with general good customer service standards, the landlord should have contacted the resident, and explained that the list was closed. Similarly, it should have contacted the resident once the list reopened and supplied an accurate timescale to the resident in the interim.
15. Once the landlord began to process the resident’s application in February 2022, it discovered that it could not find the supporting evidence that it had requested from the resident in August 2021. This was despite acknowledging the resident’s application in September 2021, and the resident also re-sending his medical evidence under his own initiative in November 2021. The landlord should have been more proactive in identifying if any information was missing. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that the landlord was struggling to open the resident’s files. It asked the resident to provide his evidence for the third time in February 2022, which he supplied in March 2022. This caused further delays to the resident’s application, which was not appropriate and was of no fault of the resident’s.
16. The landlord initially stated to the resident that once his application had been processed, it would take four to six weeks to gain a response. It later extended this time period to 10 to 12 weeks. However, despite gaining the required supporting information from the resident in March 2022, the landlord only sent the resident’s application to be assessed in August 2022. This was a year after the resident had initially applied to be re-housed, and at least six months after the rehousing list had re-opened. Although the landlord later explained that this delay was due to a backlog in applications, it again failed to manage the resident’s expectations in the interim while he was waiting for a response. The landlord’s lack of consistent communication throughout the resident’s application was a failing in the circumstances.
17. In the landlord’s complaint response, it acted appropriately by acknowledging that there had been delays in its handling of the resident’s application. It explained that this was due to a backlog of cases due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The landlord also offered £190 compensation for this aspect of the complaint, which was broken down into £80 for distress, £60 for inconvenience, as well as for £50 time and effort.
18. However, the landlord failed to address its lack of communication throughout the process. This was not appropriate, as the resident had specifically complained about this aspect. The landlord also did not take responsibility for failing to realise sooner that it could not find the resident’s supporting information. While the landlord did explain that Covid-19 had created a backlog, it did not acknowledge the impact this delay would have had on the resident. It also did not apologise for any inconvenience this had caused. Recognising the impact on the resident and offering an apology would have been a more effective way of taking responsibility for the failings in this case. Overall, the landlord needed to ensure that its response identified all its failings, acknowledged them unreservedly to the resident, and put them right. While it was appropriate of the landlord to have offered compensation, it needed to take these further steps to fully take accountability for its errors in this case.

The landlords handling of the complaint.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will write to the resident with the outcome of its investigation, within ten working days of receiving the complaint. The landlord can extend this timescale by a maximum of a further ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will then respond to the resident within 20 working days. If this is not possible, the landlord can extend this timescale again by a maximum of ten working days. Additionally, this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) states that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident.
20. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 27 February 2022. The landlord failed to respond to this complaint, which is contrary to both the landlord’s complaint policy laid out above, and this Service’s code. The resident has explained that he submitted another complaint in July 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint and escalated it to stage two of its procedure on 5 July 2022. After intervention from this Service, the landlord responded with a stage two response on 2 August 2022. This was over five months after the resident submitted his initial complaint, and was well outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy laid out above.
21. Although the landlord stated in its final response that the resident’s complaint had been passed around to different departments, it did not explain why this occurred. It also did not acknowledge that this was poor practice and had caused significant delays. Additionally, the landlord did not apologise for its failure to abide by its own policy. It did however offer the resident £100 for its poor complaint handling. This amount is in-line with the landlord’s compensation policy and somewhat in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (which can be found on our website). However further compensation is due, given that the landlord failed to provide a stage one response which meant that it did not provide the resident an opportunity to set out why he remained dissatisfied. Additionally, the code also states that the landlord should endeavour to identify its failings, acknowledge them and explain why they occurred. It also explains that an apology can act as partial redress for failings and the landlord failed to do so.
22. Acknowledging failings and apologising for them is an important part of complaint handling, as it helps to alleviate the resident’s frustration and show that the landlord understands where it went wrong. It also gives the landlord the opportunity to review its actions and learn from any mistakes.  Without doing so, the landlord did not offer sufficient redress to fully recognise its failings in this case.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

25. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused, including its poor communication and significant delays.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
26. The above compensation is inclusive of the amount offered by the landlord.
27. The landlord should continue to support the resident in finding a suitable way to move properties, setting out what his options currently are.
28. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of this report.