London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202099

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

11 September 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 response to a request for a housing transfer and the handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom second floor flat. She lives with her 2 children, one of whom has medical conditions.
3. On 21 January 2022 the resident applied to the landlord to be re-housed due to her child’s medical needs and provided the landlord with various medical evidence. This was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. At the end of February 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord responded on 10 March 2022 and informed the resident that it would take a minimum of 8-10 weeks for her application to be assessed.
4. On 29 April 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint as she was unhappy with the length of time it would take to assess her application. The landlord responded with a stage 1 response the same day. It said that the demand for housing had increased since its transfer list had closed in May 2021. Therefore, it had taken the decision to temporarily suspend referrals into its housing service and that the resident would need to speak with the local authority about being re-housed.
5. On 10 May 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that her child could not walk up the stairs without discomfort and that she had set out her reasons for an urgent transfer in her application form, but this was being ignored. Additionally, she said that the landlord was failing to address the issue and that it had a duty of care and responsibility towards her and her family. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request that same day.
6. On 16 June 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was currently working through a backlog which was causing a delay in her application being assessed by an independent medical advisor (IMA). It advised that she should expect a response by 11 August 2022. On 4 July 2022 the landlord informed the resident in writing that she had not been approved for a housing transfer on medical grounds. It stated that the qualifying criteria were very high due to a shortage of properties. It added that she would need to provide further medical information to have the decision reassessed.
7. The resident was unhappy with the decision and chased a response to her stage 2 complaint in August 2022 and again in January 2023. She felt that the landlord was not addressing her child’s medical situation respectfully or with serious consideration. She also explained that the longer her child was left in the flat the greater the risk there was to their safety and health.
8. On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
   1. That due to a backlog of complaints at stage 2 the complaint was not allocated to the reviewing officer until 9 January 2023 and it apologised for the delays.
   2. It acknowledged that it should have informed the resident that her medical evidence had been received and was being assessed.
   3. The IMA made the decision based on government guidelines and the information that was provided. It would only be able to reassess if there were additional supporting documents.
   4. It would consider a fresh medical assessment with a supporting occupational therapist (OT) report.
   5. That if she was accepted for a medical transfer the wait for a property could be more than 24 months due to the number of available properties.
   6. There were other options for moving such as a mutual exchange.
   7. It offered a total of £480 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delay in stage 2 response, £100 for service failure, £100 for time and effort, and £180 for distress and inconvenience.
9. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said it was disrespectful that the landlord was still requesting further medical information regarding her son’s medical conditions and that it was the landlord’s obligation to make sure housing was safe for children. Further, she added that the landlord had refused to acknowledge the copious amounts of medical information provided to it.

Assessment and findings

10. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

11. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
12. The landlord’s re-housing procedure states if a resident has medical requirements, they will need to submit a medical assessment form so it can be sent to the IMA. Further, it adds “If the IMA does not recommend that the resident is given an offer of alternative accommodation, the Rehousing Manager will phone the resident to advise them of the outcome and discuss next steps. It may be that the resident can provide further medical evidence so that their case can be reassessed. Alternatively, the Rehousing Manager will offer housing options advice”.
13. Had the landlord informed the resident before March 2022 of how long its assessment would take it is likely the resident would not have chased it for an update. However, it failed to do so and the resident chased the landlord for an update on at least 2 separate occasions. While this would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord apologised for this error and offered compensation to ‘put things right’. This was a reasonable remedy because it was proportionate and relevant to the scale of the error.
14. The landlord informed the resident on 10 March 2022 that the outcome of the assessment could take at least 8 to 10 weeks and that if she was successful it could take up to 24 months for a move. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response confused matters. It advised the resident that it had suspended referrals to its re-housing service. It stated that this was a temporary pause to allow it to review existing cases and advised the resident to speak to the local authority regarding being rehoused. While it was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations around timescales, its stage 1 response was incorrect, and it was answering a complaint that had not been made. Further, it failed to adequately address her complaint about the time it would take to assess her transfer application.
15. The IMA assessed the resident’s medical form at the end of June 2022. While the landlord did not phone the resident in line with its procedure, it did advise the resident of the outcome in writing within one week of the IMA assessment. This was within a reasonable timescale, and its response accurately reflected the IMA’s findings. It also correctly informed the resident that her application could be reassessed upon the submission of further medical information and provided her with alternative housing options such as a mutual exchange. Overall, the landlord’s response was broadly in line with its procedure and there was no evidence that her reasons for an urgent housing transfer were being ignored.
16. The resident questioned the decision and felt that the landlord already had enough medical information and that it had not given serious consideration to the evidence provided. The landlord responded to these concerns within 12 working days. This was a reasonable timescale. It again advised that the evidence provided did not meet the threshold for a housing transfer and provided clarification on the type of medical evidence that would be needed for her application to be reassessed by the IMA. This demonstrated a willingness to help resolve the resident’s concerns.
17. The resident submitted further medical evidence to the landlord in November and December 2022. This included a letter from a clinical nurse; however, it is not entirely clear whether the landlord fully considered this evidence. While it is acknowledged that the landlord said it would only consider new medical evidence in conjunction with an OT report, this is not in line with its procedure and therefore, the landlord should consider any new medical evidence provided by the resident and respond to it accordingly. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy states thatit will respond at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days of the request to escalate. Yet it took the landlord almost nine months to provide it stage 2 response. This was anunacceptable delay that would have caused significant frustration to the resident. It was, therefore, appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this failing and offer redress to ‘put things right’.
19. The landlord’s communication with the resident prior to her formal complaint was poor. It failed to update her on the status of her application and the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. Further, its complaint handling was unsatisfactory. Its stage 1 response was inadequate and there was a considerable delay in issuing its final response. While these failings would have caused distress and frustration to the resident, the landlord apologised and offered redress for its errors, including £480 compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this service’s guidance and proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
20. The resident’s housing situation is understandably frustrating, and it is not underestimated how challenging this must be for her and her family. However, it was in line with its procedure for the landlord to rely on the findings of the IMA in determining whether a housing transfer should be offered. Moreover, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by making her aware of the limited availability of housing stock and how long it may take to find a suitable property, should she be successful in securing a housing transfer. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable because it accurately reflected the current housing shortage and availability. It was also reasonable for the landlord to recommend alternative housing options.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s response to a request for a housing transfer and the handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

22. It is recommended that the landlord review any new medical evidence provided to it by the resident and it should consider whether any new evidence meets the criteria for reassessment by the IMA. The landlord should also update the resident on its findings.