Haringey London Borough Council (202220851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220851

Haringey London Borough Council

14 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s management move,
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a two-bedroom maisonette across two stories.
3. The resident has osteoarthritis and spinal nerve damage.
4. The resident previously had a complaint with this Service in 2021. This complaint was about the landlord’s handling of a management transfer. The landlord agreed to make the resident a final offer of accommodation in line with her medical recommendations as part of the complaint resolution. Following this, the landlord offered a final property to the resident, and she accepted. Her tenancy began on 2 May 2022, and she moved into the property on 12 June 2022.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 16 September 2022. She was unhappy the property offered by the landlord had stairs, despite it being aware of her disability. She felt pressured by the landlord to take this property and felt this move had made her health worse. She asked the landlord to offer a new, more suitable property based on her medical needs.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 28 September 2022. It did not uphold her complaint. It stated that the resident had advised during calls that she could manage stairs and would be willing to accept a flat on the first floor. It said it had offered the property to her as she was desperate to move and because of the high volume of calls. The landlord recognised that it ‘should have offered [her] a property in line with the medical recommendations which were outlined in the medical assessment’.
7. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. She said the landlord had misunderstood her when she said she would accept an all-level first-floor flat with up to 12 steps leading to the flat. She said she raised concerns when viewing the flat, but the landlord told her she would not receive any other offers. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 December 2022. Once again, it did not uphold her complaint. It said it could not reach a firm conclusion about where the fault lay for the property’s unsuitability. However, it explained its letting team had considered the medical condition, but the property taken was a like-for-like offer.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 9 December 2022. She said she felt pressured into accepting the property. She also said she cannot always manage using the stairs due to her health. She said she often must use a bucket to go to the toilet and has to sleep downstairs. She wanted the landlord to move her to a ground-floor property without stairs to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.

9. The resident previously brought a complaint to this Service which was settled as reasonable redress with the landlord confirming that it would make one final offer to the resident in line with the medical recommendations. The landlord confirmed at the time the “medical recommendations are that she should have a ground floor property if there is no lift or that [she] can have any floor with a lift”.
10. The medical recommendations, however, state that a house or a maisonette with stairs is not suitable. The resident’s property has thirteen stairs, with her bedroom and bathroom upstairs. The medical recommendations received by the landlord say that the resident could handle a few steps leading up to the property, but explicitly not inside the property. The offer made by the landlord was not in line with the medical recommendations it had received and not in accordance with its previous position that it would make a final offer accommodating these recommendations.
11. The landlord has stated that the resident told it she could handle the stairs within the property. It has not provided this Service with any evidence of these conversations. The landlord should review its record-keeping policy to ensure that it is able to adequately ensure it has evidence-based practice that has informed its decision-making processes.
12. The resident has told this Service that she felt forced to accept the offer as this was the final offer the landlord would make, and she was desperate to get out of her previous living situation. The landlord also confirmed it would not have made any further offers to the resident. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have ensured its final offer was acceptable and medically suitable.
13. The lack of suitable housing available to the resident meant she accepted an unsuitable property given her medical needs. This service acknowledges the demand for affordable social housing far exceeds supply, especially for ground floor accommodation. However, the medical recommendations explicitly say the resident cannot manage a house or a maisonette with stairs. The landlord has, therefore, not treated the resident fairly when offering her this property.
14. The landlord’s actions in helping the resident to facilitate a move out of the area when she was desperate does, however, represent good practice. However, it should not have placed the resident permanently in an unsuitable property. It should have either kept her on the waiting list for a management move until a suitable property became available or considered investigating whether it was feasible to make the necessary adjustments to make the property medically suitable. This service has seen that making adjustments was considered in the landlord’s internal correspondence however it has provided no update on this.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that it should have offered the resident a property in line with the medical recommendations. It does not appear to have attempted to do anything to put this failing right.
16. At stage 2 the landlord stated that the management move was granted due to the risk to the resident, and not on medical grounds. It also said that although the offer would be like-for-like, its lettings team would take the resident’s medical condition into consideration. However, it does not appear the resident’s medical condition was appropriately considered. This was not, therefore, a reasonable or fair course of action taken by the landlord.
17. The landlord was therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the management move. It failed to properly consider the resident’s medical requirements meaning that the final offer it made to the resident was not a fair offer.
18. In accordance with this service’s remedies guidance the landlord has made no attempt to put things right, despite recognising its failing. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £300 in compensation. It should also make one final offer for a management transfer to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a response at stage 1within 10 working days, and a complaint at stage 2 within 25 working days.
20. At stage 1 the landlord provided its response within 10 working days. This was fair behaviour and represented actions in line with its policies.
21. At stage 2 the landlord failed to provide its response within 25 working days. It advised the resident it needed more time after 29 working days and provided its stage 2 response 31 working days the complaint was escalated.
22. The landlord’s responses were fair in content and tone.
23. Although the landlord provided its stage 2 response six days after the timeline set out by its policies, this service does not believe this caused additional distress or inconvenience to the resident. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £300 for its maladministration in failing to handle the resident’s management move in a fair and reasonable manner.
    2. The landlord should provide written confirmation to the resident that it will make one final offer for a management transfer to the resident. This offer should accommodate the medical recommendations as it said it should have in its stage 1 response. It should clearly communicate with the resident about realistic timelines and availability of suitable properties.
    3. Provide evidence it has done so to this Service.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should consider updating its complaints policy to bring this in line with this Service’s complaint handling code.
28. The landlord should review its record-keeping policy to ensure that it is able to evidence its practice that has informed its decision-making processes.
29. The landlord should consider exploring options of making adaptations to the property in accordance with its adaptations policy and with guidance from an occupational therapist.