London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202014974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014974

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 November 2021

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for re-housing.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.
3. The landlord changing its housing allocation policy.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord changing its housing allocation policy.
It is noted that in a conversation with this Service on 19 May 2021, the resident mentioned her dissatisfaction with the landlord changing its Allocations and Lettings policy, which meant she would have to begin the housing application in line with the new procedure and re-apply. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect through its internal complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to approach the Ombudsman at that stage.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a first-floor, two-bedroom flat. The landlord operated an internal housing register for residents wishing to transfer to another property of the landlord (this system was discontinued in May 2021). Applicants who wished to transfer properties were awarded a ‘Band’ based on their circumstances, which then allowed applicants to bid for suitable properties. Residents were placed into one of the following bands:
1. Band 1 – Decants
2. Band 2 – Under Occupiers
3. Band 3 – Medical Priority Cases
4. Band 4 – All other cases
The landlord received the resident’s transfer application on 22 May 2017. The transfer request was accepted on 29 June 2017, which enabled the resident to access the landlord’s choice-based lettings (CBL) system and bid for properties; the resident was able to bid for two properties per week and she was placed at Band 4.
On 14 August 2018 the resident’s support worker wrote to the landlord in support of the resident’s request to move properties. The letter requested the resident be moved to a ground-floor flat, as the resident struggled climbing the stairs, especially with her new-born child.
The resident completed a medical assessment form on 19 September 2018, which the landlord received on 5 October 2018.
On 31 December 2018 the independent medical advisor wrote to the landlord to confirm that, although long-term prognosis was favourable, it was reasonable to support a move. It explained that the family had evolved into an overcrowded situation and the resident’s coping skills were stretched. Moreover, the resident was concerned about the risk of falls and struggled to access her property, due to being on the first floor. It concluded by advising that the application should be reviewed if there were further medical concerns.
In a letter, dated 7 January 2019, the landlord confirmed that the resident had been assessed for medical priority by its independent medical advisor and based on their advice, she had been awarded medical priority for a transfer. It confirmed that her transfer application was now in Band 3, and she could continue to bid on advertised homes matching her needs.
The landlord’s records note that the resident called on 27 September 2019 and was advised to register for a mutual exchange.
On 20 November 2019 the landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident who informed it that the properties on the CBL system only showed properties that were above the second floor. The notes state that she was advised that there were very limited properties available and that a mutual exchange was the most advisable route for a move.
The landlord’s records note that the resident called on 27 February 2020 to say that there were no suitable properties to transfer to. It was noted that the resident felt she should have been on a higher priority/band.
The resident made a formal complaint on 8 November 2020 in regard to the following:
1. The resident was unhappy with the way the landlord had managed her transfer application. She explained that she first submitted her application in July 2017, but, since then, her family had increased in size (three young children), and the property was now overcrowded. She advised that her health had significantly deteriorated as a result. She also mentioned that because there were no lifts in the building, the property was no longer suitable for a family with young children, and she also raised concerns about antisocial behaviour. She contended that the landlord had not assisted her with her transfer application and had intentionally ignored her situation. She said that the CBL system only showed she was eligible for one-bedroom properties when she instead required three-bedrooms, and a mutual exchange had not been possible, as she had hoped.
The resident concluded by requesting to be moved to a more suitable property immediately, and for the landlord to actively monitor and manage her housing application.
Following a conversation with the resident, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 November 2020 advising it would investigate the length of time and status of the resident’s transfer application. The landlord confirmed that a response would be provided by 24 November 2020.
The landlord’s notes show that the resident was pursuing an update regarding her complaint on 24 November 2020.
On 28 November 2020 the resident resent her original complaint stating that the issue remained unresolved.
In the landlord’s complaint response of 10 December 2020, it explained that the resident had applied for a transfer to a larger property on 22 May 2017. Since then, she had been registered on its CBL website allowing her to bid for any suitable properties that become available. Unfortunately, it said, due to the very high demand for properties, the resident had not yet been successful in securing a larger property. It confirmed that any offer of accommodation would only be made once a successful bid had been placed.
The landlord also confirmed that she had been awarded medical priority by an independent medical advisor, which meant that she would have moved from Band 4 and placed into Band 3. It confirmed that it had organised for a staff member to discuss the resident’s moving options and provide further support, as well as encouraging her to consider other options such as a mutual exchange, which it said was the most successful way of securing a new property (details of how to register for a mutual exchange were included in the complaint response).
On 6 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm her complaint had been closed due to no response from her. The resident responded that same day, explaining there had been a delay in her response but she was now in a position to provide the following reply:
1. She explained that her medical application for a transfer would expire after four years, yet the landlord had not helped her find suitable accommodation during this time. She did not understand why she had been placed on Band 3 and not Band 1 or 2, as her medical condition had deteriorated further still, and she did not understand why she had been advised that she did not need to complete a further medical assessment as her condition has changed.
On 10 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating the issue remained unresolved and attached her original complaint.
On 25 February 2021 the resident brought the complaint to this Service, explaining that the issue had not been resolved in the several months since she first made contact with the landlord. Moreover, the resident said that the landlord had not responded to her complaint, advising that it had only contacted her once via telephone to say that the matter had been escalated.
On 1 March 2021, this Service contacted the landlord and requested that it provide the resident with a formal response to her complaint within 15 working days.
The landlord’s records on 1 April 2021 note that the resident called it to explain that she had not heard anything from the landlord about the next steps. She reiterated that she wished to have the complaint escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process.
Meanwhile, the landlord sent a letter (undated) to the resident explaining that the way in which it helped residents move properties was changing. This meant that, as of 3 May 2021, she would no longer have a transfer application with the landlord and would therefore not be able to log on to the landlord’s website to search for available homes. It confirmed that it may still be able to assist her through its rehousing service if her medical condition was severe and meant that she was unable to access her property or parts of her home. The landlord advised that, if she would like it to reassess her medical priority, she would need to submit a new medical application along with her supporting documentation dated within the past 12 months. Details of other re-housing options were provided such as a mutual exchange.
On 28 April 2021, the resident called this Service to state she had yet to receive a response from the landlord. She also mentioned that the landlord had closed her housing application without her consent and thereby wasted four years as she had to start the application process again. She said her current property was not suitable and was sleeping in the living room due to the repairs required. She said that the condition of the property was affecting hers and her children’s health and therefore she needed to move.
That same day, this Service contacted the landlord to request a response be provided within five working days.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter on 30 April 2021, confirming that it would provide a response by 31 May 2021.
The resident called this Service on 10 May 2021 to advise she had still not received a response to her complaint.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 12 May 2021, the landlord began by apologising for the delay in providing its response and it offered £20.00 compensation in light of this. It then reiterated its position that moving properties was predominantly resident driven and relies on residents to actively seek a move by registering with the appropriate sites and agencies, searching for properties, bidding, and attending viewings where applicable. Alternatively, it advised the resident to register for a mutual exchange which it said was the most successful route to securing another property within her desired area. Moreover, it explained that its CBL website allowed the resident to see all sizes of properties, just in case she was to consider a property with fewer bedrooms, and it encouraged residents to place weekly bids on advertised properties. To conclude, the landlord found that it was satisfied that it did not fail in its provision of service to the resident and had adhered to its obligations.
On 19 May 2021, the resident called this Service to confirm she had received the landlord’s stage two complaint response but remained dissatisfied with the outcome because:
1. She now had to reapply for rehousing as the landlord had changed its process, which she said was unfair as she had already completed an application, been given medical priority, and had been waiting for a suitable property ever since.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her transfer application, explaining that her children had complex health problems and this, coupled with her own disability, was why they needed to move.
The outcome the resident was seeking was for a move to a new property, as she said the current property was not suitable for hers and her children’s needs.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states that tenants who have placed bids on the landlord’s CBL system will be shortlisted based on their Priority Band. Applicants for the scheme will apply online and where necessary complete a medical assessment form.
Tenants can choose to move to any area where the landlord owns suitable properties. They will be given advice on property availability, turnover, and demand in order to make informed choices.
It states that demand on the CBL system is high so, if eligible, a tenant will also be advised to register for a mutual exchange. It goes on to state that it is committed to identifying and promoting other housing options for its residents and therefore it will ensure that residents have information about the options available so that they can make informed decisions. This may include the promotion of other schemes such as mutual exchange, or, where appropriate, advising the tenant to approach the local authority for assistance.
Section 4.6 of the Allocation and Lettings Policy details the Priority Status Case (Band 3), where the following categories apply:
1. Statutory overcrowding
2. Medical reasons
3. Harassment/Domestic violence and abuse
This section explains that there is no definitive list of all medical conditions which may affect its residents. Medical evidence is assessed by an independent medical advisor on behalf of the landlord.
Furthermore, all priority cases should be reviewed regularly (at least every six months) to ensure the priority of the individual application remains accurate and relevant and that the applicant has been accessing the CBL and bidding where appropriate.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage one, the landlord aims to provide a response within ten working days. At stage two, the landlord will aim to provide a response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that £10.00 compensation will be made if it fails to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy.

Scope of Investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident has mentioned that the lack of progress with her transfer application has exacerbated her health conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt her testimony, but we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This may be better suited to being dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family as well as the landlord’s response to her concerns about her health.
It is noted that the resident has raised several issues relating to the condition of the property – insufficient heating, a pest infestation, antisocial behaviour, window repair – all of which provide historical context to the resident’s reasoning behind wanting to move from her current property. For clarity, this investigation will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application only, as this was the complaint brought forward for investigation through the landlord’s complaints procedure. As explained above, the resident may be able to raise a separate complaint to the landlord if she wants to, about the other issues she has experienced involving her property.
It is also noted that as an outcome to the complaint, the resident wanted to move properties. The Ombudsman is unable to direct the landlord to move the resident to a specific property, as the landlord can only offer properties based on the availability of suitable properties and taking into account other applicants who may have an even more urgent need to be moved, such as those facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.
However, we can look at how the landlord has handled the resident’s transfer application, considering whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and consider whether the landlord has acted in a reasonable way. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint and determine what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for re-housing.

Primarily, the onus is on a tenant to proactively manage their own housing transfer application and source a suitable property in which to move, using the landlord’s CBL system. The resident, however, wanted the landlord to actively manage and monitor her housing application as a resolution to her complaint. For internal transfer applications, the landlord’s role is limited insofar as it is not expected to actively source suitable properties for a tenant. The landlord’s decision, therefore, to not actively manage the resident’s transfer application was in accordance with its Allocations and Lettings Policy, whereby the landlord would operate and facilitate the internal housing register for residents wishing to transfer to another property but not carry out the active bidding for properties on behalf of a resident.
Instead, the landlord’s role is to ensure the transfer application has been assessed accurately and the correct banding awarded. It would be expected, as detailed in the Allocations and Lettings Policy, to provide support to a tenant when requested, ensuring that it is clear and transparent with the information it provides. For example, a landlord should explain the transfer process and the reasons for its decision about the band awarded. When a tenant is finding it difficult to source a suitable property, it is generally helpful to manage a resident’s expectations around the likely success of sourcing a suitable property via the CBL as well explain that there may be other people with a higher priority than them, as mentioned above. Moreover, housing stocks are usually severely limited and therefore it would be helpful that a landlord provide other re-housing options so that a tenant is fully informed of how best to facilitate a move, such as a mutual exchange or joining the local authority’s housing list.
In this case, from the date the transfer application was accepted in June 2017 to May 2021, when the CBL system was disbanded, the landlord has demonstrated that it followed the correct procedure, as per the Allocations and Lettings Policy, and also provided clear and transparent information to the resident throughout the resident’s transfer application, offering support where necessary.
In correspondence, dated 29 June 2017, the landlord provided clear information regarding the transfer application process and who to contact for assistance from the outset. When, in August 2018, the resident’s situation changed, communication ensued which resulted in a medical assessment form being completed, which was then assessed by an independent medical advisor. Consequently, the resident was awarded a higher banding in January 2019, which was in line with the banding for medical priority (Band 3) as detailed in the landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy.
It is acknowledged that the resident believed that she should have been placed in a higher band. The evidence, however, demonstrates that the landlord had adequately assessed the situation and placed the resident in the correct band in accordance with her circumstances, and based on the recommendations made by an independent medical advisor, which it was reasonable for it to do.
There was no further evidence for the landlord to evaluate that would have seen the resident moved to a higher banding, as she did not meet the criteria for Band 1 (Decants) nor Band 2 (Under Occupiers).
Thereafter, when it became apparent that, despite the awarding of a higher banding, the resident was struggling to source a suitable property, the evidence demonstrates the landlord attempting to support the resident further. For instance, in telephone calls in September and November 2019, additional housing options were discussed such as a mutual exchange; it also explained the very limited properties that would become available on the CBL system.
This was later substantiated during the complaint procedure, with both the stage one and stage two responses reiterating the transfer application process, explaining the limited availability of housing stock, and encouraging the resident to explore alternative housing options. Moreover, when the CBL system was discontinued in May 2021, the landlord clearly set out the resident’s options, which included details regarding a mutual exchange. It is understood that the resident was unable to find an alternative property through mutual exchange, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as option as it can help residents to find a more suitable property in some cases.
Although the resident’s experience was frustrating and ultimately unsuccessful, the landlord has shown a willingness to reasonably support the resident and followed the correct procedure, as per the Allocations and Lettings Policy. Unfortunately, this support did not result in a move for the resident. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it has followed the correct procedure and reasonably supported the resident when requested. It can take a very long time to arrange a transfer due to extremely high demand for social housing and a severe lack of availability of properties in some areas. In light of the above, therefore, there has been no service failures identified in how the landlord handled the resident’s transfer application.

Complaint Handling

The landlord has specified timescales in which to provide a resident with a complaint response in its complaints policy which states that it aims to provide a stage one response within ten working days and a stage two response within 20 working days. However, at both stages of the complaint the landlord has not adhered to these timescales.
The resident first raised a formal complaint on 8 November 2020, yet she did not receive the stage one complaint response until 10 December 2020. The landlord had confirmed that a response would be provided by 24 November 2020; but, the resident had to pursue a response, chasing the landlord on 24 and 28 November 2020.
Similarly, when the resident escalated the complaint on 6 January 2021, she had to chase a response from the landlord on numerous occasions. The resident did not receive the stage two response until 12 May 2021, four months after the complaint had been escalated.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it acknowledged that there was a delay in providing this response and, by way of redress, offered £20.00 compensation. It is acknowledged that this amount is in excess of the prescribed amount detailed in the landlord’s compensation policy for failing to adhere the timescales to provide a complaint response. However, in consideration of the delay in providing the stage one response, along with the excessive delay in providing the stage two response, the distress and inconvenience, and the time and trouble spent chasing a response, the compensation offered does not satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.
To put matters right, therefore, the landlord should pay a further £80.00 should to the resident, bringing the total compensation to £100, taking into account the £20.00 offered previously. This amount is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. This represents a more proportionate amount to the service failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application for re-housing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its associated complaint handling.

Reasons

When addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the transfer application, the landlord has demonstrated that it has followed the correct procedure and reasonably supported the resident when requested. Ultimately, the onus was primarily on the resident to actively search and bid for properties via the landlord’s CBL system. This, in the end, did not result in a move for the resident, but the lack of success was not due any service failure by the landlord.
However, the landlord did not adhere to the timescales in which to provide a formal complaint response at both stage one and stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the stage two response and did provide compensation as way of redress. However, the amount of compensation did not adequately resolve the complaint and therefore further compensation should be made in order to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

Order

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £80.00 compensation for its failures identified in its complaint handling, bringing the total compensation to £100, taking into account the £20.00 the landlord offered previously.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures.
This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.