The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202200170)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200170

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 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: 
    1. Handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
    2. Response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. They currently occupy a one-bedroom flat on the second floor of an apartment block.
  2. The resident has a number of medical conditions including arthritis, mental health issues, and learning difficulties (including difficulty reading and writing).
  3. In August 2019, the resident’s children began staying with the resident on regular occasions. The resident subsequently applied to the landlord for a move to a larger property. The landlord requested evidence to consider the resident’s medical conditions when assessing the application for rehousing. The resident asked a support agency to assist in communicating with the landlord.
  4. The landlord assessed the resident’s request and additional information from the support agency. On 27 December 2019, the landlord declined the resident’s request for a larger property. It said that the children did not live with the resident full time and therefore would not be considered residents. This meant that the resident was only entitled to a one-bedroom property.
  5. The resident continued to request a larger property and the landlord reconsidered this in September 2020. The resident’s children were added as occupants of the property. This allowed the resident to bid on 2-bedroom properties, although the resident requested the option of bidding on 3–bedroom properties as their eldest child would soon be turning 10. However, In January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord as they were struggling to bid on properties since the children were added.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to make a direct offer of rehousing as their current home was unsuitable, taking into account the number of occupants and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident provided evidence to the landlord in July 2021 in support of the request. The landlord considered this evidence and declined the resident’s request as it did not meet its criteria for a direct offer.
  7. In October 2021, the resident’s representative appealed the landlord’s decision. They argued that the request met 2 of the landlord’s criteria for a direct offer. These were:
    1. The property was overcrowded which aggravated the medical condition.
    2. The medical condition was significant and drastically affected the resident’s life.
  8. Between October 2021 and January 2022, the resident and their representative chased a response on several occasions. The landlord sent the evidence, and appeal, to its medical advisor to reconsider its previous response. In January 2022, the landlord sent the request to a housing panel for consideration. The panel declined the appeal as the medical condition did not meet the “very high threshold” required for a direct offer.
  9. The resident raised a complaint in early February 2022 in a phone call with the landlord. The contents of the call were not recorded, although the complaint is summarised as being about the delay in making a decision in respect of the direct offer, and the decision itself. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 February 2022. It then sent its stage 1 response on 8 March 2022. It apologised for the delay in communicating its decision in respect of rehousing. It also said that:
    1. The medical evidence provided did indicate an issue which needed to be addressed but did not meet the threshold for a direct offer.
    2. The resident’s children did not live at the address full time so were not considered in respect of the overcrowding.
  10. In April 2022, the resident’s MP wrote to this service to request that a complaint was logged. We acknowledged the request and wrote to the resident asking for more information. After speaking to the resident, it was unclear whether the landlord had written its final response. Therefore, in June 2022, we wrote to the landlord asking that it send us any information it had. The landlord logged a complaint but did not contact the resident. Following further contact, the resident provided us with a summary of the complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2022 asking it to log a complaint and respond. This complaint was:
    1. The landlord would not amend the resident’s bedroom entitlement following an increase in the household size.
    2. The resident required support to convince the landlord to allow them to bid on larger properties.
    3. The landlord did not change its systems to allow the resident to bid when it said it would.
    4. The resident’s case was being “passed from pillar to post”.
    5. The resident’s health was declining as a result of the issues raised.
  11. The landlord wrote its stage 1 response to the resident on 22 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in making a rehousing decision. It said:
    1. It made a decision to make a direct offer to the resident and communicated this on 11 August 2022.
    2. A home visit was arranged for 22 September 2022.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s preferred locations for moving.
    4. It was offering £200 in recognition of the issues raised.
  12. In October 2022 the resident was directly offered a 2-bedroom property. The resident was unhappy with this as they were previously promised a 3-bedroom property. The landlord said it did not consider the children to be ordinarily resident and therefore there was no reason to increase the bedroom entitlement. However, it agreed to help the resident apply for a mutual exchange. It made a home visit to the resident to discuss his support needs.
  13. The resident then contacted this service on 21 December 2022 to explain that they remained unhappy with the situation. We contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 to ask that it escalate the resident’s complaint and send a final response.
  14. The landlord wrote its final response on 17 January 2023, providing a summary of events. It said:
    1. It was unable to backdate the resident’s rehousing application to increase the resident’s priority.
    2. The decision to make a direct offer was solely on medical grounds, and not related to overcrowding as it did not consider the children to be resident in the flat.
    3. While it would normally offer a like-for-like swap in these circumstances it had agreed to offer a 2-bedroom property instead. However, it would not offer a 3-bedroom property.
    4. It offered a further £100 for the delay in responding to stage 2 of the complaint.
  15. The resident escalated their complaint to this service on 18 January 2023. They said they are still unhappy with the decision not to offer a 3-bedroom property and feel that they have been lied to by the landlord’s staff. They also expressed a concern that a particular member of staff had unduly interfered in the decision. They tell us that their MP and support agency consider that they are entitled to a 3-bedroom property. The current situation is placing stress on the resident and their children.

Assessment and findings

Rehousing application

  1. The landlord had a rehousing policy in place at the time of the events complained about. The policy was intended to formalise the process of moving a resident, either on a permanent or temporary basis, when their current housing was unsuitable due to their circumstances. The reasons outlined in this policy as to why a resident would be rehoused were:
    1. The resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of antisocial behaviour.
    2. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
    3. The household is severely overcrowded and has a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding.
    4. The tenant wishes to downsize to a smaller property as their household is under-occupying their existing home.
    5. Exceptional circumstances as agreed by senior management.
  2. The rehousing policy also outlines the process for determining whether a resident meets the criteria for rehousing. This includes:
    1. Understanding the reason for referral.
    2. Obtaining relevant evidence, including medical evidence.
    3. Seeking professional advice.
    4. Making a decision, either by a regional manager or rehousing panel.
    5. Explaining its decision to the resident.
  3. The rehousing policy does not strictly outline what medical criteria it would consider “significant” for its purposes. It does state that it would consider advice from a medical advisor, but that advice would not automatically lead to a particular decision. In this case, the resident’s original rehousing application was declined, despite the independent medical advice recommending the request be approved. The resident appealed this, and it was declined again by the rehousing panel. It was not until the complaint was lodged that the decision was changed, and the rehousing application approved on medical grounds. 
  4. However, the resident applied on 2 grounds, medical and overcrowding. The landlord’s policy in other areas suggest that it will only consider children to be occupants where the relevant resident is the “main care provider” and stays with the resident for more than half the week, although it considers each case on its own merits. The resident understood that the children were not considered resident as the resident did not receive child benefit. In its decision, the landlord said that the children “did not live full-time” with the resident. On this basis it did not consider that it needed to offer a property with additional rooms for the children to occupy. This was one of the resident’s main concerns as they had to share a 1-bedroom flat with the children.
  5. The resident’s custody arrangements from 2019 suggest that the children would spend approximately 25% of the time with the resident. However, a letter from the resident’s support agency in 2021 suggested that the children spent more than half the time with the resident. It is not clear what the landlord considered to be the housing situation at the time of its decision.
  6. Allocation and rehousing policies are within each landlord’s discretion and we do not normally intervene with the setting of these policies, except where it could give rise to a systemic failing. Decisions such as these, by their very nature, will be subjective and take into account a wide variety of complex factors. Therefore, when considering whether a landlord has responded appropriately to a complaint about a decision, we would normally only look at whether the decision-making process was fair and reasonable. A decision may be fair, but if it was arrived at in an unfair manner it would still be reasonable to reconsider it.
  7. The landlord, in responding to both the medical grounds and overcrowding grounds, only offered minimal explanation as to why it had made the decision it had. In each case a one-line decision. Where a landlord does not have a set policy, or clear criteria for decision-making it should ensure that its reasons are sufficiently clear so that the resident and any supporting agencies can understand its reasoning. This includes informing the resident of:
    1. what evidence and information it had considered
    2. how it viewed particular evidence
    3. what guidelines it had used, or what it measured the circumstances against
    4. why it made the decision it did.
  8. When the complaint was escalated to this service, we expressed our concern that the decision was so lacking in explanation that we could not understand the basis for it. We therefore asked the landlord to review the decision and explain it fully to the resident. Due to the resident’s difficulty reading, we said that the landlord should explain the decision to the resident verbally and follow it up with a detailed explanation in writing. The landlord agreed to this request and asked a different member of staff to review the decision. Having done this, the landlord changed its mind and agreed to rehouse the resident in a 3-bedroom property.
  9. The resident requested this in their complaint to the landlord, and later to us. With this in mind, we do not consider it necessary to make a determination on the merits of the decision itself. We have concerns, as explained above, about how the decision was made and level of information and detail shared with the resident. However, as the resident has now received the outcome they wanted, we consider the matter to be resolved.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy follows a 2-stage process.
    1. Stage 1:
      1. Investigated by relevant department.
      2. Resolved within 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2:
      1. Investigated by someone not involved in stage 1.
      2. Acknowledged within 2 working days.
      3. Resolved within 20 working days.

This is in line within the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code.

  1. The first complaint was raised by phone call with the resident’s housing manager. No notes were provided to this service which explain what was said during that phone call, however the acknowledgement and stage 1 response suggest it was about the delay in providing the rehousing decision. That complaint response was not sent until a month after the complaint was raised. The landlord apologised for this delay. However, it does not appear that this complaint was considered in later responses. It is possible that this is because of the lack of clear notes about the nature of the complaint. The landlord should ensure that complaints about the same, or similar, issues are properly linked so it can fully consider the context of the complaint. The landlord has been asked by this service in the past to consider similar feedback and so there is no to duplicate that request here.
  2. The resident then contacted this service through their MP in April 2022. We tried to contact the resident to understand the complaint. When we did manage to speak to the resident in June 2022, they were unsure whether the stage 1 response received previously was a final response. As such, we contacted the landlord and asked them for information. Based on the notes provided, the landlord logged a complaint on 8 June 2022. It was assigned to the housing manager but it does not appear any action was taken. It is concerning that the landlord did not follow up on this complaint in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord logged a further complaint on 24 June 2022 following a letter we sent to them. This was originally assigned to the same housing manager but then reassigned on 1 July 2022 when it was established that the housing manager was on leave. Despite this, no response was sent to the resident until 18 August 2022, 10 weeks after the first complaint was logged. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had closed the complaint a week earlier following a new decision on the rehousing request. Where a complaint and a housing decision are investigated together, the landlord should have ensured that a decision on each was sent to the resident. Failure to do this led to the resident chasing the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. We consider that this was a reasonable acknowledgement of its failings in this instance.
  4. The resident contacted this service again in December 2022 to request an escalation of the complaint. It is not clear what prompted the request but we can see on the landlord’s notes that, in October 2022, there was a disagreement on the nature of the rehousing decision made. The landlord was engaging proactively with the resident, but we think it would have been helpful to escalate the complaint as it was clear the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome. The landlord responded to the complaint in January 2023 with its final response. As highlighted above, it did not fully explain its decision in respect of the complaint or the rehousing decision. Instead, it provided a summary of events and confirmation that it was upholding the original decision. It did, however, offer a further £100 for the delay.
  5. We have concerns with the record keeping in the landlord’s complaint files. There were 10 different cases recorded during the time of the events complained about. On some occasions it is clear that these were linked up, but in other cases they were not. It would have been appropriate, for example, to escalate the original complaint to stage 2 in June 2022, rather than log a new complaint. The landlord should also have considered all previous responses to the complaint when issuing its final response, not just its most recent one. However, the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delays caused in its complaint handling. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we think that the £300 offered in total was in line with the award we would have made. Therefore, although there are things it could have done better in respect of the complaint handling, we believe that the landlord has offered reasonable redress as a resolution to the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we have determined that the complaint in respect of the rehousing decision has been resolved with intervention.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we have determined that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that the findings in this report are shared with relevant members of staff. In particular the landlord should consider the level of detail and explanation it provides to residents when making a decision. It should ensure that residents have sufficient information about how and why a decision has been made.