London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204734)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204734

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the wait time for a direct let move.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat in a block owned and managed by the landlord. The tenancy began on 15 June 2009.
3. The landlord has recorded alcohol and drug vulnerabilities for the resident. Under the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy, the resident qualifies as a vulnerable resident. The resident has informed this Service that he suffers from schizophrenia.
4. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy (the policy) explains that should a resident contact it for advice on moving it will assess their circumstances and present them with a range of options appropriate to their needs. It explains that these options may include:
   1. Mutual exchange.
   2. Application to the local authority’s housing register.
   3. Direct offer (via the rehousing list).
5. In situations where the landlord needs to directly rehouse its existing residents, the policy says the landlord will match a resident through its rehousing list. The criteria the resident must meet includes:
   1. The resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of anti-social 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. Exceptional circumstances are applicable and approved by senior management.
6. The policy confirms that to be added to the rehousing list a resident’s case will be presented to a rehousing panel consisting of senior managers and will require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision. It further adds that it will consider vulnerabilities such as known disabilities or medical conditions when making an offer of accommodation.
7. The landlord’s website confirms its rehousing service is temporarily closed to new referrals. It explains it has temporarily paused new referrals whilst it works through the waiting list. It adds that there is a wait for 12-18 months for those registered for the service.
8. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its two stage complaints process. Where a stage one complaints would be responded to within 10 working days. A stage two complaint would be responded to within 20 working days. The complaints policy explains if the landlord cannot meet this timeframe, it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
9. On 10 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy that it had a 12-18 month wait time to move residents who had been approved for a direct let move. The landlord treated this as a complaint.
10. The landlord responded on the same day and said:
    1. It apologised for the wait time of 12-18 months for a direct let move.
    2. The rehousing list had been suspended due to high demand.
    3. It reminded the resident of other moving options such as mutual exchange or going on the housing list at the local authority.
    4. It was unable to change the situation and apologised for any trouble caused to the resident.
11. The resident responded later that day and told the landlord its response was unsatisfactory and that he wanted his complaint escalated.
12. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 11 March 2022.
13. On the 9 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. It said:
    1. Its review found the stage one response was appropriate and fair.
    2. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the wait time for an approved a direct let move and repeated that it was unable to change this.
    3. It reminded the resident of other re-housing options and encouraged him to look into these options.
    4. It apologised for the slight delay in its stage two response and offered the resident £20 to recognise any trouble and upset caused by the delay.
14. During the course of this investigation the resident has said that the landlord has changed its rehousing criteria and in doing so, has found he no longer meets the requirements for a move. The resident has said he appealed the landlord’s decision but was unsuccessful. It is clear that a move is important to the resident and this may have been a distressing time for him. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process and as such, this investigation report concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s final response dated 9 April 2022. Any new issues would need to be raised as a new complaint with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

15. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s wait time for a direct let move

16. The resident has complained about being told the landlord had a 12–18 month wait time for approved direct let moves. The evidence shows the resident was approved for a direct let move in early 2022.
17. In its stage one response, the landlord explained that due to high demands it had suspended its rehousing list. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident and explaining it was unable to change the situation.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to advise the resident of his re-housing options through mutual exchange or applying to the local authority’s housing list. These were in line with the options it set out in its policy.
19. Once the resident escalated his complaint the landlord apologised for any upset caused due to the wait time. However, it told the resident again of the other re-housing options available to him and encouraged him to look into these further. This was a reasonable approach, in the circumstances.
20. It is acknowledged that the resident may have felt frustrated in having to wait 12-18 months after he had been approved for a direct let. However the landlord acted reasonably in explaining the reasons for the wait time and the other options available to him. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on the same day. However, it took 22 working days to issues its stage two response, which was two working days more than the timeframe set in its policy.
22. In it stage two response the landlord apologised for the slight delay in issuing its stage two response and offered the resident £20 to recognise the trouble and upset caused. The landlord acted appropriately in recognising its slight day and in its offer of compensation. The landlord has shown insight and has adopted a resolution focused approach. The compensation offered was reasonable to recognise the impact of the slight delay in issuing its stage two response. As such, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactory.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its wait time for a direct let move.
24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

25. The landlord satisfactorily explained it had a wait time of 12-18 months for a direct let move and took reasonable steps to inform the resident of his re-housing options in the circumstances.
26. The landlord acknowledged its delay of two working days to issue its stage two response. It appropriately apologised and offered the resident compensation, which was reasonable.

Recommendations

27. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pay the resident £20 compensation, it previously offered, in recognition of the delay in responding to the stage two complaint if it has not already done so. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
28. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider its record of the resident’s vulnerabilities to ensure it is accurate and up to date.
29. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to set out the position and progress in relation to his move request.