London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319699)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319699

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 April 2024


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 the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. Due to a severe spinal cord injury, the resident is paralysed from the waist down.
  2. The resident’s current property is on the 1st floor of a converted house with no lift. The resident is reliant on assistance in order to enter or leave the property.
  3. The resident informed the landlord that he would need to seek a move from his current property due to a severe spinal cord injury on 30 November 2021. A medical assessment form detailing the resident’s needs were provided to the landlord on 21 December 2021, alongside a report from an Occupational Therapist on March 2022 and a doctor’s letter on 26 May 2022. The landlord approved a medical move for the resident on 17 June 2022.
  4. On 25 July 2023 the resident was offered a wheelchair adapted property on the 5th floor of a block of flats with 2 lifts. The resident rejected the offer due to the £100 increase in rent and a fear of heights which meant he did not want to be on the 5th floor. The resident then appealed this in order to seek another property offer. His appeal was rejected by the landlord’s appeals panel. He was then reoffered the property on 2 August 2023 which he again declined. The landlord closed his rehousing case and removed him from its register.
  5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2023 while his appeal was still ongoing. The resident was unhappy with the offer he was made, believing this to be unsuitable for his needs. He felt the landlord had not taken his medical recommendations into account. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It said that the property was specifically built for permanent wheelchair users and complied with his medical recommendations. It also said that it had followed its policy and would not be making any more offers. It advised the resident he would need to continue his search with his local council and provided information on the Mayor of London’s mobility scheme.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 August 2023. He said he felt he was being treated unfairly as a disabled person. He added that the landlord had not explored the possibility of offering a property that he himself could adapt for his needs. He also said he intended to return to work and the £100 increase in rent would be difficult for him to manage. He raised other concerns with the property, including the doors in the bin area being too heavy, the significant footfall from other residents affecting the use of the lifts, and the size of the lifts. He said his mental health was being affected by the landlord’s decision not to offer suitable housing. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It said that it had performed an affordability check and that the property offered was the first available that met his needs. It reiterated that it had followed its policy and would not be offering him another property.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 September 2023. He was unhappy that he had been refused rehousing despite being a disabled cancer sufferer. He said he was trapped on the 1st floor currently and had no escape route in the event of a fire. To resolve his complaint, he wants the landlord to provide him with another offer of accommodation, preferably a ground floor flat.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy says that in order to access the rehousing list, a resident must have ‘a significant medical need or disability which means that if their condition carries an immediate risk to life by remaining in their home or if they cannot access parts of their home due to a medical condition or their home cannot be adapted’. It says that it ‘will make one offer of accommodation on a like for like basis’. It then goes on to say that should the resident ‘refuse an offer of permanent accommodation as they do not think it is suitable their rehousing case will be closed’. The resident does have a right to appeal this decision but if they do not appeal, or their appeal is refused, their case will be closed, and they will not be matched to any further properties.
  2. There was a significant delay in the landlord adding the resident to the rehousing register. The resident first contacted the landlord in November 2021, and it was not until June 2022 that the resident was added. It is apparent that this delay was caused by an administrative error as the medical transfer recommendation was not submitted. This was mentioned in the landlord’s internal correspondence on 15 June 2022.
  3. The landlord has told the resident that the type of property that was suitable for him was extremely rare and that the process could take up to 2 years. The landlord was fair to manage the resident’s expectations about the process. It also advised him on alternative means of finding suitable accommodation such as through his local authority. This was good practice from the landlord.
  4. The property that was offered by the landlord appeared to meet the medical recommendations. Whilst this did mention ground floor properties, it also said that a level-access property with a reliable lift would be suitable. The landlord therefore appears to have considered the relevant medical recommendations when making this property offer to the resident. After the resident rejected this offer, the landlord followed its policy and allowed the resident to appeal this decision. The appeal was rejected, and the property was re-offered. The resident again rejected this. These actions followed the landlord’s allocation policy.
  5. However, this rejection has left the resident at his current property. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he is currently unable to access or leave the property without support. This has effectively left the resident homebound. The resident has expressed concern in relation to his safety in the event of a fire. The landlord, in its internal correspondence, has also raised serious concerns about this. However, the landlord has taken no action in relation to this despite it potentially being a significant health and safety issue.
  6. The landlord’s failure to take this into account represents a significant failing. The landlord therefore needs to visit the resident’s property to perform a full health and safety assessment of the resident’s current situation given his vulnerabilities. Following this, it needs to outline the steps it can take to mitigate any currently outstanding risks to the resident. The landlord should also consider whether it is feasible for him to remain in the property given the risk.
  7. The landlord communicated with the resident openly about his complaint. Its complaint responses were provided in the timelines outlined by its complaints policy. The responses provided were fair and reasonable in content and tone.
  8. The landlord followed its policies when dealing with the resident’s request to be rehoused. However, it failed to properly consider his vulnerabilities following this. There was also a significant delay in adding him to the rehousing register which was caused by the landlord’s failures. This represented maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. For these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £750. This figure is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this region for failures which have a significant impact on a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £750 for its failings.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its failings.
    3. Perform a health and safety assessment of the resident’s current living situation.
    4. Provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman and the resident within 2 weeks of the inspection, with an outline of how it intends to follow any recommendations that the assessment results in.
  2. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.