Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202204396)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204396

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

17 January 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing.

Summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which operates a choice-based lettings scheme in partnership with two local authorities. The resident submitted an application for a transfer in October 2021, citing her child’s medical needs. The landlord requested details/evidence of the medical needs to support the application, which the resident provided on 19 January 2021. The landlord referred this to an independent medical assessor on 21 January 2022 and received a response five days later with the award of Band C priority. A decision letter was sent to the resident on 27 January 2022 confirming this.
3. The resident challenged this decision and submitted further medical documentation, which the landlord forwarded to its medical assessor. The banding was changed to Band B on 3 February 2022. The resident challenged this decision again, contending that a Band A award was appropriate as she believed there was an emergency need to move property. The landlord provided a full response from its medical assessor on 22 February 2022 which maintained the awarding of Band B for rehousing.
4. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 22 February 2022 about its handling of the application, contending that it had discriminated against her son, that the information had not been considered fairly, and she had concerns about discrepancies in the information. She pointed out that the description of her current property used by the assessor was incorrect, and she had not been provided accurate information by the landlord about her right to appeal the decision.
5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 March 2022 did not uphold the complaint, and she escalated the complaint later that day, highlighting that a number of her concerns had not been addressed. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to her on 29 March 2022 in which it addressed each issue raised but explained that there would be no change in the priority banding.
6. The resident secured an alternative property on October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedure

7. The landlord’s Housing Allocations Policy states that applicants would be assessed according to a banding scheme to determine their relative priority. There were 4 bands:
   1. Emergency housing need
   2. Urgent housing need
   3. Identified housing need
   4. Keyworker or Choice Plus applicants
8. Medical needs evidenced by the relevant professional (including mental health needs) would be considered when determining an applicant’s priority.
9. All applicants had the right to appeal against any allocation decision taken by the landlord. The applicant must express this in writing within 21 days of the decision having been made.
10. The landlord’s Search Moves User Guide states that medical property can only be awarded by independent medical review.

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident feels that the independent medical advisor did not fully consider her child’s medical conditions, and that these should have warranted band A priority. The Ombudsman cannot make judgements on whether the medical evidence does or does not support this, or otherwise make an assessment of medical conditions and how these may affect housing need. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord followed its allocations policy and treated the resident fairly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing.

12. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that while her family were eventually able to move, she believes that this could have happened much sooner had she not had to ‘fight’ with the landlord over the medical banding. She believes that the landlord acted against its own policy and says that the medical assessors chose to ignore the medical evidence, and did not include it in their report, awarding a lower band than her family were entitled to.
13. When the resident submitted the supporting information for medical priority in January 2022, the landlord was obliged to consider this: The evidence available demonstrates that it did so promptly, by seeking the advice of an independent medical advisory service, as per its Search Moves User Guide. This medical advisory service determined that, on the basis of the information provided, band C was appropriate.
14. When the resident challenged this, the landlord initially said on 1 February 2022 that, as stated in its 27 January 2022 decision letter, a review could not be submitted unless there was a change in medical condition (or 12 months had passed). This does not appear to be in line with allocations policy, which states that all applicants have the right to appeal against any allocation decision taken by the landlord. However, when the resident pointed this out that same day, the landlord contacted the independent medical advisor, and on 3 February 2022 the resident’s banding was increased to band B. Therefore, the landlord’s error regarding criteria for review did not have any impact on the outcome.
15. The resident then provided further information to support her request for priority A banding, and on 8 February 2022 the landlord confirmed that it would submit this to the independent medical advisor for a second review. The landlord acted fairly here in ensuring that all of the evidence that the resident was able to provide was considered.
16. When the independent medical advisor confirmed that the banding would remain at priority B on 18 February 2022, their report referred to the resident’s property as a house, which was inaccurate (it was a first floor flat). The Ombudsman notes that the referral the landlord sent to the independent medical advisor described the property as located on the first floor with no lift, and so the error appears to have been made by the independent medical advisor, rather than the landlord itself.
17. When the resident highlighted this to the landlord, the landlord promptly contacted the independent medical advisor on 1 March 2022 pointing out the error, and asking if this altered the banding. In its subsequent stage one complaint response the following week, the landlord explained that it was not medically trained, therefore did not make the decisions on medical bandings: It paid independent advisors to assist with this. It also explained that mutual exchange was likely to be the quickest way of moving home, as transfer opportunities within its stock were limited, and encouraged the resident to consider this.
18. The landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectation by making her aware of the limited availability of housing stock. It was also reasonable for the landlord to recommend alternative rehousing options, as these could have potentially increased the chances of securing a move. However, there was no response to the resident’s concern about the incorrect reference to the property as a house. The landlord should have addressed this given it was a primary concern of the resident’s, but there is no indication that it did so until its stage two response on 29 March 2022.
19. In this it apologised for the error, and said, ‘We challenged this with the medical advisors who have confirmed that with the change in property type the banding would remain the same. They sent us through an amended report with the current accommodation detailed correctly.’ While the landlord should have advised the resident of this sooner, as no change was made to the banding, this did not impact the resident’s chances of moving.
20. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s concerns, and this was clearly a family that wanted to ensure that their child had a safe, accessible home. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident strongly disagrees with the findings of the independent medical advisor, and that priority A should have been awarded. However, there is no indication of maladministration on the part of the landlord in this case, and it was reasonable, and in line with its policy, for it to rely on the findings of the independent medical advisory service when determining whether additional priority should be given on medical grounds.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application for rehousing.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should take steps to ensure that the information provided in its decision letters, allocations policy, and user guide regarding an applicant’s right to review of an allocations decision is clear and does not conflict.