Peabody Trust (202300330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300330

Peabody Trust

21 March 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is the highest flat in a 5 story block (the block). The block has no lift and the resident must climb around 10 flights of stairs to access the property. He has lived at the property since October 2020. He suffers with his mental health and has a back condition that requires regular treatment. The landlord is aware of his vulnerabilities.
3. The resident approached the landlord on 12 September 2022 to report that he was having difficulty accessing the property. He said that his health had deteriorated and he sought assistance with rehousing. The landlord offered to assess his medical need and gave him advice around mutual exchanges.
4. The resident called the landlord for an update on 21 September 2022. The landlord’s records show it sent the resident a medical assessment form on the same day.
5. The landlord issued the resident a medical priority on 16 December 2022. It sent a letter confirming its decision to award him a ‘B1’ medical priority on its internal housing register. It provided advice on how to register to move using its housing register and directed the resident to also look for a mutual exchange. The resident called on 20 December 2022 seeking an update on his application. He asked the landlord to send confirmation of his medical priority to the local council where his family and support network were.
6. The resident called the landlord on 20 January 2023 asking for an update on his request from December 2022. No information was seen to show the landlord responded between these dates.
7. The resident complained on 13 March 2023. He said:
   1. When he signed for the tenancy, he was told that he could register and move quickly. This information was misleading because he had been trying to move for the last 2 years.
   2. The property was impacting his physical and mental health. He was regularly staying elsewhere because he could not climb the stairs.
   3. Since being awarded medical priority he had been ignored. He had made calls to the landlord and received no response.
8. The resident asked for an update on 28 March 2023.
9. On 30 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This was around 13 working days after the resident complained. It outlined the details of the complaint. It said:
   1. It was unable to comment on the concerns raised about the viewing of the property. This was because it was around 3 years before the complaint was made.
   2. It recognised the impact on the resident’s vulnerabilities.
   3. It apologised for the lack of contact from 20 January 2023. It had contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 and this was outside of its 5-10 working days timescale.
   4. Due to the “housing crisis” in the area, alternative accommodation would take longer to find.
   5. It had fallen below the standard of service/care it expected. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
   6. It had reminded internal departments to contact residents within 10 working days and keep accurate records.
   7. It offered £100 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2023. He said he had tried to call and discuss the complaint response, but that officers were not available. He said the offer of £100 compensation did not resolve his situation. He had sought a mutual exchange for the previous 2 years, but people had refused when they found there was no lift in the block.
11. The landlord responded the following day. It said the quickest way to move was via mutual exchange. Medical priority had been awarded and this meant the resident could ‘bid’ on suitable properties. It asked if the resident wanted to accept the offer of compensation or escalate his complaint. The resident said that he was seeking a solution to his situation and mutual exchange was not working. He wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
12. The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint on 24 April 2023. This was 8 working days after the request was made.
13. On 28 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was around 12 working days after the request was made. It acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the time it was taking to move and the impact it had on him. It outlined the chronology of events following the initial complaint. It said:
    1. The acknowledgement of the request to escalate the complaint was not sent within 5 working days. It apologised for the delay.
    2. There were around 300 residents in ‘B1’ medical priority. This was the highest band for medical priority. It could not predict the timeframe to move in this band.
    3. It would be unable to provide the resident with rehousing as part of its complaint resolution. This was because rehousing requests were subject to availability. There was a shortage of properties and this meant that rehousing would take longer than it would hope.
    4. It suggested that the resident approach the local councils for help and support. It also directed him to mental health charities and mutual exchange sites.
    5. Having reviewed its compensation, the landlord felt the resident should be compensated for the delay in receiving a response from the medical team. It also provided additional compensation for complaint handling. This was on the basis that it had not issued an acknowledgement at stage 1 and there was a delay issuing its stage 2 response.
    6. It offered £200 in compensation. This comprised:
       1. £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
       2. £100 for complaint handling (£50 per stage).
14. The resident accepted the compensation but remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. He made contacted the Ombudsman on 16 June 2023. He broadly reiterated his previous concerns and highlighted the impact on his mental and physical health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

15. The resident wants to be rehoused urgently due to the impact on his mental and physical ill-health. Though his preferred outcome was noted, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to act in a way that would disadvantage other residents. We can consider whether the landlord acted appropriately, considered the resident’s rehousing request, and his complaint about this.
16. The resident raised concerns about the information he was given by the landlord during the viewing process. He said that he told the landlord when viewing the property that it was not suitable. He felt the landlord had misled him when he signed for the tenancy and had not acknowledged reports he made about the suitability of the property since. The issue was raised to the landlord within the complaint, however as the concerns were raised more than 12 months prior it was unable to evidence the reports.
17. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had no evidence the resident made any reports before his request on 12 September 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence from either party of earlier reports being made. Since no conflicting evidence/information was seen, the Ombudsman has considered events from this point.

Policy and procedures

18. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that medical applications will be independently assessed for medical priority bands. It awards medical priority to applicants who need to move due to a medical condition which will cause permanent damage or disability if they do not move.
19. The landlord’s complaint handling policy shows it operates a 2 stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2 of the process respectively. It defines complaints as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s request for rehousing due to medical need.

20. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that it makes best use of its housing stock. It was reasonable to use a housing needs assessment to consider applications for rehousing and to award priority to applicants relevant to their circumstances. The landlord also used an affiliated website to advertise its vacant properties and operated a choice based lettings system. This was an appropriate means to allocate accommodation fairly and it is common in the social housing sector.
21. It was reasonable in this case for the landlord to use an assessment to consider the resident’s housing need. The records show that once the resident notified the landlord of his medical need for rehousing, it issued the resident with a medical assessment form. This took around 6 working days to be sent. The evidence showed that the resident had to chase the landlord for this form on 21 September 2022. Once the landlord received the evidence it determined that medical B1 priority was appropriate in the circumstances. This was the highest priority it awarded for medical needs. This decision was reflective of the landlord’s rehousing policy and priority move panel guidance.
22. There was a considerable delay between the resident’s request and the priority being awarded. It took the landlord around 3 months (between 21 September 2022 and 16 December 2022) for it to issue the priority award. The landlord’s records are unclear if this delay was a result of evidence gathering, or for it to simply assess the application. The landlord has not published any timescales for these decisions to be made. However, the Ombudsman has determined that this was an unreasonable amount of time. The landlord should have a customer focused approach. It should have been clear with the resident how long it could take to complete this assessment. It should have addressed this delay in its complaint handling.
23. The landlord’s communication early in the timeline was poor. The resident had to contact the landlord several times between December 2022 and March 2023 asking for information and seeking advice and guidance. The landlord’s records do not show that it responded effectively to the resident’s concerns. The delays were acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint handling. It recognised that there had been instances where it had not responded to the resident and it offered £100 for his time and trouble.
24. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing due to medical need. Although there were delays in responding to the resident and a failure to acknowledge some enquiries, its offer of compensation was reasonable. We were unable to find any issues which it overlooked. It recognised that a medical need for rehousing was necessary and awarded priority in line with its policy.
25. However, it is evident from the resident’s reports that he has experienced significant distress. He has described being regularly unable to access the property. He said there are 10 flights of stairs to get to the front door from the ground level. His health has deteriorated over the period he lived at the property. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to get an up to date position on his circumstances. It should offer support with his applications to other providers and ensure that all relevant information is shared with his permission.

Complaint handling

26. It is important for landlords to maintain their complaint handling commitments set out in their policy and procedures. There was a combined delay of around 6 working days to issue a stage 1 response and to acknowledge the request for stage 2. However, the landlord recognised these failings in its stage 2 response. Its apology and offer of £100 compensation were both reasonable in the circumstances.
27. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its final response acknowledged the issues in its correspondence and complied with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling principles “Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes”. It provided internal feedback around complying with its timescales. The offer of £100 compensation was reflective of the inconvenience caused.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing due to medical need.
    2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

29. It is therefore recommended that the landlord should contact the resident to get an up to date position on his circumstances. It should provide support with his application to suitable properties on its register. It should also support his application to other providers and ensure that all information is shared with his permission.