Walsall Housing Group Limited (202006506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006506

Walsall Housing Group Limited

9 February 2021

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 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 rehousing application.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was ‘nominated’ to the landlord by the local authority, who had accepted that he was at risk of becoming homeless. The resident moved into the landlord’s property on 24 July 2018. The property is described by the landlord as a low-rise flat with a small number of people living in the block and no communal access. The property was considered to be suitable for the resident.
3. At some point after moving to the property the resident applied to be rehoused. In response, the landlord wrote to him on 19 December 2018. It noted that the resident was nominated for his current property by the local authority, and the resident had accepted the property on the basis that it was suitable for his needs. The local authority had agreed. The landlord advised that, in the absence of any substantive change in the resident’s circumstances, he had been assessed and placed into the ‘bronze band’. He could therefore bid on properties allocated to that banding level.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s explanation that noise from neighbouring flats was affecting his health, and said that suitable properties would likely be bungalows or houses. However, it said that it did not stock any bungalows or houses detached from their neighbours, and therefore some noise transference was inevitable. It said that the property types the resident hoped to find would not necessarily be better for him. It confirmed that the resident could contact the local authority to seek further rehousing advice and assistance from another provider.
5. The resident made a complaint on 20 December 2018. He explained that he had “autistic sensory issues with noise” which meant that he could not live in his current property due to it being “poorly sound proofed”. The resident also noted that, when being nominated by the council, he initially requested a house or bungalow, but the landlord had refused. He said that he also had time constraints at that time and so felt he had no choice but to move into his present property. The issues with it became apparent after he moved in.
6. Finally, the resident disagreed with the landlord’s explanation that there would be the same amount of noise in a bungalow as there would be in a flat, and highlighted that the “general noise made in flats” from neighbours was affecting him.
7. In the landlord’s stage one response, dated 10 January 2019, it said that its letter of 19 December 2018 set out its position on the resident’s request for rehousing. It said that it noted the detail of his complaint, but that it was not prepared to make further adjustments to its policy.
8. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with this response and the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 22 January 2019. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s escalation request for this investigation.
9. The landlord sent its further complaint response on 20 February 2019. It explained that it had been provided with limited independent information about the resident’s medical condition, which was received as part of his original housing application. The landlord explained that the limited medical info it held for the resident was dated from before he moved into the property.
10. The landlord confirmed that, since moving into his home, the resident had not provided any supporting information relating to his medical condition and how it affected him in his home. Therefore, the landlord found its response to the resident’s housing request, and subsequent stage one response, to be appropriate. It offered to commission an independent medical assessment of the resident’s medical needs, and how they related to his housing requirements, by a suitably qualified expert. This would require the resident’s consent and to the expert having access to his medical records.
11. On 12 March 2019 an occupational therapist (OT) completed a rehousing report for the resident. This said that the resident had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and experienced sensory issues as a feature of this, resulting in increased sensitivity to sound. It said that the resident was “finding it intolerable living in the present flat due to the level of sound” from above and below him. The OT recommended that the resident be able to participate in the bidding process to source alternative accommodation suited to his specific needs. Specifically, it was recommended that the resident lived in a flat with no under or overhead neighbours, a bungalow or end terrace or semi-detached property. They said that the internal layout needed to be considered so that “sound is limited where the shared wall is not in contact with living spaces that [the resident] would need to spend large amounts of time in”.
12. On 19 July 2019 the resident asked to complain about the landlord’s response and said he wanted to make a “new adjustment request”. He asked for the response to his re-housing request to be reviewed and for the landlord to consider new documentation: his diagnoses report, two CPN letters, a doctor’s letter, and an occupational therapist report.
13. The landlord responded to the resident’s new request to be rehoused on 30 July 2019. It repeated its offer to pay for an independent medical expert to undertake an assessment. It said that, in the absence of further medical information specifically relating to the resident’s request for re-housing, its position remained the same. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if he would agree to its proposal to arrange for a consultant to be engaged. It did not respond to the resident’s explanation that he had already provided new medical information.
14. On 2 September 2019 the resident forwarded to the landlord an email, dated 3 August 2019, which he said the landlord had not responded to. The email explained that the resident remained dissatisfied because he felt the information provided already gave sufficient information about the effect the current property had on his health, and a further assessment would be distressing and unnecessary.
15. On 13 September 2019 the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint and would respond within 15 working days.
16. The resident chased a response on 1 October 2019. On the next day the landlord advised that it extended the date for the stage three response by 10 working days, until 18 October 2019, as further investigation was required.
17. On 9 October 2019 the landlord sent the resident its stage three complaint response. It explained that, in line with its “special rehousing protocol”, a special rehousing case could be refused due to the supporting evidence provided being deemed insufficient. The landlord confirmed that the resident provided an extract of a letter from a mental health nurse from 2009 and an occupational therapy report dated 12 March 2019. It advised that the letter of 2009 was not a recent enough assessment of the resident’s medical conditions for it to be able to rely on for decisions about his housing requirements. nor did it make recommendations regarding the resident’s housing. The landlord confirmed that the OT report made recommendations about the types of properties that may be suitable for the resident. However, it advised that these were so specific in their nature that they either did not exist within the landlord’s housing stock or the likelihood of them becoming available within a reasonable time scale was very low.
18. Therefore, the landlord maintained its decision not to approve a special rehousing case for the resident based on the existing evidence. It confirmed that the offer of an assessment was an effort for it to address the insufficiencies in the supporting evidence and ensure that, should the resident’s case be approved, any accommodation which may be offered to him was appropriate for his needs.
19. On 11 December 2019 the resident said he had not received the response to his complaint and the landlord subsequently re-sent it.
20. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his complaint on 13 December 2019. He said that he felt that the landlord had not responded fully to his complaint and was lying when it said that the type of property referred to in the occupational therapist report was not available.
21. On 15 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to the panel reviewstage of its complaints procedure. It advised that it would arrangefor a complaints panel to meet and would contact the resident when thesearrangements had been made within 20 working days.The complaints panel would then write to the resident within ten working days of the panel meetingexplainingtheir decision.
22. Between 15 and 28 January 2020 the landlord and resident corresponded regarding the arrangements for a panel meeting and how the resident would contribute towards it.
23. On 28 January 2020 the landlord advised that, as per the resident’s request, it would be happy to use his preferred communication methods if that would support him to be included in the panel meeting. This would involve the resident submitting a statement for the panel, and then coming back to him with any questions in the same format. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if he was happy with this.
24. On 3 February 2020 the landlord asked if the resident was happy with the arrangements for the Panel Review. It also asked him to confirm if he would be available between 10.30am and 11.00am on 13 February 2020, to respond to the panel’s questions via a messaging application.
25. The resident did not respond to the above and the panel completed its hearing on 3 March 2020. It was unable to discuss the matter with the resident via a messaging application, as the resident said that he did not consent to the meeting or agreed how it would be conducted. The landlord advised that the panel had discussed all the documents in the review pack, which the resident would have seen and asked the resident if there was anything more he wished to add. It also asked what the solution to his complaint would be. The resident said he had not been able to enter a discussion with the panel and the landlord had not talked about any issues that he raised. The landlord said it was sorry that the resident felt this way, and confirmed it arranged to speak with the resident, at his request, via a messaging app. It confirmed that the panel would respond after considering the evidence.
26. Following the panel hearing the landlord sent its final complaint response on 13 March 2020. It said that the panel understood that the resident had applied to be rehoused as he felt his current home was not suitable for his needs, in particular his autism spectrum disorder.  The panel agreed with the previous decisions made regarding the complaint, i.e. that it needed more, specialist information, from a qualified professional in relation to the resident’s autism and mental health, to understand what the right home for him would be.
27. The landlord wished to ensure that, if the resident did move, that his new home was right for him and his medical needs. It also wanted the resident to know that even with further information being provided, there was a chance that the type of home the resident required was not of a type owned by the landlord, or would be only rarely available. It explained that, at this point, it could be for the resident to approach the local authority again. This could open up further options to him as they may be able to support with a nomination to another housing organisation with homes locally.
28. The landlord advised that it remained willing to consider re-housing the resident, but in order to award him a higher priority band, it required him to undergo a medical with an independent consultant of its choosing, which it would pay for. It explained that the resident could refer his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service for further review if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

29. The landlord’s housing allocations policy provides three different priority bandings, depending on the severity or urgency of the housing need: gold, silver, bronze. Each banding level includes a need to move due to health-related reasons, including when a resident “can evidence that the accommodation is directly contributing to their ill health”. The policy also allows for discretionary “special rehousing cases” where an applicant has a pressing need to move but does not meet the banding criteria. In such cases the resident would be assigned a banding level.
30. The landlord explained to the resident that the medical information he provided to support his request for rehousing was not sufficient because they were either not recent, or did not make housing recommendations. The OT’s report did indeed make recommendations, but these were very specific and the landlord explained that it was unlikely to have any properties that fit this description in stock, or at least available within a reasonable time. It suggested that the resident approach the local authority or that it may commission an independent medical assessment to establish the resident’s housing needs.
31. In telling the resident that it was unlikely to hold such properties, and that he may need to approach another provider, the landlord was reasonably managing the his expectations. By asking the resident to consent to it commissioning a detailed, independent medical assessment, the landlord attempted to address the information lacking in the resident’s supporting evidence, and ensure that any accommodation offered to him was appropriate for his needs. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s allocations policy, taking into consideration that: the resident had already moved into a property which was not suitable; it had limited properties matching the occupational therapist’s recommendations; and that it did not have sufficient information of the resident’s medical needs, and how they related to his housing requirements, by a qualified professional.
32. Ultimately, the landlord’s response to the resident’s housing request, and its suggestion that it commission an independent medical assessment of the resident’s needs, were both reasonable and appropriate. It considered the resident’s circumstances and, in offering to commission an assessment, assisted the resident in providing the information that it needed to consider a special housing case, as the resident was not eligible for gold or silver banding. This was reasonable and in line with its allocations policy.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.

Reasons

34. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing was in line with its allocations policy. The landlord provided advice and assistance intended to assist the resident resolve his rehousing dilemma, either with the landlord itself, or an alternative social landlord.