Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202218015)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218015

Peabody Trust

20 December 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 resident’s complaint was about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s medical evidence, relevant to her application to be rehoused on medical grounds.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident occupied a first floor, one-bedroom property. The tenancy agreement described it as a two-room property. The landlord informed this Service that the property was recorded as a two-bedroom property. It was occupied by her husband and daughter. Her daughter is now an adult and was 14 as at July 2010. The tenancy began on 20 March 1995.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under its 2023 rehousing policy, it would only consider overcrowding by two bedrooms or more where the property has not been intentionally overcrowded. This included all household members joining the household after the tenancy start date, with the exception of children born to the tenant or to those originally housed. The landlord operated a banding system to prioritise transfer applications. At the time of the complaint. A was the highest priority and D the lowest.

Chronology

  1. In 2010 and 2014, the landlord instructed a company to assess the resident’s medical evidence. The company describes itself as having a team of doctors who specialise in housing medical assessments. The landlord provided the two medical reports follows:
    1. The report dated 5 July 2010 noted the resident’s history of chronic mental health issues. It noted some therapeutic treatment the resident had received in the past. It also noted that “all of the documentation” was “several years old”. It added that it “was difficult to make a reasonable judgement as the information may no longer be relevant. There were no other relevant medical issues. The issue was the suitability of the current accommodation, which was a one bedroom first floor flat without lift access. There were fifteen steps to ascend to the flat, however it was level within once reached. The applicant shared this accommodation with her husband and 14 year–old daughter”. It noted that the only reason given as to why the resident considered that the current accommodation was unreasonable, was a “desire” to relocate to a larger property so her sister was able to co-reside to help care for her daughter. It added that “there is no medical necessity for this. No medical priority accrued and Band D was applicable. This was separate to overcrowding”. It would review the position if the resident provided up–to–date reports from her treating professionals.
    2. The report dated 22 December 2014 noted that the resident suffered from a depressive illness, she was under the care of the mental health team services and was being treated with drugs therapy. She was also under the care of specialist services for chronic fatigue syndrome. The resident felt the property was short of space and there was damp and mould in the property. “These are not medical issues and should be dealt with directly”. The issue of overcrowding was affecting both the applicant and her daughter’s mental health and therefore Band C was applicable. She had a two–bedroom need.
  2. According to later correspondence, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord did not provide the actual complaint but it was cited in its Stage 1 complaint response of 8 January 2022. The response was misdated 3 January 2022 and stated as follows:
    1. It did not have up to date medical information which affected her priority banding. The resident had been registered for a transfer since February 1996. Her banding was C “unsatisfactory housing conditions” with a priority date of 27 February 1996. It was not aware of any recent medical documents. Her most recent bid on a property had been in March 2012. She had made bids regularly between 2007 and 2012. It invited her to submit medical documents for assessment.
  3. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2022 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint and chased this on 9 December 2022. On the same day the landlord requested an extension to no later than 23 December 2022 but did not explain why.
  4. On 3 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
    1. She asked to escalate her complaint to Stage 2. The landlord stated that it did not have records of her medical file. She had sent them “over the years”. The medical letters would qualify her for band A or B. This was also a serious breach of data protection regulations (GDPR. She concluded that the landlord had destroyed her medical records.
    2. She had made a complaint in August 2022.
    3. The landlord’s records showed that her sister and daughter lived at the property yet her sister had in fact moved out. Her husband also should have been recorded as an occupant.
    4. There had been a visit around 2016 from Social Services and her then Housing Officer. A “report” had been prepared. She had stopped bidding because she was constantly at the bottom of the list. Any property suitable to her needs was offered to someone on band A or B.
    5. She had been living in 1-bedroom flat since 1996 when her daughter was born. It was overcrowded and her daughter did not have her private space. The bedroom was not big enough for a double bed and wardrobes. She considered that she had suffered discrimination.
  5. On 20 April 2023, this Service chased the landlord for its Stage 2 response. Following further contact by this Service on 28 April 2023, it acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
  6. On 9 May 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. It had checked its records and correspondence with the resident. It had also interviewed staff and spoken to the resident to discuss the complaint.
    2. This Service had asked the landlord to raise a Stage 1 complaint on the basis that “the landlord had not updated its own systems with up-to–date medical information for the resident, which was then reflected in the priority banding the resident was given for rehousing.’’ It apologised that it did not send the resident an acknowledgement of the complaint in accordance with its policy. It had responded on 8 January 2023. The investigation had found no record of the landlord receiving medical documents from the resident. It invited the resident to provide the medical documentation for the matter to be investigated further. It apologised that the date on the letter was incorrect, and that no apology was offered to recognise its failure to acknowledge the complaint. It also apologised that the resident’s request of 3 February 2023 for escalation was not passed on. It suggested that the resident contact its Stage 1 Resolution Manager directly. It apologised for not responding to this Service’s letter of 20 April 2023 within 5 days due to an IT error that it was investigating.
    3. It had contacted its allocations team to investigate the resident’s concerns of poor record keeping. It reviewed the resident’s contact with the landlord and checked its records back to 2017. It had not identified any contact from the resident. It found no evidence of poor record keeping as a result of which it had taken no action in relation to the resident’s medical banding request. It invited her to provide evidence that the resident had sent in medical evidence and said it would investigate further. Alternatively, if she did not have that evidence, she could provide medical evidence in any event to its allocations team. Once received, her medical records would be “independently assessed”. It assured the resident that it “wished” to help her. It provided specific contact details for the relevant teams.
    4. It had fed back to the relevant teams to ensure that complaint cases were processed correctly. It had just completed a large-scale merger and was focusing on the root cause of complaints. It had increased its staffing levels and provided further training.
    5. It offered £200 compensation for the poor complaint handling, consisting of £50 for its failure to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint on time, £50 to acknowledge “the quality” of the stage 1 response letter, £50 for its failure to acknowledge the escalation and £50 for its failure to acknowledge this Service’s request of 20 April 2023.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 May 2023 as follows:
    1. While she was glad the landlord had recognised its failures, the outcome of the review did not take into account of the “huge stress” she had suffered, not only since August 2022 but since 2000, from when she had been chasing.
    2. It had not investigated properly to find the information in her records. She had obtained it herself in 2021-2022. She considered the conclusion was that the landlord had lost her records, which was a serious breach of data protection. She stated that compensation amounts for data breaches ranged “between £9,000 to £45,000”. The sum of £200 compensation was “an utter insult”.
    3. If she did provide the information, she would not be able to prove that the landlord had either failed in its investigation or lost the records. She asked for the case to be referred to a particular member of staff.
  8. On 22 May 2023, an internal note noted that a recent subject access request (SAR) by the resident showed that it had last “disclosed” medical information to the resident on 12 November 2020. If she had provided any additional medical information since then, she would need to state when it was sent and provide a timeframe.
  9. The landlord wrote on 24 May 2023 to the resident. It referred to a SAR in 2020/1. The documents in that SAR response that had been sent to the landlord were dated 2013 – 2014. It had checked the position with its legal team. It confirmed that it had not received any recent medical evidence. The complaints procedure was completed, so her “route of escalation” was this Service.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s medical evidence

  1. This complaint centres on whether or not the resident had sent to the landlord medical information dated post–2014. The landlord undertook an investigation of its records and undertook two SAR exercises. There was no evidence that the investigation was faulty or not thorough. Not only did it not find the medical evidence, it did not find any reference to it. One would have expected some surrounding correspondence referring to that evidence but there was no evidence of any references. It was reasonable of the landlord to request more details as to when it was sent. It was open to the resident specify the dates or approximate periods when she sent any medical information and/or refer to any related correspondence, including emails.
  2. The resident referred to an application for rebanding discussed with a housing officer in 2016. The landlord had stated that it had investigated going back to 2017. While it may be understandably difficult for the resident to check her own records and her email boxes, and she may have felt it overwhelming to retrieve and forward the information, fault is not attributed to the landlord. It was also reasonable for the landlord to invite the resident to send the information in any event, so that her application for a higher banding on medical grounds could be reassessed.
  3. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord mislaid or destroyed any documents of the resident or failed to find them.
  4. As the resident has made a SAR, it is open to the resident to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she is dissatisfied with the outcome of the SAR.
  5. It is not clear whether the resident had ever been placed on a particular banding because she was overcrowded. She would have been entitled to two bedrooms once her daughter reached her first birthday. It is noted that the 2023 rehousing policy of the landlord does not prioritise overcrowding until a resident was overcrowded by two bedrooms. However, she was placed on band C in 2014 and this was backdated to February 1996.
  6. It was not clear how the local authority scheme worked with the landlord’s scheme. However, the resident bid through the local authority scheme. There was no evidence that the landlord suggested that the resident should apply for an exchange and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. While it is understandable that the resident did not bid because she felt disillusioned with bidding for properties as it seemed only to lead to disappointment, fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard.
  7. The resident raised an issue of discrimination in her complaint. The resident has informed this Service that she felt discriminated by the landlord, given the number of incidents of dissatisfaction she has expressed. Particularly as there was no evidence in this case that there had been a service failure, there was no evidence of discrimination, whether indirect or otherwise. However, when such an issue is raised, the landlord should address the issue, if it is raised, and there was no evidence that it did so. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
  8. It is noted that the landlord informed this Service that the resident occupied a two-bedroom flat, which was evidently not correct. The resident also noted that it had recorded the incorrect occupants at one stage. There may be a number of reasons why the occupants were recorded incorrectly, such as the landlord was not updated. It may be that the landlord in its letter to this Service mistook “two rooms“ for “two bedrooms”. This aspect was not investigated. The landlord, however, should take care that the information it holds is correct, in particular as regards the number of rooms in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there were a series of failings leading to a delay from August 2022 to January 2023 before it responded to the resident’s complaint and a further delay from February 2023 to May 2023 before it reviewed the complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised its failings, including that it had failed to apologise for the initial delay. It also explained that it was reviewing its processes and offered a practical resolution and invited further information from the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions. as well as its offer of £200 compensation, constituted reasonable redress for its failings and was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies, as well as the landlord’s own policies.
  3. The resident did not feel that the sum covered her distress and inconvenience however this was in reference to her reports that the landlord had lost her documents. As it had not made such a finding, it was reasonable that it did not offer to compensate her for any loss or data breach.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s medical evidence relevant to her application to be rehoused on medical grounds.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. There was no evidence that the landlord had not provided the documents it held on file to the resident, or that it had mislaid the resident’s medical evidence. In the circumstances, there was no evidence upon which to base a finding of service failure in relation to the resident’s complaint.
  2. While there were a number of delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged this, it also reasonably offered to revisit the matter on receipt of further information and it offered compensation, which the Ombudsman considers constituted reasonable redress.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should ensure that its records concerning the number of bedrooms at the resident’s property are correct and the resident can easily update the landlord regarding any changes in occupancy.
    2. The landlord should, if it does not do so already, ensure that it provides residents with guidance and/or tenancy support as to her rehousing options, including her ability to exchange, and signposts her to advice and support services.
    3. The landlord should ensure that it addresses any report or complaint about discrimination.
  2. The landlord should provide feedback to the Ombudsman on these recommendations within 4 weeks.