London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202300575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300575

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its handling of her request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2004. The property is a flat in a building with similar properties above and below. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities impacting her mental health, including complex PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
The complaint and subsequent communications were made by both the resident and her representative. For clarity, the report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident”.

Scope of investigation

Over the course of her complaint and in communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has maintained that her current living situation is impacting her health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord suitably considered her vulnerabilities.
In her communication with this Service, the resident raised concern about the banding awarded to her by the local authority. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to application for re-housing specifically made to the local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications and the award of points or banding are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, the resident will need to have made a complaint to the local authority first.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that between 2 and 4 August 2022, the resident contacted it via social media. She asked to speak to her housing officer and said she wished to move due to her mental health. The landlord advised that its internal transfer list was closed the previous year in March due to the number of applications exceeding the number of available properties. It informed her that the best option would be to complete a mutual exchange with another resident.
The resident asked if she would be able to approach the local authority as she wished to be closer to her family given her current depression, PTSD, anxiety and panic attacks. She said that living in her current home was not helping her mental health. The landlord confirmed that the resident was able to contact the local authority to provide details of her request and see what they said. It apologised that it could not assist further.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 8 August 2022, outlining the impact that historic abuse, and an incident which occurred approximately 12 years prior (where she was held at gunpoint in the property), had on her. She advised that she struggled with her mental health and had PTSD, anxiety and panic attacks brought on by the previous incidents. She said that she wanted to move to be closer to her family for support. She advised that she had not been well or looking after herself and had suicidal thoughts that weekend. She was now at work with a colleague. The police were called by the landlord as it had a cause for concern.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident again on the same day. She advised that she could not reside at the property as she did not feel safe there. She did not explain the reasons why but agreed to meet with the landlord. The landlord explained that its internal transfer list was closed due to being oversubscribed and the next step would be to present as homeless to the local authority, although there was no guarantee she would be rehoused this way as the criteria was strict. It explained that she could complete a new housing application form with the local authority and include supporting medical evidence as she had now been referred to a hospital for further support. The landlord agreed to help her complete the form when it met with her that week.
On 9 August 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the local authority had said that the landlord would need to support her if her current property was not suitable in view of her mental health. She added that she had hospital and GP letters regarding her health and asked to be contacted. The landlord responded and apologised that the local authority had not been able to help her further. It explained that a mutual exchange would be the quickest way to ensure an efficient move and provided details of how she could register. It also advised that the resident could apply for a move on medical grounds via her online account, and provided details of how she could set up an account if she did not have one.
The landlord visited the resident at her mother’s house, where she was staying, on 12 August 2022. Its records show that it had discussed the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered to refer her for support, but she declined at this time as she had spoken to a number of people and found this overwhelming. The landlord also advised that its internal transfer list was closed and signposted her to the local authority to complete a new housing application due to medical need. It sent the link to the application and offered support on filling in the form should she need it. The resident advised that she did not feel she could return to the property as it caused distress. She expressed concern that the landlord would consider her to have abandoned the property and it advised that under the circumstances it would not class this as abandonment and would leave a note.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord via a webform on 20 August 2022. She explained that she had recently had a decline in her mental health due to her current housing situation. She believed that this was due to living far away from her family and friends, and not getting the support she needed. She had contacted the local authority’s support services and a crisis line due to having suicidal thoughts and crippling anxiety. She was advised that she would not be offered support straight away. She had been prescribed medication by her GP to help calm her. She said that there was an incident at her current home 12 years prior where 4 men broke in with guns, held her hostage and accessed her property. She wanted to be moved from the property as she was staying elsewhere and did not feel able to return to the property due to her current mental health. The landlord’s records show that the same complaint was raised again on 22 August 2022.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had completed a “high harm” panel referral on 22 August 2022. No further information in relation to this has been provided to the Ombudsman.
The resident asked for an update on her complaint on 30 August 2022 as she had not received a response. She said that she intended to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she did not receive a response and asked that all communication be via email rather than phone. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that the complaint was with the neighbourhood housing officer who was on leave until 1 September 2022, but it had asked them to respond when they returned.
The landlord attempted to call the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 1 September 2022 but its records show that she did not want to speak over the phone at the time. The landlord sent an email the following day to acknowledge the complaint. It said it aimed to respond by 14 September 2022.
The resident asked for an update on 14 September 2022 as she had not received the landlord’s response. She said that she would be seeking evidence from the police and her mental health team and added that she intended to escalate to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. On 15 September 2022, the landlord advised that it was still looking into the complaint and needed more time before it could provide its response. It extended its response timeframe by 5-10 working days.
On 30 September 2022, the resident gave her consent for her mother to act on her behalf and sought an update on the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 October 2022 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delayed response and that the resident’s living situation had been impacting the support she needed from her family and friends. It acknowledged that following an incident around 12 years prior, there had been no ASB cases opened and no reports that the resident had been harmed or intimidated by other residents.
2. The resident had called on 8 August 2022 to make the landlord aware of how she was feeling. This information was shared with the resident’s neighbouring housing lead who subsequently visited the resident on 12 August 2022 at her mother’s home. They had informed her that its housing transfer list was closed and that she did not meet its criteria. The staff member provided a link to the local authority’s housing application form due to her medical needs.
3. The resident had then called to inform the landlord that the local authority would not be able to assist her with moving. The landlord had attempted to explain that it believed that the resident would have a better chance with the local authority as its own housing list was closed but the resident had hung up.
4. It did not uphold the complaint and explained that it would not be able to move the resident where it did not see a risk. It advised her to contact the local authority again to see if they could take her through the process of being moved. It offered to support the resident with filling in relevant forms.
5. It confirmed that as its housing list was closed, it would be unable to rehouse her anytime soon. The local authority would move the resident sooner than it could as it did not have the resources to rehouse her at the time. It apologised that it was unable to help the resident.
6. It provided details of who the resident could contact for internal support and confirmed that she could also contact the Housing Ombudsman Service to discuss the complaint at any time.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had completed a feedback survey on 28 October 2022 following the complaint response. In this, she said that the landlord was “outrageous” as she had mental health issues and was suicidal, but it had said it could not help her. The landlord’s records show that it opened a safeguarding case and attempted to call the resident on 11 November 2022 in relation to the concern she had raised but could not get through. Its records show that it asked for the complaint to be escalated on this date on the basis that the resident remained dissatisfied. Its internal records also noted that it had offered to refer the resident to support previously which she had declined.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any further communication between the resident and the landlord following this until April 2023.
Following contact from the resident in April 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 19 April 2023, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 April 2023. It apologised for the delay and said it would call the resident the following day. It said it aimed to respond by 17 May 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 21 April 2023. The resident had said she wanted to move from the area and that the tenant who had moved into the ground floor property below hers was a DJ and played loud music until 2am. The landlord’s records noted that there were no active ASB cases in relation to the neighbour at the time.
Following the phone call, the landlord emailed the resident on 21 April 2023. It said it understood the reasons why she wished to move and thanked her for confirming that she had not lived at the property since August 2022. It noted that the resident had said that she had not had any luck via home swapping websites but was now receiving support for her mental health. It asked the resident to provide any historic documents that it could engage with. It apologised that it could assist further where the resident had a physical disability but there was unfortunately no system in place to rehouse mental health victims if there was no current ASB case on file. It confirmed the actions that it would take, including:
1. Contacting the local authority’s housing and mental health teams for advice.
2. Liaising with a neighbouring local authority where the resident received assistance for her mental health.
3. Emailing the resident’s MP for intervention.
4. Contacting the head of its housing team for any further help.
5. Asking its housing team to provide any confidential information related to the resident’s previous circumstances that may not be on its main system (due to the sensitivity of the case) as this could be useful to move the rehousing case forward.
The resident responded and provided a letter from a support service to confirm that she was attending counselling and was still in receipt of support.
Between 9 and 10 May 2023, the following happened:
1. The landlord contacted the resident’s MP and counselling service to advise that its housing list was closed, and it was only moving residents on medical grounds. It had previously directed the resident to the local authority but as her needs were not related to a physical medical condition, the local authority was reluctant to help.
2. It noted that the resident was in the process of relisting the mutual exchange adverts and now wanted to engage with Adult Social Care. It noted that the resident did not want to give up the property and be declared homeless, since she may only be offered temporary housing, which could impact her wellbeing and trigger her mental health problems. It asked whether the MP or counselling service would be able to offer any referrals that may be applicable to her current borough or 2 neighbouring boroughs.
3. The resident advised that there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s understanding of her wish to be rehoused as she had not wanted to move prior to a new tenant moving in to the flat below. She said that the landlord had previously sent letters to tenants warning them about driving with loud music playing. She maintained that this was an ASB issue and indirectly linked to the tenant in the flat below hers. She noted that the landlord said it was only moving residents on medical grounds and confirmed that she had been referred for PTSD therapy and that this was a recognised medical condition which would not get better while she was living at the property. She felt that the landlord was trying to push her on to be someone else’s problem and was not showing a duty of care.
4. The landlord apologised for any misunderstanding and said that it did not currently have an ASB case open and explained how she could raise a case in view of her concerns. It said it would need full details of any reported incidents. It said it was willing to offer advice on rehousing, but without physical medical needs or an active ASB case, this may be very difficult.
5. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had suggested that she would need to raise an ASB report against someone that had prompted her suicidal thoughts, stating that this was both inconsiderate and unthoughtful.
6. The resident’s counselling service contacted the landlord and advised that they had been supporting the resident since November 2022. They remained concerned for the resident and said that the current situation was greatly impacting her suicidal ideation. They confirmed that they would be willing to provide any letters or documentation that may help towards resolving the housing situation and improving the resident’s safety.
7. The landlord’s internal records show that it had asked for a meeting to discuss the case and complete a risk assessment.
8. The landlord apologised that the resident felt it did not understand the situation as this was not apparent from the phone call they had. It confirmed that it would need a letter of support to consider, stating that the resident was unable to live in the property due to the issues she was experiencing. It asked the resident to send any relevant evidence and supporting information. It confirmed that it had asked its housing team to complete a new risk assessment and said it would not communicate with any external agencies at this stage as it believed that information was being misinterpreted.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 May 2023 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and noted that she had asked for the complaint to be escalated on 14 September 2022. It said that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint on 20 August 2022 and she raised a second complaint on 22 August 2022. It then responded at stage 1 on 27 October 2022.
2. It acknowledged that its stage 2 complaint response was late. It had raised this as a training need with its resolution and customer relations teams to attempt to avoid this in the future. It accepted that the resident needed to chase her complaint on a number of occasions and in view of her vulnerabilities, it should have been more mindful of the situation.
3. It empathised that the resident had complex medical and living requirements that had occurred due to past traumas and mental health issues. It understood that the resident had engaged with outside resources and that she had recently received helpful support. It acknowledged that the resident had asked to be moved in the past, but that the evidence supplied was not adequate. It understood that the local authority for the area had not helped to rehouse her, but that the resident was now willing to engage with Adult Social Care who could perhaps approach the local authority on her behalf.
4. It confirmed that it had no housing list, and it was only moving residents on medical grounds. It was willing to engage with the resident in relation to her needs. As the resident had not lived at the property since August 2022, it had no recent ASB incidents that would mean it could action a risk assessment to determine whether she should remain at the property or whether the circumstances would warrant a direct let. It confirmed that it had already emailed to offer support if she could supply recent evidence of any occurrences or problems. It had not received a response.
5. It included a timeline of events between 2 August 2022 and 10 May 2023 and confirmed that it had been proactively engaging with its housing team about the reasons for the requested move. It noted that since the local authority was strict on their guidelines for rehousing, it was suggested that the resident applied to neighbouring local authorities that may have move flexibility.
6. It explained that it did not have a housing list but said that if the resident was able to provide more evidence for a medical move, then it could present this to its panel. It provided a list of 10 resources and links to services where the resident could seek further support. It also confirmed that it followed the guidelines and procedures set out in the Housing Act and provided a link.
7. It offered £380 compensation comprised of £230 for the distress, time, effort and inconvenience caused over a 9-month period, and £150 for the delayed response at stage 2 and the complaint handling at stage 1. It arranged for a cheque to be sent to the resident’s address.
The landlord’s records show that it requested a cheque be sent to the resident on 17 May 2022 for £1,790. When queried by the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that this figure was in error due to having 2 residents with the same surname. It had discussed this with the resident at the time but did not seek to recover the costs as the cheque had been cashed by her.

Events following the formal complaint.

The resident and landlord continued to communicate following the final complaint response regarding the resident’s request to be rehoused:
1. On 31 May 2023, following a phone call, the resident sent the landlord 2 letters of support from a dental psychologist and her counselling service. The letter from the resident’s counselling service detailed that she was receiving support for her mental health and that her current accommodation was unsuitable and impacting her risk of suicide. They hoped that if the resident could be moved, her risk would be reduced. The letter from the psychologist noted that the current housing uncertainty was causing a great deal of anxiety and overwhelm for the resident.
2. The resident sent a letter detailing her background and advising that her breakdown was triggered when a new tenant moved into the downstairs property as they were affiliated with the previous incident where she was held at gunpoint in the property. She was dissatisfied that this had not been addressed by the landlord in its decision letter.
3. The resident also provided a supporting letter from her GP which stated that she was receiving support for significant anxiety, depression and PTSD and that the trigger for her symptoms and ongoing poor mental health was her housing situation. The GP said that as the housing situation posed a threat to the resident’s life, it would appreciate the landlord’s attention in supporting her with a change in housing.
4. The resident continued to raise concern about a lack of response from the landlord on 11 July 2023. Her MP contacted the landlord and asked it to respond. The resident also provided the historic crime reference number and confirmed that she was receiving Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for her PTSD.
5. The landlord asked that the resident was provided with a medical assessment form which was sent to her on 26 July 2023. In its letter, the landlord confirmed that once received, this would be sent for a further assessment by its medical advisor. The form specified that it was to be completed so that its independent medical advisor could make an accurate assessment of the resident’s medical needs and decide whether the resident qualified as a medical priority.
6. The landlord’s records show that it sent an email alongside the form on 26 July 2023 which stated that the form was to be completed if the resident was unable to access parts of the home, an OT (Occupational therapist) had stated that the home was not suitable for adaptations, or where the resident required additional space for essential medical equipment. It confirmed that it would review the details and if this passed the medical threshold, it would then send this to its independent medical advisor. Following the advisor’s assessment, any recommendation for rehousing would be considered by its medical panel and a decision made as to whether the resident would be added to its rehousing list to be rehoused under medical grounds.
7. The landlord responded to the MP on 31 July 2023 and specified that it was only able to consider rehousing residents who had severe medical needs and were unable to access all or part of their homes, or there was an immediate evidenced threat to life. The waiting list was currently around 36 months for those already on its rehousing list. It confirmed that once the medical assessment form and evidence was provided, this would be sent to an independent doctor for review.
8. The resident submitted her medical assessment form on 31 July 2023 alongside several supporting letters previously provided.
9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 August 2023 in response to her medical assessment application. It confirmed that the medical criteria for rehousing was very high and only severe cases where mobility restricts access to the home were accepted. It explained that the resident had not met the threshold for a medical assessment in her application. It provided information related to mutual exchange, applying to the local authority’s housing register, and the private rented sector and shared ownership.
10. On 21 August 2023, the resident contacted her MP and the landlord and expressed concern that she was told there would be no point completing the medical assessment previously as she did not have any physical needs and mental health was not recognised. She felt that this was a “tick box” action in response to the MP. She also added that she did not feel the housing lead had offered support as she had not been contacted or responded to. She added that there were vacant properties she was aware of that she wanted to be considered for.
11. The landlord sent a further letter to the MP on 1 September 2023 and provided details of the resident’s housing options. It explained that it only operated a direct let register and access to the register was limited to circumstances where there was an immediate threat to life or where there was an acute medical need which meant residents could not access all or part of their home. It confirmed that the current wait for those registered for a direct let was in excess of 36 months. It encouraged the resident to actively explore her housing options in order to move to a more suitable home as soon as possible.
12. The landlord’s internal records show that it was happy to look at any proof of the neighbour’s involvement with people known to the resident or any police report but without evidence it was unable to open an ASB case. It had no proof that the other party mentioned was linked to any past ASB issues.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she maintained that she wished to be rehoused away from the area. She advised that her mental health crisis was brought on by a new tenant moving into the flat below hers, who was an associate of the gang who had previously held her hostage in her property. She felt that the landlord had ignored this, failed to support her and had dismissed the issue. She had not lived at the property since August 2022 and wanted the landlord to move her to be nearer to her family. She added that the current issues were not related to ASB but to her PTSD and anxiety which posed a risk to her life.
She was dissatisfied that the landlord did not ask for her background history or medical records at any stage and had not investigated thoroughly. The landlord also had not checked on her wellbeing despite being aware of the ongoing situation. Medical professionals had stated that the resident could not return to the property as this would be detrimental to her mental and physical health. She added that there were a number of properties vacant near her mother’s home and she wanted to be moved there.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy effective at the time of the resident’s complaint states that should a resident contact the landlord for advice on moving, it would assess their circumstances and provide a range of options. These may include mutual exchange, applying to the local authority’s housing list, the private rented sector, or a direct offer (via its rehousing list).
The policy states that for a resident to be added to the rehousing list, their circumstances must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of Antisocial Behaviour.
2. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
3. The household is severely overcrowded and there is a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding, or the tenant wishes to downsize to a smaller property as their household is under-occupying their existing home.
4. A temporary move is required to carry out repairs to the resident’s permanent home or the resident’s home is to be demolished or disposed of.
5. Exceptional circumstances as approved by senior management.
The policy acknowledges that an emergency move may be required where there is an unplanned or unexpected event which makes the property uninhabitable or unsafe. In these circumstances, the landlord may contact the local authority to assist in providing emergency accommodation. Local authorities have a duty to rehouse a person who is homeless if their home is uninhabitable or if they are fleeing violence.
For a resident to be added to the rehousing list, their case will have to be presented to the rehousing panel. The panel would require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision. If a case is declined by the rehousing panel, residents will be allowed to submit an appeal request.
The landlord updated its policy in May 2023 shortly after the resident’s complaint. It updated the criteria to be met in order to be added to the rehousing list. The criteria now specifies that “Either the resident or an original member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that 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, they may qualify”. It also removed reference to exceptional circumstances being considered.
It further states that the decision to add a resident to its rehousing list would now be made by the landlord’s Priority Needs Panels. The Panel for housing management is divided between a Panel which assesses domestic abuse, gang-related violence, high level antisocial behaviour and hate crime and a Panel which assesses medical cases which includes recommendations from an independent medical advisor. Prior to the assessment of the Priority Needs Panels, the applicant’s case will be reviewed by the line manager of the relevant service to ensure it meets the rehousing criteria of the Priority Needs Panels. If a case is declined by the Priority Needs Panels, applicants will be allowed to submit an appeal request if they are unhappy with the decision.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy defines a vulnerable resident, in part, as someone with any condition or circumstance that places them at risk in their home. It states that it would consider ways to support vulnerable residents, including through communication preferences, service adjustments, in house support and external referrals for support. The landlord would update its systems to reflect a resident’s vulnerability where this is identified.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that it aims to ensure that the needs and interests of adults at risk are always respected and upheld in accordance with the law, regulation and good practice, and a proportionate, timely, professional and ethical response is made to anyone at risk of abuse, harm or neglect. Staff are expected to report any incident and take action where appropriate. All managers are responsible for ensuring that safeguarding matters are reported, and that safeguarding is effectively managed. It further states that where there is a case involving serious harm of an adult at risk with care and support needs, a serious case review will be conducted to identify whether there were any failings, and, if so, establish what lessons could be learnt and any actions to rectify the failings.
The landlord, and its website, confirms that its rehousing service remains temporarily closed to new referrals and it would not assess any new medical applications submitted after 7 February 2022. Its website confirms that it had to offer most of its available properties to the local authority and only a small number each year were available for its rehousing service. This measure was taken to allow it to work through the number of families waiting to be offered a home.
The landlord’s complaints policy (active at the time of the resident’s complaint), states that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, the complaint should be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days. It would then issue its response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. Where the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, the landlord needed longer to respond, it would contact the resident, explain the reason why and write again within 10 working days.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its handling of her request to be rehoused

The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident feels she is unable to return to the property and wishes to be rehoused due to her vulnerabilities. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, to prioritise her over other applicants or tenants that need to be rehoused who may be in a similar or greater need, or to rehouse her in specific properties she has said were vacant. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.
In this case, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse her in view of her mental health difficulties as she did not feel able to return to the property following a mental health breakdown in August 2022 and she initially advised that she needed to live closer to her family for support.
Following the resident’s initial request to be moved in August 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining that its internal transfer list (which had previously been in operation) was closed and that the resident could pursue a mutual exchange as the best option. While it is evident that the resident has not been successful in her endeavours to pursue a mutual exchange, the landlord’s advice at this stage was reasonable as completing a mutual exchange with another social housing resident can be a quicker way to progress a move than through the local authority’s housing register (due to the extent of the demand for social housing).
The resident made the landlord aware of her current mental health conditions and state on 8 August 2022 and detailed that she had significant mental health vulnerabilities and PTSD from historical trauma and a previous incident at the property. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its safeguarding policy at the time by raising a cause for concern and involving the police in view of the resident’s comments about her current mental state.
Where a landlord receives notice of a vulnerability, it would be required in line with the Equality Act 2010 to give consideration as to whether the resident has a disability as defined by law. Where on notice, it must consider whether its decision making, or actions, could place a person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. Outside of its disability related obligations, it is expected that a landlord would take into account any other vulnerability disclosed to ensure a sensitive and linked-up approach and give regard to its communication and offers of support being tailored to the individual.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging to visit the resident which it did on 12 August 2022 (which was within a reasonable period). It is noted that the landlord offered to refer the resident to support services at the time which was reasonable but that the resident had declined. The landlord’s internal records show that it had referred the resident to a “high harm panel” on 22 August 2022 which indicates that it considered her to be at risk and this may have been a reasonable action to take. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with information related to the what the high harm panel considers, who it is comprised of, the referral, or the actions taken following the referral.
It is of concern that despite informing the landlord of her immediate suicide risk and PTSD, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord added any vulnerability flags to its system to notify relevant staff of her vulnerabilities until April 2023. In addition, there is no evidence that the potential risk prompted the landlord to complete a full risk assessment at the time which would have been appropriate in order for it to tailor any support or communication needs and consider any reasonable adjustments.
The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that it no longer had an internal transfer list as this had previously closed and by providing advice to the resident in relation to her options. These included presenting as homeless to the local authority or completing a new housing application form to the local authority on medical grounds. The resident has raised concern that the landlord advised her to present as homeless to the local authority. Ultimately, the local authority is responsible for providing emergency housing for those who are homeless. While this was not the favoured option, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to provide advice on all available options to the resident. Given that the resident felt she was unable to return to the property and it was unsuitable given her current mental health, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware of this as a potential option. It is noted that it had also offered support to the resident in completing the new application form to the local authority which was appropriate.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the resident had been informed that she did not meet its criteria but it did not specify which criteria it was referring to, or what it had considered as evidence, which was likely to have caused confusion to her. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it believed the resident would have a better chance with the local authority as its own “housing” list was closed. However, it did not provide clear information about its rehousing service or the circumstances in which it may offer a direct let.
It also said that it would not be able to move the resident where it did “not see a “risk”. This was likely to have caused frustration to the resident as she had already explained that she was currently a risk to herself when residing in the property. The language used by the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s reported vulnerabilities and it did not consider whether stating that it did not see a risk could have a negative impact on her. In addition, it had not sought any evidence to justify that there was no risk of her remaining in the property at the time.
It is noted that the resident responded to the complaint feedback survey on 28 October 2022, saying that she felt it was outrageous that the landlord could not help her given her mental health concerns or that she was suicidal. It was reasonable for the landlord to open a safeguarding case at the time in view of her comments. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with documentary evidence relating to the period between 11 November 2022 and 20 April 2023.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 11 November 2022 in view of her response to the feedback survey and the safeguarding concerns. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided evidence to show that any further contact was attempted or made following this for a period of approximately 5 months. The landlord ultimately had an ongoing duty to keep the resident under review given the serious concerns raised, and a duty to ensure that safeguarding was effectively managed in line with its policy and obligations. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence of the actions it took at this point in response to the safeguarding concern is a failing as it did not demonstrate it gave due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In addition, given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that she was not living at the address, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided a point of contact. The landlord’s internal records suggest that the member of staff who had been involved in the case had been absent for a period in the time between November 2022 and April 2023. Ultimately, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that another member of staff took ownership in their absence. It should have systems in place to ensure that this happens, and significant concerns are actioned appropriately. The landlord has shown a lack of care towards the resident through a failure to demonstrate that it had maintained regular contact with her. While the landlord acted reasonably by providing a list of support resources to her within its stage 2 complaint response in May 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided these from the outset in an attempt to support her.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman in April 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident and confirming the actions it would take in its email of 21 April 2023. The Ombudsman has seen a number of positive actions taken by the landlord to support the resident at this point to support her with a move. This included asking internally whether any other residents had requested a similar move, asking for contacts at other local agencies it could engage with, asking the resident’s MP to intervene and provide a referral and contacting the local authority on the resident’s behalf. It is evident that the landlord took steps to support a move from the property in view of the resident’s concerns.
The evidence provided also shows that the landlord was in discussion with a serious review case officer, which suggests that there were ongoing safeguarding concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the evident gap in communication within its complaint response, outside of the delay in responding to the complaint, and explain whether it had identified failings in its handling of her case. The landlord ultimately failed to acknowledge the impact that may have been caused to the resident as a result of it not communicating effectively with her.
Further, there was a significant delay in the landlord considering whether the resident may have met the criteria to be rehoused via a direct let as set out in its allocation and lettings policies. The landlord had initially made the resident aware that she could apply for a move on medical grounds via her online account on 9 August 2022. However, it did not request any further evidence to support the resident’s claim that she was unable to live in the property as a result of her current mental state at any stage prior to 21 April 2023, approximately 8 months following her first report and the initial safeguarding concern.
The landlord was evidently aware of the resident’s mental health concerns, and it should have requested relevant medical evidence at an early stage so as to assess her circumstances as specified in its allocations and lettings policy. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord’s website confirms that its rehousing service remains temporarily closed and states that it was not considering any new medical applications for rehousing that were made after 7 February 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord explained that it was no longer accepting new applicants to be considered for a direct let or offered transparent information specifically in relation to its rehousing service at any stage.
In addition, its communication with the resident from 21 April 2023 onwards suggests that it was, in fact, considering new medical applications for rehousing and would also consider moving residents where there was an immediate risk to them. It remains unclear why the landlord failed to use its discretion to consider whether the resident met one of the criteria as outlined in its allocations and lettings policy at the time or offer a clear explanation in relation to its rehousing service being temporarily closed indefinitely if this was the case.
The resident also made the landlord aware on 21 April 2023 that a new tenant who had moved into the property below hers around August 2022 played loud music which caused disturbance. In her communication to this Service, the resident has raised concern that the landlord did not seek to investigate or respond to her report that the decline in her mental health was the result of a new tenant moving into the flat below hers.
The landlord acted appropriately by checking its records for ASB reports at the time but there is ultimately no evidence that the resident had raised specific concerns about the neighbour in the flat below either as part of, or alongside, her complaint prior to this. A landlord would require evidence of alleged ASB to support it in taking action and it is understood that as the resident was not living at the property, there were no incidents or reports that it could action.
Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining that it did not have information related to any recent ASB incidents (as the resident had not lived at the property since August 2022) which meant that it could not complete a risk assessment to determine whether the resident should remain at the property or be considered for a direct let under these circumstances. While it is understandable that the resident did not want to reside at the property in view of her mental health concerns, it was reasonable that the landlord could not consider moving the resident directly under this rehousing criterion as there was ultimately a lack of evidence to support that the resident was at risk by remaining in the property specifically in relation to ASB.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has alleged that the tenant who moved into the property below hers was linked to the significant ASB incident in her property years prior. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that this matter was raised directly with the landlord prior to, or during, the complaints process. As such, the landlord could not have acted on these concerns at an earlier stage as it was not aware.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has received no supporting evidence to confirm that the tenant in the property below the resident’s was linked to the historic incident since the complaint. However, while the Ombudsman has seen evidence that police disclosure was received by the landlord, it is unclear whether this request related to the tenant in question. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it sought to query the resident’s specific concerns with the police. This would have been an appropriate action in order to ensure that there was no ongoing concern that the tenant in question was linked to the previous incident, and there was no immediate risk to the resident as a result of the tenant below being linked to the previous ASB incident.
The landlord’s communication in May 2023 regarding the circumstances in which it would consider moving a resident was inconsistent and likely to cause confusion to the resident. It initially advised on 21 April 2023 that it could assist further where the resident had a physical disability but there was no system in place to rehouse mental health victims where there was no current ASB case on file. At the time, the criteria to be considered to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list did not specify that a consideration of a medical need or disability related solely to physical disabilities. This comment indicates that the landlord’s practice for considering rehousing applications on medical grounds may treat residents with mental health disabilities or conditions unfavourably. This will be discussed later in the report.
Following its communication in April 2023, the landlord informed the resident’s MP that it was only moving residents on medical grounds. It made no mention of the threshold or criteria that needed to be met in order to consider a medical application and it is evident that the resident reasonably believed she would qualify as having a medical ground in view of her PTSD and risk to herself as a result of her mental health.
Within its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, the landlord further stated that if the resident was able to provide medical evidence to support a medical move, it could present this to its panel. It signposted her to a link to its website and the section which stated that it was not accepting any new medical applications for rehousing from 7 February 2022. This was likely to have caused confusion to the resident in relation to any medical evidence being considered. While it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence outlining that the resident was unable to live in the property due to her medical concerns, as above, the landlord should have taken steps to request this and confirm its position much earlier in view of its safeguarding concerns.
In addition, despite advising that it could present her evidence to its panel, it failed to provide relevant information about the process that needed to be followed or the threshold that needed to be met before the information was presented to its rehousing or priority needs panel. This would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and provide clarity.
The landlord’s ongoing communication with the resident following its final complaint response and its practice for considering medical applications has highlighted a number of concerns for the Ombudsman. As such, the investigation has considered events following the landlord’s final complaint response.
The resident provided a number of letters in support of her claims that she could not reside in the property as a result of her mental health. Specifically, one said that the accommodation was unsuitable and impacting the resident’s risk of suicide. Another letter from the resident’s GP said that the trigger for the resident’s symptoms was her housing situation and that this posed a threat to the resident’s life. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any review of how the landlord could support the resident further was completed in view of the serious risks raised.
The landlord sent the resident a medical application form which specified that the threshold to be considered for a medical assessment was reliant on a physical mobility need. It remains unclear as to why the landlord sent the resident a medical form where it was evidently aware that she did not have a physical need that would meet the threshold outlined in the form. The outcome letter specifically advised that only severe cases where mobility restricts access to the home were accepted for a medical assessment. The outcome of the assessment was unlikely to be surprising to staff given that the resident did not have a physical need. It is the Ombudsman’s view that asking the resident to complete the medical assessment form was unnecessary if the landlord’s practice meant that it was only considering physical needs. It remains unclear as to why the landlord advised, in its stage 2 complaint response, that it could send medical evidence to its panel for review if it was aware that the application would not be successful due to the threshold for consideration under its existing practice.
In addition, the landlord’s communication with the MP was inconsistent and did not provide transparent information or explain that specific criteria in relation to a resident’s physical ability to access the property must be met. It confirmed that it was only able to consider rehousing residents who have “severe medical needs and are unable to access all or part of their homes, or an immediate evidenced threat to life is provided”. It also advised that once received, the application would be sent to an independent doctor for review. It made no mention of the threshold or a review by its own staff who would consider sending the application on to the advisor. It is of concern that the landlord’s communication to the MP, and with the resident directly, did not align.
The landlord later, following the outcome of the medical application, advised the MP that access to the register was limited to circumstances where there was an immediate threat to life or where there was an acute medical need which meant residents cannot access all or part of their home. This again did not specify that the need was required to be a physical need.
The Ombudsman is not able to say whether the independent medical advisor, or subsequent in-house panel, would consider the resident’s circumstances to be sufficient to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list. The landlord has advised that the wait time for those on its list was in excess of 3 years due to the demand for housing. It is the Ombudsman’s view that being successfully added to the landlord’s rehousing list would not have necessarily resulted in an efficient or productive outcome for the resident and the landlord had reasonably offered advice on suitable alternative housing options to her from the outset.
However, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively. It provided unclear and inconsistent information in relation to the medical criteria that needed to be met to be considered for a further medical assessment to be rehoused. The landlord ultimately had the discretion to allow the resident’s circumstances to be considered by an independent medical advisor at any stage and it is the Ombudsman’s view that it fettered its discretion by not allowing the resident to present her application to an independent medical advisor despite advising her that an evidenced immediate threat to life would be considered. There is little further evidence the resident could provide in relation to her suicidal ideation without returning to the property which medical professionals had stated would increase a risk to her life.
The landlord’s communication about the criteria for rehousing, its practice of focusing on physical mobility needs, and its allocations and lettings policy do not align. The policy specifies that where the resident has a significant medical need or disability which means that 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, they may qualify to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list.
The landlord’s policy itself is reasonable and includes an equality impact statement which notes that it has a duty to eliminate unfair treatment and discrimination in the services it provides to its customers in line with the Equality Act 2010. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman is concerned that there is no policy basis for the landlord’s practice to only assess a medical need to be rehoused where a resident has a physical need or disability while temporarily closing its rehousing service for other applicants due to capacity. A “medical need or disability” as outlined in its policy does not specify that this must be a “physical” need or disability. An “immediate risk to life” also does not specify that this would need to be an external risk such as through ASB or disrepair or exclude an immediate risk of suicide.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s need to limit the number of residents waiting to be rehoused via its internal rehousing list due to a limited supply of properties and that there is an increasing demand for social housing. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether discrimination has taken place or whether the landlord has breached its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 as these are legal matters for a court to decide on. However, it is the Ombudsman’s role to identify whether a landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
There is a concern that in considering one type of disability or need (physical), over another (mental) the landlord may be treating residents with mental health vulnerabilities less favourably. It remains unclear as to whether the landlord has fully considered its obligations to eliminate unfair treatment and discrimination in view of its current practice in relation to rehousing. The Ombudsman has made a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to review its current practice for assessing medical applications for rehousing and consider whether this is in line with policy and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Details of what should be included within the review are set out below.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in respect of the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its handling of her request to be rehoused. The landlord took reasonable steps to inform the resident of her rehousing options and support the resident at times. However, the Ombudsman has found failings in relation to:
1. The lack of evidence to support that the landlord acted in line with its obligations to show due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities between November 2022 and April 2023 despite the serious nature of the risks reported. This is in addition to the significant delay in the landlord adding vulnerability flags to the resident’s account to notify relevant staff that she had vulnerabilities.
2. The delay in seeking medical evidence from the resident to support it in fully considering her circumstances and making a fair assessment of her needs.
3. A lack of regard to the impact that suggesting it did not see a risk (within its stage 1 complaint response) may have had on the resident given her reported vulnerabilities, and the lack of justification for this.
4. Inconsistent and unclear information provided in relation to the process, and criteria and threshold required to be met, to be considered for a direct let.
5. The lack of care and discretion when considering the resident’s request to be moved from the property.
The Ombudsman has not made a further order of compensation in this case as it is noted that the landlord previously issued the resident an additional £1,410 via cheque by mistake on 17 May 2023 and has said it has not sought to recover this. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this figure is in a range that is considered proportionate where there have been failures which had a significant impact, including an emotional impact, and the redress required to put things right is significant.
An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and confirm that it would not seek to recover the compensation paid in error on 17 May 2023. If it has recovered the payment made in error, it should pay the resident £1,410 in recognition of the impact of the failings identified within the report. While the figure itself is proportionate, the landlord did not intend to pay this or identify all its failings which is why the maladministration finding has been made.
The Ombudsman has not made any specific orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s policies or practices in relation to vulnerable residents as part of this report. This is because a Paragraph 49 special investigation was issued to the landlord in July 2023 and work in relation to resident vulnerabilities is ongoing following the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 August 2022 and again on 22 August 2022. The complaint was acknowledged on 2 September 2022 and responded to at stage 1 on 27 October 2022. This was an overall period of 47 working days. It is not disputed that this was outside of the landlord’s acknowledgement and response timescales at stage 1 and the resident spent time and trouble pursuing a response during this period, which was likely to cause inconvenience.
While the resident had said that she intended to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on a number of occasions prior to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it is the Ombudsman’s view that landlords should usually only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 at the time.
The landlord’s records show that it received the resident’s response to its complaints feedback survey on 28 October 2022 where she expressed dissatisfaction that it had said it was unable to support her despite her mental health concerns at the time. The landlord’s records show that it asked internally for the complaint to be escalated on this basis on 11 November 2022. There is a lack of evidence to confirm this was done or that the resident was made aware that the complaint had been escalated albeit the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident pursued the complaint directly with the landlord following this.
Following contact from the Ombudsman on 19 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2023 which was within a reasonable timeframe of the Ombudsman’s request. It acted fairly within its response by acknowledging the delay in completing its stage 2 review and apologising to the resident. It also demonstrated points of learning and confirmed that it had raised a training need with its resolution and customer relations team to avoid similar failings in future.
The landlord’s offer of £380 for the complaint handling delays and the distress, time, effort, and inconvenience caused is proportionate in view of the failures identified. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range can be considered proportionate where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. The landlord has made redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its handling of her request to be moved.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

While the landlord did take steps to support the resident at times and provided reasonable advice on the resident’s housing options, there were periods of time where no contact was made despite significant safeguarding concerns. In addition, the landlord did not seek medical evidence from the resident for it to assess her needs or provide clear information regarding its own rehousing service. There was also a lack of discretion by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be moved in view of her vulnerabilities and circumstances.
The landlord acted fairly within its responses by acknowledging its complaint handling delays, apologising to the resident, and offering compensation which is considered proportionate in recognition of the failings. It also acted reasonably by establishing points of learning in view of the delays and internally recommending training for its staff.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report. It should also confirm that it does not intend to recover the additional £1,410 compensation paid in error on 17 May 2023 given the Ombudsman’s determination and the identified failings. If it has already recovered this amount, it should pay the resident £1,410 within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to rehousing via a direct let. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. A review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning. This should include a review of its due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the nature of its communication with her in view of her vulnerabilities.
2. A review of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, respect and rights (January 2024).
3. A review of its practice for assessing medical applications for rehousing, including in relation to the requirement of a physical need so that it does not unfairly exclude residents who say they are unable to live in the property due to a mental health vulnerability. This should not focus specifically on its current policy but seek to understand its considerations in practice. It should consider whether its practice is in line with its policy and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It should seek legal advice where appropriate.
4. Reviewing whether the information on its website in relation to its rehousing service being temporarily closed provides residents with accurate and sufficient information regarding its rehousing service.
5. Reviewing its procedures in relation to safeguarding and whether sufficient procedures exist alongside its policy. It should consider any staff training requirements and whether there is sufficient guidance as to how staff should handle open safeguarding cases (including frequency of contact with residents) and when to close a safeguarding case.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report to include:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. The steps it intends to take to improve its service as a result.
3. A clear guidance document to be shared with staff to clearly outline its practice for assessing rehousing requests, including the criteria and thresholds that are to be considered, to ensure its communication is consistent.
The landlord should present a copy of the final report to its Board and Housing Committee and Member Responsible for Complaints and confirm how it will embed any recommendations into its future service delivery. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance in relation to the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to gain an update on her current circumstances and consider any additional support it is able to offer her.