Haringey London Borough Council (202408313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408313

Haringey London Borough Council

14 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remain in her property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has lived in the property, which is a 2 bedroom bungalow, since the tenancy began in September 1975. The resident has Spina Bifida, cannot walk, and uses a wheelchair. The property was specially adapted in 1990/1991 for the resident. This included the installation of aids such as ramps and handrails, as well as the widening of doorways to enable wheelchair access.
4. The tenancy was a joint, secure tenancy between her mother and father, until her father’s death in 2000. The resident’s mother became the sole tenant until her death in June 2020. The resident became an ‘unauthorised occupant’ of the property.
5. On 13 August 2020 the resident applied to succeed the tenancy. On 29 September 2020 the resident applied for a Grant of Tenancy. The resident wanted to remain in the property.
6. On 3 June 2021 the landlord’s ‘Decisions Panel’ (the panel) met to discuss the application. It agreed to the resident’s request for a Grant of Tenancy, but deferred the decision about her request to remain in the property.
7. In June 2022 the landlord conducted a ‘Senior Management Review’. It determined that the resident was not eligible to remain in the property, and must move to a suitable 1 bedroom property instead. The resident requested a review of this decision.
8. On 16 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord. The landlord promised to provide an update by 30 November 2023.
9. On 19 February 2024 the resident emailed her local Councillor. She explained her situation and asked for help to remain in the property. The Councillor logged a complaint about the landlord’s decision on the resident’s behalf on 25 March 2024.
10. On 11 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that it had followed its policy in handling the resident’s application, but that the panel had declined the resident’s request. It committed to making a suitable offer of alternative housing to the resident. The resident’s Councillor requested escalation to stage 2 on 15 April 2024.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 May 2024. It outlined the process which had been followed to reach its decision regarding the resident’s application. It explained that the resident was not entitled to a 2 bedroom property, in line with its policies and procedures. It said that it was committed to supporting the resident, but that ultimately the resident would need to move from the property when a suitable alternative offer was made.
12. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 30 May 2024 to investigate the landlord’s handling of her application. She wanted to remain in her property.
13. On 12 September 2024 an offer of a 1-bedroom property was made directly to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

14. It is understood that in this case the landlord declined the resident’s application to succeed the tenancy from her mother. A person’s rights to succeed a tenancy upon the death of a secure tenant is set out under the Housing Act (1985). The Ombudsman has not assessed the landlord’s decision not to grant succession in this case, as it would be fairer and more reasonable to raise this through the courts. In addition, the landlord’s decision not to grant succession was not raised through the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman has instead concentrated on events after the refusal of succession took place. These issues are often handled together, but any references made to “succession” in this report are included for context only.

Handling of the resident’s request to remain in the property

15. The landlord’s Allocations Procedure states that “all requests for a grant of tenancy on the death of a tenant where no statutory succession takes place will be considered by the Exceptions Panel.” The panel which met in June 2021 was referred to in documents as the ‘Decisions Panel’. It is reasonable to conclude that this was the same as, or performed the same function as, the Exceptions Panel. The resident wanted to remain in the property and the landlord had previously concluded that she had no legal right to succession, so the landlord followed its procedure by taking her application to said panel.
16. The panel was tasked with determining whether the resident would receive a tenancy and, if so, whether it would pertain to the current property. While the landlord’s Allocations Procedure does not specify a timeframe for reviewing applications, the fact that it took approximately 9 months for the landlord to assess the resident’s case was unreasonable. This prolonged delay undoubtedly created unnecessary insecurity for the resident and lacks any justifiable explanation. Such an excessive wait to consider if she could remain in her property was unreasonable and likely caused distress during an already challenging time.
17. When the panel met in June 2021 it agreed to grant the resident a tenancy but deferred the decision to allow the resident to remain in the property to the ‘Housing Decisions panel’. This is because the landlord’s Allocations Policy contains a “bedroom entitlement matrix”, which is used to assess the likely bedroom entitlement of a resident. The matrix shows that the resident would not normally be eligible for 2 bedroom property. When a resident wishes to be granted a tenancy in a property with a number of bedrooms which exceeds their entitlement, the landlord’s Allocations Procedure states that the decision will be put to the Housing Decisions Panel.
18. It is unclear however if the appropriate panel ever met to consider the decision which had been deferred. The landlord noted that it deferred the decision “to check whether this decision could be made via usual success route as the property has been adapted specifically for [the resident’s] needs.” It added that it did “not think this is decision [is for the] panel at this stage”. It is unclear what was meant by “the usual success route”.
19. The subsequent meeting held was a “Senior Management Review” in June 2022. It appears therefore that there was a failing and that the landlord did not follow its Allocations Procedure. Instead of “checking if the usual route” was available and then reconvening the panel as would have been appropriate, it appears that the landlord prematurely arranged to conduct a review of a decision which had not yet been made. This was a failing.
20. The evidence shows that it took the landlord a year to convene this meeting. The landlord’s Allocations Procedure states that when a resident requests a review of a decision it has made, it should have “responded to the resident in writing within 56 days”. The landlord therefore did not follow its policy by arranging a review prematurely in the first place, and then significantly exceeded its own timescales in conducting one. By the time the Senior Management Review took place, the resident had been waiting more than 2 years to find out if she would be able to remain living in her property.
21. This was an unreasonable delay which subjected the resident to further distress and uncertainty in her housing situation and was a failing. The landlord explained to the resident in July 2021 that it “had no indication of when” the decision would be made. This was inappropriate and unreasonably added to the resident’s feelings of uncertainty. It is unclear how well the landlord communicated with the resident after this point, as it appears records of correspondence were not provided. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that the resident was not adequately updated in the intervening period.
22. The Senior Management Review, completed a year later in 2022 decided not to grant the resident an exception to remain in her current property, as it contained more bedrooms than she was entitled to. Although the request included grounds for the resident’s appeal, there is no documentation indicating what was discussed or what medical evidence was presented. This lack of information is significant because the Allocations Policy allows applicants to request an additional bedroom due to medical or social needs, and their circumstances are meant to be taken into account. Additionally, it is unclear what professional or medical expertise the panel members possess. The meeting documents were also incomplete, they were not dated, and lacked the required signatures.
23. The policy allows for an extra bedroom to be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as when substantial specialist medical equipment is installed. The property has been adapted to meet the resident’s complex needs. However, it is unclear what considerations were made during the Senior Management Review regarding this aspect of the application.
24. The resident uses multiple types of wheelchairs and currently stores them in her spare room. The landlord was first informed about this on 25 March 2024. According to the Allocations Policy, an OT assessment may be requested to guide decisions, but it is unclear why this was not done. It was unreasonable in the circumstances not to request this information. This oversight likely resulted in significant medical considerations not being considered, as they were not known about. The landlord therefore has not demonstrated that it paid due regard to its duties under the Equality Act (2010).
25. The evidence suggests that the landlord is currently waiting for an Occupational Therapists (OT) assessment to become available, to inform it of the resident’s required adaptations to move to a new property. This further supports that this would have been a reasonable prerequisite to consider the resident’s suitability for her current property.
26. The landlord has made direct offers of rehousing to the resident. The resident advised that although these properties were adapted, they were not suitable. It is unclear why the landlord has deemed it appropriate to make offers to the resident, when it does not have the necessary information informing it of the resident’s housing needs.
27. There is no evidence that the landlord has sought to impose penalties on the resident for declining these offers, in line with its Allocations Procedure. There is no evidence that the landlord has issued the resident with notice to leave her current property either, which is reasonable. However the resident is aware that the landlord could, and may usually, do both, in line with its Allocations Procedure. This has caused distress to the resident. The resident explained that she is worried about facing repercussions for not accepting an offer of housing, even if the property is unsuitable. The Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord ensure no penalties are considered and no notice to quit is issued, until it has a clear understanding of the resident’s housing needs in the form of an OT report.
28. The landlord’s Allocations Policy states that residents “can request a review of certain decisions” made by the landlord. The policy does not specify what the review process is, but based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that a senior decision making body would reconsider the decision made and provide an opportunity for the resident to present any further evidence. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain to the resident who would conduct her review and how it would be handled after she requested one in September 2023.
29. The resident chased the landlord on 16 November 2023. The landlord responded apologising for the delay, and promised a decision would be made by 30 November 2023. On an unknown date in December 2023, the resident reported that a senior staff member visited the resident to inform her that her review had been unsuccessful. However, there is no evidence that a review took place, aside from the one that had been held prematurely in June 2022. There is no evidence that the resident was asked to provide any further evidence to support this review. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident what was considered as part of this review, when, or by who.
30. There is reference made in internal emails from 11 June 2024 that the decision had gone to a “Senior Review Panel”, but there is no information of when this took place or what evidence was considered. The evidence suggests this was in fact referring to the June 2022 meeting. The internal emails concluded that “there is no further channel to take [the decision] through”. It appears therefore that by holding a review prematurely, it deprived the resident of her right to have a review of the decision. This was a significant failing, which was significantly exacerbated by the landlord then telling the resident a review had taken place, when it had not.
31. The landlord’s Allocations Policy affords the resident the right to request a review of the landlord’s decision. Even if the landlord mistakenly felt that a review had already taken place, it should have still conducted a further review because it told the resident that it would. It should have ensured detailed and accurate notes were taken to support its decision. It should have gathered further information to inform its decision, such as an OT report. That it did not was a failing in its service.
32. The evidence suggests that the resident may have been told that an OT report could provide a further opportunity to review the decision, which the resident asked the landlord for more information about on 20 December 2023. The landlord replied to this email, but did not respond to this element. Internal emails from June 2024 contradict this by stating that “there is no further channel to take [the decision] through”. There is no evidence the resident was informed of this. The resident’s expectations were therefore poorly managed and there was a significant failing in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
33. In conclusion, the Ombudsman has been found a number of failings on the part of the landlord, in that:
    1.        there is no evidence that its original decision was considered and made in line with its Allocations Procedure.
    2.        there is no evidence of what was discussed at the review, which took place prematurely, or that appropriate medical evidence was requested to inform the decision that was made.
    3.         it subjected the resident to significant and excessive delays, and communicated poorly with her about what to expect from the process.
    4.        the resident was deprived of her right to have the decision reviewed.
    5.        by failing to collate all of the relevant medical evidence to inform its decision, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered its responsibilities under the Equality Act (2010).
34. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs) are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord is ordered to ensure it now takes steps to put things right. It is ordered to arrange for an OT to assess the resident’s housing needs. Upon receipt of the OT’s report, it should put the resident’s request to remain in her property to its Housing Decisions Panel, in line with its Allocations Procedure. If the resident remains unhappy, she will retain the right to request a review of the landlord’s decision.
35. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the resident faced significant and prolonged distress due to the uncertainty of her housing situation. Despite her persistent efforts to challenge the landlord’s decisions, the landlord repeatedly mishandled her requests. She submitted substantial medical evidence, yet there is no indication that it was given proper consideration. At the time of this determination, the resident had already endured four years of adverse effects due to the landlord’s shortcomings, on top of dealing with the death of her mother. Therefore, it is evident that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be granted a tenancy and her request to remain in the property.
36. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been severe maladministration, which has had a significant and prolonged impact on the resident, compensation of over £1,000 should be considered to put things right. An order is made below for the landlord to pay the resident £1,250 in respect of her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. The landlord is also ordered to write a formal apology to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
37. The landlord did not identify its failings during the complaints process and was therefore unable to take any steps to ‘learn from outcomes’. The Ombudsman has made an order below under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The landlord must conduct a senior management review of this case to identify what steps need to be taken, such as improved processes, amendments to its existing policies, or staff training, to prevent the same failings from reoccurring. It should also consider what changes may be required to ensure it better communicates with residents during applications and decision making processes.

Complaint Handling

38. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what is required of the landlord when dealing with complaints. It specifies that the landlord should issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It should respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response took 12 working days from acknowledgement. The stage 2 took 29 working days. Therefore it was late on both its responses.
39. As a result, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused further unnecessary delays and disappointment to the resident. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling delays which occurred.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remain in the property.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,250 to reflect the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
    2. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report, including the delays in complaint handling. The apology must contain a written commitment to comply with the orders made in this case, and confirm that the resident will retain the right to request a review of any decision made in respect of her tenancy. The letter must come from a senior member of staff.
43. Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must conduct a senior management review of this case, and share the details of this review with the Ombudsman. As a minimum, it must ensure the review pays consideration to:
    1.        Whether its policies or procedures require any alterations or improvements.
    2.        Why the landlord so significantly exceeded its timescales in this case, and what steps should be taken to prevent this from reoccurring.
    3.         Identifying any training needs of staff members responsible for dealing with the relevant processes outlined in its Allocations Policy.
    4.        The way in which it communicates with and manages the expectations of residents during the decision making processes covered by its Allocations Policy.
    5.        Its record keeping practices in relation to its decision making processes.
    6.           The number of other residents of the landlord who have applied for Succession, Grant of Tenancy, or have requested to remain in their property in the last 12 months, and review their cases. It should then identify any failings and seek to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’, for example by offering compensation to those residents.
44. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must instruct an Occupational Therapist to conduct an assessment of the resident’s housing needs. It must continue to ensure that no penalties are issued against the resident for declining any offers of housing on suitability grounds in the meantime.
45. Within a further 4 weeks of receiving the OT report, the landlord should convene its Housing Decisions Panel to consider the resident’s request to remain in the property. It should give the resident and/or her representatives the opportunity to submit further information. It should clearly explain its decision and outline any evidence relied upon.