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

London Borough of Waltham Forest (202422442)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422442

Waltham Forest Council

27 February 2025


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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a managed move to supported accommodation that does not have a shared entrance and is located outside of the landlord’s borough.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed flat within a block containing 6 flats. 
  2. The resident has vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic; this means that he requires communications to be ‘autism-friendly’. The resident has explained that this means no complex written communications and he has requested the landlord and this Service ring him before sending any written communication.
  3. The landlord sent a referral to the landlord’s Independent Living Service (ILS) on 22 January 2024 asking the team to assist the resident with an application for sheltered housing.
  4. The ILS team contacted the resident in February and March 2024 to help with the sheltered housing application form. The resident advised the team that he thought the landlord had already applied for sheltered accommodation on his behalf in 2020. However, the ILS team confirmed to the resident on 8 March 2024 that no previous application for sheltered housing had been submitted. The ILS team advised the landlord that they had offered to assist the resident to apply for sheltered housing but he had refused this offer on 8 March 2024.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2024 regarding the landlord’s handling of his request for supported housing. The landlord replied on 8 October 2024 and confirmed it had referred the resident to the ILS team to support him with the rehousing application but said the resident had refused the offer of support. The landlord concluded that it had taken all reasonable steps to support the resident with his rehousing application.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2024 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply. He stated that he had requested to be rehoused in October 2020 and the landlord had agreed to progress the application as part of a ‘managed move’. He had therefore advised the ILS team in March 2024 that an application form should not be required for a managed move as this should follow a different process. He said he wanted to move out of the borough.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 November 2024 in which it stated the following:

a.     The landlord said it could not find any evidence or records of the resident’s request for rehousing made to the landlord in 2020.

b.     The landlord confirmed it had referred the resident to the ILS team in early 2024 for support to complete the rehousing application. However, the landlord said the resident had declined the support and therefore the application process had not progressed.

c.      The landlord said the resident would need to complete the necessary form to resume the application. However, it stated that it did not have access to sheltered housing outside of the borough.

d.     The landlord did not uphold the complaint.

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 25 November 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply. He repeated that the application form the ILS team suggested he complete was not needed for a managed move. He also disputed the landlord’s statement that it had no sheltered housing outside of the borough. He stated that the landlord had used accommodation outside of the borough in relation to rehousing residents at risk from anti-social behaviour. He also questioned why the landlord had not advised him in 2020 that it could not transfer him to sheltered accommodation outside of the borough.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident advised this Service on 9 October 2024 as part of his stage 2 complaint that the landlord had advised him in 2020 that he would be moved to sheltered housing.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This principle is reflected in paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…were not brought to the attention of the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
  3. It is important to raise complaints within a reasonable timescale because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sheltered/supported housing from 2024. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2024 has been made in this report to provide context.
  4. Although this report makes reference to the council’s housing allocation scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated any matters relating to the following matters which fall within the remit of the LGSCO:

a.     Housing allocations under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.

b.     The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a managed move to supported accommodation that does not have a shared entrance and is located outside of the landlord’s borough

  1. The council’s housing allocation scheme states:

a.     Applicants for sheltered and extra care housing will be prioritised according to their level of need. It adds that the sheltered and extra care housing panel will assess applications for sheltered housing and award applicants a level of priority based on their personal circumstances. The bandings used to decide on the priority of an applicant are shown in the housing allocation scheme.

b.     The Council has discretion to make an allocation of accommodation through a direct offer of a particular property to an applicant. Direct offers may be made for various reasons, including for urgent housing management reasons, such as an urgent need to decant an occupier or in order to move an occupier into a place of safety away from a threat of violence.

c.      The council has a Social Needs Panel which may decide the level of priority to be awarded to an applicant on social or welfare grounds. The panel may consider a variety of factors, including requests to agree an applicant for any type of special housing provision, such as supported housing or requests to transfer following harassment.

  1. The Shelter website states that managed moves (also known as management transfers) are agreed by landlords where the landlord requires a resident to move, or the resident needs to move urgently due to, for example, domestic abuse, violence, harassment, intimidation, urgent social reasons or there are major works needed to the property.
  2. The landlord’s records show that during 2023, the council’s litigation team corresponded with the resident’s solicitor and indicated that the resident may wish to move to sheltered housing. Therefore, on 22 January 2024 the landlord sent a referral form to the council’s independent living service (ILS). The form requested the ILS to provide support to the resident to help him complete the sheltered housing application form.
  3. The landlord’s website states that residents wishing to move to sheltered housing must complete a sheltered housing application form. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to complete an application form if he was interested in applying for sheltered housing. The landlord’s website gives residents the option of applying online or using a paper application form.
  4. As the resident was known to be vulnerable, it was also reasonable that the landlord had arranged for the resident to receive support to complete the application form. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed its intention to refer him to the ILS for help to complete the form. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part because the resident was unaware that he would be contacted by the ILS.
  5. The ILS contacted the resident on 5 February 2024 and offered to support him to complete the sheltered housing form. However, the resident advised the ILS that they should contact the officer who the resident understood had already completed an application form. The officer concerned advised the ILS on 5 March 2024 that he had not previously completed a form because the resident had refused to engage with him. The ILS advised the resident on 8 March 2024 that an application had not previously been completed and offered to support the resident to complete the application form. However, the ILS recorded that the resident refused its offer of support.
  6. The resident made a stage 1 complaint (via the Ombudsman) on 9 September 2024 in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his request for sheltered housing. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 8 October 2024 and focussed on the offer by the ILS to assist the resident with an application for sheltered housing.
  7. The resident’s stage 1 complaint had not mentioned any reasons why his application should be considered as urgent or that he was requesting a ‘managed move’. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to focus its stage 1 response on the offer from the ILS to help him complete the sheltered application form. The Ombudsman has noted that the sheltered housing application form is very detailed and requests information about the applicant’s current housing situation, including whether the applicant has experienced harassment, neighbour nuisance or a lack of support.
  8. The resident later added in his stage 2 complaint dated 9 October 2024 that he was requesting the landlord to agree a ‘managed move’ to sheltered housing and that an application form should not be required as managed moves operate under a different process. The council’s housing allocation scheme states that direct offers can be made by the council “for urgent housing management reasons, such as an urgent need to decant an occupier or in order to move an occupier into a place of safety away from a threat of violence”. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was requesting a direct offer for urgent housing management reasons when he requested a ‘managed move’.
  9. The housing allocation scheme goes on to say that a referral can be made to the council’s Social Needs Panel for an assessment on whether an applicant should be given priority. The referral has to be authorised by the Divisional Director of Housing Solutions or the Rehousing Manager/equivalent senior manager.
  10. As the resident had requested a ‘managed move’ as part of his stage 2 complaint, it was a shortcoming that the landlord did not use its stage 2 reply to explain the process and criteria for agreeing a managed move (or management transfer) for urgent housing management reasons. The Ombudsman has not, however, treated this as a service failure because the resident did not mention that he was seeking a managed move in his stage 1 complaint or indicate that there were urgent grounds for him to be transferred. The resident also did not indicate any urgent grounds for a transfer in his stage 2 complaint. Although the Ombudsman has not found a service failure, this Service has recommended that the landlord should contact the resident to explain the criteria and the process to apply for a management transfer.
  11. The Ombudsman has noted that the housing allocation scheme states that a referral to the Social Needs Panel will only be made if, in the opinion of the authorising manager, there is a reasonable prospect that the panel will make a decision in the applicant’s favour. The Ombudsman has therefore recommended that the landlord should request the resident to set out his reasons for seeking a management transfer and should then consider whether to submit his application for formal assessment.
  12. In his stage 2 complaint dated 9 October 2024, the resident said that he wanted the landlord to move him to sheltered /supported housing outside of the borough. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it did not have any sheltered accommodation outside the borough. The landlord’s statement is supported by various information reviewed by the Ombudsman as part of this investigation, including the landlord’s website, the council’s housing strategy and a document commissioned by the council called ‘Waltham Forest Housing Commission Evidence’ dated February 2023. None of these sources indicate that the landlord owns any sheltered housing outside of its borough.
  13. The resident advised this Service on 25 November 2024 that he disputed the landlord’s statement that it did not have access to sheltered housing outside of its borough. The resident said he was aware that some residents had been placed in properties outside the borough for anti-social behaviour. The landlord’s website confirms that residents may be placed in temporary accommodation outside of the borough, such as in privately rented self-contained accommodation or hostels owned and managed by the landlord. However, as the resident was seeking to be rehoused permanently, this type of accommodation would not be relevant. Based on the evidence seen, it was reasonable for the landlord to point out that it did not have any sheltered accommodation outside of the borough.
  14. Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably because:

a.     The resident had expressed a wish to be rehoused into sheltered accommodation and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to complete a sheltered housing application form as the first stage of the process.

b.     The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and the application form was detailed and therefore it arranged for the ILS to assist him to complete the form.

c.      The resident had not mentioned in his stage 1 complaint that he was requesting a management move/management transfer or that there were any grounds for an urgent transfer to sheltered/supported housing.

d.     Based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, the landlord correctly advised the resident that it did not own any sheltered housing outside of its borough.

  1. In reaching its decision, the Ombudsman can confirm that the evidence considered included recordings of telephone calls with the landlord, including the ILS.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and the landlord’s complaints policy states:

a.     It will respond in writing to all stage 1 complaints within 10 workings days of the complaint being logged.

b.     If the landlord is unable to respond within 10 working days, it will inform the resident as soon as possible if an extension is required and give the reason(s) why. Any extension will extend to no later than an additional 10 working days from the original deadline.

c.      If the complaint has not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, they can ask the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.

d.     The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.

e.     If, for any reason, the landlord needs more than 20 working days to respond to the complaint, it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for its response. Any extension will be no longer than 20 working days unless there is a good reason, which will be explained to the resident.

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint (via the Ombudsman) on 9 September 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 8 October 2024, which was 21 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised in its letter for the delay in responding, however, the time taken was inappropriate as the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident it would require an extension of time.
  2. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 9 October 2024 (via the Ombudsman) and the landlord logged the complaint on 10 October 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 12 November 2024, which was 24 working days after it logged the stage 2 complaint. This was longer than its published 20-working day timescale. The Ombudsman has again not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that there would be a delay in responding and therefore the time taken by the landlord to respond was inappropriate.
  3. The Ombudsman has found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. This is because it did not respond within its published timescales and did not contact the resident to inform him that the replies would be delayed at either stage of the complaints process.
  4. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to put things right. The sum is within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a managed move to supported accommodation that does not have a shared entrance and is located outside of the landlord’s borough.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £50 for its complaints handling (the landlord should speak to the resident to confirm the arrangements for paying this sum prior to making the payment).

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:

a.     Contact the resident to explain the criteria/process to apply for a management transfer and request the resident to set out his reasons for seeking a management transfer. The landlord should then consider whether to refer his application for formal assessment.

b.     As the resident has requested a transfer outside of the borough, the landlord should provide the resident with details of the options for transferring to a property outside of the borough, including sheltered housing.

c.      As the resident is known to be vulnerable, the landlord should arrange for its Independent Living Service to contact the resident to discuss any wider support needs.