London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218291)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218291

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 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

1. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application
   2. The associated complaint handling

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and he resides in the property with his wife and three children. The property has two bedrooms and one bathroom. The resident advised the landlord and this Service that he suffers with an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
3. On 25 November 2021, the resident submitted a medical assessment form and supporting evidence to the landlord in order to be rehoused in a property with two bathrooms. The resident wished to be rehoused as his IBD meant his wife and children’s access to the bathroom was significantly restricted due to the number of occasions throughout the day that he was using the bathroom.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s application on 27 June 2022 and advised that it would be reviewed by an independent medical assessor. The landlord determined on 30 June 2022 that as the evidence the resident supplied to support his application was over 12 months old, it was unable to offer rehousing the resident.
5. The landlord reviewed its decision again on 30 September 2022 and determined that while a second toilet would be helpful to the resident and his family, the evidence did not indicate that the resident’s condition was so severe that he was unable to remain in the property. The landlord advised the resident to seek moving via a mutual exchange.
6. On 7 October 2022, the resident raised a complaint. He was dissatisfied that his application had been rejected due to the supporting evidence being over a year old, but there had been a significant delay in the landlord assessing his application. Regardless, the resident maintained that his medical condition remained the same, and his family were severely restricted in using the properties only bathroom because of this.
7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 November 2022. It said that the resident’s application would be reviewed again, and the landlord would keep the resident updated of the progress. It also offered £10 compensation for the delay in responding to his complaint. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint.
8. On 6 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP, following them raising the resident’s concerns on his behalf. The landlord suggested that the resident obtain an Occupational Therapy (OT) report to support his application to be re-housed. The resident provided the OT report to the landlord on 29 December 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 January 2023 and advised that he met the criteria for a direct offer to be rehoused, and it would be considered by a panel.
9. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. On 6 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained that the resident’s case had been reviewed by a panel, and the landlord determined that the resident was not a priority for re-housing due to having no properties available for the resident’s requirements. It apologised for the distress that had been caused and offered the resident £220 compensation, comprised of;
   1. £100 for its complaint handling delays
   2. £60 for the resident’s time and effort in providing supporting evidence for the landlord’s stage two investigation
   3. £60 for the distress caused to the resident
10. The resident remains dissatisfied because he does not believe that the landlord has considered the significant impact that only having one toilet has on his family. The resident had provided evidence of his medical condition, but does not believe that the landlord has considered it enough.

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. It is noted that as an outcome to the complaint, the resident wanted to move properties. The Ombudsman is unable to require the landlord to move the resident to a specific property, as the landlord can only offer properties based on the availability of suitable properties and taking into account other applicants who may have an even more urgent need to be moved, such as those facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.
12. However, we can look at how the landlord has handled the resident’s transfer application, considering whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice, and can consider whether the landlord has acted in a reasonable way. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application

13. The landlord operates a transfer policy that stipulates that residents may have certain medical conditions that impact their ability to live in their current homes. When applications are made by residents to move on medical grounds, supporting medical evidence is assessed by an independent medical advisor on behalf of the landlord.
14. It also operates an allocations and lettings policy. This outlines that residents can be added to a rehousing list if their circumstances meet specific criteria, such as having a medical condition that means household members cannot access parts of the home.
15. The resident submitted an application to be rehoused due to his IBD on 25 November 2021. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s application until 27 June 2022, after the resident made numerous chaser phone calls. The above policies do not outline set timescales for when a resident’s application would be acknowledged. However, 7 months is an unreasonable length of time to acknowledge the application.
16. The resident submitted medical evidence of his condition in the form of GP and hospital letters. The letters were dated between March 2013 and July 2021. The landlord said that the resident would need to submit more recent medical evidence that indicated that his condition was poorly controlled and remained an issue he was managing. There is some reference in the medical evidence of the resident’s condition being in remission, which would indicate that his symptoms were well managed at certain points. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the landlord requested recent medical evidence from the resident.
17. The landlord reviewed the resident’s application on several occasions, following receipt of medical evidence. The case was reviewed by independent medical assessors, which was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s transfer policy.
18. The resident also underwent an occupational therapy assessment and provided the report to the landlord. The landlord confirmed that the resident met the criteria for a direct offer to be made to be re-housed, and the case had been referred to the landlord’s internal housing panel to consider. The letter also said that the landlord could not confirm when a move would take place, but it would keep the resident updated. This Service understands that this letter could reasonably be deemed to be a definitive conclusion that the resident would be rehoused. It is understandable that the resident felt frustrated that this was not the case. The landlord should reflect on this and ensure its communication is clear and unambiguous to prevent frustration and disappointment to its residents in the future.
19. The landlord confirmed that it did not have housing stock suitable for the resident’s needs. While unfortunate and frustrating for the resident, this does not amount to a failure on the landlord’s part. However, the resident’s priority should not be based on what’s available, but rather, what the resident needs are as a result of his condition. If the landlord had recognised this, it may have prompted alternative solutions such as identifying an adaptable property from its allocation.
20. Given the recommendation made in the OT report to rehouse the resident in a property with an additional toilet, the landlord should have given more consideration to sourcing a property that could have been adapted to suit the resident’s needs. The report was explicitly clear that the resident’s property could not be adapted. The landlord advised the resident that he should ‘seek mutual exchange and move to a property where there are two toilets or provisions to put in a second toilet’. This would suggest that the landlord was placing the onus on the resident to find a property that could be adapted, which is an unrealistic and inappropriate suggestion.
21. Overall, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies when assessing the resident’s suitability for a property transfer. Given that social housing stocks are usually severely limited, it is not unreasonable that the landlord encouraged the resident to explore alternative housing options and provided information on mutual exchange or joining the local authority’s housing list. However, the recommendations contained within the OT report was for the landlord to move the resident to a more suitable property due to his medical conditions, therefore the landlord should have given more consideration to this recommendation and gone further to explore potential solutions.
22. Taking into account the frustration and inconvenience experienced by the resident, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application.

The associated complaint handling

23. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
24. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
25. The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 November 2022; 26 working days after the resident raised his initial complaint. This is beyond the 10 working day timescale expected and a failing of the landlord. Positively, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £10 compensation, in the form of a voucher. This was reasonable given the delay did not have a significant impact on the resident.
26. The available evidence surrounding the resident’s escalation request is limited. However, this Service has established that the resident escalated his complaint and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 17 November 2022. In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord should have issued its stage two response on 15 December 2022. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason.
27. The landlord issued its stage two response on 6 April 2023; 98 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected. The landlord failed to follow its complaint’s procedure and the CHC, and only did so with the intervention of this Service. This was inappropriate.
28. The landlord offered the resident £220 compensation for its complaint handling delays, as well as the time, trouble and distress caused to the resident in raising his complaint. This was in addition to the £10 compensation voucher offered at stage one. While the delays to its complaint responses would have caused frustration for the resident, the Ombudsman notes that the outcome of the complaint was not affected by these delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the overall offer of £230 compensation for the complaint handling failures amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances, which was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
29. A finding of reasonable redress has been determined on the basis that the landlord has issued the £220 compensation offered in its stage two response. If this has not yet been paid to the resident, this should be issued as soon as possible.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s housing transfer application.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application.
33. The landlord must meet with the resident to discuss the properties that it has that are adaptable, and subsequently review the resident’s priority based on his evidenced needs, and not the availability of stock. The landlord can confirm in writing that it has done this.
34. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

35. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £220, as previously offered.