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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202222308)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222308

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 April 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and request to move on medical grounds.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. His property is described a 1st floor, studio flat and he has resided there since 2013.
  2. The landlord has advised its records note the resident has mental health issues and requires “physical support”.

Summary of events

  1. Records show the resident submitted a medical application online on 29 September 2021. The form stated there were 15 external steps to the property entrance and 15 internal steps (the latter is assumed to be an error), outlined the resident’s medical conditions (chronic joint pain and manic depression) and that he wished to move to a new property because he struggled with the stairs and wanted to move nearer to family elsewhere in the city.
  2. Landlord records indicate it discussed the application with the resident’s support worker on 11 November 2021, when it provided information regarding mutual exchanges “if resident doesn’t get the medical priority”. The support worker also requested an update on 6 January 2022, with a diary note on 20 January 2022 stating the landlord had “checked the Medical spreadsheet but not (seen) any updates”. An internal request was made to “advise (the support worker) if there is any outcome to the medical decision”.
  3. On 8 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that a medical assessment form had been received, but it was “unable to send this for assessment without further supporting evidence”. It provided a list of the medical documents and supporting evidence it required and said the application would be sent for assessment once these were received. It advised the assessment would take 8 weeks.
  4. Landlord records indicate the resident’s support worker submitted a new transfer application, with supporting documents, via email on 11 March 2022.
  5. On 19 April 2022, records show the landlord advised the resident the “medical move has been suspended” and there was no timescale for it to reopen but also noting that an “open case for medical move is open”. It also advised the resident to register for a mutual exchange. A mutual exchange form was then sent out on 7 June 2022 following further contact from the support worker.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate the resident’s medical application was sent to the independent medical assessor on either 31 May or 1 June 2022. An assessment was then carried out on 8 June 2022 with the resident being sent a written decision on 13 June 2022. The landlord advised the resident’s application for a direct let on medical grounds had been “assessed in line with our new criteria for housing” (its transfer list having recently been closed) but had been declined. While it recognised there was “a medical need within the household”, it did not consider this met the “threshold for a direct offer”. The resident was advised he would need to provide further supporting evidence if he wished to appeal the decision and this would be reviewed by the independent medical assessor. It also provided a link to its own website which had information regarding housing options and mutual exchange.
  7. On 13 October 2022, the resident submitted a complaint. He raised the following issues and concerns:
    1. He had made an application for rehousing on medical grounds in September 2021 and had submitted “substantial documentation” to support this. However, he had since been advised by the landlord it was “unable to locate” the forms as they “had been lost”.
    2. Following this, he had been advised to submit a new application, which he duly did in February 2022. However, his support worker had since been advised verbally that the transfer list had now been closed.
    3. As a resolution to the complaint, he asked for his application and additional evidence to be reconsidered and to be “rehoused as a priority”.
    4. The resident asked the landlord to confirm how long the complaint procedure took and advised the landlord he was “extremely vulnerable” due to physical and mental health conditions.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, which it put down to “a high volume of complaints”. It noted the resident had complained that his first rehousing application had been lost and that, after resubmitting the forms in February 2022, he had been advised (via his support worker) that the transfer list was now closed. It noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, he wanted to be “rehoused as a priority”. It went on to make the following findings:
    1. It had reviewed its system and found he had not been approved for a direct offer. It advised there was no appeal process.
    2. It recommended he consider moving via a mutual exchange and provided a link to the HomeSwapper website and advice on how the process worked.
    3. It did not uphold the complaint. However, it also offered £15 compensation to reflect the time taken to acknowledge the complaint.
  9. Records show the resident contacted the landlord by email on 21 December 2022. In his email he stated he had tried call the landlord “several times” as he wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. There is no record of the landlord providing a response, while diary entries show the resident chased for updates on 10, 16 and 23 January 2023 and callbacks were requested. 
  10. On 10 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident referring to a conversation it had had with him on 24 January 2023, during which he had asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It advised this had now been allocated to a member of staff, although they were on annual leave until 21 February 2023 and would respond on their return. 
  11. Following contact from the resident, when he advised he was yet to received a further complaint response, this service wrote to the landlord on 3 April 2023, asking it to provide its stage 2 response. Internal correspondence shows the allocated officer being chased for an update on the complaint response before this was then issued to the resident the same day. The landlord stated it understood the complaint to be about his “medical request to be rehoused” and made the following findings:
    1. His medical assessment had been “reviewed by (its) medical independent advisor” and put forward to its Medical Rehousing Panel (“the panel”). However, the panel had decided the resident’s medical needs “did not meet the threshold to be rehoused”. It advised this decision had been confirmed in writing on 13 June 2022 and again within its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. After reviewing the case, it agreed with its stage 1 finding that there were “no grounds” to add the resident to its rehousing list as a resolution to the complaint.
    3. It acknowledged there was “a medical needs within your home” but advised the “qualifying criteria is very high” and demand for accommodation outstripped supply, and priority was reserved for residents who “are not able to safely access their homes, need space for medical equipment or require adaptations that are not possible in their current home”.
    4. It advised it would consider any additional information put forward should the resident’s “medical needs change in the future”. It reiterated its advice that he should try to move via a mutual exchange and again provided a link to the HomeSwapper website.
    5. The landlord provided the Ombudsman’s details and advised the resident he could refer his complaint to this service if he remained dissatisfied.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and request to move on medical grounds

  1. In bringing his complaint, the resident has set out, through contact with both the landlord and this service, that he would like to be moved to a new property as a resolution. While the resident’s desired outcome is acknowledged, the Ombudsman is unable to make such an order, or make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through its relevant policy and procedure. This would be in line with the allocations and lettings policy introduced by the landlord in June 2021.
  2. At the heart of the resident’s complaint is the fact the landlord has failed to award a medical priority and provide him with a transfer based on its assessment of his medical needs. It is acknowledged that the process and outcome has been extremely distressing for the resident. However, it is not for this service to determine whether the landlord should have provided the resident with medical priority, as this depends on the assessment of the appointed independent medical advisor. However, we have assessed whether the landlord acted fairly, appropriately and in line with its policies in the process of considering his application.
  3. Records show the resident originally submitted a rehousing application in September 2021. Evidence seen by this investigation shows it was sent via email and additionally a printed copy had a ‘received’ stamp on it. The resident’s support worker chased the landlord for an update on the application in November 2021 and January 2022, however there is no evidence it was processed and in February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to request he submit a new application along with supporting evidence which both he and the support worker state had already been provided in September 2021.
  4. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to process the original application and this delay would likely have caused the resident additional distress. It was also unreasonable that the complaint responses failed to address the resident’s concern that his original application and supporting medical evidence had apparently been ‘lost’. The landlord focussed on how it assessed the later application and the decision it made but did not acknowledge the fact it had failed to respond to the earlier application. It also failed to consider the likely inconvenience that would have been caused by asking the resident to submit a new application and obtain his supporting medical information for a second time, or the impact this delay and extra steps could have had on someone it knew to be vulnerable. In fact, from the evidence available, there is no indication the landlord considered this or carried out any investigation into what may have happened to the resident’s original application and supporting documents. This was a service failure and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly. He would also likely have felt his concerns about the handling of his application had not been taken seriously.
  5. After the landlord confirmed with the resident and his support worker that a new transfer application would have to be made, records indicate a new application was submitted by the support worker on 11 March 2022. In its letter to the resident in February 2022, the landlord advised that, once a new application and supporting documents were received, an assessment would take 8 weeks. However, records show the new application was not sent for assessment until either 31 May or 1 June 2022, just over 11 weeks after it was submitted. While this is not an excessive delay, it is unclear why the delay occurred and there is no evidence the resident was given any updates or advised the assessment would be delayed. This is likely to have caused him additional concern and stress. In total, from the time of the resident’s original application, it was over 9 months before the landlord assessed the application and provided a decision. This was unreasonable and amounted to a further service failure.
  6. Once the resubmitted application had been processed, records show the landlord appeared to have considered his application promptly and after the medical assessor had reviewed the application, the landlord notified the resident of its decision in reasonable time. As above, the Ombudsman understands the resident’s desire to move and the impact he feels that his current accommodation has on him, but the landlord was entitled to make a decision that was in line with its allocation policy and refuse the application.
  7. However, from the information seen by this investigation, the Ombudsman is concerned that the medical assessor appeared to only consider the resident’s physical health issues when making their assessment and recommendation that the landlord should refuse the application. Within his rehousing application, the resident had also stressed that the size of the property was impacting negatively on his mental health as he reported the “claustrophobic” studio accommodation affected his manic depression. It is unclear from the evidence available whether the alleged impact of the property on the resident’s mental health was also taken into consideration and the landlord is therefore unable to properly evidence that its assessment of the application was appropriate and treated him fairly. This was a further service failure.
  8. While the Ombudsman is careful to stress that the outcome may not change, and the landlord remains entitled to refuse any application if it is satisfied that the criteria for a direct let have not been met, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and make arrangements to reconsider his application for rehousing on medical grounds. This is so it can assure itself it has properly considered each aspect of the resident’s reported ill-health and that its assessment has been compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
  9. Having declined the resident’s application, the landlord appropriately advised him how he could appeal (if he provided further supporting information) and provided details of other housing options, such as mutual exchanges. Evidence shows it also provided this advice throughout its correspondence with the resident and his support worker, which was reasonable. 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, it did not appear to have offered support to assist him to facilitate this. While there is no requirement within the landlord’s policy for it to offer individual support to residents, it could have considered whether it could do more given the resident’s circumstances.
  10. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord showed a lack of care towards a vulnerable resident through its general handling of his rehousing application and a failure to maintain regular contact with him. Its failure to process his original application meant it took 9 months to provide him with a decision from the date his first application was submitted. It also failed to address this issue within its complaint response. There appeared to be a further, albeit shorter, delay in processing the second application and when this was assessed there is insufficient evidence that all the resident’s medical issues were given due consideration. There was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer on medical grounds. An order has been made for the landlord to pay an amount of compensation in recognition of the failings identified through this investigation and the distress and inconvenience these would have caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Within his complaint and correspondence with the landlord, the resident made clear his frustration at being refused a transfer on medical grounds, the main aspect of his complaint was why he had not received an earlier response, having originally submitted a rehousing application on 29 September 2021. While this investigation has not seen evidence which shows the landlord did verbally acknowledge the application was “lost” as the resident asserted, it is clear a form was submitted and received by the landlord on this date.
  2. Despite this, the landlord failed to address this and, even though its stage 1 response acknowledging the resident was “unhappy (his) first rehousing application had been lost”, it provided no further comment or findings on this aspect of the complaint. There is indication its handling of the original application was investigated, no evidence it made any relevant enquiries regarding what may have happened to the original application and documentation, nor why it had not been processed. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed the opportunity to acknowledge a clear service failure, potentially learn from the case and to “put things right” via an offer of redress, such as an apology or offer of compensation which would reflect the distress and inconvenience its mishandling of the application would have caused its vulnerable resident. Its failure to properly address the complaint the resident brought meant it did not treat him fairly and he would likely have been left feeling that the landlord had not taken his complaint seriously.
  3. While the landlord positively identified a delay in acknowledging the resident’s original complaint and appropriately offered an apology and small amount of compensation for this in its stage 1 response, its stage 2 response failed to acknowledge the fact there had been a longer delay in providing a response, as well as a failure to acknowledge and act upon his complaint escalation request. Records show the resident asked his complaint to be escalated on 21 December 2021. However, it was not until 10 February 2022 that the landlord advised his request was being actioned and had now been allocated to an officer who would provide its stage 2 response.
  4. The complaint policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states the landlord will respond within 20 working days, or otherwise request a further 1- working day extension if it is unable to meet this target. By the time the landlord allocated the case for a stage 2 response, over 7 weeks had passed since the resident’s original request. This investigation has not seen any evidence which makes clear why the landlord failed to process the resident’s request within its target timeframe or that it contacted him to advise it needed more time.
  5. Once it came to allocate the complaint, it was not appropriate that the landlord gave the case to a staff member who would not be at work for a further 11 days. While the Ombudsman is not saying how the landlord should manage its resources or workload but, having already experienced a delay of several weeks, when allocating the complaint it should have considered whether it was reasonable that the resident’s case would not be looked at for further week and a half. In any event, the landlord again failed to provide its response within 20 working days of 10 February 2022. The resident was caused further time and trouble in chasing the landlord and contacting this service for assistance.
  6. Once the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 3 April 2023 and asked it to provide its overdue stage 2 response, it is also of concern that this was then provided a few hours later on the same day. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it had already carried out enquiries regarding the complaint and was drafting the response before the Ombudsman’s intervention, but it is noted that the stage 2 response largely reiterates the landlord’s original findings, comments and advice. In any case, the landlord’s final response failed to acknowledge it was issued over 4 months since the resident’s original escalation request in December 2022. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to “put things right” by acknowledging the distress this delay may have caused and the resident’s time and trouble in chasing a response.
  7. It is also of concern that the landlord made a factual error in its stage 2 response, advising the resident that his application had been “put forward to its Medical Rehousing Panel”. However, this was not the case and, in its submissions to this investigation, the landlord has confirmed that “(a Medical Panel) was not in place (in) June 2022”. Records show the panel was introduced following a later review of relevant rehousing and allocations policies in 2022/2023. The landlord’s reference to a panel would have been confusing for the resident and given him the impression that his application had been considered by both the assessor and a convened rehousing panel when this was not the case. That such an error should have been made further suggests a lack of time and care had been put into compiling the stage 2 response.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling. Neither of its complaint responses addressed what had happened to the resident’s original rehousing application or acknowledged the effect its failure to do so would have had on him, his escalation request was not processed appropriately, and the stage 2 response was issued well outside its target timeframe of 20 working days, facts that were not acknowledged by the landlord within its final response. It also provided inaccurate information within its final response, stating his application had been assessed by a rehousing panel which did not exist at the time of the resident’s application. Orders have therefore been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of his rehousing application(s) and to pay an additional amount of compensation that addresses the impact of the complaint delays on the resident, as well as his time and trouble in chasing a response.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s transfer application and request to move on medical grounds.
    2. Its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to process the resident’s initial application appropriately and failed to provide any explanation as to what had happened to it. It failed to process his second application within the 8-week timeframe it set out and, while it was entitled to refuse the resident’s application, there is insufficient evidence that all his medical conditions were considered during its assessment.
  2. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about how his original application had been dealt with and his escalation request was not acknowledged or processed in good time. Its stage 2 complaint response was issued well outside its 20 working day target but neither this, nor the likely associated distress and inconvenience, were acknowledged. Incorrect information was also given regarding how the resident’s application had been assessed, with the landlord citing an incorrect version of its rehousing policy.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for its poor handling of this rehousing application.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £300 to reflect its poor handling of his rehousing application.
      2. £250 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord should also contact the resident and make arrangements to reassess his suitability for rehousing on medical grounds. It should offer support, where needed, to ensure any application and additional medical evidence is resubmitted and processed in accordance with its current rehousing and allocations policies and procedures and ensure all aspects of the resident’s circumstances are given due consideration. It should assess the new application and provide the resident with a decision within 12 weeks of the date of this report. Its decision should also be shared with this service.