London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225824)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225824

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 May 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a 1 bedroom house. The tenancy began in April 2017. The resident lives with physical disabilities and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
The resident worked with organisations who acted as his representative in his dealings with the landlord and the Ombudsman. For the purposes of this report, they are referred to as the resident.
The landlord was made aware in December 2017 that the resident was disabled and would require adaptations to the property, especially to the bathroom. It advised that an Occupation Therapist (OT) report should be obtained. The resident raised concerns in 2020 about the height of his toilet and told the landlord about his disability. It told him to obtain an OT report if he needed the toilet changed.
Following a telephone call, the landlord advised the resident in writing in June 2020 that he should apply for a mutual exchange as it found this to be a quicker way for residents to obtain desired properties. It provided him with details of websites which may be of assistance. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any information about the telephone call or what was discussed.
The landlord provided the resident with transfer and medical forms in January and February 2021, and in June 2021, the resident made an application for rehousing. The landlord confirmed receipt of the application in July 2021.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 August 2021 and advised him it did not have a transfer list as it was closed in May 2021. It explained about the option of a mutual exchange and told him to approach the local authority to join its housing list. It told him his application would be sent for a medical assessment and if it returned with a decision of priority, it would be referred to a panel for a decision on a direct let only.
The landlord informed the resident on 21 August 2021, and 23 August 2021 that his application had been unsuccessful. It said that his case had been assessed in line with its new criteria for rehousing. It stated his medical assessment was evidence based, and should he wish to appeal, he would need to provide additional supporting medical evidence which highlighted that remaining in his current home was a risk to the household. On receipt of the information, his assessment would be sent for further review to its independent medical advisor.
The resident emailed the landlord in October 2021, he requested information around the criteria he was assessed against and said he aimed to appeal, providing his reasons. He also asked for a copy of the assessor’s recommendations report to aid him in understanding how he did not meet the criteria. He advised he had further medical evidence to provide.
Between January 2022 and March 2022, the resident chased the information he had requested in October 2021. The landlord responded to the resident in April 2022 and apologised for the delay. It explained that it had a limited number of housing stock available for its residents and that it had taken the decision to temporarily close its rehousing list, even for medical reasons. As such, it was not accepting any medical assessment forms, and it highly recommended he tried to find a mutual exchange.
The resident then contacted the landlord on 23 August 2022 and said he was disabled, and that he disagreed with its decision in August 2021. It advised him that he could provide further evidence to strengthen his case and there was a “rehousing crisis” with an 18 to 24 month waiting time.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord through the Ombudsman in February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 March 2023. It explained the history of his application and said he was unable to appeal the outcome. The landlord:
1. Told him his medical assessment had not met the criteria and he was informed of this on 23 August 2021. He was unable to appeal this outcome and needed to submit further supporting evidence for a review.
2. Said as this occurred back in 2021, he needed to complete a new medical form. It was, however, not resolving any overcrowding issues, so residents were not allocated larger properties.
3. Reiterated the advice around a mutual exchange and said he should also try other exchange sites. It advised him where he could find information on mutual exchanges on its website and with its customer service centre, or local authority. Once a suitable property was found, a mutual exchange application form would be required.
4. If he had a medical condition regarding stairs, this could be reviewed as part of the medical assessment. It was processing medical assessments for residents who required adaptations or had mobility issues that affected them accessing their home.
5. He was told in 2021 and 2022 that should he wish to appeal its decision, he needed to provide further supporting medical evidence which highlighted that remaining in his current home posed risk to his household. He had not provided any supporting evidence.
6. It awarded him £10 for the failure to respond to his complaint within 10 working days.
The resident advised on 31 March 2023 he was not happy with the stage 1 response due to errors about his “applications”. He also raised an issue around the compensation offered in the stage 1 response and said he would escalate to stage 2. He provided his reasons for escalation on 14 April 2023, but the landlord said internally it did not receive them until 11 May 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023 and:
1. Said he had informed it that he had a physical disability at the start of his tenancy, and he felt the property was not suitable for him. It had advised him that the local authority had nominated him for the property, and he accepted the offer of rehousing as he was in temporary accommodation.
2. Found he was now occupying the property as a family of 3 and had requested rehousing on medical grounds in 2021 which was declined.
3. Stated it identified that he had asked for a review but after informing him that he needed to provide further medical evidence nothing was received. His housing options officer had also requested the same evidence in August 2022, but nothing was received.
4. Reiterated the advice provided in its stage 1 response, that a new assessment was required due to the length of time the issue had been outstanding. If he was successful, the wait for a new property could be 18 to 24 month, this was due to having limited homes and a rising demand for them.
5. Said he had raised issues around overcrowding, however, its internal rehousing list was closed. It could assist him with completing a rehousing application to the local authority.
6. Stated he had indicated he did not want this, but it asked him to let it know if he reconsidered. They had also discussed the use of mutual exchanges, which he had been using for 4 years, but there had been little progress. It encouraged him to keep trying. It advised it understood his frustration, but he needed to keep trying.
7. Said he had told it that he felt confined in his home and his personal circumstances were upsetting him. It apologised to hear he had recently fallen outside his home. It assured him that it was committed to working with him to ensure he had all the relevant support available to him. It stated it would be happy to instruct its neighbourhood housing lead to work with its resident support leads to ensure his wellbeing. If he felt this was something that would help it asked him to let it know.
8. It found that its communication with him had taken too long. It provided the example of his escalation request which had taken 6 weeks to receive a response.
9. It also identified a delay in its stage 1 response, apologised for the delays and offered him £80 with an additional £40 for the time and effort in chasing a response. It considered this full and final settlement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns around injuries following a fall down some stairs. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings.

Handling of the resident’s rehousing application.

The landlord was informed in December 2017 that the resident required adaptations to the property. It advised him that he needed to obtain an OT assessment. The resident also raised concerns about the unsuitability of his toilet in 2020, and he was again advised to obtain an OT assessment, if he needed the toilet changed. Following his complaint, and its stage 2 response, the landlord queried if the resident had an OT report and told him to go to his GP for a referral. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to assist the resident further. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered his personal circumstances and satisfied itself that he was aware of the process to obtain an assessment.
This may have allowed it to obtain the necessary report at an earlier point and to take the necessary actions to assist him much sooner. It could have (if it had the facilities), considered making the referral on the resident’s behalf, followed up on progress or signposted him to the appropriate organisations, who could have supported him. This would have demonstrated that it was taking an active interest in resolving the resident’s difficulties. It had 3 separate opportunities to address the resident’s concerns and failed to do so. The failure to provide a reasonable level of guidance and support in obtaining an OH assessment, led to missed opportunities for the landlord to fully understand the resident’s needs in relation to his use of the property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident does not appear to have asked for support or further guidance on obtaining an OH assessment. However, given the issue, had been outstanding since he moved into the property in 2017, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more proactive in its approach to the situation. The failure to do so shows it failed to take a customer focused approach.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy which came into force in April 2021 states that it will assess a resident’s circumstances and give them the best options which are appropriate to their needs. In line with its policy, on several occasions, the landlord recommended and advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange. It also advised him to apply to the local authority’s housing list. It was appropriate of the landlord to provide him with these alternative rehousing options for finding a suitable property. It recognised the limitations within its own housing stock’s ability to assist him in finding a suitable property, as it was unsure it could meet his immediate needs. It also did the same in its stage 1 response and provided him with further information on websites he could register for which may be of assistance.
The policy also states that it will rehouse residents where 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. The landlord referred the resident’s application to its medical assessor. It was entitled to rely on the opinion of its expert (the assessor in this instance) in making its decision. It appropriately did so, and reached the conclusion that it did based on the expert’s opinion.
Following the resident’s application the landlord confirmed receipt of it internally in July 2022. It then spoke with him on the phone on 4 August 2021 and explained it no longer had a transfer list as it was closed in May 2021. It acknowledged his application on 11 August 2021 and said to the resident, it had advised about the closure of its housing list through previous communications and advised him to apply for a mutual exchange again. Whilst the actions it took were appropriate for it to take, it is unclear whether the landlord made the resident aware prior to August 2021 that it had closed its transfer list in May 2021. It should have notified him at the earliest possible opportunity, for example in July 2021 when it received his application. The failure to do so was unreasonable. The landlord also informed the resident that it had closed its rehousing list including for medical needs, in April 2022. It however did not make it clear when it took this action, or whether it made the resident aware of this in a timely manner and this was inappropriate. This further demonstrates issues with its communication with the resident.
The landlord also told the resident that he would be assessed against its new criteria but did not provide him with information about the criteria or how he could access it. This was inappropriate and left him uninformed on the criteria he would be assessed against or where to find it. This raises concerns about its communication with the resident.
The landlord then provided its decision a few weeks later on 21 August 2021 that his application was unsuccessful, but he could appeal the decision. To do so he would need to provide further medical evidence and it would be reviewed. The resident expressed an intention to appeal the decision in his letter of October 2021 and requested information on the criteria he was assessed against. It is unclear if the letter was meant as an appeal of the decision, or if it meant that an appeal would be made later. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken action to establish the resident’s intentions, and it has not demonstrated that it did so, or that it acknowledged receipt of his correspondence.
The resident then had to chase the information he requested in his letter of October 2021 multiple times between January 2022 and March 2022. It is unclear if he was ever provided with this information, as the landlord responded in March 2022 advising him it could not release the information as his representative had requested it. The delay of 5 months between October 2021 and March 2022 in responding to the resident about this, was unreasonable as he had to take the time and trouble to pursue the same information. It also raises questions about the landlord’s communication and record keeping. This is because it would have been aware that it needed to provide a response on each occasion and has not demonstrated that it did so. If it was aware of any potential delays in its response, it should have provided an explanation to him. It also suggests issues around its transparency with the resident. Landlords should be transparent with residents in processes regarding rehousing. If there are criteria to support its decision making, this should be shared with residents to help provide an understanding that decisions made are fair and reflect individual circumstances.
The resident then raised his disagreement with its decision not to rehouse him again in August 2022. It tried to manage his expectations by explaining about the long waiting times of 18 to 24 months for rehousing. It assisted him by providing the decision letter again which explained what he needed to do and provided a call back to ensure he had received the document. These were all positive actions for it to have taken to try to help the resident.
In the landlord’s decision letter in August 2021, it told the resident that he could appeal the decision and submit further medical evidence for a review. In its stage 1 response, it told him he could not appeal the decision, and he needed to submit further medical evidence for a review. Although there is conflicting advice around whether the resident could appeal the decision, what remained consistent is the requirement for further medical evidence to review the decision, and this had been confirmed several times. It then told him that as the application was made in 2021, he needed to complete a new medical form. This may have been confusing for the resident as it suggested he could not appeal the decision, but have it reviewed, and was then told he needed to make a new application. It was not sufficiently clear if the new form would be a new application or treated as a review.
The landlord said that it had told him in 2021 and 2022 that he needed to provide further supporting medical evidence, but it could not see that he had. Although appropriate that it had advised on the provision of further medical evidence several times, it failed to respond to his questions around the criteria which had been used in the assessment of the evidence he had provided. The failure to do so was unreasonable, left the resident uninformed, and led to it not resolving the issue at the earliest opportunity.
Within its stage 2 response it reiterated to the resident that given the length of time that had passed, a new medical form with all the relevant evidence would need to be completed. This was a practical and appropriate approach to take, as there may have been changes in the resident’s medical circumstances. It however failed to be specific with him as it should have advised him whether this was being treated as a new application for rehousing, or whether it would be treated as a review. The failure to be sufficiently clear left the resident uninformed.
When the resident made his application in July 2021, he provided medical evidence dated between 2018 and 2021. The landlord had explained to him on multiple occasions that he needed to provide new medical evidence for his application to be reviewed. The evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that it has since received further medical evidence dating up to 2023. It is unclear whether any further medical evidence was provided following the resident’s letter of October 2021 in which he said he would appeal or prior to the stage 2 escalation. The landlord however, discussed internally whether the appeal letter from the resident, received after the initial decision (i.e. letter of October 2021), was enough to be sent for a review, or if he needed to submit a new application. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if the letter could be regarded as enough evidence for a review at a much earlier point in the process. The fact that it was now considering this in July 2023 means that there was a delay of 20 months in it considering his evidence, and this was inappropriate. This saw the resident taking the time to chase the matter with the landlord.
In summary, the landlord acted in line with its policy by advising the resident to consider options such as a mutual exchange around being rehoused. However, there were issues with its communication as it failed to be sufficiently clear in how it was handling the resident’s review and contradicted its decision letter in its stage 1 response. It failed to provide him with the criteria he was being assessed against in a timely manner despite his requests. It also failed to consider if the letter provided in October 2021 was enough to allow a review in a timely manner. It has not demonstrated it did so until after the stage 2 response. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident initially raised his complaint with the Ombudsman in February 2022. Following the service’s request to the landlord to provide its stage 1 response, it was identified that there were technical issues around the named tenant on the complaint. This led to an understandable delay in it being dealt with by the landlord. As such it was deemed that the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 21 March 2023, which was within the 10 working day timeframe within its policy.
The resident then said he ‘would’ escalate his complaint on 31 March 2023. The landlord, however, regarded the resident’s email as his escalation request. It explained internally that it had noted the wrong date of escalation within its stage 2 response (14 April 2023 rather than 31 March 2023), and it had calculated the compensation from March 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It says that if a decision cannot be providing within 20 working days, an explanation and date must be provided to the resident in writing, which should not exceed a further 10 working days. Following the escalation, its response was delayed by 17 working days, and it has not demonstrated that it provided an explanation and date for the response. This was inappropriate and saw the resident taking the time to chase the outstanding response. Its actions were not in line with its policy.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £10 in the form of a voucher for the failings it identified its stage 1 complaint handling. It also offered the resident £80 for its communication failings for its handling of the complaint across both stage 1 and 2. It offered a further £40 for the time he took in chasing a response. It also apologised across both of its complaint responses to the resident. Considering the level of delay and the time taken by the resident to chase the response, the Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
2. Reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failings identified in this report.
1. Pay the resident compensation of £400 for its handling of the resident’s request for review of his rehousing application.
1. Provide the resident with assistance around obtaining an OT report/assessment (if it remains outstanding) and provide any relevant signposting which may be of assistance.
2. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Meet with the resident and identify if it requires any further information/evidence around the resident’s circumstances and application. Confirm to the resident if it is dealing with the matter as a review, or a new rehousing application, and explain why. It must then provide him with an outcome of the review/ application, and if he does not meet the criteria, provide him with:
  1. Appropriate assistance and signposting around his housing options.
  2. An explanation on why he does not meet the criteria and information on the criteria he was assessed against.
2. Provide proof of compliance with this order.

Recommendation

Pay the resident the compensation of £130 previously offered across its stage 1 and 2 responses.
Provide the Ombudsman with an explanation of its intentions around the recommendation.