London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306620

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 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:
   1. Application to be rehoused on medical grounds.
   2. Related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in the 1-bedroom first floor flat with his family. He has physical disabilities which the landlord is aware of. A representative has supported the resident in making his complaint. However, for ease this report will refer to the ‘resident’ when detailing both his and his representative’s actions.
3. In late-August 2021 the resident submitted a medical assessment form and supporting evidence to be rehoused. He cited a number of conditions, including ones that affected his mobility and his ability to access his home because of the lack of a lift. An independent medical expert reviewed the resident’s assessment in October 2021 and recommended he be rehoused. The landlord subsequently confirmed his application would be considered by a panel, but this Service has not been given a copy of the communication.
4. After asking for updates and receiving no response, the resident made a complaint in August 2022. He said he was unhappy that he had not heard anything following his application or received responses to his request for updates. To resolve his complaint, he said he wanted the landlord to consider his application and provide a named contact.
5. The stage 1 response of 19 August 2022 said the rehousing list and panel had been suspended. It was unable to provide a timescale or advise when it would reopen. It said the resident would be contacted with a decision when it did. The landlord signposted him to other rehousing options available.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 12 October 2022. His basis for this was that:
   1. The stage 1 failed to consider/address that he submitted his application before the landlord had suspended its housing list and panel.
   2. He wanted to know why he was advised his application would be considered and that did not happen.
   3. He was unhappy that the landlord failed to respond to requests for updates.
7. Through the intervention of this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. This said:
   1. Its final response was delayed because of “a backlog” caused by an increase in complaints and changes to its complaints team.
   2. The rehousing panel was suspended for an indefinite period because of “a large increase in medical assessments”. It apologised that this led to a “considerable” delay in the resident’s application being assessed in December 2022.
   3. The level of communication with the resident had been poor as there were many occasions where his contacts were ignored.
   4. That it had taken his evidence and its independent medical assessors view into consideration. However, the criteria for a move on medical grounds was high and the resident did not meet the criteria, despite having a clear medical need.
   5. He could request a review if he were to provide new medical evidence. It suggested he contact his GP for a referral to an Occupational Therapist (OT).

The landlord concluded that its service was poor. It acknowledged that it’s stage 2 response was delayed and its communication was inadequate. It awarded £340 compensation and advised it was improving its service through increasing the number of staff and training.

8. After the complaint process ended, the resident corresponded with the landlord about what evidence was needed for a review. In mid-June 2024 the landlord advised the resident he would need to complete a new medical assessment form because there had been a “significant change”. It is unclear if the resident has submitted a further assessment.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. He advised that his mental health has been impacted. The resident is seeking to be permanently rehoused, compensation, and for the landlord to be held to account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident advised that the outcome he is seeking is to be moved to a 2-bedroom, ground floor property. The remedies that the Ombudsman make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, so far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. These include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. It is not within the Ombudsman’s powers to order the landlord to permanently rehouse someone. Rather, consideration will be made to whether the landlord followed the relevant policy or procedures when assessing the resident’s application. Where we determine a failing, we may order the landlord takes a specific action, as outlined above, that is aimed at putting things right for the resident. 
11. One of the resident’s concerns was that the landlord failed to appropriately assess his medical needs. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether or not the resident meets the landlord’s criteria. Rather, we have assessed whether the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies in the process of considering his application.
12. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that his current living situation is impacting his health. While the Ombudsman is sympathetic, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part have caused.

Rehousing application

13. The landlord’s ‘Housing Management’ procedure (2021), in place at the time the resident applied to be rehoused, sets out the criteria under which a tenant could be added to its rehousing list. This includes where the tenant is “severely overcrowded” and this impacted a medical condition or they have a “significant medical need or disability” which meant they could not remain in the property. It states that, to request a move in medical grounds, a resident is required to complete a medical assessment and provide supporting evidence. The procedure was for this to then be referred to an independent medical advisor.
14. The resident sent a medical assessment form along with supporting evidence on 30 August 2021. He advised the main medical reason was that his conditions meant that using the stairs was causing him pain and that his knee had “give[n]-out” many times. He also said an autoimmune disease meant he required a quiet place to live and that his current situation was not suitable because of noise from neighbours. The resident asked to be moved to a ground floor property or one with a lift close to travel routes.
15. An independent medical adviser assessed the resident’s application on 29 October 2021. The medical adviser supported the application to be rehoused if it was not possible to make adaptations to ease access. In cases where the medical adviser recommended a tenant be rehomed, the procedure states it would be referred to a panel comprised of housing managers. This Service has seen no correspondence between the landlord and resident between November 2021 and August 2022. It is not though disputed that it advised him in December 2021 that his assessment would be considered by the panel. However, the landlord has provided no records to show how it communicated the next steps of the process and how long it could take.
16. After the resident complained on 18 August 2022 about delays and poor communication, the landlord responded 2 days later. In this, the landlord said the rehousing list and the panel had been “suspended” and it was unable to give a timescale for when the list would reopen. The response did not address the resident’s concerns or give a decision on whether the complaint had been found in his favour or not. Section 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) required that all complaint responses “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. Similarly, the landlord’s complaints policy at the time states that all aspects were to be taken into account. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the communication failings, which should have been evident. This would have been in line with its own complaints standards and the Code’s. The poor quality of the stage 1 investigation was a missed opportunity for the landlord to recognise its failings and to attempt to resolve the complaint.
17. The resident said in his October 2022 escalation request that the landlord failed to consider that his medical assessment was accepted before the rehousing list closed. He also complained that the landlord had provided no explanation for the lack of response to his request for updates. The resident, however, received the panel’s decision before a response to his complaint at stage 2. In its letter dated 14 December 2022, the landlord advised that his application was unsuccessful because he did not meet threshold to be moved. It confirmed the criteria it was using as:
    1. The tenant is unable to access parts of their home because of a severe medical need.
    2. An OT has advised the property cannot be adapted.
    3. Additional space is needed for medical equipment.

It is understood from other investigations into the landlord from this Service that the criteria was published on the landlord’s website in early 2023 after the panel met. This means that the resident would have reasonably expected to have his application assessed against the criteria confirmed in the rehousing procedure.

18. In the stage 2 response from September 2023, the landlord explained the delay in assessing his application was due to an increase in medical assessments. It advised that it was both working through the backlog and that the panel was temporarily suspended. The landlord’s explanation was unclear as its reasons for the delay are contradictory. It also offered no apology for the time it took to assess the resident’s application, which would have been reasonable even if the landlord believed there were good reasons for the delay. It did though apologise for its communication failings and recognised that this would have added “more frustration.” This was appropriate, as was the landlord’s assurance that it had been improving its service in this area through staff intake and training.
19. The landlord also said it had “fully considered” the resident’s application and its own independent medical adviser’s report. Like this Service, it was outside of the complaints team’s remit to assess the merits of the resident’s medical assessment. However, as explained above, the Code required landlords to give clear decisions “referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The stage 2 response made no reference to its procedure and failed to acknowledge that it had applied different criteria. Therefore, it did not meet the required standards or take accountability for its service failing.
20. It should be noted that the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s need to limit the number of residents waiting to be rehoused via its internal rehousing list due to a limited supply of properties. We also recognise that there is an increasing demand for social housing. However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord failed to follow its published procedure. Doing so was unreasonable, particularly as the resident was not made aware of the change beforehand.
21. The resident told this Service that he was not confident the landlord had taken his medical evidence into consideration. His concern is understandable because none of the responses explain how the medical evidence was considered by the panel. There were also no other records of the panel’s meeting, such as minutes. This is not good practice and is indicative of poor record-keeping. The landlord has though, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, broadly given a reasonable amount of information to explain its position. This is that it does not consider the medical evidence shows the resident is unable to access his home.
22. The landlord advised in the final response that it was open to the resident to request a review of the decision. While this was appropriate, the rehousing policy states that a resident is to be advised of the opportunity to request a review of a decision. There was no mention of a review process in the panel’s decision letter, which was not in line with the policy. We have seen correspondence showing that the resident made enquiries about making a review in late January 2023. We have also seen that the landlord advised him about what evidence would be needed, such as an OT assessment. It was only through the resident’s own persistence that he was given this information, which was not acceptable.
23. After the complaints process, the resident submitted further medical evidence for his and his son’s needs in June 2024. He also sent a new medical assessment form. In response, the landlord advised the resident he should submit a new medical assessment because he reported a “significant” change in his circumstances. The Ombudsman notes that the communication did not explain the reason why the new medical evidence could not be considered alongside the assessment he had just submitted. It is unknown if the resident has followed this direction, based on the available records. Given the lack of clarity over the situation, the landlord is ordered to update the resident on any pending rehousing application or review request.
24. It is impossible to say that the resident would have qualified to be rehoused had he been assessed under the original rehousing criteria. This Service also acknowledges that the landlord’s website on rehousing states that current waiting times are up to 3 years. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of other housing options open to him, and we have seen that it did in several communications, including the panel’s decision letter. However, this Service considers that not knowing if the outcome could have been different is likely to cause the resident further distress.
25. The landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in the level of communication received, for which it apologised and awarded £100 compensation. It has not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognised the extent of the things it got wrong. Therefore, it has not taken sufficient action to put things right. The landlord will be ordered to pay further compensation that recognises the adverse impact on the resident, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedies.
26. In the Ombudsman’s January 2024 Spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” we highlighted that an “overarching theme” from our work was around failings in the manner and frequency with which landlord’s communicated with residents. The report made recommendations to case handlers to be honest about when things have gone wrong and to tailor communications to the individual and their circumstances. It said that “Underpinning all of these [actions] should be a baseline of empathy and respect.”
27. In the Ombudsman’s June 2023 Special report, we highlighted themes identified through our investigations into the landlord. This included a failure to follow its documented policies and processes, as was the case in this investigation. It also included a “poor…information management culture”, which again we have seen here. We made several recommendations for the landlord to improve in these areas, which its senior staff responded to positively.
28. In a more recent investigation from March 2024, we saw a number of failings, including the landlord’s failure to apply its rehousing procedure. This led us to making a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme. In this case, we ordered the landlord to review its communication around its rehousing procedure. This also included an order to self-assess against our report on attitudes. This investigation will then not make any orders for the landlord to improve its service because we are satisfied it is working to comply with our orders and recommendations. The landlord is though encouraged to take learning from this individual case in its ongoing work to improve.

Associated complaint

29. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time states that it had a 2 stage process.  At stage 1, the complaint should be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days. It would then issue its response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. This was after an investigation that “must take account of all aspects of the complaint.” The landlord’s response to the complaint was prompt taking only 2 days to complete. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, it did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, which is not in line with its policy or the Code.
30. Where the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, the landlord needed longer to respond, it would contact the resident, explain the reason why and write again within 10 working days. Based on the records shared with this Service, the landlord sent an acknowledgment to the resident that his complaint had been escalated on 14 November 2022. This appears to have been prompted by the resident contacting for an update, which should not have been the case. Both the landlord’s policy and the Code require acknowledgements to be timely, within 5 working days. The acknowledgment advised that there was a backlog of over 1000 cases at stage 2. It did not though provide an expected timescale for this or commit to sending updates. This was inappropriate because one of its complaints principles was to provide its customers with regular updates. However, the landlord did provide details of this Service, which is a requirement of the Code. It therefore took some reasonable action.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy states it would “consider the impact of any failures in our complaint handling and where we have not complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.” In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay the resident experienced and offered compensation, as it should have done. It said the compensation amount was calculated with consideration to the 12-month delay. This approach was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the one the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies takes. The amount the landlord awarded for its complaint handling failings of £240 was within the range the remedies guidance recommends is paid. It also demonstrated points of learning and confirmed that it had raised a training need with its resolution and customer relations team to avoid similar failings in future. Our special report also highlighted the significant delays in the complaints process, and recognised the landlord had already begun work to improve its service. The landlord has then appropriately recognised the impact of its maladministration on the resident over an extended period and sought to improve its service. Therefore, the actions the landlord took were overall reasonable to put things right.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s application to be rehoused on medical grounds.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report around not assessing the resident against the criteria he applied against or for advising him in advance.
    2. Pay the resident £400 (in place of the £100 awarded) for the distress of not knowing if the outcome would be different and the communication failings.
    3. Provide an update to the resident on any pending medical assessments or review requests, including realistic timescales for when he can expect to receive a decision.
35. The landlord should share evidence with this Service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

36. If the landlord has not paid the compensation of £240 for its complaints handling failings, it should reoffer this. This amount recognised the genuine aspects of service failure and was one of the reasons for the reasonable redress finding.