London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202437125)

Background

1. The resident was offered a property from the landlord’s rehousing list. She declined the property due to its location. The landlord referred the case it its rehousing reviews panel who concluded the property offered to the resident had been suitable.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s re-housing application.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s re-housing application.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Re-housing application

5. The landlord failed to communicate openly with the resident in respect of her case being referred to its rehousing panel for an appeal. It did not demonstrate it had considered if the supporting letter she gave the landlord after the panel’s decision could amount to a change in circumstances as per its rehousing policy.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint. In addition, its stage 2 response was delayed. As such the landlords complaint handing as not in line with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (The Code). The landlord’s apology was not enough to put things right in the circumstances.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

7. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in 2021 about the suitability of an alternative property it had offered her. There is no evidence the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in respect of this complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the resident’s concerns of the property offered in 2021 being unsuitable.
8. In addition, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property, including after the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure for her re-housing complaint. As the landlord has not had the chance to put right first via its internal complaints procedure, we have no power to investigate the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
9. The resident believes the health of the household has been affected by living in the current property. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord’s actions or inactions impacted the health of the household. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For this reason, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of living in the current property on the health of the household.

What we have investigated

10. The resident had been on the landlord’s rehousing list for a number of years to move from her current 2 bedroom property. On 21 February 2024 the landlord offered the resident another property. The landlord explained it did not have any 3 bedroom properties in the resident’s preferred areas. However, the property it had offered was a 3 bedroom property in a different area of the city.
11. The landlord offered the resident a viewing of the property. It explained if the resident declined the property, the resident would need to give her reasons in writing for the landlord to take the matter to its rehousing appeal panel. It explained the result of the appeal panel would be final.
12. The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said she could not move to the property as it was 31 miles from her current property. She said she could not move that far due to her job, her children’s schooling and her need to look after her disabled mother. She said as the property was not in an area she had asked for, it should not count as a one-time offer. She provided a list of other areas of the city she would be prepared to move to.
13. The landlord noted in an internal email that the resident had provided further areas she would move to, after its offer of the property. The landlord noted in internal records it would speak to the resident. We have not seen any evidence the landlord spoke to the resident further about her reasons for declining the property or the addition of other areas she would move to.
14. The landlord’s rehousing policy says if a resident refuses an offer of permanent accommodation, as they do not think it is suitable, their rehousing case will be closed. The policy says a resident can request an appeal but if a resident does not do so the case will be closed.
15. The landlord’s offer of the accommodation had confirmed to the resident that if she declined the property, she would need to provide her reasons in writing so her views could be considered by the rehousing appeal panel.
16. When the resident responded and outlined her reasons for declining the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude the resident was asking for an appeal. This being the only option open to the resident other than her case being automatically closed.
17. Despite the landlord’s interpretation of the resident’s response being reasonable, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s representations and confirm to her that the matter would be considered on appeal.
18. Once the landlord had passed the case to the appeal panel, it would have been reasonable for it to explain to the resident how the panel process would work, when the panel would meet and when the resident could expect a final decision. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident the opportunity to add anything further to her reasons for declining the property.
19. However, although this may have been good practice, there is no requirement in the landlord’s rehousing policy for it to provide such information to a resident or give them a further opportunity to make representations.
20. The landlord shared the resident’s representations with the appeal panel. These included her mother’s ill health and the resident’s caring responsibilities. The panel met in line with the landlord’s policy and explained their decision making as to why they had concluded the property offered had been suitable. Following the panel’s decision the landlord closed the resident’s rehousing case, in line with its rehousing policy.
21. The landlord explained within both of its complaint responses that it had followed the process as outlined in its rehousing policy. It explained it could not resolve overcrowding via its rehousing list and appropriately advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange or registering with the local authority.
22. The landlord’s rehousing policy says if there is a change in a resident’s circumstances, their case can be presented back to the rehousing panel as a new referral. After the appeals panel had made their decision, the resident gave the landlord a letter from an organisation which outlined the extent of the resident’s caring responsibilities for her mother.
23. There is no evidence the landlord considered if this letter could be a change in circumstances as per its rehousing policy. As such, this is something the landlord missed the opportunity to consider, particularly in light of the resident having raised this as the reason she needed to remain living near her mother.
24. In summary, the landlord’s failed to inform the resident the matter would be considered by the rehousing appeals panel. This caused the resident to feel she had missed an opportunity to make full representations about her circumstances.
25. Although we cannot know if the appeals panel would have made a different decision, the landlord should have confirmed to the resident that the panel would consider an appeal and it should have given her the opportunity to make further representations and provide any evidence she had.
26. Given the failures in respect of this aspect of complaint, we have ordered compensation of £200. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident and the landlord did not acknowledge its failings.

27. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. This policy says at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to provide the stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed at either stage, it will keep the resident informed. The landlord’s complaints policy is reflective of the timescales in the Code.
28. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 9 working days later. This was in line with the timeframe of its complaints policy and the Code.
29. Following the resident’s escalation request, it took the landlord 65 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 2. This was more than 3 times the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code. We have not been provided with evidence the landlord kept the resident informed about it needing more time to respond.
30. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and explained the reasons for this. Despite apologising, the landlord did not consider any further redress. Given the stage 2 response was delayed to the extent it was, the apology alone was not sufficient in the circumstances.
31. We have seen that within her complaint, the resident had raised concerns about administrative errors in her rehousing offer. The landlord failed to address these concerns within either of its complaint responses. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code which says all aspects of complaint should be addressed during the internal complaints procedure.
32. To acknowledge the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of complaint and the delay at stage 2, we have ordered £100 compensation. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident and the landlord made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping. The evidence provided by the landlord enabled us to satisfactorily complete our investigation.

Communication

34. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. This led to frustration for the resident who did not feel listened to and felt disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to make representations. The landlord’s communications were not transparent in in the action it had decided to take. The landlord should reflect on the failures and consider the improvement it can make in order to provide a customer centric service.