London Borough of Wandsworth (202417719)

Background

1. The resident reported to her landlord that she was being harassed and was being watched in the property by gangs. She requested an urgent transfer to another property for her and her family’s safety which was rejected by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord followed its policy and procedures in response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
7. It did not respond to a complaint request by the resident within the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. We cannot order the landlord to move the resident, as social housing allocation is governed by statutory obligations and the landlord’s allocation policy, which prioritises applicants based on need. We are unable to make orders that could have an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties. Our role is therefore to review how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a move.
9. The landlord has a management transfer policy for situations where a resident faces immediate or ongoing risk and cannot safely return home. This includes cases where the resident or a household member is being threatened or harassed. Under the policy, the landlord will:
   1. Talk the tenant through the information in the application sheets, ideally face-to-face.
   2. Confirm receipt of the completed form within 2 working days.
   3. Aim to respond to the resident within 10 working days.
   4. Advise the resident that if they are unsuccessful, that they may consider making a homelessness application.
10. On 8 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that she felt unsafe in her property and wanted to move. She explained that this was because her brother had lived with her for a period and he was affiliated with local gangs. She said, since he had lived there, she had reported incidents of people observing her property to the police and provided a police reference on 12 January 2024. The landlord sent her for a management transfer form the same day. This was an appropriate response as it recognised her request and provided the form within a reasonable timeframe.
11. The resident returned the form on 16 January 2024 and asked to discuss recent incidents. On 19 January 2024 the landlord contacted her to request further evidence. It also offered to raise a safeguarding referral for her and her son, which she declined. The landlord additionally offered a referral to the council’s sanctuary scheme for additional security, which she accepted. These were appropriate steps by the landlord that provided support while her transfer request was being considered. The landlord made the sanctuary scheme referral that same day.
12. Before submitting the management transfer request for review, the landlord identified gaps in the supporting evidence. It explained to the resident that it required further evidence to support her application. It also asked her to consider a mutual exchange which was a reasonable suggestion to ensure she understood all options available to her.
13. Between 31 January and 13 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord several times for updates. She asked whether the information she had provided was sufficient and raised concerns about a lack of urgency. On 23 February 2024, the landlord replied and confirmed that:
    1. It had called her on 9 February 2024 to update her on her application and they were awaiting a response from the police after submitting an information request to them.
    2. She was able to approach the council’s homeless team if she required immediate assistance finding alternative accommodation.
    3. She would not lose her secure tenancy if she approached the homeless team for temporary accommodation and it would not ask her to give up her tenancy until she had a permanent offer.
    4. It would process the management transfer request once it had received the requested information from the police.
14. The landlord has not provided records of any calls with the resident which is a shortcoming, however the resident has not disputed that these calls took place. It provided evidence that it submitted information requests to the police to gain an understanding of reports made by the resident. This was reasonable to help it understand the threat to the resident to support the transfer request.
15. On 22 March 2024 the landlord informed the resident that her request had been unsuccessful. It provided its reasons behind the decision and advised her about other available housing options. This was reasonable advice.
16. On 5 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a review of the decision which had been submitted on 2 April 2024. This was the next working day which was an appropriate timescale. It responded to the resident on 9 April 2024 and confirmed that there were no grounds to overturn the decision. It advised her that it would follow-up and update her in relation to the sanctuary scheme referral it had made in January 2024 as she had not heard back from the initial referral. This was reasonable of the landlord in demonstrating that it would continue to support her.
17. The landlord has demonstrated that it followed its management transfer policy when responding to the resident’s request. It took reasonable steps to understand the risk the resident faced and supported her in providing the necessary evidence for the application. It also acknowledged delays in the sanctuary scheme referral and agreed to follow this up. For these reasons, we have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer request.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about a service that requires a response. It states that it will:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving it.
    2. Acknowledge a review request within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.
    3. Keep the complainant fully informed of any delays in responding and told when they will receive a response.
19. The resident first complained to the landlord on 8 February 2024 that its staff were not recognising her vulnerabilities in handling her management transfer request. She said that staff were not treating the matter as urgent and that this made her feel penalised for being a victim. She did not receive a response and chased the landlord on 13 February 2024. The lack of acknowledgement was inappropriate, as the landlord should have responded to her emails promptly.
20. The landlord responded to the resident on 23 February 2024 and explained that it was addressing her complaint outside of its complaint procedure. It told her that she could request this to be investigated as a formal complaint and provided a link to submit it. This was not appropriate as the resident had clearly raised a complaint with the landlord in her initial email and chased a response to it after not receiving a response. Whilst it was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident that it was not responding within its complaint policy, it should have logged a formal complaint, acknowledged it and responded within its timescales.
21. The resident raised a further complaint on 17 May 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this the next working day and advised it would respond by 31 May 2024. It responded to the resident on 4 June 2024 which was outside of its timescales. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged the delay and explained that this was due to obtaining information for its response.
22. The resident requested a review on 4 June 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on 6 June 2024. It explained that its team would contact her with details of the stage 2 process. This approach aligns with its complaints policy, which requires the complaints officer to provide the name of the senior manager handling the review and the expected response date. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that this information was sent, which represents a minor service failure. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 10 July 2024, 7 working days outside its target timescale. It did not contact the resident to explain the delay in line with its policy which was not appropriate.
23. The landlord initially failed to log a formal complaint when the resident first attempted to complain in February 2024, despite later responding informally. Furthermore it did not acknowledge this failure or apologise for the delay in responding at stage 2. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to award the resident £50 compensation to recognise the likely frustration and inconvenience caused. This is consistent with our remedies guidance for minor failures that did not have a significant impact.

Learning

24. The landlord should ensure that all staff know the definition of a complaint and understand when it is appropriate to lodge a formal complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord has demonstrated good record-keeping although it has not evidenced that calls made to the resident were logged.

Communication

26. The landlord remained in constant communication with the resident throughout.