London Borough of Croydon (202017495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017495

Croydon Council

22 April 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding bathroom repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved following an assault experienced.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to consider her medical circumstances for a property transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, this Service has determined that complaint points (a) and (b) fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is as the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, or any outstanding repairs, as a formal complaint prior to bringing it to this Service. Without exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord would not have had the opportunity to properly consider and respond to these matters. It would subsequently be unfair for this Service to comment on its handling of matters before it has had the opportunity to put things right.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As such, points (a) and (b) have not been considered within this report. It is noted, nonetheless, that on 11 June 2021, upon bringing these concerns to the landlord’s attention, the landlord requested further details so that it could address these matters. If the resident has subsequently pursued this matter and exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, she may bring these complaints back to the Ombudsman Service for it to be considered under a separate complaint reference.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord has been unable to provide this Service with a copy of the tenancy agreement.
The property is a two-bedroom first-floor flat, occupied by the resident and her two children.
The landlord has reported no known vulnerabilities.
While limited records have been provided, this Service has understood that the resident was the victim of an assault (prior to August 2020) by a previous neighbour. Criminal charges were subsequently pursued against the perpetrator by the resident.

Summary of events

On 3 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord with a formal complaint. She asserted that there had been gross negligence and misconduct with regards to the safeguarding and wellbeing of her family. She explained:
1. She was concerned about the possibility of retribution following her ongoing court case and could not afford to move into private accommodation. She expressed dissatisfaction that her request to move had been declined and the basis on which this decision was made.
2. She had informed the TO of her assault and was advised that she needed to report this to the police. She stated that as the neighbour lived close by, she was petrified about disclosing this information to the police. Following further verbal abuse by the perpetrator’s partner, however, both incidents were reported.
3. Her property was overcrowded. She noted that her two children were over the age of 10 and of the opposite sex, but were still sharing a room.
The resident subsequently requested that the landlord review her situation and provide a prompt solution. She noted that she had been in contact with the Tenancy Officer (TO) about her housing situation, but the TO had not responded to her last emails.
This Service can see that the resident shared her concerns with her local MP on the following day. This was forwarded to the landlord and the MP emphasized that as a victim of crime, the resident sought to be rehoused.
On or around this time the Operational Manager (OM) responded to the resident’s MP. It was explained that new information had come to light from both the police and Social Services about the assault against the resident, and as such, a management transfer application had been completed. A referral to the ASB team had also been made for the appropriate action to be taken against the alleged perpetrator.
While it noted that the resident sought a move to a different borough, the landlord advised that all parties believed that a management transfer would be the best option available. It was unable to assist the resident with a move to another borough. The landlord explained, nonetheless, that it would – along with the police – support the resident with an application to another borough by providing details of the situation. The TO proposed to contact the resident on 2 October 2020 to discuss her options further.
It appears that the resident spoke with the interim Head of Tenancy and Caretaking Services (HTCS) in the days that followed. The Ombudsman has inferred that at this time, the resident’s housing options were discussed including the option to be assessed for reasonable preference based on medical grounds. While this Service has not had sight of the correspondence, it is noted that the resident subsequently shared a medical letter with the HTCS on 7 October 2020.
The resident chased a complaint response on 14 October 2020 noting that the landlord had exceeded the expected timeframe for a response. She requested a call as soon as possible.
On 15 October 2020 the HTCS wrote to the resident following a telephone call with her. She noted that they had discussed:
1. The resident’s desire to move into a three-bedroom property, due to the ages of her children, and in the catchment area of her preferred secondary school for her children. She believed this was further supported by her medical needs.
  1. In response, the resident’s need for a larger property was acknowledged. She was advised that she would go on a waiting list to accommodate this. The medical records supplied had also been passed to a medical advisor for assessment. The outcome would be shared once known.
2. The current property location and the proximity in which the resident lived to the perpetrator of the assault was problematic for the resident’s children.
  1. It was explained in response that a management transfer had been arranged, however, due to the priority attached to the resident’s case, she was expected to accept any offer made to her. This could be anywhere within the borough. If this property was refused, no further offers would be made.
3. The resident’s suggestion that she had made contact with the Head of Housing (HH) at a neighbouring borough and had discussed the possibility of an offer under a “reciprocal” procedure. The resident explained that she had been advised she would qualify for a three-bedroom property.
  1. The resident was subsequently asked for the details of the HH so that this avenue could be explored, however she declined to share this.
The landlord advised the resident that should she provide the details for the HH at neighbouring borough, contact would be made as this would be the resident’s best option for a move. She was additionally advised that once the medical advisor had provided an update, she would be informed on whether she had qualified for a move to a three-bedroom home based on her medical need.
On 27 October 2020 the resident responded to the HTCS. She stated:
1. In relation to a move anywhere within the borough, the landlord was fully aware of her concerns regarding the safety of her family, and the inconvenience that would be caused to her children’s schooling, given that an application for schooling had been completed within her ideal catchment area.
2. She had been advised that she needed to make contact with the neighbouring borough on her own if she wished to move there. She noted that the landlord explained it would support her application, as would the police. She believed that it would have been more logical for contact to have come from the landlord, however. She was displeased that despite her ill health at the time, she was informed she still needed to instigate contact.
3. She had spoken with the Housing Options Manager (HOM) at the neighbouring borough who advised of a reciprocal procedure and stated that the landlord would be well aware of this. She asserted that she felt she was being “fobbed off” by the landlord, that it had left her to chase things up, and that it had not provided her with all of the available options to remedy her situation.
The resident therefore posed the following questions for the landlord – Why this procedure had not been mentioned as an option (although it had since recognised this as her best option); why this had not been mentioned to her MP; what other options it had failed to disclose; the timeframe for a response from the medical advisor; whether the landlord would support her in moving on to a permanent tenancy, should she move borough; and whether steps would be taken to ensure that she still had her right to buy, should she move borough. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the way that her complaint had been handled.
The resident chased a response to her email on 15 November 2020. The HTCS apologised on the same day for the lack of response and assured the resident that an update would be provided by 20 November 2020.
With no update, the resident chased this matter again on 24 November 2020. She advised that she was suffering from panic attacks from all of the unnecessary stress. She requested contact on the following day but was advised that the HTCS was out of office.
On 26 November 2020 the HTCS responded to the resident with a stage one response. She apologised for the time taken to respond and for missing the previous deadlines. The HTCS explained to the resident:
1. She had sought details of the relevant contact within the neighbouring borough so that all avenues could be pursued for the resident to acquire a move. A reciprocal move was thought to be the best option at the time. Upon discussing this further with the OM, however, the HTCS was advised that moves under this procedure were reserved for extreme cases of risk of serious harm or death, and where a resident was unable to stay in their home. A reciprocal move could not be facilitated for the resident as she had chosen to live in the neighbouring borough by choice. The landlord was, nonetheless, happy to support any request made to the neighbouring borough for housing. An apology was offered for leading the resident to believe a reciprocal move would be something it could consider. The HTCS advised that at the time of offering this advice, she did not have all of the facts.
2. A reciprocal move had not been highlighted to her MP as a management transfer was deemed sufficient to move the resident.
3. All housing options available to the resident had been disclosed. She was advised that she would be informed by the Housing Transfer Team (HTT) whether she was eligible for a move under the medical transfer criteria. The timeframe for response was 10 working days.
4. The resident was advised that should she move to another borough, the landlord would have no ability to influence the decisions made by the borough and to guarantee the resident’s right to buy. She would need to discuss this with their housing team, in accordance with their housing policy.
The resident was also reminded that should she wish to take up the offer of a management move, she would be moved under a like-for-like process, which would secure her tenure but offer the same size property. The resident was asked to confirm which of the options she wished to pursue.
On 28 November 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. She noted:
1. It was inappropriate that she had been given inaccurate information about the reciprocal procedure. She asserted that the handling of this matter had been flawed from the offset.
2. During a telephone conversation with the HTCS, she was advised that the landlord would support her move via the reciprocal procedure, and it was confirmed that given her circumstance, her need to move to a three-bedroom property was urgent. She sought to confirm that this conversation was recorded.
3. The circumstances set out by the landlord for a reciprocal move matched her own. She stated that she had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by an individual who used to reside below her and his partner who had since moved out. She noted that the perpetrator had family and friends living in the area and that there was a pending court case leaving her and her family at risk of retribution.
4. She understood from the HTCS’ email that the decision not to proceed with the reciprocal procedure was based on a conversation with the OM and Allocations team. She questioned whether the Allocations Team had had the opportunity to review her circumstances in full.
5. The alternative housing options offered provided no assurance for her family’s safety. She stated that under a management move, she could be moved next door to a family member or friend of the perpetrator. She asserted that it would be detrimental to her health if another unprovoked attack were to occur.
6. While the HTCS had offered a stage one response, there were still matters outstanding. She therefore stated she required a written response confirming:
  1. Details of what the medical advisor had concluded about her need for a three-bedroom property based on her medical conditions.
  2. That the allocations team had reviewed her case in full before deciding that the reciprocal procedure was not an option. She formally wished to request that the landlord reconsider moving her via the reciprocal procedure.
  3. That the telephone call with the HTCS was recorded.
The resident stated that the options offered had not provided her with any safety assurances and she was still subject to intimidation from other people on the estate. This was having a detrimental impact on the resident and her family.
The resident was advised, on 30 November 2020, that she would receive a response by 11 December 2020.
On 1 December 2020 the resident’s MP reiterated to the landlord that the resident wished to move to one of two neighbouring boroughs, and that assistance was being sought for support with this.
On 10 December 2020 the HTCS wrote to the resident. She advised that she had reviewed the resident’s complaint and that the position would remain the same. The HTCS advised:
1. A management transfer had been authorised for the resident. Once a property became available within the borough, an offer would be made.
2. It was the resident who had advised that the neighbouring borough had provided assurances that she would qualify for a three-bedroom property with them. The resident was subsequently advised on this basis to take the offer up with them.
3. A reciprocal offer could not be made. The Pan-London Housing Reciprocal Service (PLHRS) was closed for the foreseeable future owing to high volumes of households on the list and no realistic prospect of them being moved.
The HTCS re-advised that the complaint had been considered at stage one but that the resident could escalate matters if she remained dissatisfied. The resident was provided with the details of the appropriate team to do this with.
On the same day, the resident asserted that a review had not taken place as her questions remained outstanding.
On 14 December 2020 the HTCS wrote to the resident. She explained that in order to answer the resident’s questions, a response was required from the Medical Assessor and the Allocations Manager. These had subsequently been shared with them. In respect of the telephone call on 14 October 2020, this had not been recorded. It was noted, nonetheless, that during the telephone call, the resident had advised of the assurances given by the neighbouring borough. The HTCS explained that based on the details she shared, she had been told that this would be the best option for her, as the landlord was only able to offer a two-bedroom property under a management move. The HTCS noted that she advised she would investigate a reciprocal offer, following the resident’s insistence, and did make enquiries which unfortunately were not fruitful. The resident was subsequently re-advised on the available offer.
The resident was reminded that she could escalate her complaint should she remain dissatisfied but advised that she may wish to wait to hear from the Medical Assessor and the Allocations Manager to obtain an overall picture first.
This Service can see that on 6 January 2021 the resident spoke with the police who shared the resident’s view that it would be safer and more comfortable for her to move outside of her current borough. The landlord was not a part of this conversation.
On 12 January 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. She questioned when the resident might hear back from the Medical Assessor and the Allocations Manager in order to decide her next steps.
On 18 January 2021 the OM wrote to the resident to establish whether she still wished to pursue the management transfer. The resident responded on the following day again explaining that she did not consider a management transfer to be a viable solution for her. She explained in separate correspondence, that in order to close her stage one complaint, she required an update from the medical team. She noted that receipt of her medical documentation had been confirmed on 15 October 2020, yet no update had been provided.
On 8 February 2021 the OM provided a further stage one response. The Ombudsman notes that this was a copy of the response sent to the resident on 26 November 2020. Later on the same day, however, the landlord advised that it would consider the resident’s dissatisfaction at stage two of its complaints process.
On 9 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord explaining that she had not escalated her complaint to stage two. She advised that matters were still outstanding from stage one which required answers. She had yet to receive an update on what the medical team had concluded and now required an update explaining why this had taken so long and why she had not been contacted. She also wished to know where her medical letter was. She stated that once this had been addressed, she would escalate her complaint.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord explained that as the resident had received a stage one response and had remained unhappy (due to outstanding responses to questions), the correct process was to escalate matters to stage two. In separate correspondence, she was asked to clarify why she remained dissatisfied so that this could be addressed.
On the same day, the resident reiterated the timeline and conversations in which she had been advised that she would receive an update following her submission of her medical letter. She therefore requested:
1. An update regarding her medical letter and why she had not heard back from a medical advisor.
2. Confirmation of whether the landlord had a medical department and the details for them.
3. Details of the landlord’s procedures upon receiving medical documentation from a tenant.
4. Details on how her data was stored.
The resident also reiterated that she had not requested or given her consent for the complaint to be escalated to stage two.
On 13 May 2021, 28 May 2021, and 8 June 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord to encourage it to provide the resident with a stage two response. This Service set out the resident’s complaint and the resolution that the resident was seeking.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord advised this Service that it had not previously escalated the resident’s complaint as she had categorically highlighted that she had not provided consent to do so. Following back and forth communication, this Service confirmed for the landlord that the resident wished to escalate the complaint to stage two and that a response needed to be provided by 12 July 2021.
On 12 July 2021 the interim Executive Director of Housing (EDH) provided the resident with a final response. She explained:
1. A risk referral had been received from the police in September 2020 detailing an assault that had taken place against the resident. The report noted that the resident wished to leave the estate but made no recommendation for an out of borough move. As such, the TO completed a management transfer application on 30 September 2020 which the resident subsequently refused.
2. There was no recommendation from the police for the landlord to liaise with the neighbouring borough to facilitate a move under the reciprocal procedure. The management transfer process also did not allow for out of borough moves. The landlord reminded the resident that whilst she had indicated that she did not wish to move within the borough, it was a large borough and there were a number of areas available for her to consider that were some way from her current locality. She was also reminded that she was eligible for, and had access to, homes across the UK via Homefinder UK, which enabled a home swap. The EDH noted that the resident had already been provided with the housing solutions leaflet outlining all of the available options but provided a further copy.
3. The resident’s medical letter had not been sent over to the Housing Register and Advice Team, despite being told that it had. The EDH clarified that it did not have a medical team but had a health-related housing assessments function which applicants could approach with medical conditions. This enabled an assessment of how any medical condition was impacted by the current accommodation. It was noted that as a hard copy was not provided, the resident’s letter could not be “lost” or in the wrong hands. Rather, it was still attached to the original email sent. An apology was offered for this. The EDH noted that this was down to human error. Further details were subsequently provided on how the resident could apply for a transfer based on medical grounds.
In concluding the resident’s complaint, the EDH made an award of £75 for the time and effort taken to bring the matter to her attention. The resident was provided with the details for escalating her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In undertaking an investigation, this Service seeks to consider whether a landlord’s actions have been appropriate (in accordance with policy, procedure, regulation, and legislation) and reasonable (in light of the circumstances of the case and what might be considered fair). There are sometimes reasons why part of a complaint cannot be investigated, however.
In this case, the Ombudsman notes that the resident ultimately sought a move to a three-bedroom property outside of her current borough. The resident set out several grounds on which she believed that she should have been granted a priority move, including overcrowding, a threat to her family’s safety, and her medical conditions.
This Service is unable to consider whether the resident should or should not have been awarded her desired property, however. This is as this Service is unable to comment on complaints which relate to applications for rehousing on the basis of reasonable preference (such as on the grounds of overcrowding or medical conditions), the assessment of applications, and the operation of a local authorities Choice Based Letting (CBL) scheme. These are matters which would ordinarily be considered by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
Under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she will need to make contact with the LGO. This Service has only considered the ways in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, and whether this was fair in the circumstance.
What’s more, the resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s handling of her complaint she became considerably stressed and this contributed to the increase in her dosage of anti-depressants. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health / wellbeing. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
Finally, it is worth noting that while this Service is aware of the incident that took place with the resident’s daughter, and the subsequent statement offered by the police, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on this. This is as these events have taken place outside of the scope of the complaint. This investigation has only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints (and the incidents that occurred) up until she exhausted its process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved followed an assault experienced.

While the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the risk referral it received, it is clear from the evidence that all parties (the resident, the MP, the police, and subsequently the landlord) considered it appropriate for the resident to move to another property to ensure her safety. The landlord explained that it acknowledged the need for a transfer, upon receiving supporting evidence from the police.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach however, and subsequently concluded that there was a failure to support her and her family in securing a suitable move.
In considering the reasonableness of the landlord’s handling of this matter, the Ombudsman has considered the approaches available to the landlord to facilitate a move for the resident, by reviewing the landlord’s Housing Allocations Scheme policy document. This sets out the ways in which the landlord is able to deal with high priority or urgent requests for a move where a resident has been the victim of intimidation and/or violence.
In doing so, the Ombudsman has been unable to see that the PLHRS formed part of the landlord’s normal allocation procedure. This initiative has not been included in the landlord’s policy and does not appear to be an option openly advertised to residents. The landlord has explained to this Service (and the resident in its final response) that this is as it does not facilitate reciprocal moves, but rather, uses other methods it has in place for re-housing residents.
This Service does note, nonetheless, that the landlord is a voluntary member of the PLHRS. It was therefore not unreasonable that the resident queried whether this could be a rehousing option.
As the guidance surrounding the PLHRS explains, an appropriate scenario to utilise the service would be where individuals and families have been affected by:

Domestic violence and abuse
Sexual violence and exploitation (including prostitution and trafficking)
Honour-based violence / Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) / or forced marriage
Stalking
Hate crime; or
Serious youth violence.

It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord did not bring this option to the resident’s attention or complete an application on her behalf (as the scheme requires), given that her circumstances would not have satisfied this criterion.
Upon discussing this with the resident on 14 October 2020 during a telephone call, with the above in mind, the landlord should have advised her of its position regarding the PLHRS and why the resident might not meet the criteria if it were to apply on her behalf. The notes made by the landlord on 15 October 2020 do not suggest that it did. As the resident had indicated that the neighbouring borough had advised she would qualify for this, however, it was not unreasonable that the landlord took the decision to explore this. The landlord should not have advised the resident at this time that this would be her best option without having gathered more information first. This resulted in a mismanagement of the resident’s expectations and as the resident expressed, concerns about the information that was being shared.
This Service has not had the benefit of reviewing the call that took place on 14 October 2020 and therefore is unable to comment on whether the resident was advised further on the prospect of securing a move via the scheme. On review of the correspondence of 15 October 2020 (and that which followed), however, this Service is able to ascertain that the landlord’s suggestion that this would be the resident’s best option was made on the understanding that the resident had been offered a better solution than it was able to propose.
It is apparent to the Ombudsman that as the resident had explained she was seeking a three-bedroom property in the neighbouring borough, and explained she had been advised by the neighbouring borough that she would qualify for this, the landlord advised her that this would be her best option with knowledge that it could not facilitate such a move. Although the landlord should not have done this, this was understandable. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord explained this for the resident in its ensuing correspondence on 26 November 2020 and 14 December 2020. It acknowledged that it did not have all the facts at the time of the advice and therefore offered an apology for leading the resident to believe that this was an option. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord intended to mislead the resident or that this matter required further review.
As the resident questioned whether her circumstances had been considered in full by the Allocations Team, however, upon determining that a move could not be made under the PLHRS, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have offered her some reassurance. The Ombudsman notes that the resident considered there to be an extreme threat to the health and safety of her family. On pursuing this with the landlord, she was advised that the Allocations Manager would return to her separately with a response. It does not appear that this was done.
Following her further request for the Allocations Team to reconsider its position for a move via the PLHRS, nonetheless, it was explained to the resident that the service had been suspended for the foreseeable future, completely removing this as an option. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with this update, given her desire to pursue this route.
During the same period, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had advised the resident that it could offer her a management transfer. Under the landlord’s allocations policy, such provisions are made for residents who require an urgent move to escape violence, severe harassment, domestic abuse, or where they are acting as witnesses and are being subjected to severe intimidation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable approach. The Ombudsman cannot see that the allocations policy made any other provisions for the resident (apart from private housing, which she had expressed was too expensive for her), which would have offered her an urgent move. What’s more, given that the resident’s situation fell properly within the criteria for a management transfer, it is unsurprising that the landlord sought to resolve the situation via this method.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did not consider this to be a suitable solution. As the landlord was only able to move the resident within the borough, and she feared that the perpetrator had friends and family living within the borough, this was understandable. As the landlord explained and the Ombudsman notes, however, the landlord managed a large borough with areas which were some way away from the resident’s estate. A move to a distant area therefore could have been suitable.
It is also noted that the resident refused this option as under the management transfer, she would only be made one offer of a property not of her choosing, and this property would be the same size. As she desired a property in a specific catchment area for her children’s school and sought a bigger (three-bedroom) property to accommodate the needs of her two children, this did not offer her an all-encompassing solution.
The landlord’s policy explains, however, that where a resident is being moved urgently, it will need to restrict the resident’s choice. In these cases, the resident will only be entitled to one offer, and the landlord will not consider it reasonable for the offer to be refused on grounds such as location unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify the refusal. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that there was scope for the landlord to fully accommodate all of the resident’s needs or to have approached the resident’s situation differently. Moving the resident at this time would have been a matter of safety. A move to a bigger property therefore would not have formed part of this process, but rather, would need to have been done via the landlord’s CBL scheme at a later time.
It was reasonable that the landlord set out the conditions of the management move for the resident. This Service is unable to comment on what the landlord may or may not consider to be an exceptional circumstance.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s desire to move to another borough, it was fair that it advised her that it would support her with this – along with any support offered by the police. This Service can see that the police were also in favour of a move to another borough (although there is no evidence to suggest that the police requested that the landlord facilitate this). It was reasonable that the landlord encouraged the resident to reach out to the neighbouring borough to initiate contact. The landlord was not obligated to do so on the resident’s behalf.
It was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with details of the other housing options available to her under its policy. While the resident disputed that she had been fully informed about her choices, this Service can see that the housing solutions leaflet was shared / discussed with her, and that this encompassed all of the available options that the landlord was able to facilitate under its policy.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s approach. While it is appreciated that the resident maintained concerns with the solution proposed by the landlord, its actions and resolution were in line with its policy. The Ombudsman also has not considered the resolution to be unreasonable.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord could have managed this matter better and offered the resident more accurate and prompt information. This Service has been unable to determine that the landlord’s approach resulted in an adverse impact on the resident, however.
This Service additionally notes that while there was the suggestion that being moved within the borough could result in the resident being located next to the perpetrator’s friends / family, this was speculative. Without knowing where the perpetrator’s friends or family lived specifically, there was no way for the landlord to overcome this, or for it to confirm for itself that a move out of the borough was the only viable option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to consider her medical circumstances for a property transfer.

This Service cannot comment on whether or not the landlord should have awarded the resident a priority move based on her medical conditions. As has been explained above, this falls outside of the scope of this investigation.
This Service has, however, looked at the way that the landlord handled the resident’s medical information following receipt of this and on advising that this could be taken into consideration to establish whether there was a medical need for a move to a three-bedroom property.
It is noted that in early October 2020 the resident shared her medical information with the landlord. It is unclear what the resident was advised at this time and when the landlord confirmed receipt of this information.
It has been recognised, nonetheless, that on 15 October 2020 the landlord confirmed that the medical records supplied would be passed to its medical advisor to be assessed. It informed the resident that once the Medical Advisor had provided an update, she would be informed on whether she had qualified for a three-bedroom property on medical grounds.
As such, and with knowledge of the circumstances of the resident’s situation, the landlord should have returned to the resident with a response (either providing the resident with a decision or with any requests for further information) soon after 15 October 2020. A reasonable amount of time in this situation would have been within 10 working days of receipt, as the landlord’s allocations policy suggests.
Contrary to this, however, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did not do this. Despite the resident chasing a response on 27 October 2020, and the landlord confirming for the resident within its stage one response that the timeframe for a response was 10 working days, no update was provided.
While an update was chased by the resident on 28 November 2020, by her MP on 12 January 2021, and again by the resident on 18 January 2021, this information still was not forthcoming. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate. This left the resident unclear on whether there was indeed sufficient medical grounds for a transfer and demonstrated a clear communication issue. No explanation was provided for why this had remained outstanding or when (specifically) the resident would likely receive a response. The Ombudsman can see that the resident subsequently questioned the landlord’s handling of this matter on 9 February 2021 and sought several answers on 10 February 2021. Still, no response was provided to the resident’s questions until the landlord’s stage two response, several months later.
Throughout the period, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any clarity to attempt to manage this outstanding matter. While the landlord had received several prompts and requests for information, it does not appear that it actively attempted to retrieve an update for the resident, by liaising with the relevant team on each occasion. Had it done so, it would have been able to identify at a much earlier time that the resident’s medical letter had not been shared with the Medical Advisor as it should have been. A significant length of time was subsequently wasted in which no progress was made.
This Service appreciates that in the landlord’s final response, it apologised for this and recognised that there had been an oversight in sharing this information with the relevant team. The landlord advised the resident that this was down to human error. As this still resulted in an inconvenience for the resident, however, and in light of the poor communication throughout this time, it would have been appropriate to make an award of compensation. The landlord’s failure to do so in recognition of this matter specifically was a service failure.
What’s more, the Ombudsman notes that rather than locating the resident’s medical letter and collecting any additional information required for the relevant team to consider a transfer on medical grounds, the landlord referred the resident to its website to start the process again. In light of its oversight, and the length of time that had passed, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have done more to fast-track this process.
For completeness, this Service notes that the resident was also concerned about her information and a potential data protection issue in the instance that her medical information had been lost. As the resident’s medical letter was sent to the landlord as an attachment via email, however, this Service is content that there was little exposure to such a risk. As the landlord explained to the resident in its final response, the medical letter was still attached to her email and therefore was still contained within its inbox. It was reasonable that the landlord reminded the resident of this to address her concerns of a “loss” of information and / or a potential data breach.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it explains that the landlord will offer a complaint response, on receipt of a complaint, within 20 working days. This timeframe has been set out for both stage one and two complaints.
Despite receiving the resident’s complaint on 3 September 2020, however, the landlord failed to provide its response within the suggested timeframe. Instead, this Service can see that the resident was not provided with a complaint response until 27 November 2020, 12 weeks after the resident had raised her complaint. This was inappropriate.
In line with good practice, where a landlord is unable to meet a complaint response deadline, it should set out the reasons why it has been unable to do so and when the resident will likely receive a response. In this way, a landlord is still able to manage a resident’s expectation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord did this.
The landlord’s complaints process also explains that if a resident feels that their concerns have not been fully responded to, they are unhappy with the outcome of the investigation, and / or they are unhappy with the proposed resolution, they may request that the complaint is reviewed at stage two. This would be the final stage of the landlord’s two stage complaints process, at which point, they may seek the support of an Ombudsman service.
As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process, following her correspondence on 28 November 2020. Within this, the resident responded to the points raised by the landlord in its stage one response, and the reasons why she remained dissatisfied. This Service can see that she categorically provided the landlord with a list of issues which she believed remained outstanding. Despite this, however, the Ombudsman notes that a review was undertaken outside of the landlord’s complaints process on 10 December 2020.
While the landlord offered its response within the timeframe it said it would, the absence of a formal complaint response meant that the resident was unable to exhaust the landlord’s process where she remained dissatisfied, and to bring the matter to the Ombudsman. Instead, upon expressing further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, a further final stage was required before she could do so, resulting in a protracted complaints process and ultimately delaying the resident from achieving resolution. This was inappropriate.
This Service accepts that on 28 November 2020, the resident had not categorically requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, landlords should be able to recognise where a resident remains dissatisfied with its response and where their expression of dissatisfaction meets its criteria for a stage two review. The content of the resident’s correspondence was a clear indication that this was required.
The Ombudsman also notes that while the landlord took the decision to undertake an unofficial stage one review, it still failed to respond to the matters which the resident identified as outstanding. This was poor, and contrary to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which requires landlords to address all points raised by a resident.
The Ombudsman appreciates that on 8 February 2021, the landlord attempted to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its process, however the resident was not ready for it to do so. As such, no complaint response was offered for several months, until the resident made contact with this Service.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord would not have offered a complaint response after being advised that the resident had not consented. This Service therefore has not considered the two-month delay (up until this Service made contact in May 2021) to be a failure. As the resident was still chasing answers to the outstanding matters at stage one, however, it is unclear why the landlord stopped communicating with her completely.
What’s more, on receiving correspondence from this Service (on 13 May 2021) advising that the resident wished to escalate her complaint, the landlord should have done so within the timeframes suggested. It is noted, however, that this Service had to prompt the landlord on a number of occasions before it finally offered its response in July 2021.
It was reasonable that in the landlord’s final response, it recognised that its handling of matters had resulted in some inconvenience for the resident. It therefore made an offer of (£75) compensation, in resolution of the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this amount fell short in reflecting the resident’s experience. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was still a service failure and has made an order to increase this compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the following parts of the complaint were determined to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding bathroom repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved followed an assault experienced.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to consider her medical circumstances for a property transfer.
3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While this Service empathises with the resident’s situation, the solution offered by the landlord was appropriate and in line with its policy. Although it is agreed that the landlord should not have advised the resident that the PLHRS was her best option, or led her to believe that this was something it could facilitate, this Service is content that the landlord acknowledged this mistake, offered an apology and explained its position.

In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of a management transfer during this time (despite all of its limitations) could have suitably accommodated the resident in a safer environment until such time that she was able to obtain a bigger property, via the CBL scheme. This was therefore a viable option.

What’s more, given the resident’s concern that a move within the borough could still put her at risk, it was reasonable that the landlord assured the resident that it would support her (along with the police) with an application should she make one to another borough.

It is clear that there was a failure to share the resident’s medical information with the appropriate team. This, coupled with the landlord’s poor communication, meant that the resident was incorrectly informed about the action that was being taken, that she found herself chasing the matter on several occasions, and that no progress was ultimately made. This was inappropriate. While the landlord offered an apology for this, and explained why this had occurred, an offer of compensation would have been reasonable to recognise the impact this had, and the time spent chasing this matter. This was not done.
The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy and to manage the complaint in line with good practice. The landlord’s approach resulted in the complaints process being protracted and while an offer of compensation was made, this was not satisfactory in resolving the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to consider her medical circumstances for a property transfer, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £100.
In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £75. This should be paid on top of the £75 already offered to the resident.
The landlord should make the above compensation payment (£250) within four weeks of receiving this determination and should provide this Service with proof of payment once this has been done.

Recommendations

The landlord should make contact with the resident to obtain the relevant information required for it to consider her transfer request on medical grounds. It should assist her in the completion of any applications required and should set out (and honour) the date in which she will likely receive a decision.
The landlord should review its complaints policy / procedure to ensure that it reflects the advice provided within the Code (which can be found here). In particular, the landlord should note that the Code requires it to respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days, and should not exceed this without good reason.