London Borough of Wandsworth (202347664)

Decision
Case ID	202347664
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Wandsworth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

The resident moved into the property in May 2021. She has multiple vulnerabilities which the landlord has recorded. The resident approached us because the landlord refused her request for a management transfer.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Management transfer request.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not initially follow its management transfer policy and procedure. It mislaid the resident’s original application. But it has apologised for this and offered the resident £500 compensation. It also gave the resident a new application to complete. It considered her application and gave reasons for its refusal, in line with its management transfer policy. But it took too long to respond to the new application and review request.
It complied with its complaints policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure. £500 it offered at stage 2 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its failings it set out in its response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 December 2025
3	Training order The landlord should provide training to all relevant staff in respect of its management transfer applications. It should ensure that it responds to management transfer application forms within 10 working days, as outlined in its policy.	No later than 19 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
July 2021 – May 2023	The resident made various complaints about antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. (The landlord investigated each incident as per its ASB policy and also involved the police. The ASB cases were closed due to lack of evidence.) The resident also made a community trigger application (ASB case review) which was declined, as it did not meet the threshold.
30 May 2023 – 7 June 2023	The resident requested a housing management transfer. The landlord’s estate manager sent her an application form and arranged a meeting for 7 June 2023. This was to discuss the completed application form in person.
12 June 2023	The resident emailed the landlord with additional information in support of her transfer application. She sent medical evidence, evidence from counselling services, and made further allegations of ASB in the area. She also gave information about a traumatic incident from her childhood. She said this had occurred in the local area and the ongoing, unrelated ASB had triggered these memories. She said she could not remain in the local area.
7 January 2024	The resident completed another housing management transfer application form. She said that due to the “mishandling” of her last application, she wanted to send the supporting evidence via email.
24 January 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said: She had handed in a housing management transfer application form to the landlord’s estate manager on 7 June 2023. She had a meeting with him that day to discuss the application. She had shared sensitive information relating to a traumatic event from her childhood. This event had happened in the local area. She had not wanted to share this information but the landlord had told her it needed to know her reasons for the transfer request. She had felt distressed throughout the meeting. She had sent supporting letters from psychotherapist services and had received an acknowledgement of receipt from 2 managers. She had heard nothing since June 2023. The landlord had no records of her housing transfer application and she had recently found out that the estate manager no longer worked for the landlord. Another member of the landlord staff had contacted her on 5 January 2024 and told her to submit another handwritten form. This member of staff visited her at home that day and handed her a form. They advised the resident to post the form to the new estate manager. The new estate manager was meant to call her on 8 January 2024 but had not done so. She felt a “lack of care and compassion”. She was living too close to where she had experienced a traumatic event as a child. She had also experienced ASB, hate and harassment in the area.
25 January 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said: It acknowledged that the resident had initially completed a transfer application form and sent supporting evidence in June 2023. It could not find the form or supporting evidence. The information had not been passed onto any colleagues or managers. It had reported the lost paperwork as a data breach and the landlord’s data protection officer would be contacting the resident. A member of staff had spoken to the resident on 5 January 2024 and hand–delivered a housing management transfer application form to her home address on that day. The new estate manager had “no recollection” of being asked to call the resident to follow up on the application. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It “had shown a lack of care and compassion.” It apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation. It had noted the traumatic event from her childhood. It would collect her new housing management transfer application and supporting documentation on 9 February 2024. It would assess the application by 23 February 2024 and would write to her by 29 February 2024 with its decision. It had learned from her complaint. It had asked its managers to check supervision notes with handover notes where staff leave the team. This was to ensure it had an accurate record of all cases.
11 February 2024 and 25 March 2024	The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 11 February, to which she added to on 25 March 2024. She said: The landlord had ignored her medical evidence and how this had affected her living in her home. She had been offered her property due to her disability. The landlord’s record keeping was poor and it had failed to improve this. It did not have accurate records of her condition and circumstances. She had sent her supporting evidence on 9 June 2023, via email so the landlord should have this in its inbox. She was unhappy that the landlord had not granted a management transfer (declined on 22 March 2024). She had also wanted to submit the application online, rather than hand deliver it. There was no online option. The landlord had insinuated that it was her fault that she came to live in this area. She felt the landlord had been disrespectful to her in a recent telephone call. She was unhappy with the complaints process as she felt the complaint should have been investigated by an independent team.
23 April 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said: The previous estate manager had wrongly stated that the resident did not have any disabilities. The landlord held information about her medical condition so this was an error on the landlord’s part. The relevant team would receive training to ensure that all disabilities were recorded and would know how to access this information. It had followed the Ombudsman’s previous recommendation from June 2023. The resident’s vulnerabilities and disabilities were correctly recorded on its system. It was sorry for the distress she experienced, in June 2023 when she felt pressurised to disclose the traumatic event from her childhood. But it needed all relevant information and risk factors to make a decision in respect of management transfers. It apologised for the significant delay in its handling of the resident’s original management transfer request. It had asked its head of service to carry out a review of the team’s handling of documents and monitoring of casework. It increased its offer of compensation to £500. It had hand delivered the application form in January 2024, as it believed this would be more convenient for the resident. But it should have discussed this with the resident beforehand. It had used the resident’s supporting information from June 2023, in respect of her current management housing transfer application. She had been informed of the landlord’s decision the previous week. The landlord’s member of staff had denied insinuating that it was the resident’s fault that she had moved to her current home. They also denied being rude and disrespectful. It had spoken to the member of staff mentioned above and given them advice about how to communicate sensitively both in person and in writing. The resident’s housing management transfer request had been fully considered, including all the supporting information. It had declined the request, in line with its procedures. It had fully investigated all her allegations of ASB. She could appeal the decision not to grant her a management transfer. If she had any further information in support of her housing management transfer application, she could provide this and it would review her request. Stage 1 complaints were usually investigated by senior managers within the team, as per its complaints policy. The resident’s stage 2 complaint had been investigated by someone outside of that team, as per its complaints policy.
26 April 2024 to 22 May 2024	The resident appealed the landlord’s decision to refuse her a management transfer. The appeal was declined.
Referral to the Ombudsman 9 July 2024	The resident approached us as she wanted us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her management transfer application. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wanted a management transfer.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out that it can offer a management transfer to residents who are in a situation of immediate or ongoing risk. This means where it is not safe for the resident to remain in their property. This includes where a resident is being threatened or harassed or other exceptional circumstances, such as essential repairs.
It operates the following process when residents request a management transfer:
1. The resident is given an information sheet and application form, together with a medical assessment form (if appropriate).
2. The landlord should ideally have a face-to-face discussion with the resident where possible.
3. On receipt of the completed application form, the landlord will acknowledge receipt within 2 working days and request any additional supporting evidence if appropriate. It aims to provide a decision within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
4. If the resident does not warrant an urgent move and should not be granted a management transfer, it should write to the resident with its decision. It should also advise them that they can request a review of the decision within 10 days of the refusal. They should then be informed of the outcome of their appeal within 10 working days.
There is no dispute that there were delays between the resident’s original management transfer request and the landlord’s final decision in May 2024. The resident applied for a management transfer and submitted her application form and supporting evidence in June 2023. The landlord misplaced both and failed to contact her until January 2024. This is 7 months, and significantly outside its 10-day timeline.
The landlord’s records show that it did not respond to the resident’s new transfer request within 10 working days. In its stage 2 complaint response, it told the resident that it would collect the form and supporting documentation on 9 February 2024 and would respond by 29 February 2024. It wrote to her to refuse her application on 22 March 2024. This is 30 working days, and outside of its policy timeframes. Also, it failed to provide a decision on the date it had committed to. This was a failing and caused the resident frustration and impacted on the landlord/resident relationship. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond sooner, as per its policy.
Also, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s review request within its policy timescales. She requested a review of the landlord’s refusal on 26 April 2024 and it did not respond until 22 May 2024. This is a period of 17 days, and not in line with the landlord’s policy of 10 working days. Although this is not an overly long delay, it compounded the resident’s distress and frustration.
It was reasonable that the landlord refused the new transfer request, albeit, not in a timely manner. Its management transfer policy states that it will move residents who are in a situation of immediate or ongoing risk or other exceptional circumstances. There was no evidence on file of any immediate or ongoing risk to the resident. The resident had made historical reports of ASB. These had all been investigated both by the landlord and the police. Both found there was insufficient evidence to take the matter further. Also, the historical allegations had been reviewed under a community trigger/ASB case review and did not meet the criteria to be considered.
At stage 2 the landlord apologised for its handling of the original management transfer application. It offered the resident £500 compensation for its failings. It also gave the resident another application form to complete. It identified learning from her complaint and arranged training to its staff in terms of record keeping. It also apologised for any upset caused by its staff, in dealings with the resident. These actions were an appropriate response. It also referred the previous data breach to its data protection team, which it was required to do. It has also advised us that it now logs all correspondence electronically and is working on an online system for management transfer applications.
The landlord considered the resident’s new application and appeal and gave her reasons for the refusal, in line with its policy. Also, it gave her information about alternative housing options, such as mutual exchange, home swapper and private rented options. This was positive.
However, the landlord did not comply with its timelines in respect of its management transfer policy. It did not respond to either the new application form or the resident’s review request within 10 working days. As such, we have made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to provide training to its staff, to ensure staff respond to transfer applications, in line with the landlord’s policy. We have also made an order that the landlord pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This amount is in addition to the £500 it offered at stage 2. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there has been a failure of short duration. And it has not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that stage 1 complaints must be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints must be responded to within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be compliant with the Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that a senior member of staff of the service complained about will investigate stage 1 complaints. Stage 2 complaints will be conducted by a different senior manager. This is compliant with the Code, which states that the person considering the stage 2 complaint must not be the same person that investigated the stage 1 complaint.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2024, and the landlord responded on 7 February 2024. This was 13 working days and within the timescales in its policy at the time. She made a stage 2 complaint on 11 February 2024, to which she added on 26 March 2024. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 23 April 2024. This was after 19 working days and within its policy at the time.
The resident complained that the landlord’s complaints process was not impartial.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint was dealt with by a senior member of the staff of the service complained about. The stage 2 complaint response was from a senior manager, not connected to the team the resident complained about. The landlord acted within its complaints policy. It was also compliant with the Code, in respect of the landlord’s investigation of the complaint. It also responded to each element of the resident’s complaints and provided her with reasons for its decisions. Further, it identified learning from her complaints.
As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint. It identified that it would undertake a review of how the housing team handled documents. It also agreed to provide training regarding the importance of good record keeping and document management.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The record keeping was poor. But the landlord apologised for this and identified training to its relevant team and a review of its document handling and casework.

Communication

The landlord acknowledged that the communication with the resident had been poor. It apologised for this and identified training as outlined above.