London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202005639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005639

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 November 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to withdraw its discretionary offer to the resident of a management transfer to another property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a one-bedroom flat.

Scope of investigation:

This case references historic ASB reports and allegations made by the resident against his neighbour and counter allegations made by the neighbour against the resident in or around 2015. These allegations involved Police interventions and were the subject of court proceedings in 2017 for an alleged assault. As far as the Ombudsman is aware, neither the neighbour nor the resident have been convicted of any ASB offences and the neighbour has since moved. The purpose of this report is not to investigate these ASB allegations but they provide context and background to the substantive complaint issue at hand.

Summary of events:

In October 2018, as a result of the ongoing ASB issues, the landlord’s records show that a senior executive at the landlord told the resident that it would support him in arranging a management transfer as a resolution to the ASB issues. The available correspondence at the time showed:
1. ‘As discussed, when we met, this is not something we normally do except in exceptional circumstances but as a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to make an exception and support a move. Unfortunately the flat in xxx has been allocated by the xxx so a move to this flat is not possible. That leaves you with two options, either wait for another flat to become available in xxx which may take some considerable time, or alternatively would you consider a move to another 1-bedroom flat in the xxx, if so, we would arrange a direct let management move on your behalf?’
During correspondence between the parties, the landlord re-confirmed that it would work with the resident to arrange a move, but this would be to a like-for-like one-bedroom property only.
During October 2018 the resident and the landlord were in correspondence about the landlord’s request (originally made in March 2018) for the resident to remove items stored in the communal area. The landlord was of the view that the stored items were hindering access to a fire escape for other tenants and it said that it had a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to such matters. The resident refused and challenged the landlord’s request and said he would ‘peacefully block any attempts’ made by the landlord to remove these items. The resident maintained that storage of the items was not causing any hazard.
In December 2018 the landlord and the resident met to discuss various issues, including the issues surrounding the stored items and the management move.
There was ongoing correspondence between the parties about the need to remove the stored items and this eventually culminated in the landlord issuing the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on 1 May 2019. The NOSP was issued for repeated breaches of storing items in the communal area which was causing health and safety hazards for other tenants; and for being aggressive and verbally abusive towards landlord staff when asked to remove the items.
The NOSP document shows that it was issued on Ground 12 (a tenancy obligation – other than rent – has been broken or not adhered to) and Ground 14 (ASB/nuisance). The document set out the instances of the breaches the landlord was relying upon, from 17 May 2018, up until 5 April 2019, when it was noted that the resident was ‘confrontational and hostile’ towards the landlord staff when being served with a formal notice to remove the stored items.
On 29 May 2019 the senior executive emailed the resident about the offer to move:
1. ‘As per our meeting I will support you in getting an outcome that helps you in the future. The offer to move within xxx holds but this could be some considerable time I am afraid, our offer is a like for like one, into a one-bedroom flat as we discussed at our original meeting. I will ensure the appropriate neighbourhood team members are aware of this arrangement going forward’.
The senior executive who made the transfer offer left the landlord’s employment in or around August 2019.
On 3 October 2019 the resident became aware of a flat becoming available in the block and he enquired with the landlord if it was possible for him to be moved into this flat.
The landlord responded on 9 October 2019 and said that it could not progress the transfer until all the formalities had been completed on the flat and the previous tenancy had been officially terminated. It advised the resident as soon as this was completed it would be in contact with him about the transfer.
The resident chased the landlord on 5 November 2019. The landlord responded on 13 November 2019 and it wrote to the resident to confirm that it had now revoked its previous offer of a management transfer. It explained that the resident was served with a NOSP on 2 May 2019 which remained active for 12 months. The letter stated that:
1. ‘As per [landlord] policy, you are no longer eligible for a transfer while there is an active NOSP on your records. This therefore withdraws [senior executive’s] offer…’.
The letter also stated that once the NOSP had expired (in May 2020), and subject to there being no further legal action and/or tenancy breaches, the panel would review the offer of a management transfer in line with its Transfers policy.
The resident then referred the matter to this Service in September 2020 and explained that his main dissatisfaction was with regards to the landlord’s withdrawal of its agreement to offer him a management transfer. The resident asked that the landlord be made to honour the agreement made by the senior executive.
There followed correspondence between all the parties to establish if the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord then issued its formal complaint response to the resident on 16 October 2020:
1. Offer of a Management move – It reiterated its position, as stated on 13 November 2019, that the offer made by the senior executive had been withdrawn due to an active NOSP on the resident’s records. It stated that this ‘was in accordance with the landlord’s policy and the agreement the senior executive made was withdrawn.’ It also stated that ‘this decision is not open to further appeal or negotiation’.
2. NOSP – It maintained that the NOSP was served due to persistent, frequent breaches of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Including unreasonable and aggressive behaviour towards staff. It also confirmed that the NOSP had now expired.
3. The letter also referenced historic ASB issues from 2015 and said that there had been no recent ASB investigations.
4. With regards to moving home, it explained that the resident could register with Home Swapper but given his significant rent arrears a move would not be considered until the arrears had been resolved.
5. Conclusion – It confirmed that the NOSP was validly issued due to breaches of the tenancy agreement and the withdrawal of the management offer was ‘appropriate’. It confirmed that the complaint would not be escalated as a further review would not change the outcome and the next step was referral to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the management transfer offer was in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it had with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Taking into account the historic ASB issues between the resident and his neighbour, the landlord’s decision to offer the resident a management transfer was commendable. The offer was made by a senior executive at the landlord which shows that the resident’s concerns were being taken seriously by the landlord and the Ombudsman is satisfied that it was done so in a genuine effort to assist the resident (and the neighbour) to try and draw a line under the ASB issues.
At the time of making this offer in October 2018 the landlord made it clear that this was a one-off offer and that it was a discretionary goodwill gesture. It was also made clear that the offer was for a move to a like-for-like property.
Whilst the need to move was acknowledged by the landlord and the resident there is no evidence to suggest that there was any immediate threat to the resident and/or that a move was immediately necessary. On the contrary, the correspondence shows that the resident was happy to wait for a similar property to be available in his block, rather than seek a move elsewhere or in a different block. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no urgent requirement to move and that the offer of a management transfer was subject to an appropriate property becoming available.
The landlord also acted appropriately by managing the resident’s expectations early on and highlighting to the resident that his preferred option of a move within the block would take some time to materialise. There is nothing within the available evidence to suggest that the resident was unhappy with this position.
With regards to the serving of the NOSP, this is not the main issue of complaint, but it is a factor that needs to be taken into account when considering the substantive complaint. The resident is aggrieved with the landlord’s decision to serve the NOSP in May 2019 and he believes that he is being unfairly targeted by the landlord with regards to the issue of the storage of the items in the communal area. It is noted that the resident has made comments about the conduct of the landlord staff members and feeling victimised by the staff. The Ombudsman can only look at the actions of the landlord as a whole, and not individual staff members. We are not here to investigate individuals, but to review if the landlord has acted reasonably and followed its policies and procedures.
It is clear that the issue of the storage of items in the communal area had been a longstanding dispute between the resident and the landlord. The available records show that there have been numerous breaches alleged by the landlord and attempts had been made to address these via informal actions which proved unsuccessful. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the issuing of the NOSP was reasonable and the landlord has demonstrated why it was issued.
The issue in dispute now is about the consequences of this NOSP. The landlord has stated within its complaint responses that its policy is that it cannot offer a management transfer whilst there is an active NOSP on the resident’s records. A NOSP is active for a period of 12 months.
Whilst the landlord’s actions up until this time were appropriate and reasonable, there were some shortcomings in its handling of the matter thereafter. Firstly, it is noted that the NOSP was issued on 1 May 2019, however, only a matter of weeks later, the senior executive wrote to the resident on 29 May 2019 unequivocally supporting a management transfer offer. This was despite the landlord’s apparent policy that an active NOSP would mean that the offer had to be withdrawn. The landlord either failed to consider all the relevant facts, and/or chose to overlook the NOSP when it reiterated its offer of support on 29 May 2019.
This was not picked up by the landlord until approximately six months later in November 2019, when it formally confirmed to the resident that the offer was being withdrawn because of an active NOSP. During this time the landlord ought to have known that the NOSP had been issued and that a decision needed to be made on the management transfer offer. The landlord failed to act proactively and instead it waited until the resident had made contact enquiring about a possible flat being available.
Turning now to the decision to withdraw the management transfer offer in November 2019, the landlord has stated on two occasions that this decision was based upon its policy. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the specific transfer policy it is relying upon. Furthermore, the landlord’s Transfers policy that has been provided does not include any exclusions or explain on what grounds a management move may be withdrawn.
The Transfers policy states that the landlord’s Lettings Panel can consider a ‘Direct Management Offer’ of a move to another similar property where a resident is required to move as a result of an emergency. The is separate to the landlord’s Decant policy, and it only covers situations where there is a ‘life and limb emergency’ (as verified by a qualified professional e.g. Police) or there is a ‘management reason’, for example high vulnerability, domestic abuse, gang-related violence. Direct management offers are awarded in cases where any undue delay to rehousing is untenable.
As part of the Ombudsman’s investigation of this matter, the landlord was asked to clarify its position and explain its justification for its decision to withdraw the offer in November 2019. In response the landlord has said that ‘the service of NOSP does not prevent a management transfer. A management transfer was agreed by a senior executive and did not go through the normal procedure for management transfer cases. It was agreed outside of [the landlord’s] transfer policy.’
The Ombudsman has understood from the landlord’s submissions that there is seemingly no policy justification for withdrawing the offer on the grounds that an active NOSP is in place. As such, this would mean that the landlord has provided the resident with incorrect information and has not demonstrated that its decision to withdraw its offer was appropriate or reasonable.
Based upon what the landlord has told this Service, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the landlord incorrectly withdrew its offer in November 2019.
Whilst this is evidence of a service failure on the part of the landlord, the Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that it is difficult to accurately assess the adverse impact of this incorrect decision to withdraw its offer. Based upon the available evidence, there does not appear to have been any urgent need for the resident to move and it was accepted by both parties that any successful move would be subject to an appropriate property becoming available, and that the resident had accepted this situation and that this could potentially take ‘considerable time’.
There is also no evidence of any ongoing ASB issues that would have necessitated the landlord to take any action to speed up the transfer process in any way.
Having said that, as detailed above, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s overall handling of this matter, which has caused the resident unnecessary distress and worry. The Ombudsman’s approach to matters such as compensation for distress and inconvenience is based upon our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) which set out the general guidance.
In this case, having considered the available evidence, the landlord did not recognise the service failure and did not consider whether compensation may be appropriate for distress and inconvenience. Taking into account the service failure noted above, the Ombudsman considers that compensation is warranted in this instance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to withdraw its discretionary offer to the resident of a management transfer to another property.

Reasons

The landlord has shown that it acted reasonably when it made the offer of a discretionary management move, and this should be commended. However, it has provided conflicting information about why it later withdrew its offer and it would now appear that its decision to withdraw the offer in November 2019 was unfair and unjustified.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure identified above.
2. If it has not already recently done so, as the NOSP has now expired, the landlord should review the offer of a management transfer in line with any applicable policies as proposed in its letter to the resident on 13 November 2019.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders to be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.