London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202011012)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011012

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

7 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s management of the resident’s application for rehousing.
    2. The associated communication and complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 14 November 2014. 
  2. The property is a one-bedroom flat, with the tenancy agreement stating that it has a maximum permitted occupant number of two. The property is rented by the resident on the Intermediate Market Rent (IMR) Scheme.
  3. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his requests to be rehoused, believing that the landlord had not taken seriously the reasons for his request, which included being overcrowded now that he had children, as well as vulnerability concerns due to his son’s health condition.
  4. The landlord’s response to the complaint was that it could not rehouse the resident due to the type of tenancy that he had, that is, an assured shorthold tenancy on the Intermediate Market rent (IMR) Scheme.
  5. The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not considered the individual circumstances of his situation, in particular, the medical condition of his son.  The resident wishes to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing

  1. Intermediate Market Rent (IMR) is a tenure type where the property is rented on the private market, where there is 20% discount on the rent so that the tenants can save towards a deposit to buy their own home within the next five years. Whilst tenants are renting under the IMR scheme, they have an assured shorthold tenancy.
  2. As a tenant under the IMR scheme, should the personal circumstances or needs of the tenant change throughout the tenancy, they are able to serve notice to vacate the property and look for other suitable accommodation.
  3. From 2019, the resident has been requesting to be rehoused due to a change in circumstances, specifically, his family growing and the medical needs of his son. However, his requests to move were without success due to his tenancy type and for this, he remains unhappy.  Routes for request have included through application for another property on the IMR scheme, through mutual exchange and through a management transfer. The resident requested a move through these avenues, in part, on the advice of the landlord, having pursued enquiries about how he can do this.
  4. Although the landlord initially advised the resident to apply for social housing with the local authority on 9 May 2019, it later incorrectly advised the resident, who continued to pursue the matter, that he had the option of a mutual exchange and a management transfer. These were not available options, however, because this is not possible for an individual who has an IMR assured shorthold tenancy. Unfortunately, the process went as far as the landlord providing the resident with a medical form to complete, to enable an assessment in respect of a transfer and informing him that a supporting letter from a health care professional would be needed for a management transfer to be considered. 
  5. The incorrect information given to the resident by the landlord gave rise to an expectation that he was entering a rehousing application process, which was not the case. This caused unnecessary raised hopes, disappointment and delay in obtaining the accommodation him and his family needed.
  6. Regarding another IMR property, the landlord’s conclusion that the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria for another IMR property, its decision was made appropriately, in accordance with its ‘IMR Re-Let Policy’, which states at paragraph 2.4 that “Applicants should only be spending a maximum of 45% of their net income on rent. Higher percentages must be approved by the Allocations Manager.”.
  7. Whilst the landlord’s decision did not make logical sense to the resident, given that he was paying a substantially more amount of rent than the rent required for that particular property, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy.  Although an understandably frustrating situation, it would have been irresponsible for the landlord to have let the resident a property where he did not meet the affordability criteria. 
  8. The landlord mishandled the situation by not being consistent and clear in its responses however, and this meant that expectations were not managed and the resident spent time pursuing the options of mutual exchange and a transfer, which were not successful for the reasons provided. Furthermore, the landlord missed opportunities to provide additional support to the resident insofar as guidance and advice as to appropriate next steps, particularly given the vulnerabilities of his son and the impact of his cramped and overcrowded housing conditions on him. 
  9. This is particularly concerning, given the resident’s repeated highlighting to the landlord of the situation and the desperation he clearly felt, that it did not do more to clearly explain and support him in pursuing the correct options.  The fact that the resident continued to contact the landlord for a protracted period of time about housing options, indicated a lack of understanding which the landlord did not pick up on. Had it done so, this may have enabled the substantive complaint to have been resolved, rather than continuing to drag on and escalate.  There is reference to the landlord planning on telephoning the resident to discuss his housing options with him, but it is not known as to whether this took place.
  10. For completion, in terms of the overcrowding issue, the ‘IMR re–let policy’ states at paragraph 2.1 that “Applicants will be allocated homes with the number of bedrooms determined by the Allocations and Lettings policy” and that was indeed the case at the start of the tenancy in 2014, with the resident and his partner moving in. With circumstances having considerably changed, however, the size of the property was no longer sufficient but due to the nature of the tenancy, the landlord was unable to offer a management transfer or mutual exchange and was also unable to grant a tenancy at a property which had been unaffordable.  The correct route was for the resident to apply for social housing, as advised by the landlord in 2019 and again more recently, or to seek housing on the private rental market, if affordable, which it did not seem to be in this case.
  11. The landlord’s actions, in providing incorrect information and advice, plus its lack of understanding for the resident’s individual circumstances and its contribution to the delay he experienced in progressing his attempts to move property, has resulted in an overall finding of service failure on this case in relation to the rehousing aspect of the complaint. To remedy the frustration, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident a figure of £200 compensation, plus a sincere written apology, is considered appropriate.

Complaints handling

  1. Upon receipt of the original complaint, which is evidenced to this Service as being on 1 July 2020, the landlord did not provide a formal response as it was required to do, in accordance with its complaints policy. Whilst it did respond within 10 working days, as specified in that same policy, rather than provide a complaint response, it was an informal response to the resident’s questions – and additionally, gave incorrect advice, as explained above. Whilst there were questions asked by the resident, the landlord had an obligation to investigate and respond to the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure, which it did not do. 
  2. Notwithstanding a lack of formal response, the resident’s request for the matter to be escalated on 13 August 2020 and again on 20 August 2020, was also not appropriately acted on, nor his further email on 7 September 2020, reiterating his request and stating that he had actually originally made a complaint on 31 March 2020.
  3. The landlord’s response to these three emails, on 7 September 2020, again responded as if it were answering questions, rather than having carried out an investigation, or escalated the matter, as had been requested several times.
  4. Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the complaint made and a chance to put things right and it did not do this.  Even in circumstances where it is not possible for a landlord to give the resident’s desired outcome, there remains the opportunity for it to demonstrate understanding and empathy regarding the situation, which it failed to do. This lack of recognition and acknowledgement of the situation and the resident’s difficulties is aggravated by the fact of his son’s poor health and the extra concern this caused.
  5. The landlord has said that it provided its stage one response on 12 April 2021 – the following year – which amounts to at least a nine-month gap between the complaint being raised and the landlord’s response, which is excessive and well outside of the ten working day window it provides itself to respond within.  There is no explanation for the landlord’s inappropriately lengthy delay, with it again missing its own articulated timeframe within which to respond, at stage two, as set out in its complaints policy.  The landlord’s stage two response was provided five months after that, set against its 20-working day timescale to respond.
  6. The landlord’s complaints handling and communication was poor throughout the duration of the complaint and contact from the resident about the issue, with it failing to provide updates to the resident, leading him to chase it for this on a number of occasions, as well as the issues of delay and failure to investigate the complaint as described above.
  7. Given the excessive delay in progressing this case through the complaints process, plus the other associated failures identified above, an overall finding of maladministration has been identified with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. To remedy these failures, a compensation payment of £250 is ordered, to reflect the additional inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident in pursuing his complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaints handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £450 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £200 for the service failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing, and;
    2. £250 for the maladministration identified in its communication and complaints handling.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident with a sincere apology, in writing, for the overall failures identified on this case.
  3. The landlord to evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to carry out a review of the complaints handling failures identified on this case, including identifying and addressing any staff training needs.