London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202108067)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108067

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroomed ground floor flat. We have not been provided with the date the tenancy started.
  2. In early 2021 the landlord announced that it would be closing its choice based letting (CBL) service from May 2021. Those residents who had been using the service would need to look at alternate rehousing options such as mutual exchange, or, if they believed they had severe medical needs they would need to reapply to the landlord for rehousing.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 26 March 2021 the resident called to discuss a range of issues, including the letter she had received about the closure of the CBL service. She was told how to register medical issues and reminded to send supporting documents with the application. She was also given website details for mutual exchange schemes.
  4. The landlord’s records show it had a number of conversations with the resident about the CBL closure in April 2021. It advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange, to contact the local authority to register on their transfer list and also confirmed that it would be sending the resident medical forms to complete.
  5. On 22 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident explaining the process for submitting medical information. It also said it would raise a query about the resident’s “concerns” (It did not specify what those concerns were). It concluded by advising her that she would need to call the contact centre “regarding [her] wish to raise a complaint.” Again, there is no information about the nature of any complaint.
  6. At some point in April or May 2021, the resident raised several formal complaints. The landlord’s records show a total of four complaints relating to various aspects of the closure of the CBL service. Each complaint was given a different complaint reference number, however none of them are dated, and so the dates of the complaints are not apparent
  7. The resident’s complaints concerned the closure of the CBL service (which the resident had been using since 2011), the need to apply again for rehousing, and how the resident’s rehousing application was historically handled by the landlord in 2017 when she had reported suffering from PTSD after witnessing a violent incident opposite her home in 2014.
  8. The landlord’s records show that the next contact between the landlord and the resident was on 10 May 2021, when it is noted that the resident was upset that nobody had called her.
  9. The landlord issued a complaint response sometime after 10 May 2021. The copy provided for this investigation is undated. The landlord thanked the resident for speaking to it on 10 May 2021. It confirmed that it had raised a query to its Housing Management Team asking it to contact the resident urgently about her request to be transferred to another property.
  10. The landlord’s also repeated the information it had previously provided about a medical rehousing application. It said the new qualifying criteria was very high, however, if the resident’s condition meant she could not access parts of her home, or if staying in her home was a risk to her life, she might qualify. It also recommended she consider a mutual exchange and provided details of various mutual exchange websites.
  11. On 13 May 2021 the landlords’ records show that the resident escalated her complaint.  She disagreed with her original transfer application being ended, wanted to know why she had not been rehoused prior to the change of CBL policy, and why she should have to submit medical information again. The resident also said that she had been given ‘management transfer’ status and “was put in for auto-bidding but was only ever notified of 1 bedroom properties” when she needed a two bedroom property.
  12. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2021 to discuss the case and explain that it would be a complex case as it involved several departments. It requested that the resident send it any relevant emails.
  13. The resident sent the landlord an email on 7 June 2021 referring to an earlier email dated 17 March 2016 in which she was told she could apply for management transfer status.
  14. The landlord issued its second complaint response on 17 June 2021. It addressed the issues the resident had raised, explaining why the CBL service had closed and the options that had replaced it, why she needed to submit new medical evidence (because any evidence needed to be no more than 12 months old), and how the previous “auto-bid” system had worked and why it had offered her one-bedroom properties. It explained that it had no record of the resident ever being put in the management transfer process, although it acknowledged the option had been discussed with her in 2016. It said its last notes from 2016 stated that the resident had been asked to provide supporting evidence from the police about safety at her home, but no such evidence was received. It advised that it had received the police letter the resident had submitted as part of her recent medical application in 2021, but that letter did not advise that she was at risk in her home.
  15. The landlord concluded that it had acted correctly in relation to the resident’s concerns, and there were no grounds for a direct offer of accommodation to be made. It explained to the resident how to refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. Some of the rehousing issues complained about by the resident to the landlord relate to matters that occurred between 2014 and 2017, including in relation to the incident the resident witnessed, and the resident’s subsequent understanding that she was placed in a management transfer process. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would usually be six months of the matters arising. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing until April/May 2021. Therefore, this investigation centres only on events in the several months leading up to the complaint in 2021. References to earlier events is for context and background only.
  2. The resident first contacted the landlord by phone about its plan to close the CBL service, on 26 March 2021, in response to a letter it had sent to her about it. The landlord’s response to this call and to further calls the following month was appropriate, as it advised her of the other rehousing options available such as mutual exchanges and explained how to register for them.
  3. The resident raised several complaints as she was unhappy that the CBL service was closing and that she would need to reapply for rehousing after being registered since 2011. She also questioned why she hadn’t been rehoused yet when she believed she had been given management status as a result of witnessing a violent incident in 2014 and subsequently experiencing PTSD in 2017, and why the only offers she had received during that time had been for one bedroom properties when she needed a two bedroom property. The landlord’s stage one complaint response advised that its housing management department would contact the resident urgently about those issues. The rest of its complaint response concentrated on the steps the resident needed to take now the CBL service was closing. This was reasonable as the information was essential for the resident to be able to apply for rehousing. The requirements also applied to all residents who had previously been using the CBL service, so it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident the same as other residents who were in the same position, whilst also acknowledging her specific experiences and circumstances in relation to a potential medical application.
  4. The landlord’s stage two response was issued on 17 June 2021, was reasonable as it addressed all of the points the resident had made, including those that had previously been directed to the housing management team. The landlord’s explanation for why the CBL service had been closed was reasonable as it had been based on an increase in demand for properties, and the limited number of properties available would now be allocated to those in greatest need due to downsizing, high medical needs, and where there was an immediate threat to life. It also confirmed that the resident had never been given management/direct let status, and explained that she could not be considered for that status currently without recent supporting medical evidence. It also explained what supporting evidence they would require for the resident’s medical needs to be considered. This was reasonable as it gave the resident the information she needed to be able to complete the medical forms correctly. It also answered the resident’s query about why she had been put forward for one bedroomed properties.
  5. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and queries by explaining why the CBL change was happening, what her rehousing options were, and what information she needed to provide if she wanted her medical circumstances to be considered. It addressed the questions the resident raised about her past history with CBL, and addressed her concern that she had been placed in a management transfer process without success. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates any clear shortcomings by the landlord in the period of time covered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.