London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202219440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219440

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 January 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s transfer request.
2. Repairs and ongoing maintenance to the lift within the resident’s building.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a block of flats. The building has a single lift. The resident has been a tenant of the property since 14 April 2014.
The resident has advised that she had a stroke in October 2017 following surgery to remove a tumour from her brain. This has impacted her mobility as she has right foot drop. She also has osteoarthritis, diabetes, and further tumours in her brain. Evidence of her health conditions has been provided to her landlord.
The landlord’s vulnerability record captures that the resident has had a stroke.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Transfers policy

This policy was effective from October 2018, with a review date set for October 2021. It is noted that this policy was deleted following the removal of the landlord’s internal (choice based) lettings list in June 2021.
The policy set out the basis for the landlord’s choice based lettings system. Its stated aim was to provide a fair and consistent approach to rehousing for those residents who wished to transfer to another property.
In its policy statement under section 3, it said that the transfer system was open to all residents who want to move, “to offer accommodation through choice and housing need and to identify cases that need to be given higher priority because of a more urgent need for re-housing.”
Section 4.4 provided details of the choice based lettings scheme and its banding priorities. It said that there was high demand for its scheme, and it would therefore also advise residents to register for a mutual exchange. Applicants to the scheme would be banded according to priority and ranked within their banding based on the time spent on the transfer list. These were defined as:
1. Band 1 – Decants
2. Band 2 – Under-occupiers
3. Band 3 – Priority cases such as medical issues, statutory overcrowding etc.
4. Band 4 – Standard cases (any other requests to move)
Section 4.6 covers those cases considered as priority within band 3. It says that “medical evidence is assessed by an independent medical advisor on behalf of [the landlord].”

Allocations and lettings policy

This policy is effective from 1 June 2021 and combined 3 pre-existing policies of the landlord. These are: allocations and lettings, mutual exchange, and rehousing. This replaced the transfer policy.
This says that it will offer practical housing options advice to those residents who wish to move, promoting mutual exchange and downsizing. Further, it says that it “will only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation.”
The policy establishes the criteria for allocation to the landlord’s properties and the housing options available to existing residents who need to move. Section 4.2 sets out how it will provide advice and support to existing residents who “demonstrate a desire or need to move.” This says that it will provide advice on areas such as mutual exchange, application to the local authorities housing register, private rented sector, older people’s accommodation, or direct offer through the landlord’s own rehousing list.
It further advises that for a resident to be added to its rehousing list, the circumstances must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of Anti-social Behaviour.
2. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home
3. The household is severely overcrowded and has a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding.
4. The tenant wishes to downsize to a smaller property as their household is under-occupying their existing home.
5. A temporary move is required to carry out repairs to the resident’s permanent home.
6. The resident’s home is to be demolished or disposed of in line with our Asset Management Strategy
7. Exceptional circumstances as approved by senior management.
For a resident to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list the policy states that their case will have to be presented to the rehousing panel. The panel meets on a weekly basis to discuss new cases. If a case is declined by the rehousing panel, the resident will be allowed to submit an appeal which will be reviewed by a senior manager independent of the rehousing panel.

Repairs responsibilities policy

This policy establishes the landlord’s responsibilities as set out within legislation, regulation, and its tenancy … agreements.
This sets out at 4.1 that the landlord is responsible for maintaining … “common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, and other communal areas, including estate grounds.
Section 4.8 of the policy sets out the service standards for undertaking repairs. This advises that:
1. For routine day to day repairs the landlord will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, the landlord will attend within 24 hours.
3. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within four hours. The out of hours service will be to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.

Complaints Policy

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This provides a 10 working day target for responding to complaints at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
At stage 1 the complaint is to be referred to the person or department best placed to help. Where the resident remains unhappy, they can seek an escalation of their complaint. This will then be managed by the landlord’s customer relations team or by someone not involved with the original complaint. At the end of each stage the landlord said that it would “monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.”

Summary of events

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

The landlord’s tenancy records show that the resident notified it on 30 May 2017 that she had been diagnosed with a brain tumour and was awaiting surgery.
On 11 June 2017 there was a fire in the resident’s kitchen. This caused considerable damage to the flat that required her to temporarily vacate her home for a period of approximately a month whilst repair works were undertaken.
On 22 December 2017 the landlord’s tenancy records show that the resident’s block was subject to a full evacuation policy in the event of a fire. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility issues it notified its managing agent that she would need assistance should there be a need to evacuate the building. The landlord has advised the Service that this policy was amended in May 2023 to one of stay put, encouraging residents to remain in their homes in the event of a fire.
On 15 January 2020 the resident raised her wish to be considered for a move on medical grounds. She said she required a ground floor flat due to ongoing repair issues with the lift serving her building. She completed a transfer application and submitted a medical assessment form to the landlord on 23 January 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 January 2020. It confirmed that her transfer request had been accepted and that she had been registered on its choice based lettings scheme, giving her the ability to bid for a maximum of 2 properties a week. A follow up letter was sent to the resident on 4 March 2020 to advise that following an assessment, she had not been given medical priority for a move. It said that she would remain in band 4 for a transfer through choice based lettings.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2020 to enquire why she had not been awarded medical priority. This was referred for follow up internally by the landlord and the resident was contacted on 21 April 2020. She was provided with advice around mutual exchange and asked to provide further evidence, to support a move on medical grounds, for this to be referred to the landlord’s medical advisor.
On 6 September 2020 the resident completed an online complaint form. Within this she confirmed that she had been refused a move on medical grounds but had not been told why. She explained that she had had a stroke and that she had lost the use of her right foot. She said that she would be unable to evacuate her flat in the event of a fire as she lived on the fourth floor. She had registered for an exchange, but nothing had come up. She included medical letters and advised that she would provide a letter from her consultant. She was looking for a move on medical grounds.
In response the landlord contacted her on 7 September 2020. It advised that she would need to provide further medical evidence for her case to be considered again. On 18 September 2020, the resident provided a letter from her doctor, occupational therapy, and a copy of her medication. The landlord spoke with the resident on 19 October 2020 to discuss her options for rehousing.
On 3 November 2020 within the landlord’s case records, it recorded that its choice based lettings had been suspended. It further noted that the resident had been set up on both home swapper and house exchange. She was also registered on housing moves. In response to contact from the resident on 12 November 2020, the landlord contacted her the following day to advise that, due to COVID-19, its medical assessments had been suspended as there was a backlog. It said, however, that its mobility officer had referred her case as urgent due to a concern that she would be unable to evacuate the building in the event of a fire.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that she had been awarded medical priority. She was now band 3 for a move and she could continue to bid through choice based lettings.
On 6 April 2021 the resident submitted a new medical assessment form to the landlord.
On 10 August 2021 the resident completed an online complaint form. She explained that she was looking for a move on medical grounds. She said that she had been advised that from 3 May 2021 the landlord’s bidding system had closed. She had been trying to contact the mobility officer who had been dealing with her case and had assisted her in completing and submitting a medical assessment. She said that she had been told that “she was a health and safety risk as she could not get out of the building quick enough if there was a fire.” She set out her medical history and her need to move. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021. It confirmed that it had received her supporting evidence and said that her application had been sent for assessment. Her completed medical assessment and supporting information was referred to the landlord’s independent medical advisor on 20 August 2021.
On 8 September 2021 the landlord’s medical advisor provided its assessment. It did not grant her priority for a move. It said that the application hinged on the reliability of the lift service. It noted that there was no evidence as to the extent of the lift issues affecting the resident’s block. It further made recommendations to the landlord around its policy.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 October 2021 as she had not received a formal response to her complaint and her landlord had missed its deadline to respond. She said that she had been unable to contact the landlord’s staff to discuss her complaint and that she required an urgent move on medical grounds. We wrote to the landlord and asked it to investigate the resident’s complaint and issue a stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaint records are unclear as to when it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Its record was created on 20 October 2021 and completed on 9 June 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 November 2021 to advise that it had closed its transfer list and that it was now only considering direct offers. It said that it was currently prioritising those residents who could not “access their properties safely.” It had assessed her application for a direct offer on medical grounds and this had not been approved. It advised her to pursue a mutual exchange.
On 30 January 2022, the resident submitted an online complaint form. In this she explained that she had been home with her granddaughter that day when fire alarms went off in the building. She was unable to evacuate down the stairs so had used the lift. She said that no fire marshal had been present. She explained that she wanted to move to ground floor accommodation and that she had previously submitted all medical information.
Internal emails show the background investigation into the resident’s complaint, as the complaints officer sought information from colleagues in the landlord’s rehousing team. The landlord spoke with and wrote to the resident on 9 June 2022 in response to her complaint. It confirmed that it had arranged for a joint visit to be carried out and a person centred risk assessment to be completed. This was to be carried out by its neighbourhood housing lead within 5 days. It said that it would respond in full by 23 June 2022.
On 19 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her stage 1 complaint. In this it said that it was sorry she had cause to complain and said that it wanted to assure her that it cared about her “happiness and wellbeing.” It had taken on board her feedback about how she felt her rehousing request had been handled and this was to be passed on to the relevant team. It had arranged for a person centred risk assessment to be carried out on 22 June 2022. Once completed the neighbourhood housing lead would provide a report which would be forwarded to the rehousing team and included with her rehousing request. This concluded her stage 1 complaint.
A person centred risk assessment was completed with the resident on 22 June 2022. This recorded that the resident had previously experienced a kitchen fire and that this had left her with a fear of fire. It noted that there were 96 stairs within the communal area to access the resident’s flat from the ground floor. It recorded that the resident had mental health issues and that she lacked capacity of decision making in the event of a fire. It further noted her mobility issues and concluded that she required a ground floor property with specialist equipment to aid her mobility.
The risk assessment was shared with the landlord’s complaint team and rehousing team on 1 July 2022. An internal email advises that the resident should be referred to its “high harm panel” although full details for referrals were at that time unavailable. This was pursued internally by the complaint’s team on 25 July 2022 and 12 August 2022.
The resident provided a letter from her doctor on 15 August 2022 which set out her various health challenges. Following contact with the resident on 19 August 2022 an internal referral was made to the landlord’s resident support lead to contact the resident as she had expressed suicidal thoughts during the call. It was also suggested that contact be made with other housing providers to see if a reciprocal arrangement could be made to assist her with a transfer.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2022. This said that it was its final response on her complaint case. It advised that referrals to its high harm panel were being screened due to the high volume of referrals. It further said that having reviewed the criteria she did not meet the threshold for a referral to be made. It said that a referral had been made to the resident support lead and that the best opportunity for her to move was to seek a mutual exchange.
The resident provided an immediate response to the landlord, submitting a letter from her doctor and raising concerns about the ongoing problems with the lift in her block. She stated that she had already tried a mutual exchange but that this was not working.
The landlord agreed that it would investigate the fire strategy for the building having received the person centred risk assessment. On 6 September 2022 an internal email shows that the landlord was to send the completed risk assessment together with a 12 month lift report for assessment by its medical advisor.
The landlord raised a safeguarding concern on 12 September 2022 following a distressed call with the resident reporting the lift out of order. It noted on 14 September 2022 that the resident’s details had been placed in the building’s Gerda box. This contains information around vulnerable residents who may require the assistance of the fire brigade to evacuate the building in the event of a fire.
On 27 September 2022 internal communication confirmed that a reciprocal move, with another landlord, would not be possible.
The landlord’s rehousing manager emailed the resident on 17 October 2022. This was as a follow up to her complaint and the responses provided by its complaints officer. It advised that it had obtained a lift report to be sent to its medical advisor. It explained that it had a high criterion for medical moves and that there was currently a 2 year wait for a move via its rehousing list. It encouraged her to explore all housing options, including mutual exchange.
On 24 November 2022, following contact from the resident, the Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it review the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. This was acknowledged by the landlord, setting a response target of 8 December 2022.
Internal emails between 28 November 2022 and 7 December 2022 show internal discussions around the resident’s application for a move, with the complaints officer who had been allocated the stage 2 to respond, looking for information from colleagues. There appears to have been some passing between departments with a lack of clarity as to who had responsibility for following through a medical assessment. On 8 December 2022, it was agreed that it would contact the resident to complete a new medical assessment.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022. In this it said:
1. The resident had complained on 20 October 2022 about:
  1. its response to outstanding repairs in the building including a defective lift.
  2. its response to her request for a medical transfer.
  3. its complaint handling.
2. It had provided a response to her stage 1 on 16 June 2022 and was sorry that she remained dissatisfied.
3. It understood that she wished to be rehoused and that she wanted the landlord to give an undertaking that the lift would always be in good repair.
4. It acknowledged her request but said that it could not guarantee that the lift to the building would always be working. It would always endeavour to get the lift repaired the same day. It noted that it had been out for 2 days in July 2022, but that on all other occasions it had been repaired on the same day. Breakdowns to the lift were outside the landlord’s control.
5. It noted that she had been declined for rehousing in November 2021. It had agreed that its rehousing team that it would send a new medical assessment. It noted that she had an appointment with occupational health on 12 December 2022 and asked that she provide the outcome of this. It would then seek a reassessment by its independent medical advisor.
6. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its response at stage 1 and that it should have kept her better informed. It apologised that she had to contact the Ombudsman to get a timely response to her complaint.
7. It wanted to reassure her that it was taking the issues she was facing seriously and that it would be getting her rehousing application reassessed.
8. It thanked her for raising her complaint and explained that it was working to improve its services, including the set up of a specialist team to deal with complaints at stage 2.
9. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused, together with the time and effort taken in contacting the landlord. It noted delays in its complaint handling and failure to keep her informed. It awarded compensation of £630, which in line with its policy would be offset against any rent arrears. This was broken down as follows:
  1. Distress and inconvenience over 14 months between October 2021 and December 2022, based on £20 per month. A total of £280.
  2. Time and effort in pursuing her complaint £200.
  3. Delay in complaint handling £150.
On 12 December 2022 the resident emailed the Ombudsman to set out the reasons why she wanted her complaint to be investigated. She said:
1. She wanted to move and that she had been requesting a move since 2019.
2. She had completed medical assessments but been told that her condition was not a reason to move. She was also still awaiting a new medical form.
3. She wanted to move to a ground floor flat and those concerns had been raised about her safety in the event of a fire.
4. She explained that she had 2 tumours in her head and a drop foot following a stroke. She had been advised that she should not be climbing stairs as this caused her stress.
A new medical assessment form was sent to the resident on 21 December 2022. The resident completed the application setting out details of her health and mobility issues on 5 January 2023. She also advised that she had been in contact with the fire brigade as she was concerned about how she would evacuate the building in event of a fire. The landlord’s internal records confirmed that this was the fourth application that the resident has submitted for assessment.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 14 January 2023 a local councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. This set out that the resident’s GP had confirmed that she suffered from “a multiplicity of chronic recurrent and acute health problems which prevent her from carrying out some activities.” It set out the difficulty that the resident experienced accessing her flat via the 96 steps when the lift was out of order. It expressed surprise that her medical conditions had not given her priority for rehousing. It asked the landlord to provide the resident with copies of her transfer requests and the external medical assessments, so that she may understand the reasons for its decision. The landlord acknowledged the councillor’s enquiry on 19 January 2023.
The resident completed a new online complaint form on 20 January 2023. She requested details of the reasons behind the rejection of her previous medical applications and confirmed that she had submitted a fourth. This was added to the resident’s original complaint case and referred to her neighbourhood manager to respond.
The landlord wrote to the councillor on 3 March 2023. In its response the landlord advised that the resident could submit a subject access request for the information about her transfer application and the decisions made. It set out how this should be framed and made no further comment on her application.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that her request for a transfer on medical grounds had been refused. In this it said that medical priority was awarded where the following criteria were met:
1. The resident’s medical need is so severe that they are unable to access parts of their home.
2. An occupational therapist has said that the home is not suitable for adaptations.
3. Additional space is required for essential medical equipment.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision and raised a fresh complaint on 5 May 2023. In this she said that she had received her personal file and believed that this showed managers “passing the buck and not taking responsibility for her case.” The landlord responded to her complaint on 6 June 2023, with the resident seeking an escalation of her complaint on 14 June 2023.
On 20 June 2023 the resident’s MP raised an enquiry with the landlord. This shared information from the resident about her ongoing health issues. It asked the landlord to investigate a claim made by the resident that she had been told, by her landlord, that she had been offered and declined a property, which was not correct. It asked what further support could be given to the resident to place her in a suitable property.
On 23 June 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she had taken an overdose and been treated in hospital. She provided a copy of her medical records and a mental health assessment. A case note was made within the landlord’s records.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 4 July 2023 and provided her with contact details for occupational therapy. A task was also created within the landlord’s case management system for the neighbourhood housing lead to carry out a visit. It was recorded that the resident thanked the landlord for listening and confirmed she had arranged an appointment with occupational therapy.
An occupational therapist completed an assessment on 6 July 2023 and recommended that a wet room should be fitted within the resident’s home. In its report written on 12 July 2023 it recorded that this recommendation would be made to the local authority adaptations panel and that if agreed there it would then be subject to approval by the landlord. The resident advised on 21 November 2023 that she is still waiting follow up for this to be fitted. The landlord has confirmed that it is pursuing this with the local authority.
On 27 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It advised:
1. That it had temporarily paused referrals to its rehousing service and could only consider those with severe medical needs who were unable to access all or part of their homes.
2. That the current wait for a move was more than 36 months.
3. The resident had submitted a medical assessment in March 2023 which had been assessed by an independent doctor. This had been rejected as there were two working lifts in the block and no evidence had been provided that resident was unable to move around her home.
4. It would consider a further assessment if additional evidence were provided.
5. That the resident should explore other housing options.
On 3 August 2023 the resident raised her continued unhappiness with the landlord regarding her situation. She said that she felt that assessments had been carried out by people who were not medically trained, and she believed that she was due to get a move in 2020 and that this had been taken away. She confirmed that there was only one lift in her block. The landlord responded on 16 August 2023, providing a further medical assessment for completion.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and ongoing maintenance to the lift within the resident’s building

The landlord has provided a copy of its communal repair records for the resident’s block covering the period from 28 March 2012 to 12 July 2023. These are in addition to its tenancy and complaint records for the resident. For the purposes of this report, we have considered the records only from the end of 2019. The repair records record only the date on which a repair request is made. Within the completed column a time is also recorded, although this is often shown as 00.00.
The communal repair records capture the following reported breakdowns:
1. 27 November 2019 – The lift was reported as not working, with the repair completed on 28 November 2019.
2. 30 November 2019 – It was reported to have stopped working again. The works are shown to have been completed on 2 December 2019.
3. 3 January 2020 – The lift was reported as not working and that the lift fault was showing as “out of service”. The repair is recorded as completed on 3 January 2020.
4. 10 January 2020 – The lift was reported as not working and that this was an ongoing issue. The repair is reported as completed on 10 January 2020.
5. 12 January 2020 – The lift was reported as not working again, with the repair shown as completed on the same day.
6. 13 January 2020 – Lift reported out of service and “locked” on sixth floor. Again, repair show as completed on same day.
7. 14 January 2020 – The same issue with the lift was reported as it was stuck on the sixth floor. The repair to the lift is shown as completed on 15 January 2020.
8. 21 January 2020 – An order was raised for the lift contractor to attend and change the ADO printed circuit board to the lift. This is shown as completed on 28 January 2020 when a second repair order was raised to undertake this and other works to replace the proximity switches which had been identified as a source of the fault causing the earlier breakdowns in January. These works are shown to have been completed by 16 February 2020 at 9.00.
9. 29 January 2020 – The lift was reported as not working following a fire alarm in the building. This was completed on 29 January 2020.
10. 5 March 2020 – The lift was reported as stuck on the fifth floor. It was noted that there were vulnerable residents in the block, and it was the only lift. This order is shown as completed on 5 March 2020.
11. 2 May 2020 – The lift reported as out of order and the repair was completed on the same day.
12. 4 May 2020 – The lift was reported to be out of order and stuck on the sixth floor. This repair is recorded as completed on 5 May 2020.
13. 17 June 2020 – The lift had broken down and was saying out of service. An order was raised and recorded as completed on 18 June 2020.
14. 26 June 2020 – The lift was reported as being stuck on the ground floor. The order is shown as completed on 27 June 2020.
15. 7 September 2020 – The lift was reported as not working or responding to commands. This repair is shown as completed on 8 September 2020 at 8.00.
16. 17 September 2020 – The lift was reported as not working and stuck on the ground floor. Concern raised that this was the only lift and that it kept breaking down. This repair is shown to have been completed by 18 September 2020 at 17.00.
17. 11 November 2020 – An order was raised to attend to a broken down lift. This was completed the same day.
18. 28 February 2022 – The lift was reported as broken down on the sixth floor. The repair was completed on the same day.
19. 9 March 2022 – The lift was reported as stuck on the third floor. This repair was completed on the same day.
20. 24 March 2022 – The lift was reported as broken down with a message saying, “fireman service”. This is shown as completed on 24 March 2022 at 17.00.
21. 22 April 2022 – The lift was reported as stuck on the ground floor, and it was noted that this was the only lift in the building. This is shown as completed on the same day.
22. 23 May 2022 – The lift was reported as out of service, stuck on the sixth floor. It was noted that there were vulnerable residents. This is shown as completed on the same day it was raised.
23. 17 July 2022 – The lift was reported as broken down and the repair was shown to be completed on the same day.
24. 15 August 2022 – The lift was reported as partially working but that the door would not open on the second or ground floors. This order is shown as completed on 15 August 2022 at 18.00.
25. 22 November 2022 – The lift was reported as not working, stuck on fourth floor with the doors open. This order was completed on the same day.
26. 30 November 2022 – A problem with the lift panel was reported and buttons could not be pressed. Repair order is shown as completed on the same day.
In addition to the listed breakdowns remedial works were raised in October and December 2021 to undertake works identified following inspections carried out.
The resident reported that the lift to her building was out of order on 23 and 24 March 2022, although the landlord’s repair records only capture this on the 24 March 2022 and show it as repaired on this date.
On 17 July 2022 the landlord’s records show that the lift was reported as out of order. The resident contacted the landlord’s complaint officer, who was dealing with her stage 1 complaint, to report that she had been forced to walk up the stairs. The landlord’s internal records show that calls were made to the lift contractor on the 17, 18 and 19 July 2022 as the lift had remained out of service. It was noted that it was reinstated at 13.30 on 19 July 2022 and the landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2022 to provide her with an update on the lift repair.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord’s lift contractor provided an update on repairs to the lift and noted that all outstanding issues had been addressed. The only remaining issue was about the fob system which restricted access to the lift to residents only. It advised that this did not affect the operation of the lift.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has set out in bringing her complaint, through her contact with both her landlord and the Service, that the outcome she is seeking is to be moved to a ground floor property. The Service is unable to make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through the application of the relevant policy and procedure. This would be in line with the allocations and lettings policy introduced by the landlord in June 2021.
The central issue of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord has failed to appropriately assess her medical needs and provide her with a transfer based on these. It is not for the Service to determine whether or not the landlord should have provided the resident with medical priority, as this depends on the assessment of the appointed independent medical advisor. However, we have assessed whether the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies in the process of considering her application.
It is, however, acknowledged that this has been extremely distressing for the resident. She has a number of physical health issues which have led to challenges to her mental health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident transfer request.

Following her initial application for rehousing and a subsequent reassessment of her medical information, the resident was awarded medical priority in November 2020, and placed within band 3 of the landlord’s choice based lettings system. This enabled her to make regular bids for suitable properties that became available. It is not clear from the evidence provided what, if any, bids the resident made during this period.
The resident completed a new medical assessment on 6 April 2021. It appears the landlord did not follow this up until the resident raised an online complaint on 10 August 2021. The landlord then made a request for additional supporting evidence from the resident and referred the completed form to its independent medical advisor on 20 August 2021, a delay of 4 months.
Having closed its transfer list, the landlord was only accepting those assessed as having a medical priority for direct offers of rehousing. The medical advisor completed its assessment on 8 September 2021 and did not award the resident priority for a move. It noted that the application hinged on the reliability of the lift and offered to provide a further review if additional evidence around the lift breakdowns were provided. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the provision of additional information at that time. The medical advisor also made a recommendation about the landlord’s policy in respect of disabled residents living in high rise buildings which also does not appear to have been followed up.
The landlord did not notify the resident formally of its decision until it wrote to her on 2 November 2021. In this letter the landlord said that it was prioritising those that “could not access their properties safely.” This failed to provide real clarity to the resident as to the reasons for her application being declined. As the resident had stated that she was unable to use the stairs safely to access her property when the lift was out of order, it is likely that this statement would have left her both confused and frustrated as to why her priority for a move had been declined. It also took 9 months for the landlord to provide the resident with this decision.
As an outcome to her complaint the landlord made arrangements for a person centred risk assessment to be completed with the resident in June 2022. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The assessment concluded that the resident required a ground floor property given concerns around her ability to be able to evacuate the building in the event of a fire. At this time her block was subject to a full evacuation policy in the event of a fire. This was passed onto the landlord’s rehousing team but there is no evidence that this was referred for consideration by the landlord’s medical advisor.
Internal communications say that the landlord would refer the resident’s case to its “high harm” panel, but no details of this panel or the referral process were provided. It then said that this referral was not made as the resident did not meet the criteria. As a result, there is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the concerns highlighted by the person centred risk assessment, or further discussed fire safety with the resident. All contact with the resident appears to have been generated in response to her complaints. On 17 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had obtained a 12 month lift report and that this would be sent to its independent medical advisor. There is no evidence that this was assessed or that the resident was notified of the outcome of any assessment at that time. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord’s complaint record indicated that the complaints officer dealing with the stage 2 complaint raised significant concerns around the resident’s health in regard to her housing. The officer sought advice from colleagues to enable her to respond to the complaint, including seeking clarity based on its own policy. There was a lack of clarity in ownership of the case and little direct contact with the resident at this time. There was eventual agreement that the issue should once again be referred to the landlord’s medical advisor.
The resident submitted a new medical assessment form in March 2023. She was once again declined medical priority. In writing to her MP advising of the outcome of this assessment, the landlord incorrectly stated that there were 2 lifts in her block.
The landlord has advised of the high level of demand for its homes and of the lengthy wait that the resident would experience should she be approved for a direct offer on medical grounds, some 36 months. It has said to the Service that its current criteria for a medical move are:
1. Residents who are unable to access their home or parts of their home.
2. Residents who require additional space for essential medical equipment such as dialysis machines and breathing apparatus.
3. Residents whose home is not able to be adapted for medical reasons.
The landlord’s comments about the demand for its homes are acknowledged. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request has been done with a lack of care for the resident. There appears to have been a lack of clear ownership within the landlord’s staff and poor follow up to her enquiries. It is noted that a safeguarding referral was raised in light of distress she had expressed, but it is not clear what follow up steps were then taken by the landlord.
The landlord’s transfer policy was changed, with the removal of its choice based lettings scheme. The landlord has said that this change was necessary due to the high level of demand for its homes. With this a new stricter criteria for its medical move priority was introduced. There is no evidence that this change in policy was explained to the resident, or indeed why this then led to the removal of her medical priority. The landlord should have explained to the resident at the time of the policy change the impact that this would have on her individual application, setting out the detail of its new criteria and providing advice as to alternative routes to moving home. In failing to do so the resident was left without a clear understanding of the changes and feeling let down and frustrated by the rehousing process.
The resident has submitted 4 separate medical assessments, and all have been turned down. There is no evidence that the landlord has reviewed the outcome of these assessments to identify if additional information could have provided a better outcome or indeed if it has ensured that its medical advisor has been given the correct information. There was an apparent lack of clarity about the number of lifts in the building following the assessment concluded in March 2023. There is also no evidence that where a recommendation was made by the medical advisor that this was followed through.
There was an inappropriate reliance on making fresh medical referrals to respond to the resident’s raised concerns. It is unclear from the evidence presented what support was given to the resident to ensure that each referral contained additional and appropriate evidence to build on that previously assessed. It does appear that there was a failure to present evidence around the lift service or indeed to be clear as to the number of lifts serving the building. Reference was made to sending a 12 month lift report to the medical advisor, but no evidence was presented that this took place. Considering the review carried out by the Service through this investigation, a 12 month snapshot may not have presented the number and type of repairs experienced by the resident. With each agreement to undertake a medical referral the resident’s expectations were raised. The landlord’s allocations and letting policy provides no detail as to the process for assessment by its independent medical advisor or how its staff should follow through on recommendations made. The policy says that its own residents seeking rehousing would be referred to its rehousing panel but there is no evidence that this has occurred in the resident’s case or indeed if there has been any consideration of the resident’s housing needs by the landlord’s own staff.
The resident has repeatedly expressed her concern around her safety in the event of a fire but there is no evidence that the landlord’s medical advisor has considered or been asked to consider these. Indeed, the landlord’s policy does not address the impact on those disabled residents living in blocks with only one lift or consider the fire safety aspect. The Landlord had a responsibility to ensure the safety of its residents and it should have considered the concerns raised both by the resident and through the person centred risk assessment. There was a failing by the landlord in not doing so.
The resident has been advised to seek a mutual exchange but does not appear to have received support to assist her to facilitate this. While there is no requirement within the landlord’s policy for it to offer individual support to residents, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have done so given the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord has shown a lack of care towards its vulnerable resident through a failure to maintain regular contact with her or provide clear accountability for her rehousing application. There was a lack of clarity around its referrals to an independent medical advisor, with repeated referrals failing to deliver a different outcome to her application. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. Recommendations have been made as to the steps the landlord should take to communicate with and support the resident with her housing requirements.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in its stage 2 response did not consider the wider failing in its handling of the resident’s transfer request. An order has been made for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failings identified through this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and ongoing maintenance to the lift within the resident’s building.

Over a period of 36 months, there were a total of 26 reported breakdowns to the single lift serving the resident’s block. Over that time there have been periods where there have been a number of breakdowns in a single month. It also appears to have been breakdown free throughout 2021 and that there have been no reported breakdowns over 2023.
Based on its repair records, the landlord has responded appropriately to each of the reported breakdowns. Most of these repairs having been completed within a 24 hour period. The landlord’s records do not record the time of the reported breakdown or, in every event, the time that the repair was completed. To capture this information would allow the landlord to provide a clearer picture as to the length of individual breakdowns and interruptions to the lift service. It would also enable it to confirm that it had met its emergency repair timeframes.
It is understandable that the resident is frustrated by the breakdown of the only lift serving her home. The landlord has shown that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the lift is repaired within a reasonable time and that it has an appropriate repair contract in place to ensure that this is achieved. Its repair records also demonstrate that regular inspections and servicing works were carried out. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance to the lift.

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

There is evidence that the landlord’s complaint handling has been poor throughout. There is no evidence that a formal response was provided to the resident’s initial complaint raised on 6 September 2020. She raised a further complaint on 10 August 2021, but despite chasing for a response this was only responded to on 19 June 2022, some 10 months after submitting the online complaint form.
In its response, while acknowledging the concerns and issues raised the landlord offered only to feedback to the relevant team and arranged for a person centred risk assessment to be completed. Once completed with the resident this highlighted her concerns and recommended that she needed a ground floor property. This served to heighten the resident’s expectations that she would be considered for a move. There were internal discussions on how to deal with the outcome of this assessment before it concluded that she would not meet the threshold for its “high harm” panel and recommended that she should pursue a mutual exchange.
The resident’s response to the landlord identified her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response but it failed to escalate her complaint beyond stage 1 until requested to do so by the Service. The landlord then provided a formal response to the resident slightly outside its published timescale of 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints team managed the stage 2 investigation. From the evidence presented there was a poor level of support internally for the complaints officer in gathering information to respond to the resident with enquiries passed between colleagues and teams. This demonstrated a general lack of care or ownership in its case handling.
The landlord did address each of the issues raised by the resident in its stage 2 and it was clear that it could not guarantee that the lift would not breakdown. It sought to provide reassurance that it would always aim to have it back in service within 24 hours. It also advised that it would seek another medical referral.
In considering the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles of: Be fair; Put things right; and Learn from outcomes. The landlord agreed to provide feedback to the teams about whom the residents had raised her concerns, but it is unclear what actions were taken to ensure that her feedback was considered. It also placed a reliance on offering to undertake a fresh medical assessment, which does not appear to have served in moving the resident’s case forward. It may have been more appropriate for the landlord to have considered the residents reported health challenges and the reasons she wished to move; alongside the criteria it had in place for such assessment. This may have allowed it to consider whether it was appropriate to submit a further referral or indeed if it should consider its wider policy around housing moves. Through this it failed to learn from this complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the significant delay in its complaint handling, and the distress and inconvenience caused in its offer of compensation at stage 2. Having considered all aspects of the resident’s complaint and the maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman has made an award for additional compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and ongoing maintenance to the lift within the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The resident has provided details of her health conditions to her landlord. She has explained how she is impacted when the lift is out of service and highlighted her concerns around her personal safety in the event of a fire in her building.
The landlord has failed to provide the resident with clear and detailed information around its change in transfer policy, why this led to the removal of her medical priority and set out why she has not been granted priority through the assessments that have been carried out over the last 2 years.
It is noted that on most occasions when the lift to the residents building has been out of order, the landlord’s contractor has attended and reinstated the lift service on the same day or within 24 hours.
Complaint handling was poor with significant delays in responding at stage 1. While this was acknowledged in its stage 2 response the landlord also failed to confirm its position regarding her complaint, leaving her awaiting the outcome of another medical assessment. This has led to the resident raising a further complaint with her landlord.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the report:
1. The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
  2. £300 for the delays in complaint handling.

This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £650 compensation at stage 2 of its complaint’s process. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within the timescales set out above.

Within 6 weeks of the date of the report, the landlord should:
1. Further review the resident’s application for rehousing providing her with appropriate advice and support. It is encouraged to assist the resident both in submitting a further medical assessment together with offering support as to other means of obtaining a transfer. The landlord should be clear with the resident as to why she has been unsuccessful to date in achieving a transfer and the timeframe for any move.
2. Review its policy on transfer to ensure that it captures concerns around fire safety and the needs of residents in high rise accommodation service only by one lift.
3. Follow up on the recommendations made by occupational therapy that the resident should be provided with a wet room within her current home. The landlord should ensure, subject to necessary approvals being in place, that these works are completed within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.