London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202348652)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202348652
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
30 September 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 the resident’s transfer application.
- Complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
- The resident is an assured tenant in a 1 bedroom property. The tenancy began in September 2002, and he lives in the property with his children.
- The resident applied to the landlord to rehouse him on 21 September 2021. He told the landlord he needed a level access property on the ground floor. He also needed a 3 bedroom property or one that had 6 sleeping spaces. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 October 2023 and told him that it had found a ground floor property that met his requirements. It said it would contact him to arrange a viewing.
- The resident responded on 4 October 2023 asking the landlord to contact him. He explained that it had previously informed him that it was no longer rehousing residents. He said the offer it made him was no longer suitable for his needs or circumstances. It had not consulted him about his circumstances, and he had not updated it as he believed it was no longer rehousing residents. He told the landlord he has 3 disabled children, and he was expecting another child. He told it he could no longer accept ground floor properties unless it was a house due to safety concerns for his children.
- The landlord and resident continued to speak about the issue between 12 October 2023 and 27 October 2023. The resident then raised his complaint on 31 October 2023. He said:
- The landlord closed his case unfairly. It told him that it had stopped rehousing residents in 2022. It then emailed him a month ago and told it had found a property that met his requirements.
- He queried why it did not tell him that it had again started to transfer residents. Had it told him, he would have informed it of his current circumstances, and not waste his offer by having it propose something which did not meet his needs.
- This was due to the safety of his children as 3 of them are disabled. His circumstances had completely changed since he made his application years ago.
- He went to the property himself and found several things that would have made it impossible for him to accept. He told it about these, and it informed him of an appeals process. It also told him that the panel felt the property was suitable. He told it, its approach appeared to be “Accept or we’re done with you case closed.” He said it was disgusting how it ignored everything he said.
- He wanted it to reinstate his rehousing application, based on his current circumstances when something suitable came up, make him a proper and fair offer, instead of wasting his offer unfairly. He was not aware he was ever going to receive an offer because it told him it had stopped everything related to rehousing.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023. It summarised the resident’s complaint and the actions it had taken. It said:
- It told him of the appeals process, then it closed his case. He believed it closed his case unfairly.
- His case qualified for a direct offer on 16 September 2021, and it confirmed this to him on this day. It explained to him that he would only receive 1 direct offer of alternative accommodation. This was in line with the recommendations made by the independent medical advisor.
- It told him that residents could wait up to 12 to 18 months before receiving a property.
- At the time he advised of his circumstances and that:
- He had 4 children all under 18.
- He lived in an overcrowded property with 5 people living in a 1 bedroom flat on the tenth floor.
- He was a wheelchair user, unable to use stairs, and needed level access.
- He needed 3 bedrooms or up to 6 bed spaces.
- He needed a single room for one of his sons, due to safety reasons.
- He also provided a list of areas in which he was interested.
- Since receiving its email on 3 October 2023 about a 3 bedroom property offer, he called it with some concerns, and it raised a query for him on 10 October 2023. He then described changes to his current circumstances/ requirements in an email advising:
- He had more children now and one on the way.
- His 3 oldest children were disabled, so ground floor was no longer a priority or suitable anymore, unless it was a house.
- He was open to flats, but the higher up the better as his 3 eldest children tended to open the front door and run off.
- In his email, he did not understand why the landlord did not consult him when rehousing started. This would have allowed it to understand what his current requirements were before it made its offer.
- He declined the offer and asked that the landlord extend it to someone else. He asked it to make and offer for a property that was suitable for his current circumstances.
- It responded on 12 October 2023 informing him that it had discussed the case internally. Since he rejected the offer, it decided to prepare an appeal. It confirmed that it passed the case to an appeal manager, and it would hear it that day. It promised to update him once it received a response.
- The appeal panel later confirmed that it made him a satisfactory offer and therefore it gave him 48 hours to reconsider his decision. As it did not receive contact from him accepting the offer within the timeframe, it closed his case.
- It sent a closure letter on 27 October 2023 and resolved the query.
- It apologised he felt there had been miscommunication. It had not abolished its rehousing service, and it would not have communicated this to residents.
- Its appeal panel thought the offer was satisfactory. This was because it made the offer, considering his needs and the recommendations made by its independent medical advisor. It also made the discretionary offer outside of the boundaries of its allocations and lettings policy.
- Since his application qualified for a direct offer in 2021, it had since updated its rehousing criteria. The policy said that it could not commit to solving overcrowding issues through its allocations and lettings policy due to limited housing stock. Overcrowded households would need to seek alternative housing options such as mutual exchange, private renting, advice from the local authority, or shared ownership. It would make 1 offer of accommodation on a like for like basis. This meant that it offered residents accommodation with the same number of bedrooms and type of accommodation as they were currently in.
- This meant that when it offered him the property, he should have only offered a 1 bedroom property. If he were to reapply for a direct let now, under its current policy, it would only offer him a 1 bedroom property.
- However out of discretion, it discussed the case internally and agreed to make a formal reoffer to him. It gave him an opportunity to view the property and provide a response by 10 November 2023. It explained his housing options to him such as a mutual exchange, applying to the local authority’s housing register, private rental, and shared ownership.
- The resident responded on the same day and asked to escalate his complaint. He reiterated his concerns and raised issue with the landlord’s communication. He also asked for it to escalate his complaint again on 15 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 16 November 2023 and asked him to allow 20 working days for its response.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024. The response provided the same history of its actions and the findings it provided in its stage 1 response. It also apologised for the delay in its response.
Assessment and findings
Handling of the resident’s transfer application.
- The landlord appropriately explained the resident’s housing options to him on several occasions. It told him that a mutual exchange may be the quickest way to rehouse him. It also told him about the local authority’s housing list. However, despite this there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns.
- The landlord provided the Ombudsman with its interim Rehousing policy which was in force until June 2021. In June 2021, the landlord introduced an allocation and lettings policy. It did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the updated policy. The resident made his application for rehousing in September 2021. As such it is unclear why the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with the incorrect policy. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
- The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy applicable from June 2021 states that:
- It aims to aid and support residents moving temporarily or permanently and ensure it offers residents a property suitable for their housing needs.
- It aims to minimise disruption, stress and inconvenience to its residents throughout the rehousing process.
- It will provide additional support and help for residents when they need it.
- It will support resident with a customer centric approach to rehousing, in line with its customer promise.
- It will always look at situations on an individual basis to ensure that it was providing the most reasonable and suitable form of accommodation to residents.
- It will consider vulnerability and family composition when making a suitable offer.
- The landlord has not shown that it abided by the above principles within its policy, and this was unreasonable. This is because it did not effectively communicate with the resident around his housing transfer. He was under the impression that it was no longer rehousing residents. Due to this, he did not update it of any changes in his circumstances. While, the parties dispute this fact, it was aware that there was an overcrowding issue within the property. It was also aware that there was at least 1 member of the family living with a vulnerability. As such it should have been proactive in keeping its records updated with the household’s circumstances. This required effective and prompt communication to remain aware of any changes in circumstances. The failure to appropriately communicate contributed to its lack of knowledge about the resident’s current circumstances. This also added to the resident’s frustration with the situation.
- The landlord’s policy says that should a resident refuse an offer of permanent accommodation as they do not think it is suitable, it will close their rehousing case. It will offer residents the opportunity to appeal this decision. A manager who has not been involved in the offer will hear the appeal. If the resident does not appeal, or it refuses the appeal, it will close their case, and it will not match them with any further properties. If there is a change in their circumstances it will present their case back to the panel as a new referral. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this aspect of the landlord’s policy could lead to confusion for residents. This is because it is unclear if it means residents can appeal the decision to close the case or the decision on the suitability of the property.
- Further, it is unclear when the landlord will refer the decision to its panel when there is a change of circumstances identified. It is unclear if it will do this at the point of the resident telling it, during the appeal, or afterwards. The policy is also unclear about what actions residents need to take around the change of circumstances referral. It does not explain if they need to complete further documentation, or if the provision of further evidence is enough to begin the process. These were all themes present with its handling of the resident’s concerns. This would have left the resident unsure of exactly what was occurring and what actions if any he needed to take. For example, it told him it was completing an appeal. It was however unclear whether it was in relation to its decision to close his case, the suitability of the property, or both. He also offered to provide further evidence, and it was not until 2 weeks later that it told him he needed to complete another medical form due to his change of circumstance. The Ombudsman has ordered under paragraph 54.g of the Ombudsman’s scheme that the landlord review its policy around the issues identified.
- Following the landlord’s offer on 3 October 2023, the resident updated it with his current circumstances. He explained in emails on 4 and 19 October 2023 that his medical needs had changed, and he was no longer a wheelchair user. He also updated it about the needs of his children and his concerns with the property it offered him. He told it that the property was also not level access as he had required whilst still using his wheelchair. As such it did not meet his needs. He went on to tell the landlord he could provide evidence to support his children’s needs. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to this, and this was unreasonable. It completed an appeal on 12 October 2023 and found that its offer was appropriate. The landlord said it based its decision on the evidence of its independent medical advisor at the time.
- The landlord relied on the advice of its experts, to confirm that the property offer was appropriate. It made its decision based on the resident’s medical needs at the time of the application. It is unclear whether it was aware of his children’s disabilities at the time of its offer. It was, however, aware that he had said he required a single room for 1 of the children due to safety concerns. It said on 20 October 2023 that its “rehousing panel” had considered the medical form on record and considered the offer appropriate. As such its actions were reasonable. However, its approach was confusing. This is due to the mention of the “rehousing panel”, as this suggests it had referred his case back to its panel in line with its policy. It however, explained internally on 4 March 2024 that it declined his appeal as he refused the property which it offered due to a change in his circumstances. It could only offer him a property based on his circumstances at the time he applied. As his circumstances had changed, he therefore needed to “reapply”. The landlord’s evidence suggests that it heard the resident’s appeal but did not refer his case back to its panel due to his change of circumstances, and this was unreasonable, and not in keeping with its policy.
- It was aware that there had been a change in the resident’s circumstances, in October 2023, and in line with its policy, it should have referred it back to its panel. This is especially the case as the resident told it that 3 more members of the family had medical needs, and it did not dispute that his current property was unsuitable. Instead, it asked him to complete a new medical form, and provide any supporting information. He had offered to provide it with benefit awards, diagnosis letters, and other evidence to support his position on 4 October 2023. It could have accepted this evidence as early as 4 October 2023 and reviewed it as a change of circumstance in line with its policy. As such it could have considered these at an earlier point. It has not demonstrated that it accepted his offer or that it considered its policy around the new information he had provided (change in circumstances). It did not show that it considered whether it could provide this as a referral as evidence of a change in circumstances to the panel. This was unreasonable and shows a lack of customer focus.
- The resident had also said that the property it offered did not meet his needs based on the information he provided in his application. This was due to the fact it was not level access because of the steps at the front of the building. The landlord failed to explain why despite this, it believed the property remained appropriate and this was unreasonable. Its failure to properly explain its actions demonstrate a lack of customer focus and added to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord. It also shows poor investigation into his concerns.
- The landlord told the resident on 12 October 2023 that it would be preparing an appeal as he had rejected its offer. It also said it would hear the appeal on the same day. The landlord acted correctly and in line with its policy by considering an appeal against its offer. It also appropriately chose to exercise its discretion and provided him with a further opportunity to accept the property. However, despite this, it did not show that it demonstrated to the resident that the manager who dealt with the appeal was not involved in the decision to offer the property in the first instance. It was important it showed that the decision makers in relation to his appeal were fair and independent. This would have gone some way in helping to rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship. It would also have been a customer focused approach, and the failure to show this was unreasonable.
- The resident explained that the landlord told him that it had stopped rehousing residents. He asked it on 7 November 2023 to review its telephone recordings to identify this. The landlord said in its complaint responses this was incorrect and it would not have communicated this to residents. The Ombudsman is unable to determine what the landlord told the resident. This is because the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with any records of the conversation between the parties. However, this Service would expect the landlord to demonstrate how it arrived at its conclusion that it would not have said this to residents. It did not show that it did so or provide the resident with any explanation on why it did/ would not do so, and this was unreasonable. This would have been of particular importance in this case, as the resident felt this contributed to the unsuitable offer. This shows poor investigation into his concerns.
- The landlord said that since the resident’s rehousing application in September 2021, it had updated its rehousing policy. However, it has not demonstrated that it communicated any changes to its policy to the resident. This was inappropriate and left the resident uninformed of the criteria it was assessing his application against, or where to find it. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s communication.
- The landlord reported that it previously explained to the resident that it would only make 1 direct offer to him, in line with its policy. It said it had exercised its discretion and offered him a 3 bedroom property, despite him being in a 1 bedroom property at the time. Its policy also said it would only offer a like for like property in terms of bedroom size. Its actions demonstrate that it had taken consideration of the overcrowding in the resident’s property and the make-up of his household at the time of his application. This was a reasonable approach for it to have taken.
- In summary, whilst it explained the resident’s housing options to him, the landlord did not appropriately show that it considered the resident’s concerns. It failed to show that it had appropriately investigated the issue about its reported communication around rehousing residents. It did not explain why it believed the property it offered remained appropriate. There were failings with its communication with the resident. The landlord did not recognise its failings in its complaint responses. It has not offered the resident any redress around the situation. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It says it may ask for an extension for the provision of its response. If it needed to do so, it would do this in writing and explain why, after no more than 10 days. In exceptional circumstances it may need even longer. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 7 November 2023. He received no response and asked again on 15 November 2023 for it to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the following day and asked him to allow 20 working days for a response. The delay of 7 working days in acknowledging the resident’s escalation was unreasonable and added to his frustration. This saw him taking the time to request the escalation a second time.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response then remained outstanding until 7 May 2024. This represents a delay of over 5 months, and this was unreasonable. The landlord has provided no evidence that it explained the reason for the delay to the resident, or that it requested an extension. Its actions were not in keeping with its policy which was inappropriate. The delay saw the resident taking the time to request an update on his complaint in March 2024. This would have added to the resident’s belief that it was treating him unfairly. It would have also contributed to his frustration with the landlord.
- The landlord’s failure to show that it explained the reasons for the delay in its complaint handling also demonstrates a lack of customer focus. It also raises further concerns with its communication. Prompt communication with residents is important in maintaining the landlord and tenant relationship especially where there are delays involved in sensitive matters. The landlord’s failure to effectively communicate the delays to the resident was inappropriate.
- In summary, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. There were also issues with its communication and its actions were not in keeping with the principles within its complaints policy. Although it apologised to the resident for the delay, this did not go far enough in addressing its failings. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
- Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
- Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders and Recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
- Provide the resident with a written apology about the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident compensation of £500 broken down as:
- £350 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s transfer application.
- £150 for its complaint handling failings.
- Meet with the resident and identify if it requires any further information/ evidence around his and his family’s circumstances. It must provide the resident with a specific point of contact if he is to make a new application for rehousing and ensure that it agrees a communication frequency with the resident about his rehousing/ application status.
- Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
- In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a review of its allocations and lettings policy in relation to residents’ refusal of offers of permanent transfers. Within 10 weeks, it must:
- Consider the wording and process in relation to what the criteria is for an appeal. It must explain which decision is appealable by residents. The decision to close the case, the suitability of the property, or both.
- Identify what information it will consider at appeal. It must also provide timeframes for residents to supply any supporting information.
- Have a clear process in place where a resident informs it of a change of circumstances and if it considers the change at the point of notification, during or after the appeal.
- Provide proof of compliance with these orders.