Peabody Trust (202502797)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The resident lives there with her 3 adult children. In November 2024, she told the landlord that she had osteoarthritis and was sleeping on a sofa due to a lack of bedrooms. She complained that, despite having medical priority and being a full-time carer for her son, the landlord had not assisted her in securing suitable 4-bedroom accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.

5. The landlord acted in line with its rehousing policy. As the tenancy is not social housing, this policy does not apply to the resident. It explained the limitations on rehousing options and availability and provided consistent information to the resident throughout.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not adhere to its complaint handling timescales, which resulted in delays. However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, offered proportionate compensation, and demonstrated learning.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident holds an assured tenancy granted by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The Crown Estate is not a registered provider of social housing or a local authority. The resident’s property forms part of the Regency portfolio of properties which were transferred to the landlord in 2011.
8. The landlord’s rehousing policy applies only to social tenancies. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to determine that the resident was not eligible for a transfer to a social rent property or a mutual exchange under its rehousing policy, despite her known medical needs. However, while the resident was not eligible for social housing, she may have been eligible to transfer to another property within the Regency portfolio under the Regency (Crown Estates) Portfolio Policy. This would have been through a choice based letting system, subject to the relevant criteria, including income requirements.
9. On 5 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that the resident had been registered for a 4-bedroom property on medical grounds since 16 October 2021, demonstrating that it had recognised and recorded her medical needs. It explained that, despite this priority, it could not offer a direct move due to the restrictions of her tenancy. It also explained that larger properties were limited in supply and were allocated through a choice-based lettings scheme. This was a reasonable explanation of its position given the resident’s tenancy, its rehousing policy and the Regency (Crown Estates) Portfolio Policy.
10. The resident raised concerns on 14 November 2024 about the availability of 4-bedroom properties in her area. The landlord addressed these concerns in its stage 1 response, dated 12 January 2025, by explaining that properties may be allocated under different rent regimes, including market rent with affordability criteria. This was consistent with the resident’s account, in which she reported bidding for a property but being found ineligible due to a minimum income requirement.
11. In its stage 1 response the landlord also explained that the resident was not eligible for a social rent transfer and that housing options were limited, with no guarantee of a suitable 4-bedroom property becoming available. It also explained that properties were allocated through a choice based lettings scheme rather than direct offers. It said that, although the resident’s priority meant she was likely to be placed high on shortlists, she would need to continue to check the system regularly and bid for suitable properties to be considered for an offer. This was consistent with the landlord’s policies. It made clear that it did not make direct offers and that residents were required to successfully bid for another property through the choice based letting system.
12. In its stage 2 response, dated 26 March 2025, the landlord reiterated this position and confirmed it could not provide the resident with a property outside its rehousing policy. It signposted the resident to alternative options, including applying to the local authority if she wished to seek a 4-bedroom social rent property. This was appropriate, as applying to the local authority was the only way the resident could be considered for a social rent property.
13. The landlord is not obliged to improve or alter properties to satisfy a transfer application, as such, properties are allocated through its lettings scheme. Therefore, there is no requirement for the landlord to reconfigure or convert existing void properties to meet a prospective resident’s requests, for example from a 3-bedroom to a 4-bedroom property.
14. Overall, while the resident’s circumstances are acknowledged and difficult, the landlord acted in line with its policies and explained the limitations of the resident’s tenancy and the rehousing options available to her. The landlord provided consistent information at both stages of its complaints process. This leads to a finding of no maladministration.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy also allows for extensions of up to 10 working days, provided the resident is informed and revised timescales are agreed.
16. The landlord did not comply with its policy at either stage. It did not acknowledge the complaint within the required timescales or agree any extensions with the resident. The stage 1 response was issued on 12 January 2025, 35 working days after the resident made a formal complaint on 20 November 2024. The stage 2 response was issued on 26 March 2025, 51 working days after the resident escalated the complaint on 14 January 2025. These delays were unreasonable and caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing her complaint. This was in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures where service failings have had an adverse impact on a resident and was proportionate in the circumstances.
18. The landlord also committed to using the complaint to improve service delivery. It identified that resourcing issues, including high complaint volumes and staff shortages, contributed to the delays, and said it had taken steps to increase resources to improve response times and meet service standards.
19. Taking account of the complaint handling failings identified, the landlord’s apology, its offer of compensation, and its commitment to learning, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress. This reflects the failings identified and the steps taken to put matters right. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making the payment of £100 to the resident.

Learning

20. The landlord could reflect on the importance of managing complaints in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code, as this supports a timely and effective response and compliance with expected standards.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord could consider maintaining clear, accurate, and accessible records of residents’ housing needs, priority status, and rehousing communications. While the case shows the landlord recorded the resident’s medical priority and registration date, keeping full records helps support consistent decisions. It enables clear explanations to residents. It also shows how decisions follow policy.

Communication

22. The landlord could consider keeping residents appropriately informed throughout the complaint process to manage expectations and support confidence in that process.