Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202228263)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202228263
Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
20 June 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 response to the resident’s request for urgent rehousing on medical grounds.
Background
- The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with a fixed term. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a number of health conditions affecting his mobility including multiple sclerosis (MS).
- Records show that the resident contacted the landlord about his concerns of overcrowding and the suitability of the property due to his medical conditions in 2020. The landlord explained his move options and in order to be considered for its choice based lettings scheme, any medical information would need to be assessed by an independent medical advisor. In October 2020, a hospital letter was provided to the landlord which said that the resident was being referred for neurophysiotherapy and an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. The outcome of the assessment was not provided to the landlord.
- On 2 October 2022 the resident completed a medical self-assessment form. He said because of worsening medical conditions, he could no longer share a bedroom with his wife. He said he needed another bedroom and better access to parking. The landlord referred the matter to the independent medical assessor, who reviewed the information he had provided. He was informed that he would need to provide recent hospital reports or a care plan to support his claims he needed a larger property. He was given general advice about his moving options, which included registering with the local authority for rehousing.
- In November 2022 the resident made a complaint. He said he felt the medical information he had already provided was sufficient for the purpose of being rehoused. He asked the landlord to consider arranging an independent OT visit to assess his property. The landlord responded on 30 November 2022 with a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had addressed his concerns correctly in accordance with its allocations policy, and reiterated he needed more current medical care plans to reconsider its position. It made reference to the OT assessment that was due to take place in 2020 and asked him to provide it with the outcome. In the meantime it said that any new OT assessment should take place through the “usual referral routes”.
- The resident responded to the landlord the same day and requested that it review his medical information again. The landlord promptly referred the case back to the independent medical assessor, who concluded that based on the information he had provided, the outcome had not changed. The landlord provided the resident with feedback on 17 January 2023.
- The resident approached the Ombudsman in March 2023. At the time it was not clear whether the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As a result the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in August 2023 and asked that it provide him with a final response. On 15 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. It explained that as he had not provided any new medical information, his complaint was not upheld.
- After the landlord’s final response, the landlord engaged in mediation with the resident, with the support of the Ombudsman. The landlord arranged for an independent OT assessment, which was reviewed again by the medical assessors. On 1 May 2024 it updated the resident of the outcome. It explained that it had taken into consideration the up to date information, and as his wife had since become pregnant, it had changed his banding to “band C”. It said that he would be entitled to a 2 bedroom, level access property after the baby was born.
- In recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has expressed that to conclude his complaint, he wants to be moved to a 3 bedroom property. He feels that the landlord has ignored OT advice in favour of the opinion of medical assessors who have not met him personally, and as a result he feels discriminated against.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- In contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that his desired outcome is to be rehoused to a 3 bedroom property. The resident has been advised that it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to order the landlord to rehouse him. We can however consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request for rehousing and whether it has followed fair process in considering his concerns.
- The resident has said he feels the landlord has treated him unfairly due to his disability. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation.
- The resident has advised that his continued residence at the current property is causing detriment to his disabilities. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact these matters are having on his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, the impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury, or damage to health, their investigation and requests for compensation are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed via the courts or through the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for urgent rehousing on medical grounds.
- The landlord has an allocations policy which provides details of its own choice based lettings (CBL) scheme. It explains that residents wishing to access the scheme should also consider alternative move options, including registering for a mutual exchange (MEX) to increase their opportunities for moving. The scheme works by determining 4 priority bands, and considers a number of factors such as medical conditions and current accessibility to their property. The policy explains that the landlord holds the ultimate right to band applicants “however it feels appropriate and at its sole discretion”, taking into account circumstances relevant to the application.
- It is accepted that the resident has a lifelong medical condition which affects his mobility. In order for the landlord to have considered what CBL banding it would apply to his case, it needed to consider the impact his mobility had on his day to day life and have an understanding of why his current property was not suitable. However when the resident approached the landlord to complete a medical self-assessment form on 2 October 2022, he did not provide sufficient up to date supporting medical evidence. This included the outcome of the OT assessment he had been referred for in 2020.
- In accordance with its allocations policy, the landlord still referred the matter to an independent medical assessor which was appropriate. The landlord advised the resident that he could expect to receive an outcome to the assessor’s report within 4 weeks and he was updated of the outcome within the expected timeframe which was appropriate.
- Evidence demonstrates that the assessor did not dispute the resident’s medical conditions, but as it was unclear what recent treatment or care plan he was in receipt of, it was difficult to determine why his current property was unsuitable. As a result they concluded that he should remain on the lower priority banding. In explaining the outcome of the assessment, the landlord was clear in managing the resident’s expectations. It explained that if it were to receive further recent outpatient, hospital reports or care plans, it would be happy to review the matter again. The resident was given advice about what other move options were available to him, including registering with the local authority. This approach was appropriate and in accordance with its allocations policy.
- In his complaint on 10 November 2022, the resident said he disagreed with the outcome of the medical assessment and felt the information he had provided to date was sufficient for the purposes of being rehoused. The landlord responded to him the same day and explained that there was no right of appeal against medical decisions made by its independent advisory service, which was correct and in accordance with its allocations policy. It did however show empathy and understanding towards the resident and said if he could provide further information and a recent OT assessment, it would consider the matter again which was appropriate.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response reiterated the same advice it had given him, and its communication was consistent and clear. In his response to the landlord, the resident alleged he had been unable to access medical appointments since 2020 which is why he could not produce the more recent supporting medical information it was requesting. He asked that it review the matter again, but did not make it clear he wished for an escalation of his complaint. As a result, the landlord promptly referred the matter back to the medical assessors again as the resident had requested, which was appropriate. The resident was provided with the outcome of the assessment in a timely manner.
- The landlord became aware of the need to provide the resident with a final complaint response following contact from the Ombudsman in August 2023.The stage 2 response that followed was consistent with the information it had already provided the resident. It explained again that as he had provided no new medical evidence, his eligibility for a move remained the same. It encouraged him to register for a MEX and with the local authority to increase his chances of a move which was appropriate and in accordance with the guidance set out in its allocations policy.
- Records show that after its final response, the landlord continued to refer further information the resident provided to the medical assessors in a timely manner. The assessors deemed that the information he had provided continued to contain insufficient evidence of how his current property was not suitable to his needs. As a result, in March 2023 both the resident and the landlord agreed to enter into mediation with the support of the Ombudsman. As part of the mediation agreement, the landlord instructed an independent OT to visit him in his home to carry out a full assessment of his needs in person. This was a proactive approach by the landlord, as instructing an independent OT assessment was outside the scope of its allocation policy. Its decision to do so demonstrated a commitment to reviewing his application again to ensure that it had all the required information.
- The OT produced an assessment of the resident on 5 April 2024. This was then sent to the independent medical assessors for review and the resident was informed of the outcome on 1 May 2024, within the 4 week timeframe he had previously been advised he could expect a decision. The medical assessor agreed to increase his banding to “C” and provided him with additional feedback, which included that it will further review his situation urgently once there was a MS specialist nurse report available. This was a fair response, as the landlord remained unclear from comments within the OT report whether there was any rehabilitation potential or whether wheelchair access was essential.
- In this case, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for urgent rehousing on medical grounds. The landlord’s communication was consistent and clear, and the actions it has taken have been in accordance with its allocations policy. It has provided the resident with timely, comprehensive updates following the outcome from medical assessors and he has been provided with appropriate guidance and information about his alternative move options. The landlord has demonstrated that it is committed to working with the resident and reviewing his case again on receipt of further supporting evidence.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for urgent rehousing on medical grounds.