Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202213982)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213982

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat, on the first floor, in a block. The resident suffers from the medical condition bipolar effective disorder (B.E.D).
3. On 3 September 2020, the resident completed an application to be rehoused based on medical grounds, stating that he suffered from bi-polar disorder and disruptive sleep apnoea. On 13 October 2020, after the application was assessed by the landlord’s independent medical assessor, it was declined. The landlord stated that an extra bedroom for a live-in carer was not medically essential for the resident’s needs. The resident continued to provide evidence and request for reassessments of his application during 2021. The landlord reiterated its position, that he did not fulfil the criteria for rehousing on medical grounds at this time and in early 2022.
4. On 9 March 2022, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord to inform it that she would be supporting the resident in raising a complaint. The representative raised the stage one complaint on his behalf at this time. The complaint stated that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision that he did not qualify to be rehouse on medical grounds. He wanted to be rehoused to either a two bedroom property or one bedroom property with a larger living room, because he required overnight care, due to the bipolar attacks he experienced. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 March 2022 and stated that it would provide the representative with a full response within ten working days.
5. On 29 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response. It stated that it had completed two medical reviews in relation to its decision on whether to rehouse the resident on medical grounds. The reviews were completed on October 2020 and December 2021 and both concluded that there was no medical priority for the resident to have an extra room or live-in carer. It also stated that it had requested that its independent medical assessor review the information contained in the resident’s letter. On 12 April 2022, the landlord shared the independent medical assessors report with the resident. He subsequently informed the landlord that he wished to escalate his complaint.
6. On 19 April 2022, the resident’s representative explained that the resident’s mental health and wellbeing were deteriorating due to the situation. The representative questioned whether the landlord’s independent medical assessments had taken into account all of the evidence provided by the resident and requested that the case be reviewed. On 21 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage two of its process and stated that a response would be provided to the resident.
7. On 21 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response. It stated that it had completed three reviews, including two full reports and had exhausted all its processes with regards to assessing the resident’s case. It’s decisions had all concluded that there was no medical grounds for the resident to be rehoused. It suggested that the resident continued using home swapper or consider alternative housing options, outside of the services that it offered.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 30 September 2022, stating that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. His desired outcome was for the landlord to rehouse him to a two bedroom property or a larger flat.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. The resident had explained in his complaint that his situation has adversely impacted his mental health and wellbeing. Unfortunately, this service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the residents request to be rehoused on medical grounds

10. The landlord’s allocations policy states that applicants are assessed according to banding schemes to determine their relative priority. Band A/category 1 is for resident’s with emergency housing needs, and band B/category 2 is for those with urgent housing needs. When determining an applicant’s priority the landlord will consider their medical needs as evidenced by the relevant professional (including mental health needs), their current housing status and support needs. It also offers a management transfer under extremely limited circumstances and on a single offer basis. A management transfer is a discretionary transfer that takes place outside of the usual transfer process. Section 6.3, of the policy states that the landlord can consider a management transfer, on receipt of an official medical report from an occupational therapist or qualified medical practitioner detailing:
    1. Medical diagnosis and supporting documentation.
    2. Why the current property is unsuitable related to their medical condition.
    3. Any future housing needs.
11. The resident has stated that prior to moving into his current property, he was promised verbally by the landlord that he would be offered a larger flat after a year. The landlord asserts that resident’s can apply for a transfer after a year at a property and that this may have been what the resident was advised. This Service has not seen any evidence to corroborate this claim so cannot comment on whether the landlord did or did not make a promise of a larger flat. It was not unreasonable, nonetheless, that in the absence of evidence the landlord made the same conclusion.
12. It is not disputed that the resident has B.E.D. However, the landlord after referring the matter to independent medical assessors, felt that this was not severe or unstable enough to warrant urgent, enhanced psychiatric care.
13. The resident has stated that in his stage one complaint that he felt the landlord had not reviewed all the medical evidence he provided and its medical assessments on him were flawed and incorrect. The landlord referred to two medical reviews it had carried out on the resident to reach its decision. One was in October 2020, after his application and the second one in December 2021, after he had provided further evidence. The landlord had acted appropriately and fairly as it followed its policy, by having its independent medical assessor’s consider the resident’s evidence provided to support his rehousing application. The second medical review concurred with the first, in that there was no medical priority for the resident to have a live-in carer and that his needs could be met by visiting services.
14. The landlord informed the resident’s representative, in its stage one response that it would carry out a further reassessment for the resident in light of the recent information sent by him. On 12 April 2022, the landlord acted appropriately and sent the resident the full medical report from its independent medical assessor. The report acknowledged the resident’s condition, but concluded as all the others had, that he still maintained independent mobility, and that his case did not meet the threshold for medical priority. The landlord again here has acted reasonably in given regard to the resident’s new evidence and seeking independent professional medical opinions before making any conclusions.
15. The landlord was delayed in sending its stage two response, as it could not answer some of the medical questions so it reverted back to its independent medical assessor for answers. Although, the landlord did apologise for its delays and lack of communication on the 8 and 9 June 2022, this was after a pro-longed time, when the residents frustration and inconvenience caused to him would have been high. The medical report dated 4 July 2022, notes that the resident had requested that a doctor who is specifically qualified in mental health reviews his case. The landlord complied with this wish and the report dated 15 July 2022, was compiled following an assessment from a psychiatric adviser. All, the reports concluded that an additional bedroom was not essential on psychiatric grounds. This ruled out the landlord using its discretion and considering a management transfer.
16. It is noted that the resident has questioned the expertise and of the independent assessors and validity of their findings. This Service has seen no evidence to question the medical reports or cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions reached by them. The evidence shows that the landlord forwarded the resident’s declarations and evidence to its independent assessors and even sought a specialist review for further clarification on the decision made. Also, all assessments came to the same conclusion despite reviewing further evidence.
17. Although, it should have updated the resident when there were delays in its responses, the landlord has on the whole been fair in its approach. The landlord has acted appropriately in acknowledging the resident’s concerns about his application and referring matters to qualified experts. Given that the assessments of the resident’s medical evidence did not lead it to believe there was an exceptional need to relocate the resident, and additionally that it considered the property, not to be materially uninhabitable, it was reasonable that it did not offer a management move. The landlord’s decisions have been guided by the advice from the medical experts, at every stage and in line with its allocations policy.

The landlord’s complaints handling

18. This Service’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
19. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling. He stated that his complaints have not been fully answered, that he has not been met with in person by the landlord and the solutions it has offered to him are unreasonable. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two stage process for complaints to ensure residents have the opportunity to challenge its decisions and for its decisions to be reviewed. Its policy states that at stage one of the investigation it aims to agree a solution with the resident within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days. It further states that where it is not possible to meet these timeframes, it will regularly update a resident on the reasons for this.
20. The resident made the stage one complaint on 9 March 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 29 March 2022. This was four days later than it should have been and it did not update the resident about the delay or provide an expected date of response. The Ombudsman accepts that in isolation, this would have had a minimal impact on the resident.
21. Upon escalating the complaint to stage two on 19 April 2022, however, the landlord was again delayed in providing a response by more than two months. On 28 June 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for its delays and being outside of its response timescale and reiterated that it was awaiting the medical assessment report. It also stated that it may have the response ready in two weeks, if this was not possible then it would update the resident. The landlord made no contact with the resident or his representative until the stage two response on 21 July 2022. This was inappropriate. Although the landlord apologised, there were unreasonable delays compounded by the fact that for long periods it did not update the resident. This meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed despite being informed that the ongoing and indefinite wait for its response was impacting the resident’s mental health. While the landlord later acknowledged that it should have kept the resident updated, it still made no offer of redress to recognise the impact.
22. The evidence shows that the resident’s representative had repeatedly chased the landlord for an update and a full response. The landlord did eventually respond to the resident on 8 and 9 June 2022. It apologised for the delays, stating that it was waiting for a response from its independent medical assessor and that it would respond within an estimated ten working days. It again though, failed to make contact with the resident, whose representative chased the landlord for an update on 27 June 2022.
23. Despite the fact that the landlord was awaiting medical reports, it would have still been reasonable to expect the landlord to maintain contact with the resident updating him on the progress of the complaint response. The landlord did not comply with its own policy resulting in delays that are likely to have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respects of its response to the residents request to be rehoused on medical grounds.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respects of its complaints handling.

Orders

26. This Service orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for its failures in dealing with the complaint handling.
27. This must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that payment has been made or attempted, also within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

28. This Service recommends that the landlord carry out complaint handling training for all its staff.