My Space Housing Solutions (202427842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427842

My Space Housing Solutions

26 June 2025

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:
1. The resident’s concerns about the support it provided and his request for a male housing officer.
2. The resident’s request to be moved and concerns he would be evicted.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a terraced house and is owned by a separate primary landlord. The 2 adjoining neighbours are not the landlord’s tenants. The tenancy began in October 2020 and is supported accommodation.
The resident has mental health vulnerabilities, including PTSD, borderline personality disorder, and ADHD which the landlord is aware of. He was also diagnosed with autism.
The resident and his housing support officer communicated most weeks between October 2023 and October 2024 either by text, phone call, or face to face. The discussions involved his mental and physical health, medication, finances, and housing. At various stages, the resident raised concern about noise from his 2 adjacent neighbours, including children crying or shouting, and some loud music and shouting which impacted his mental health conditions.
On 28 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to support him in moving due to the impact of noise on his mental health conditions. Between February and August 2024:
1. It referred him to adult social care for an assessment to aid applications to other supported housing providers.
2. It discussed his application to the local authority’s partnership housing scheme from April 2024.
3. It contacted the letting agent of the neighbouring property. The resident also communicated with the police, and other advocacy and support services.
4. It said that it rarely had properties available internally and the developments it had were not suitable for his needs due to noise.
5. He contacted a veteran support charity and a veteran housing association accepted him onto its housing register on 1 July 2024.
6. In July 2024, he expressed dissatisfaction with the level of support provided to him in moving and asked for specific assistance with his application to the local authority. He then said he was in discussions with other support agencies and did not need further support with this.
7. In August 2024, he said he was not an urgent priority for a move because it had not evicted him. It told him that it could serve him with a no-fault eviction notice which would allow him 2 months to find alternative accommodation, and he said he would consider this.
In early October 2024, the resident and landlord made a mutual decision to change his housing support officer. He said that he did not want to engage with a new support officer until it had a plan to help him move. Following this, he said that there was a mistake on his housing application form as he completed this on his own and it did not offer support. He also raised concern that the primary landlord intended to take the house back and the landlord would move him to a property that did not suit his needs.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 22 October 2024 and said:
1. He wanted a male housing officer as he did not trust staff or management. He said the level of support had worsened over the years. He had also asked that a manager be his only point of contact, but it ignored him. He felt forced to have a female housing officer or it would evict him.
2. It had not signed him up to any local authorities to find alternative housing and it now intended to serve him with a no-fault eviction notice. He wanted it to listen to him and not force him to do something he did not want to.
In a call on 23 October 2024, he added that the complaint was also about the impact of the noisy development on his mental health. On 1 November 2024, he asked it when it would be issuing a no-fault eviction, and why it had not put him on a waiting list if the primary landlord was due to take the house back.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 November 2024, the landlord explained:
1. It was unable to change the staffing arrangements due to a lack of male housing support officers in the team. If this was possible, it would have done so. It said this could change soon as it was currently recruiting more staff.
2. It would not evict him for not wanting a female housing officer, but it was part of the tenancy agreement for him to engage with staff and support sessions. It understood after speaking to him that he would be happy with its suggestion that 2 female officers supported him. It agreed that his housing team would develop a clear support plan, detailing the steps for moving on and the expectations for each session.
3. The housing manager asked a different staff member to visit as the resident had mentioned his concerns that the manager themselves was a problem for him. They thought it best to ask a different colleague to attend. It found that it had provided support on a weekly basis by phone or face to face. It had also spoken to colleagues and did not find evidence that it had not supported him. It understood that he wanted support in moving on which its team were happy to help with.
On 7 November 2024, the resident said that the landlord “missed the point”, and that his current environment was worse than his previous accommodation. He added that he begged for help with moving from January but was not on any list. He also asked it to provide the information it held about him. The landlord acknowledged his communication as a stage 2 escalation request on 12 November 2024
During a visit on 16 November 2024, the landlord’s staff said they would look to reinstate his application with the local authority’s partnership scheme. In communication on 22 November 2024, the resident said he did not want to be rehoused via the local authority or privately or remain with the landlord in the current property. Staff said they were not sure how to support him as they did not know what sort of property he wanted.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 December 2024 and said there was a period between 16 October and 15 November 2024 where the resident did not engage with staff involved in his support. It reminded him that failing to engage could put his tenancy at risk. It was pleased to see that he engaged with it in the previous 2 weeks. It would continue to support him with moving and asked him to allow staff to work with him to find other alternative accommodation. It said it would provide a copy of his records separately.
Between January and March 2025, the landlord attempted to gain details for the housing application profile. It also assigned a male housing support officer. In April 2025, it set out his housing options. It said that it had updated his application via the local authority, and that multiple supported accommodation providers needed a support and financial assessment, which he had partly declined previously. It also said that one of its properties in a small block of 4 flats could be suitable for his needs. He subsequently moved to this property.
The resident referred his complaint to us for investigation as he was unhappy that it escalated the complaint without consulting him, and that he felt it had breached its duties under: the Housing Act 2004 due to not providing him with a safe home or completing repairs; the Equality Act 2010 due to not making reasonable adjustments; his rights to quiet enjoyment; and the Armed Forces Covenant. He also raised concerns about the support it provided and misuse of public funds. He wanted it to acknowledge that it kept him in unsuitable housing for years despite a quieter property being available, and compensation for the long-term distress and damage to his mental health. He has recently shared that he would like to move from his new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s actions since the beginning of his tenancy. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, our investigation focuses on the 12 months prior to the complaint made in October 2024 and has not considered any specific events prior to October 2023.
The resident has raised concern that the landlord’s actions negatively impacted his mental health conditions. He is seeking compensation for the “long-term distress” and “damage” to his mental health. He also feels it has directly discriminated against him due to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
While we do not doubt his comments, it is beyond our remit to determine whether the landlord was liable for impacts on his mental health or award damages in the same way as a personal injury claim through the courts. It is not our role to decide whether the landlord breached its obligations under the Equality Act in a legal sense. We do not have the expertise to assess whether the support it provided was appropriate and sufficient to meet the resident’s individual needs. However, we will consider whether the delivery of support was timely, and whether it gave due regard for his vulnerabilities and its obligations. The report will also consider any general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of any failings.
We can only investigate matters that the landlord had the opportunity to respond to in the first instance under its complaints process. The resident’s concerns about repairs to the property, a breach of the Armed Forces Covenant, and misuse of funds, did not form part of the complaint to the landlord. The complaint on 22 October 2024 did not relate to its handling of reports of noise. These matters are therefore not part of our investigation.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord offered the tenancy on the basis that the tenant needed specialised accommodation under its scheme. A condition of the agreement is that the tenant continues to be a person with this specific need. It may take steps to terminate the tenancy it the tenant no longer fulfils that condition.
The landlord’s website confirms that it offers supported tenancies for individuals who can live independently yet require support to manage their tenancy and their home. It would create a tenancy support plan and match the resident with a housing support officer. It would discuss support plans with the resident and agree weekly support sessions. It also states that it would work in partnership with local authorities, agencies and the police on local matters.
The landlord’s letting and allocations policy states it would work with other agencies to identify and meet the support needs of applicants, including providing support in applying to allocation schemes, and advice and help in finding alternative housing.
The landlord’s internal moves policy states that when a tenant requests an internal move, it would investigate the reasons and speak to the other agencies involved with the tenant. It would complete a referral form and assess on a case-by-case basis whether it should place the tenant on the internal moves list.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge and respond within 15 working days. If the resident is unhappy with the response at stage 1, they can escalate to stage 2. It aims to acknowledge and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The resident’s concerns about the support it provided and his request for a male housing officer

In his complaint, the resident said that he wanted a male housing support officer and felt forced to have a female officer, and that the level of support it provided had worsened over the years. He has also raised concerns to us that the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, and that the visits to his property was a violation of his quiet enjoyment of the property.
As set out above, we do not have the expertise to assess whether the support provided by the landlord was appropriate and sufficient to meet the resident’s individual needs. However, we have considered whether it delivered support in a timely manner, and whether it made suitable adjustments dependent on the resident’s requests and identified needs. We have considered the support it provided in relation to moving separately below.
The landlord has said the resident’s support plan involves housing and maintaining the tenancy, finances and budgeting, his physical and mental health, including any relevant referrals to external support services, tracking his mood and support networks, and safeguarding.
The landlord has provided evidence of its support sessions with the resident which shows that it was in regular communication with him in the 12 months prior to the complaint. The evidence shows that it communicated with him regarding his physical and mental health, finances, and housing regularly in line with his support plan. It also asked him whether he needed any further support at the end of each session. It was not responsible for delivering care for his mental health conditions; however, its records show that it communicated with him about his medications, and engagement with his GP and mental health support services which was appropriate and within its remit.
It is unclear from the evidence provided as to what support the resident felt he was not getting, aside from his concerns about wanting to move, or which aspects he felt had worsened. We note that the resident had concerns that the visits were a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the property and it had not made reasonable adjustments in view of his vulnerabilities.
We understand that the weekly support sessions were agreed as part of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement confirms that the supported accommodation tenancy was granted on the basis that the tenant was someone who required support by the landlord.
We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord unreasonably attended the property without prior notice or inappropriately disrupted the resident’s quiet enjoyment. It has demonstrated that it made reasonable adjustments to its communication with the resident by contacting via phone or text when he did not want a visit to the property. It is unclear what other adjustments the resident needed; however, the landlord has demonstrated it acted in line with his requests regarding communication.
We note that the resident had the same female support officer for an extended period prior to the complaint in October 2024. We have not seen evidence to show that he had specifically requested a male housing support officer until October 2024. He and his support officer had discussed the possibility of having a different staff member support him in April 2024. However, he was concerned that he would not receive the same level of support from another staff member at the time. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted in line with what the resident felt would be most useful at the time and said it could change the officer if he wanted to, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 1 July 2024, the resident shared concerns about the impact of losing his support officer if he moved, and recognised that this would be a large change in his life. On 10 July 2024, he suggested that he wanted a different housing support officer. He later added that he did not want any house calls or contact from another support officer until it put a plan in place to help him move. It was reasonable for the support officer’s manager to discuss his concerns at the time. The evidence shows he agreed for the existing staff member to remain in place to help him with his housing application. We have not seen any evidence to show that this was against his wishes at the time.
The officer remained in place until October 2024, when there was a mutual agreement to change the staff member. This was appropriate in the circumstances as the resident had shared that he had become attached to them. A manager visited the property on 11 October 2024 to discuss his concerns and introduce his new support officer. However, the resident said he would not engage with another officer and would wait for it to serve him notice.
The landlord acted reasonably following the resident’s complaint by speaking to him about the available options and advising that a male only support team may not be possible. When implementing reasonable adjustments, the landlord would need to consider whether the request was practical and whether it has sufficient resources. While it was evident that the resident wanted a male support officer, it acted reasonably by explaining that it did not have male housing support officers available in the area so it could not act in line with his request. We note from internal communication that there was one male staff member, but the resident had raised concerns about this officer providing him with support in October 2024.
The landlord could not act in line with the resident’s request due to a lack of available or suitable staff. It acted reasonably by discussing this with him and confirming the other options, including 2:1 support with 2 staff members present. Its communication records show that he believed this would be suitable at the time. We note that the landlord did change the resident’s support officer to a male officer in the time following the complaint once it was possible to do so. We have not found a failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The resident’s request to be moved and concerns he would be evicted

The landlord said that the support it provided in relation to the resident moving did not form part of his complaint to it, so it did not address this in its complaints process. However, in his complaint on 22 October 2024, he raised specific concerns that it had not signed him up to any local authorities to find alternative housing and now intended to serve him with a no-fault eviction.
He also raised concern on 23 October 2024 about the noise in the property, the impact on him, that he wanted to move, and that this was also part of his complaint. In addition, on 7 November 2024, he said he had begged for help in moving from the property since January 2024. We have considered whether the landlord’s actions in response to his request were reasonable.
From 28 December 2023, the resident raised specific concern about the noise he experienced from neighbours, and that he wanted to move due to the impact of the current environment on his mental health. We have seen evidence to show that the landlord took steps to communicate with the letting agents of the neighbouring properties, and the police had also spoken to the neighbours at various stages.
Following the resident’s request, we would have expected to see clear evidence to show that the landlord set out all available housing options in a clear format so that he could make an informed decision on his next steps and understood the actions he would need to take. While it continued to communicate with him within the weekly support sessions, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it offered clear and full information regarding his options from the outset. This may not have sped up the moving process, which can take time due to availability of suitable properties, but may have managed his expectations about how long the process could take, and his options.
The landlord took reasonable steps to engage with the resident regarding alternative accommodation providers he had found. It took steps to refer him to adult social care for an assessment on 13 February 2024. This was reasonable as this would be required for a referral to other supported accommodation providers. We note that it offered to chase this in April 2024, however, the resident said he would do this himself.
While the landlord is not responsible for the local authority’s actions, it was reasonable for it to offer to chase them, and it was reasonable that it did not take any further action at the resident’s request. It also took steps to contact another supported housing provider about what it would need for a referral on 30 May 2024. They required a care act assessment, which the resident was still waiting for at the time. The landlord was limited in the steps it could take to progress a referral to the other supported accommodation without the outcome of the assessment from Adult social care.
We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident about applying to the local authority’s housing register until April 2024, four months after his initial request to be moved, when it discussed the importance of having an up-to-date application. He confirmed he had partially completed an application on 11 April 2024. We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord followed up with him. However, on 18 April 2024, he said that he was also seeking support form an advocacy service to assist him with filling in forms. It was reasonable that the landlord may have believed the resident was being supported with the application.
In its communication with us in April 2025, the landlord said that the resident had never submitted a formal request to move internally to another of its properties prior to the complaint in October 2024. However, we can see that he raised concerns in April and July that he was told twice previously that he was on its priority transfer list, and he did not believe that none of its properties had become available in 3 years.
We have not seen evidence to support that the resident was on the landlord’s internal transfer list. It told him that properties rarely became available, and that its developments were generally not suitable for him due to noise and ASB. While this was a valid concern given the resident’s noise sensitivity, we have not seen evidence to show that it proactively completed an internal referral form despite his request to be moved, or explored his opinion on whether he felt any of its properties would be more suitable for him fully at the time. However, while the resident wanted to move from the property he was in, he also said he wanted to move on from the landlord and that he did not want to live in another of the landlord’s properties at various stages. It is understandable that staff may have believed that an internal transfer was not what he wanted in the circumstances.
In June 2024, the resident communicated with a veteran support charity and was accepted onto a specialised veteran housing association’s housing register on 1 July 2024. We note that the landlord said that if he needed its support with this he could ask. We have not seen further evidence related to this matter or that the resident requested any specific support.
On 12 July 2024, the resident raised concern about the lack of support the landlord had offered in relation to him moving, noting that it had not signposted him to any other housing charities and had not helped him move. During a call on 18 July 2024, he subsequently asked it to support him in completing the application to the local authority’s partnership housing scheme as he was unsure how it worked.
The landlord acted reasonably by confirming that it could support him and visited him on 26 July 2024 to discuss the application. He said he had completed a new application on 25 July 2024 but did not need to provide information yet. It asked him if he needed support and he said no at the time. On 29 July and 1 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that he was due to meet with a third-party advocate to support him in moving and make sure he was on the correct banding. It is understandable that the landlord believed that he was being adequately supported with this matter. It asked him whether he needed support, and he said no at the time. It was therefore reasonable that it did not take further action.
In August 2024, the housing support officer and resident discussed his priority for a transfer, and that he was not considered urgent as he was not currently at risk of being homeless. It is of concern that the landlord said it could serve him with a no-fault eviction to assist him with achieving a higher priority with the local authority. This would put him at risk of becoming homeless should he not be offered suitable accommodation before the notice expired and was not appropriate advice in view of his support needs and the possible risk to him. At the time, it did not have confirmation that he had an active housing application to the local authority so the advice was also inappropriate on this basis.
On 16 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that there must have been a mistake on his application to the local authority partnership scheme as he needed to fill this in alone. It had previously offered to support him with this and was of the view that another support provider was assisting him. While it could have taken steps to ensure this was filled in at the time, it was reasonable that it previously stepped back as it believed he was receiving suitable support. It is unclear whether the landlord has sufficient systems in place to ensure that there are no gaps in support where other services are also involved and we have included a recommendation below to prevent similar problems.
It is evident that the suggestion of an eviction caused the resident some concern and anxiety. While we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord intended to serve him with an eviction, we note that he also raised concerns that the primary landlord was due to take the house back and asked when it would be serving him with an eviction in October and November 2024. While the landlord somewhat addressed his concerns about eviction in relation to the support it provided within its complaint responses, it did not address any specific concerns in relation to his housing situation and missed the opportunity to provide clarity and reassurance to him. The lack of clarity was likely to cause significant distress about his housing situation.
In his communication with us in June 2025, the resident raised concern that the property he has now moved to was available from August 2024, and he was unhappy that the landlord had not moved him sooner. We cannot confirm when his current property became available. The landlord would also need to consider whether it had any other applicants that may have been in a greater need than the resident, such as those with support needs and currently homeless, when deciding on how to allocate its available properties. As set out above, we have recognised that the landlord could have done more to formally consider a request to be moved to another of its properties at an earlier date.
In summary, we have found service failure by the landlord due to the lack of clear advice regarding the resident’s moving options from the outset. The landlord took reasonable steps to act in line with the resident’s wishes and took his lead on the matter. However, it could have been more proactive in its approach given the impact he said the situation had on his mental health. It also failed to demonstrate that it had suitably considered his view on whether any of its own properties would be suitable for him or consider an internal transfer. In addition, it is evident that there were gaps in the support it offered as it believed he was being supported by other services (in relation to his application to the local authority), and we have included a recommendation below.

The complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages of its process within reasonable timescales between 22 October 2024 and 6 December 2024. The resident expressed concern that the landlord had escalated the complaint to stage 2 without consulting him on 6 December 2024.
Given the resident’s communication detailing his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response on 7 November 2024, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and provide a final response. It acted reasonably by notifying him that it would be escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 12 November 2024 in an acknowledgement letter.
However, we have found failing in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response failed to suitably recognise his concerns that it had not signed him up to the local authority for housing and intended to serve him with a no-fault eviction. As set out above, he had clearly raised concerns about the support offered in relation to moving, and it was a failing that it did not address this.
In addition, following his communication on 7 November 2024, its acknowledgement did not recognise his concerns that it had “missed the point”, that the living environment was not suitable for him, or that he had “begged” for support in moving since January 2024. The landlord did not address these concerns in its subsequent stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2024. We have not seen evidence to show that it contacted the resident to understand his reasons for escalation which would have been appropriate where this was not clear.
It is of concern that instead of analysing and addressing the resident’s concerns about the support it had provided him in the months prior to the complaint, the landlord’s response focused on his engagement with the support it offered and said that not engaging with it may put his tenancy at risk. This was heavy handed and unfair to the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to have set out the steps it had taken to assist him, any limitations it had faced, and the specific action it would take moving forward in response to his request to be moved.
We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord failed to utilise the complaints process to fully address the resident’s concerns about the support it provided in relation to his request to be moved. It did not set out a specific plan of action as to what steps it would take moving forward. Its response was likely to cause frustration to the resident as many of his concerns remained unresolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the support it provided and his request for a male housing officer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be moved and concerns he would be evicted.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble he spent in pursuing his request to be moved and due to concerns that it would evict him.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by its failure to fully engage with the complaint.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers whether it has suitable systems in place to engage with any third-party support services a resident is engaged with. This is to ensure that it is not assumed that a different service is supporting a resident on a matter, and that any actions required to support a resident are suitably progressed.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident regarding his recent request to move to a different landlord and provides all relevant information about his housing options moving forward.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks.