East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202505716)

Background

1. The resident lives alone in a ground floor flat. The landlord records show the resident is vulnerable due to his mobility and mental health. The resident requested the landlord rehouse him in January 2025 due to ASB around his property. He complained when the landlord rejected his request for a management transfer.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer and his reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer and his reports of ASB.
   2. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer and his reports of ASB

4. The landlord’s decision to reject the resident’s request for a management transfer was in line with its policy. It acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and took appropriate steps to put things right.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has complained to us about issues which have occurred since his complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint with the landlord since its final response on 17 April 2025. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

What we did investigate

7. A management transfer is a type of housing move arranged by a landlord in response to urgent circumstances affecting a resident. Management transfers are separate to a local authority’s choice based letting allocation process. The allocation of properties by a landlord as part of management transfers are based on the landlord’s assessment of risk and the limited availability of properties within its housing stock.
8. In January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to request to be rehoused due to ongoing ASB around his property. He told the landlord there were issues with drug misuse and an unknown person was going around trying people’s windows and doors. He told the landlord he had not reported his concerns to the police.
9. The landlord told the resident he would need to apply to the council for rehousing as he did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. Following this, the resident submitted evidence to the landlord to support his application for a management transfer. It then submitted his application to a panel to review. The landlord ‘s housing officer asked the resident for his preferences for a move and told him it did not have many 1-bedroom flats available.
10. On 4 February 2025, the landlord rejected the resident’s application for a management transfer. It did so because he had provided no supporting evidence from the police in relation to the events he had said had happened. The landlord’s managed move policy states for it to consider an urgent move in cases of serious ASB it requires evidence from the police which establishes the resident must move to reduce the risk to them.
11. The landlord’s decision to reject the resident’s request was in line with its policy and a decision it was entitled to make. Its recommendation for the resident to contact the local council to apply for rehousing was a reasonable suggestion and in line with its policy. The landlord explained in its complaint responses why the resident’s supporting evidence and his reports of ASB did not meet its criteria. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this information to the resident.
12. The resident made the landlord aware of his concerns of ASB around his property when he requested it rehouse him in January 2025. As the resident was unaware of who was responsible for the ASB, the actions the landlord could have taken may have been limited. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered what actions it could take in line with its ASB policy to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord acknowledged this was unreasonable in its final response.
13. As part of his escalated complaint in March 2025, the resident complained about the landlord’s housing officer. He said by asking about his property preferences they falsely set his expectation he would be accepted for a move. The resident stated he thought the landlord was incorrect when it said there were no 1-bedroom flats available.
14. The evidence does not indicate any clear failings in the steps the landlord took or the information it provided. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged its housing officer could have communicated better with the resident. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise for failures in its communication, as well as its lack of response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
15. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
16. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £200 for its failures. This amount was proportionate to the level of failing by the landlord and demonstrated its appreciation of the effect of those failings upon the resident. The compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident.
17. In its final decision in April 2025, the landlord said it would arrange a multi-agency meeting to understand how it could support the resident with re-housing. In addition, it said it would open an ASB case to investigate the resident’s reports and inspect 6 CCTV units in the local area to determine if they were working.
18. The evidence shows the landlord completed the actions it agreed to take in its final response and provided updates to the resident. In addition, the landlord supported the resident by arranging to clean his flat and provide him with new furniture. These were actions the landlord was not required to take but demonstrate it taking proactive steps to try to improve the landlord tenant relationship.
19. Overall, the landlord’s actions at stage 2 and beyond reasonably put things right and resolved the complaint. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There was a slight delay in the landlord registering the resident’s complaint at stage 1, but there is no evidence this caused a detriment to the resident. The landlord told the resident it needed further time to investigate his complaint at stage 1. It subsequently provided its response within the agreed timeframe, which was in line with its policy. The landlord responded at stage 2 within its policy timescales. We have found no failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

22. The landlord demonstrated effective and proactive communication with the resident outside of the specific communication failures identified above.