First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202514515)

Background

1. The resident has a joint tenancy with his partner, and they live with their 4 children. He has health conditions including kidney problems and he is partially sighted. The couple asked the landlord to rehouse them. They said their property was unsuitable due to health reasons, repair issues, and experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) in their area. The resident’s partner complained to the landlord, and he escalated this complaint to us. We have referred to the resident as ‘he’ in this report.
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s request to be urgently rehoused.
2. Safety issues which include asbestos and stagnant water under the property.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the resident’s request to be urgently rehoused.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of safety issues which include asbestos and stagnant water under the property.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be urgently rehoused

4. The landlord handled the resident’s request to be urgently rehoused in line with its policies. When assessing if he met the criteria, it considered ASB evidence and the resident’s medical needs. It decided it would not urgently rehouse him on this basis. The landlord acknowledged he wanted to move and gave him advice on alternative housing options. It also referred him to appropriate support services

The landlord’s handling of safety issues which include asbestos and stagnant water under the property

5. The landlord failed to respond to the potential safety concerns with the urgency they required. It did not pay due regard to the resident’s health conditions and consider prioritising the repairs. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about when it would start the works. It did not keep him updated of its progress and he had to chase the landlord for an update. The landlord completed most of the repairs, but some issues are outstanding, which leaves the complaint unresolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed acknowledging and responding to the resident’s escalated complaint. This meant the resident had to chase the landlord for a response.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident said he was experiencing problems with getting rehoused under the council’s housing allocation scheme. Under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 councils must have a scheme which decides how they will prioritise, nominate, and allocate housing in their area. We have not considered this part of his complaint as it is not about the landlord. If the resident is unhappy with the council’s handling of his rehousing application, he can make a complaint to them and if necessary, escalate this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We have given him the details.

What we have considered

8. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be urgently rehoused. The resident asked the landlord to move him due to a historic alleged assault and his children currently being harassed. The landlord’s records show it treated the resident’s past report of ASB seriously; it opened an ASB case and risk–assessed it. The resident did not report further issues, so it closed the case in June 2024. The landlord’s ASB processes are not defined in its policy, but its actions were reasonable as this was a one-off incident.
9. The landlord’s policy says it allocates most of its housing through a nomination agreement with the council’s allocation scheme. This means residents wanting to be rehoused will usually need to apply through the council first. It says it can consider using its management discretion to move residents in exceptional circumstances. These exceptions include where residents are at risk of violence or need to be rehoused urgently on medical grounds. Its also includes circumstances where residents “current accommodation is inappropriate for their needs and there is an imminent risk of exploitation, abuse, or significant loss of daily living skills.”
10. The resident reported more incidents of alleged ASB between July and September 2024, concerning issues relating to his child. The landlord’s records say the resident was reluctant to share the details of the people involved. It explained it could not take any action without further details and encouraged him to provide these so it could investigate. It suggested contacting the police and signposted him to support services. The landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy in his home and it was appropriate that it gave him advice on alternative housing options.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s further reports of alleged ASB and harassment towards his child in July 2025 when it responded to his complaint. It reiterated its previous advice that its actions were limited if the resident was unwilling to provide details of alleged perpetrators. It liaised with external agencies and assessed if a managed move was appropriate based on his latest concerns and decided it did not meet its threshold.
12. It is not our role to establish if a resident meets the criteria for a managed move. Instead, we consider whether the landlord acted appropriately by assessing the situation and applying its policies. The landlord acted in line with its policies regarding the resident’s request to be urgency moved. It found no risk of immediate violence but encouraged more evidence to consider this. It signposted the resident to an Occupational Therapist so his medical needs could be reassessed. It recommended he continue to bid for properties under the council’s allocations scheme.
13. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. It handled the request in line with its policies by considering the evidence it had and liaised with appropriate external agencies. However, the resident’s housing is impacting his and his family’s wellbeing. We therefore recommend the landlord continues to risk assess the situation and work with the resident and the appropriate external agencies to support the family to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the safety issues which include asbestos

14. The landlord’s policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and will attempt to make them safe. It says emergency repairs include exposed asbestos and dangerous electrics. It says where repairs pose no immediate risk it will prioritise and complete them within 7 days. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days but if they are specialist or larger it will complete them within 90 days.
15. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a faulty electric socket was in line with its policy. It said it could not find a record of the repair, but it would attend the resident’s property within 5 days to investigate. It fixed the issue on 30 May 2025 which was within its policy timeframe of 7 days for priority repairs. As the resident did not escalate this element of his complaint, we found the landlord resolved this issue.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response in May 2025 the landlord agreed to remove the asbestos in the resident’s kitchen tiles on 18 July 2025. The resident escalated the complaint as he was concerned about the safety of the tiles. He said they were broken and uneven. The landlord did not promptly inspect the tiles to assess whether they were hazardous following his concerns. Therefore, it did not consider whether it needed to prioritise these works and complete them within 7 days.
17. The landlord removed the asbestos tiles on 18 July 2025. However, the operative found there were still tiles containing asbestos under the kitchen units. The landlord did not complete a further inspection to assess whether these posed a risk. It also failed to explain to the resident whether the tiles were safe. This part of the complaint is unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of the safety issues which include stagnant water under the property

18. The landlord did not initially fully investigate the resident’s complaint about stagnant water under the property. This was not in line with its policy. In its first complaint response it explained it installed a pump to redirect a natural stream which ran under the property. It said it serviced it annually and reimbursed the resident for the electricity costs. When the resident escalated this issue on 23 May 2025, he said it did not regularly maintain the pump or reimburse the associated costs. He raised other safety concerns.
19. The landlord failed to promptly respond to the resident’s safety concerns, and he chased the landlord on 7 July 2025. In its final complaint response, it explained it had been unable to access the property to service the pump. However, it agreed to inspect on 22 July 2025. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint but did not explain the failures, apologise or offer compensation.
20. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord inspected the resident’s property in July 2025 and found the water under the property was potentially wastewater, not natural ground water. Its internal communications in August 2025 show this was a complex repair, and it was considering solutions. However, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations about its next steps or keep him updated of its progress. He chased the landlord twice in September 2025 and contacted us for help with getting the issues resolved.
22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 October 2025. It apologised for its delayed response and outlined its plans for resolving the stagnant water issue. It agreed to fit new flooring in the resident’s lounge. The resident told us the landlord completed these works and moved the pump to the garden. However, he said the landlord has not replaced the living room flooring as it agreed. There is also no evidence it responded to his complaint about reimbursement of the costs of running the pump. This part of the complaint is unresolved.
23. The landlord was aware the resident’s health conditions could mean he is more at risk of harm than others. It failed to consider his conditions when managing his repairs and safety concerns. It did not prioritise the repairs or keep him fully updated. The resident was frustrated by the landlord’s handling of the water under the property and spent a lot of time and trouble raising his concerns.
24. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of safety issues which include asbestos and stagnant water under the property. It failed to promptly assess the issues and communicate with the resident. We ordered the landlord apologise and carry out actions to put things right. We ordered it to pay £500 compensation to recognise the resident’s time and trouble chasing the works and the distress and inconvenience it may have caused. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

25. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframes. However, it failed to acknowledge his escalated complaint on 23 May 2025 within its policy timeframe of 5 working days.
26. The resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response to his complaint. He contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive on 7 July 2025. The landlord responded on 8 July 2025, but it failed to recognise its complaint handling failure and offer a remedy. This was not in line with its policies.
27. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We ordered the landlord pay £100 compensation for the time and trouble the resident spent chasing the complaint and the frustration this likely caused. This amount aligns with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

28. The landlord made some positive attempts to remedy the resident’s complaint about the safety issues. It installed a new pump outside of his property to mitigate issues with accessing it inside and avoid the necessity to lift his flooring every time. However, it failed to fully inspect all the work afterwards and to replace his flooring. This meant it missed an opportunity to resolve all the resident’s issues.
29. The landlord showed some good practice in managing the resident’s ASB concerns. It risk assessed a serious incident and liaised with relevant agencies. The landlord’s ASB policy does not fully outline its processes for managing incidents. It would therefore benefit from updating this to fully explain how it manages reports of ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Some of the landlord’s records were thorough and clear. Its ASB records show it risk assessed incidents and recorded a crime reference number where appropriate. However, in some instances the records were limited, particularly where there were multiple repairs logged. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can better manage residents’ issues and provide a good service.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process was lacking. The resident chased the landlord for responses on several occasions, and it delayed responding to his escalated complaint. The landlord would benefit from improving its communication processes to ensure complaints are better managed and escalated in line within its policies.