The Guinness Partnership Limited (202401179)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 1‑bedroom flat with her 2 children, a boy and a girl. She told the landlord she was overcrowded and explained that her son is autistic (ASD). Healthcare professionals involved in his care advised that he needed more space and his own bedroom to support his sensory needs, daily routines, and wellbeing. The landlord approved a management transfer on medical grounds. The resident was unhappy with the time taken to be offered a suitable property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s management transfer application
   2. the associated complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents management transfer application.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the residents management transfer application

5. While the period the resident was waiting for rehousing was long, this was due to a lack of available properties rather than the landlord’s handling of the application.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy and the Code.

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.

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 did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation affected her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconveniences.
8. The resident had a previous complaint about how long she had been waiting for an offer of housing under the local authority’s allocation scheme. However, this is not something we can investigate. Complaints about local authority housing allocations must be handled by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

What we investigated

9. The landlord’s allocation policy has provision for where in exceptional circumstances it agrees to move a resident outside its normal transfer process. It refers to this as a management move.
10. The landlord keeps people on the management transfer list for 12 weeks. It can extend this time if no suitable home comes up.
11. On 24 May 2023 the landlord told the resident she had a management transfer. It aimed to rehouse her within 12 weeks and asked her to look at more areas to increase the likelihood of property becoming available.
12. In July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord 5 times to ask for an update on her management move and to change or add preferred areas. The landlord responded 4 times, usually within 24 hours or by the next day. Its replies mostly repeated that she held management transfer priority, that rehousing depended on a suitable property becoming available, and that she could add more areas to improve her chances. The landlord also sent her the list of areas and updated her choices straight away each time she asked.
13. This was consistent with its policy and that no suitable properties had become available at that stage.
14. On 13 and 21 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her management move. She said the 12‑week period was ending, she had partly packed her home based on the landlord’s advice, and the living conditions were causing significant strain especially for her child with autism. She also said the landlord had a duty of care, and she asked how much longer she might have to wait.
15. The landlord responded on 17 and 23 August 2023. In the absence of a policy specifying timeframes for a response, we have assessed what is fair and reasonable. Considering this, the landlord responded in a reasonable timeframe.
16. It apologised, confirmed she was active on the management move transfer list and explained that it could not offer a timeframe because it relied on other tenants giving notice. It said it would contact her as soon as a suitable home became available and advised her to register with the council or consider a mutual exchange.
17. The landlord’s responses were reasonable and in line with its allocations policy because it accurately explained that the management move was the highest priority but does not guarantee when a property will become free. It also signposted the resident to other housing options. However, the communication was limited, as it did not address the worsening impact she reported or explain whether her new information would be considered under the management‑move criteria.
18. On 19 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to review her case after the 12‑week period had passed, saying the delay was affecting her children and her mental health. On 27 September 2023, she repeated these concerns, adding that the home felt unsafe especially for her son with ASD and that she was seeking an Occupational Health assessment.
19. On 3 October 2023, the landlord apologised for not responding sooner and explained that it could not give a firm timeframe because moves depend on other tenants leaving. It confirmed she remained in its highest management‑transfer priority band and it would rehouse her as soon as a suitable property became available. It also advised her to register with the council and share her management‑move letter to widen her options.
20. The explanation of stock limits and confirmation of priority were reasonable. However, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of worsening risks between 19 September and 3 October 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged her updates sooner and said how it would consider that information. This delay was a shortcoming in communication, even though the underlying allocation constraints remained outside the landlord’s control.
21. On 20 November 2023 the resident said she felt she was at crisis point. She reported accidents caused by the lack of space and said she had also registered with the council.
22. On 21 November 2023 the resident she sent a letter from the school showing her son needed his own space. The landlord appropriately responded the same day apologised and again explained why it could not give regular updates. It said its Lettings Team would contact her as soon as a suitable home became free.
23. On 18 December 2023 the resident told the landlord about another accident that required A&E treatment. She said the home was unsafe and sent more evidence from the school. The landlord did not address this, which was unreasonable. It should have acknowledged the information, considered it, and explained whether it affected her priority.
24. On 30 January 2024 the resident escalated her concerns and provided more school evidence, as well as reports of further injuries linked to overcrowding. The landlord has not shown that it reviewed the information or explained what action it planned to take.
25. On 12 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed the resident’s management move explained the limitations of its housing stock and clarified that no 3‑bedroom properties had become available since May 2023. It also acknowledged the impact on the resident’s family. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances, as the landlord provided a clear explanation of its position and the constraints affecting its ability to offer a suitable property.
26. On 21 February 2024 the resident accepted that stock was limited, but she said the delay was still unacceptable. She said she was told to expect rehousing within 12 weeks and shared more information about the strain on her family.
27. On 15 March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It repeated that it could not control or predict when a suitable property was available. It also said that the resident already had the highest management transfer priority. This was a reasonable explanation. Its Allocations Policy requires it to prioritise applicants based on need, but it does not guarantee when the right‑sized home will be offered.
28. The landlord’s responses were generally timely and addressed the resident’s concerns, consistently reiterating its limitations, which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. However, there were some occasions when responses were delayed or not provided, the landlord apologised for this. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns in both of its complaint responses, acknowledging the impact on the family and explaining the resident’s rehousing priority.

33. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition.
34. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
35. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 January 2024, the next working day. It then issued its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024, 8 working days later.
36. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 February 2024, 3 working days later. It then issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, 19 working days after the escalation.
37. The landlord provided both acknowledgements and responses in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord showed good knowledge of its policy and explained how the management transfer process worked to the resident. It also kept accurate records of the resident’s priority status and preferred areas, updating them promptly.

Communication

39. The In this case the landlord mostly responded to the resident’s communication promptly and accurately. The landlord could consider if it may have been more helpful to provide proactive communication, rather than being reactive. It should also consider how it responds to residents when additional information is provided.