Estuary Housing Association Limited (202341673)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed house with her son. The resident has mental health issues which the landlord is aware of. In June 2023, she told the landlord that she needed to move property due to threats from her ex-partner. The resident was approved for a management move, and the landlord offered the resident a property in July 2023 which she was not eligible for. The landlord later removed her from the management move register after she refused a subsequent property offer. Following the landlord’s complaint process, the resident’s circumstances were reassessed, and she was approved for management move in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:

1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a management move.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of a management move

4. The landlord offered the resident a property that was not available to her as a management move. This caused the resident distress and convenience. However, the landlord acknowledged its errors, apologised, and offered compensation that reflected the impact on the resident. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint. It’s decision to remove the resident’s management move points after she refused a suitable property, was in line with its urgent rehousing policy.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (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.

6. The resident told us as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. We are not able to tell a landlord to move the resident as we do not have sight of the landlord’s available and suitable stock, nor can we instruct it in this way. We will investigate whether the landlord followed its processes and how it responded to the resident’s concerns.
7. The landlord’s urgent rehousing policy says it will consider a management move where a resident faces serious risk to their safety. There must be clear evidence that relocating will reduce this risk.
8. On 20 June 2023 the resident told the landlord her ex-partner had breached his restraining order. The landlord also received information from the police that day confirming the risk to the resident. The landlord appropriately referred the resident for a management move the following day. The landlord told the resident there was no timeframe and that only 1 offer of accommodation would be made. If the resident refused a suitable property, she would be removed from the management move register. The landlord provided her with her appeal rights. This information is in line with its urgent rehousing policy.
9. The management move application was approved and the landlord offered the resident a property in area A on 28 July 2023. Although we’ve seen no evidence of when the resident viewed the property, the resident told us it was on 16 August 2023. Emails between the landlord and the local authority confirmed a neighbour had told the resident the property was for local people only. The landlord said it had not been aware of the criteria. This was a failure by the landlord to ensure that the property offered was suitable for the resident and that she was eligible to move to it before it made an offer.
10. We’ve seen evidence the landlord had asked the local authority to consider offering the property to the resident despite the property was only for local people. The landlord asked them to also consider the resident for a mutual exchange in the same area A. This was a positive step where the landlord showed it was resolution and customer focused and was seeking alternative options to ensure a property was offered to the resident in the chosen area.
11. The landlord called the resident on 17 August 2023 and confirmed the property was not available to her and apologised for its error. The resident said she was ready to move, she had given her notice at work, received a school place for her son and purchased a uniform and paid a deposit to move her horse. The landlord offered to help with the uniform costs as it was the landlord’s mistake. This was reasonable by the landlord.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 October 2023 and offered a property in area B, a location the resident had chosen on her management move application form. However, the resident appealed against the property offer as she felt the property was not safe. She said it had a public footpath, and she had googled crime rate in the area which was high. She did not remember choosing the area and said her ex-partners family and friends visited the area during hotter months.
13. On 25 October 2023 the appeal was not upheld. After considering the reasons provided by the resident, the landlord found the property was suitable. The decision was sent to the resident confirming her management move points had been removed. Details on how to be reconsidered for a management move were provided. It also explained the resident was still on the transfer list, and the landlord would contact her when a property became available. The landlord followed its process as it provided an opportunity for appeal in line with its urgent rehousing policy.
14. We’ve seen evidence the landlord explored alternative property transfer options with the resident, but she was dissatisfied with the condition of some properties. The landlord also appropriately explained that if she wished to be reconsidered for a management move, she could not be too specific about the property type, but it would explore this further if any new circumstances of immediate risk occur. The landlord acknowledged delays in communication on 5 December 2023 about her request to be put back again on the management move list related to call backs from her housing officer.
15. Under our dispute resolution principles landlords must act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In this case we’ve seen that the landlord took appropriate steps once it had recognised its error. It told the resident in December 2023 it had updated its systems to prevent similar errors happening again, showing it had taken learning from the complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings, including delays in receiving information from external parties. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for the impact caused to the resident. It also appropriately considered the offer of the property in area B under its appeal process.
16. The £150 compensation offer was a sufficient step to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident when it had offered a property that was not available to her and its delays in communication. It is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failings with moderate impact and is within the suggested range for maladministration in our remedies guidance. This is an appropriate level of compensation to remedy the failings identified by the landlord and the detriment to the resident. This was in addition to its learning and the commitment to review any further evidence of immediate risk. All those steps were sufficient to put things right.

What we have not investigated

17. We understand that the landlord approved the resident for management move again in April 2024 after referral from third parties that same month. The resident recently said to us that she was still awaiting to be moved. However, these circumstances occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaint process, and we have not included them in this investigation. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her more recent events, she may wish to raise this with the landlord initially.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Code and its complaints policy. It says it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
19. The landlord acknowledged both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframes. It provided its stage 1 response on 9 November 2023, which was within its 10-day timeframe of acknowledgement. It also provided its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024 which was within its 20-day timeframe. The landlord responded to both stages of the complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord demonstrated it has taken learning from the complaint and updated its systems to ensure it only offered residents properties which are available to them.

Communication

21. The landlord’s overall communication was good. However, there were instances where the housing officer did not call the resident back. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents to ensure it completes timely call back requests.