Hyde Housing Association Limited (202445388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445388

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for assistance with his rehousing needs.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a flat with the housing association. The tenancy agreement began in December 2018.
3. Following vandalism and arson of his car, the resident, the police and the landlord have agreed that the resident needed to move. The landlord accepted the resident onto its priority move scheme on 25 October 2022. It confirmed that the resident was in the highest-priority band for the move. It also provided the resident with details for its choice-based letting (CBL) portal and recommended that the resident bid for properties.
4. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 11 April 2024. He said he had provided the landlord with several police crime reference numbers related to incidents that threaten his safety, but the landlord did not do all it could to help him find an alternative property. He also said he had tried to raise several complaints, but the landlord did not call him back or take action on his requests.
5. Throughout the complaint process, including in its 4 October 2024 final response letter, the landlord said it had offered the resident several properties, which he declined. It said that in accordance with its priority move policy, the resident was removed from the relocation scheme. It acknowledged that there was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered the resident £550 to compensate for the distress caused.
6. The resident subsequently asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of his complaint as he remains dissatisfied. He said that, after two arson attacks over three years, he felt his life was at risk, but the landlord had not taken his concerns seriously and had not managed his need to move appropriately. He also said that the compensation amount did not reflect the distress caused. In September 2025, he told us that following a robbery outside his front door in June 2025, he moved to temporary accommodation on the advice of the police, where he currently resides. He said he is still waiting for the landlord to offer him an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of the case has affected his health and well-being has been noted. The resident also said that the landlord did not consider this in accordance with its legal duties placed on it under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), which he said amounted to discrimination. The Act provides a legislative framework to safeguard the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. It prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs when a person treats another less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
8. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the actions or inaction of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination, or to assess the impact this may have had on the resident’s health and well-being. These are legal matters better suited for a court of law. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, he may consider seeking independent legal advice first.
9. The resident advised that his desired outcome is to move to a different property. The resident’s reasons for this are acknowledged. The Ombudsman’s remedies aim to restore the resident to the position they would have been in, as far as reasonably possible, had the failure not occurred. The Ombudsman is unlikely to instruct a landlord to permanently rehouse residents, as this might disadvantage other residents on the landlord’s allocation list. This assessment focuses on whether the landlord complied with relevant policies and procedures and treated the resident fairly. When a failure is identified, we may instruct the landlord to take specific action aimed at putting things right for the resident by restoring their previous position before the failure occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for assistance with his rehousing needs

10. We appreciate that there is a shortage of social housing across England, with a severe shortage in London. A landlord’s stock, therefore, may not be able satisfy every resident’s preferences. The circumstances of this case made the resident’s property search more challenging. The resident initially identified two boroughs where he would consider properties. These are where his family lives and where his daughter attends school. He later narrowed this down to one borough to avoid areas he described as having gang activity. For this reason, he also explained that he did not want to live on an estate, as he feared it would only be a matter of time before his address was discovered, which would defeat the purpose of his move to a safer home for him and his family. He therefore asked to live on a street property that was either on the ground floor or had lifts, as his disabled dog could not negotiate steps.
11. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that most of its properties in the area were flats in housing estates. It further explained that the local authority has nominations for 75% of the landlord’s properties in his borough. It advised the resident to register with the local authority, as this could lead to quicker rehousing. It also recommended that the resident bid for properties on its Choice-Based Lettings (CBL) portal and explore opportunities for mutual exchange. This was reasonable advice. The landlord accepted the resident onto its priority move scheme in October 2022.
12. The landlord’s priority move policy states that a priority move should be arranged within 6 months to ensure the safety of the tenant and the property. After this period, the landlord will complete its priority move review and consider whether suitable properties are available. If the resident fails to bid for properties on the CBL portal, they may be offered one reasonable accommodation. If the resident refuses, they may lose their priority banding. Residents can then appeal to a review panel to determine whether they still require a priority move, and a further offer of a property may be made.
13. In February 2023, the landlord offered the resident a property outside his location preferences, as detailed on his application form to join the scheme. The landlord explained this was because the resident had selected that borough on his CBL portal. The landlord provided the resident with login details for the CBL portal on 25 October 2022. The instructions included how to log in, upload a photo identification, and use the automatic bid function. We have not seen any evidence referring to the selection of location preferences. It is possible that the landlord had already updated this information on its CBL profile.
14. In September 2023, the landlord offered but withdrew a property because it was not suitable for a resident with dogs. In March 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident that his priority move application, location preferences and propriety banding had been reinstated. It continued to manage the resident’s expectations and provided information on how it could assist with his search for alternative accommodation.
15. According to the landlord’s priority move policy, the landlord must review each case on its scheme every 6 months by completing its review form. The purpose of this is to formally assess the progress made in finding an alternative property and determine whether the resident should remain on the list or be removed. As part of the review, the landlord would consider whether circumstances have changed and update its risk assessment as necessary. It would also review actions the resident had taken to assist in sourcing alternative accommodation. Although there is no evidence that the landlord completed its review form as required, the evidence shows it has reviewed the application about every 6 months, and it offered the resident the property it did have, or confirmed its application was reinstated and priority branding maintained.
16. The landlord offered the resident a property in February 2025. The resident declined the offer because it was on the second floor without a lift and unsuitable for his disabled dog. The landlord’s records show the resident updated his search criteria in February 2025 to only 1 borough. The landlord informed us in September 2025 that it had offered the resident a property in September 2025, which the resident declined. It subsequently downgraded the resident’s banding priority to the lowest banding.
17. It is recognised that the purpose of the policy is to help residents who have an urgent need to move. The landlord also has a nomination agreement, which further limits its ability to assist. For this reason, the policy also outlines several steps residents must undertake alongside the landlord’s acceptance of the resident onto the scheme. The purpose of the six-monthly review is to identify whether the level of risk to the resident has changed. Whether all other rehousing options had been considered, as well as whether both parties had done all they could to source alternative accommodations. There is no evidence that the landlord failed to consider other options to source alternative accommodation. It has reminded the resident that they must log onto the CBL portal, as its records show the resident had not taken advantage of the portal.
18. In its final response letter, the landlord did not acknowledge failure in the substantive issue of the complaint, which was significant. Its offer of £550 in compensation was fair, and it is also at the top range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. For this reason, we believe the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has taken action, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for assistance with his rehousing needs, satisfactorily.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should consider whether to accept the resident onto its priority scheme for a period of six months, with the expectation that by the end of this period, the resident would secure a property, or accept a final direct offer from the landlord.