Stonewater Limited (202411863)

Background

1. At the time of this complaint, the resident lived in a flat within a block. The landlord decided on 22 November 2023 to move her to temporary accommodation while it completed fire safety repairs in the block. The resident asked to be permanently moved instead. She then made a complaint about the landlord’s communication around the move, as well as the original decision on her rehousing application (which changed after she provided further evidence).

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a management move.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. A reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. The landlord does not need to do anything further to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord accepts there were unreasonable delays in progressing the resident’s application for a management move, and some lapses in its communication. However, this did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord was clear in its letters to the resident that her initial move was a temporary one, and that a permanent move would need to be agreed through the management move process. The £250 compensation offered is enough to put things right.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling 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 have not considered

8. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate a complaint which has not completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. When referring her complaint to us, the resident raised a number of further complaints. Those included a lack of utilities in her temporary property and the condition of that property, the condition of her original property after she moved back in, and damage to her belongings during her move. None of these concerns were part of her original complaint, so we cannot consider them as part of this investigation.

Assessment – management move application

9. The resident told the landlord on 22 November 2023 that she wanted to move permanently, and would not agree to a temporary move for the works. The landlord sent her a letter on 11 December 2023 setting out the process for a management move. She provided supporting evidence in the form of a PIP letter on 11 January 2024.
10. The landlord reviewed her case on 22 February 2024, and noted that the letter she provided did not give details of the reasons she needed to move. It called her for further information about her medical needs on 26 February 2024, and its notes show it was unsure whether the evidence provided was sufficient. It then submitted the application on 21 March 2024. The application was rejected as there was insufficient evidence to support a management move.
11. The relevant criteria for a move under the landlord’s policies was that the resident’s existing home posed a significant risk to her health. The landlord was entitled to reject an application where it concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a move. It contacted the resident on the day it made its decision, and explained why the evidence was insufficient. It explained what information she needed to provide on 28 March, 18 April, and on 16 and 17 May 2024. The resident provided a letter from her doctor on 29 May 2024, and the landlord approved her application for a move the next day.
12. The evidence provided shows the landlord explained the process at the outset, including managing the resident’s expectations about the amount of time it could take. It declined the application because there was insufficient evidence, which it was entitled to do. It explained what further information it needed from the resident, and when she provided additional evidence it reconsidered and approved her application. All of this was reasonable and appropriate.
13. It’s common ground there were some delays in progressing the application. The resident provided her initial evidence on 11 January 2024, but the landlord did not assess that evidence for 6 weeks. And after it spoke to the resident on 26 February 2024, it took another 3 weeks to submit the application. These were unreasonable delays.
14. However, we have seen no evidence that this caused significant detriment to the resident. The resident was in temporary accommodation from 5 February 2024 onwards, and she declined that property as her permanent move once it was offered. It also took around 11 months from the date the landlord accepted her application until she was able to move into another property. We have seen no evidence that any other suitable properties would have been available to the resident sooner if the landlord had submitted the application without any delays. This means any impact would be limited to inconvenience, which the landlord has offered compensation for. We have assessed whether the compensation is sufficient below.

Assessment – communication

15. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication around her move. She said the landlord led her to believe that she would be getting a permanent move, and only told her later that she would need to meet certain criteria. She said she felt lied to. The landlord accepted there were some lapses in communication. But it said it had told all residents the move would be temporary, not permanent, and had explained the management move process.
16. As part of its preparation for fire safety works in the block, the landlord held a residents’ meeting on 31 October 2023. It then followed this up with a letter to all residents on 9 November 2023. It confirmed in writing that moves for the works would be temporary, and it was not intending to rehouse anyone permanently because of the works. It also explained that while it was possible it would allow permanent moves, it would not guarantee this. It also set out the criteria for a management move.
17. The resident then told the landlord during a home visit that she wanted to move permanently. It sent her a letter on 11 December 2023 to explain the process, that her application would need to be approved for her to move permanently, and that it could take a long time. It also explained that she would still need to move temporarily for the works. The agreement she signed for her temporary property also confirmed that the move would be temporary.
18. While we understand the resident believed her move would be permanent, we have seen no evidence which suggests the landlord gave inaccurate or inconsistent information about the process. It explained that the move for the works would be temporary, that there were criteria that would need to be met for a permanent move, and that in December 2023 it had not yet submitted her application for a management move. There were no failings in its communication at that time.
19. However, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication after the resident provided evidence to support a move in January 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence of contacting her about her application prior to 22 February 2024. There is also no evidence that it gave any updates between that conversation and when it submitted the application on 21 March 2024.
20. Its communication then improved after those failings. It contacted the resident when it rejected her application. It explained why the evidence provided was insufficient, and explained what further evidence she needed to provide. It chased this up with the resident on multiple occasions, and when she provided further evidence on 29 May 2024 it assessed the application the next day. As such, its only communication failings were between January and March 2024, after which it improved.
21. The landlord accepts that there were lapses in its communication, and has taken this into account when offering compensation. We have assessed whether the compensation is sufficient below.

Summary

22. The landlord has correctly identified all of its failings in this case. Those are a delay in submitting the resident’s application, and lapses in its communication during that time. We understand this was frustrating for the resident. However, as set out above, we have seen no evidence of any significant detriment this caused the resident. And it did not change the overall outcome.
23. The landlord has offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the management move request. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. As such, the compensation offered is enough to put things right, and the landlord does not need to do anything further.

24. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales under the landlord’s complaints policy from the time were in line with those set out in the Code.
25. The resident made a complaint on 12 April 2024, and escalated it on 14 May 2024. The landlord investigated the complaint appropriately, and responded within the relevant timescales. We therefore find no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable and appropriate.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally reasonable and appropriate. But there were occasions when it failed to properly update the resident on the management move. The landlord has acknowledged this, and taken steps to improve its communication with the resident.