Onward Homes Limited (202124411)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124411

Onward Homes Limited

30 June 2023

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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property;
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to his medical conditions;
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears; and
   4. The landlord’s decision to rescind the property offer.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident has medical conditions and advises that his partner also has a medical condition.
3. The resident was shortlisted for an internal move to a flat via choice based lettings on 9 November 2021. On 29 November 2021, the landlord asked the resident to clear the rent arrears on his current property. In a phone call the next day, the resident queried why he was being asked to pay off the current arrears and was told that for an internal move (applied for by himself) he would need a clear rent account in order to be considered. It was agreed that the landlord would accept a week’s rent in advance for the new property. The resident viewed the property on 1 December 2021 and showed interest but said he cannot accept it in its current condition; the resident reported that there was mould, damp and a strong ammonia smell as well as stains on the floorboards that would all need to be dealt with. The landlord reminded the resident on a telephone call on 1 December 2021 that he would need to clear the arrears at the current property if he wished to accept the new property.
4. The landlord and resident exchanged emails about the issues surrounding the condition of the property, arrears and the need to sign up. The landlord encouraged the resident to sign up by 16 December 2021 and as the resident did not, it confirmed it had moved onto the next applicant.
5. On 13 January 2022, the resident made a formal complaint about the timescale to sign up for the flat, the landlord’s handling of his rent arrears, and the landlord’s decision to withdraw the offer. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and issued a stage one response on 20 January 2022. It said:
   1. During the viewing on 1 December 2021, the resident pointed out some issues they wanted rectified including mould and smell, and the neighbourhood and repairs team agreed to try to resolve them. On 8 December 2021, the landlord asked the resident to provide a decision, accepting or rejecting property by 17.00 that day, and updated the resident with findings from the repairs team.
   2. A deadline was put in place for the arrears to be cleared and for a sign up to take place as the property was ready to let. The landlord said that if the arrears were cleared and the property signed up for by the deadline then the resident could have an overlap of the two tenancies. The landlord said that it received no responses to its request to book an appointment for sign up nor were the arrears cleared.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 January 2022. A revised stage one response was issued on 27 January 2022 in which the landlord stated that even with the amount loaned from the resident’s partner’s university, the arrears would still not have been cleared. Following further dissatisfaction from the resident, the landlord issued its final stage two response on 17 February 2022 in which it:
   1. apologised to the resident for the condition the property was in when viewed.
   2. said it was flexible in trying to arrange convenient times to meet at the property for sign up and set deadlines for payment for arrears and for the sign up.
   3. said email exchanges between itself and the resident’s partner’s university gave the necessary information to enable the university to make a payment to clear the arrears.
7. The resident has advised this Service that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final position. He states that the landlord offered a limited time window for sign-up, that the landlord had failed to engage with his partner’s university, and that his arrears prevented him from bidding. He seeks compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. In the complaints procedure, the resident asserted that the landlord discriminated against him by not making reasonable adjustments to make the flat suitable given his health conditions by removing mould and smell. Section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, states the county court has the jurisdiction to decide if there has been ‘discrimination’ or other prohibited conduct. This service cannot investigate complaints where discrimination is alleged as we cannot make a binding decision that this has occurred – this would be a matter for the courts. The Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about housing management. As such, this Service would not be able to decide if there was discrimination. We will investigate whether the landlord has treated the resident fairly and responded appropriately to his requests for reasonable adjustments.

Tenancy agreement

9. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for payment of rent (including any service charge) and the resident must pay any outstanding debt owed to the landlord in relation to a former tenancy.

Complaints policy

10. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge it within two working days and provide a stage one response within ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. A review of the complaint will be undertaken by a director who will provide a stage two (final) response within 10 working days.

Lettings and allocations policy

11. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy states how it allocates most of its properties through its partner local authority scheme. A resident can apply for a move via a choice based letting. The policy states there may be occasions where the landlord will withdraw an offer of accommodation. This may include where an applicant is not in a position to take up the tenancy within a reasonable timescale from the point of offer or where the landlord requires the property in order to address an emergency situation and it becomes necessary to withdraw an offer to facilitate this.
12. The choice based letting scheme also states that in the event of rent arrears, a resident may be given a reduced preference (band F) or be excluded from using the system to bid on properties.

The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about the condition of the property

13. When the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property, the landlord was obliged to take account of these concerns and take appropriate steps to bring the property up to lettable standards and to keep the resident informed throughout.
14. The resident viewed the property on 1 December 2021 and expressed concerns about the flat – namely the mould, damp, smell, and stains on the floorboards. The landlord said it accepted this and would be happy to rectify the issues. The resident asked further questions about the issues on 6 December 2021 and the landlord replied on 8 December 2021 stating the damp issues had been resolved and the mould would be removed. The landlord confirmed on 14 December 2021 the mould had been treated and the property was now ready for let; and it would now benefit from heating and ventilation once occupied. This was two weeks after the property had been initially viewed.
15. The landlord was prompt in replying to the queries the resident had about the condition of the property and was in agreement with the resident regarding what works were needed. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the property when initially viewed was not in a ready to let condition and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this.
16. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord took ownership of the issues and completed the works in a reasonable timescale, prior to the anticipated sign up date. It kept the resident updated on the repair works and provided timely responses to his emails and requests. Overall, the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property were appropriately handled by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to his medical conditions

17. The landlord had an obligation to rectify the issues identified in order to make the property suitable for the resident and his partner, given the medical conditions of which the landlord was aware. After viewing the property on 1 December 2021, the resident reminded the landlord of his and his partner’s medical conditions and how the issues with the flat would affect them.
18. With regard to the damp, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the repairs specialist, passing on the information on 8 December 2021 that the damp had previously been dealt with and there was no work that needed doing to rectify damp in the property. With regard to the mould, the landlord said it had received confirmation the mould had been treated on 14 December 2021, which was prior to the anticipated sign up date.
19. The landlord acknowledged the property did have a musty smell, likely resulting from the property having been empty for some time, and advised the resident this should be resolved by heating and ventilating the property appropriately once tenanted. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the repairs specialist comments to this effect.
20. The resident also asked if they could sand the floorboards and the landlord explained promptly that should the resident carry it out himself, he would have to do it by hand whereas an industrial sander could be used if the resident employed a professional.
21. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord did not complete the works it said it had. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord appeared to make reasonable attempts to address the resident’s issues and needs, and the landlord kept the resident informed throughout, making prompt responses to the resident’s emails. Overall, it’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to his medical conditions was satisfactory.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears

22. The landlord has an obligation to be transparent about the implications that failure to clear arrears would have on the resident’s ability to sign up for a new tenancy, and to provide support in respect of arrears that may have accrued.
23. A loan from the university was intended to clear the rent arrears. The landlord had stated the importance of paying off the arrears before sign up and this was acknowledged by the resident on 29 November 2021. The loan did not materialise and the resident asserts the landlord did not respond to queries from the university in a timely fashion which resulted in the planned loan payment not being made. The Ombudsman will consider whether there were any failures on the part of the landlord that resulted in the loan payment not being made.
24. The Ombudsman has looked at the evidence provided including telephone and email correspondence between the landlord, the resident and the university. On 29 November 2021, the landlord had a phone call with the resident discussing paying off arrears which the resident indicated was doable and on 1 December 2021 the landlord records that in a telephone conversation with the resident that he will need to clear the arrears at current property if he wishes to accept the flat. The landlord first contacted the university on 9 December 2021 with its bank details. The same day the university asked for a payment reference to identify the account to be paid off and the landlord email of 10 December 2021 provided this. The university emailed further on 14 December 2021 asking for a contact name and the landlord provided the necessary information the same day.
25. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s situation and his concerns, and this was clearly a resident who took active steps to attempt to clear arrears prior to signing up. Whilst the details about the arrears and the resident’s attempts to clear them by means of a loan should have been brought to the attention of the landlord’s income team, the university had sufficient information to make the payment. The landlord’s communications about rent arrears and its responses to both resident and university were reasonable and timely, and the actions of the landlord did not, in any way, affect the ability of the university to pay the loan prior to the sign up date. The resident had over two weeks to clear rent arrears which was a reasonable period of time. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears.

The landlord’s decision to rescind the property offer

26. Once the resident accepted the property, the landlord should have provided the resident sufficient time to go through the sign-up process, taking into account his work schedule and circumstances.
27. The resident accepted the property on 8 December 2021 on the basis that the identified repair issues would be rectified. On 14 December 2021, the landlord requested the resident’s availability to sign up and stressed the importance of signing up shortly after accepting. The next day the resident said he was unable to sign up on 15 December 2021 as he was working that day, and requested to meet the landlord at the flat on either 16 December or 17 December 2021 to sign-up. The landlord said it had to be 16 December 2021. At 09:36 on 16 December 2021, the landlord offered the resident a choice of a morning slot or an afternoon slot, however the resident did not respond to these offers until 17.36 of 16 December 2021. The landlord informed the resident that, as the deadline to sign up had been missed, it had moved onto the next applicant.
28. As this was an internal move requested by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to require sign up in a prompt manner to facilitate a swift move. The landlord gave the resident sufficient warning, first informing him on 14 December 2021 the need to sign up on 15 December 2021 and at the resident’s request extended the deadline by one further day to 16 December 2021 thus giving the resident additional time to make arrangements for signing up to the new tenancy.
29. The landlord was further flexible insofar that it agreed to the resident’s request to sign up at the flat, close to the resident’s place of work, rather than the landlord’s office. The landlord acted in accordance with its own allocations policy which states that the landlord will withdraw an offer of accommodation “where an applicant is not in a position to take up the Tenancy within a reasonable timescale from the point of offer. It is anticipated that people looking to move will be in a position to do so and will be able to provide all relevant documents and take up the tenancy within a reasonable timeframe”. The Ombudsman considers that the period from the acceptance of the offer on 8 December 2021 to the deadline for signing up on 16 December 2021 was reasonable. The landlord’s decision to rescind the property was justified and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to his medical conditions.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears.
    4. The landlord’s decision to rescind the property offer.