A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201908032)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908032

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 April 2021


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 request for rehousing.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord operates its own choice based letting system where the resident is given a banding depending on their needs and requirements and resident’s bid for properties managed by the landlord.
  3. Under the landlord’s allocation policy, ‘the household is given a band B priority if it is overcrowded by two or more bedrooms’ or ‘there is an urgent medical need that is being seriously affected by their current housing situation’.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal director review of the decision and a response should be provided within 25 working days.
  5. The resident has three children, one suffers from autism spectrum disorder, learning difficulties and sleeping difficulties. One suffers from autism spectrum disorder and one suffers from learning difficulties.

Summary of events

  1. On 1 May 2010, the resident completed a nomination form which outlined the current makeup of her property. At the time the resident lived at the property with her two children and was also pregnant. The resident said that there were no disabilities and she did not require support for mental health or referrals to the landlord’s support services. 
  2. In March 2015, the resident was awarded medical priority due to her daughters’ condition and it ordered that an additional bedroom was required. The resident was given a composite band B for the landlord’s choice based letting system.
  3. On 16 May 2019, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord and raised the following issues:
    1. That there were five children and two adults living in a two–bedroom flat and the overcrowded living condition were causing negative effects to the children’s and her mental health.
    2. The resident was bidding on properties through the landlord’s bidding process however no properties were available. She had brought empty properties to the landlord and they said that they belong to another housing association.
    3. That the landlord had failed in its statutory duty under the Equality act 2010 to consider her children’s disabilities and to help support her family and provide appropriate accommodation. It had also failed to support the resident in finding other appropriate accommodation, such as by nominating the resident for accommodation with another Housing association.
  4. On 18 June 2019, the resident made another complaint to the landlord regarding the issues realised in paragraph 8 above. She said that she had not received a response from the landlord.
  5. On 28 June 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one complaint response and address the following issues:
    1. It confirmed that the resident was registered on its choice based letting system for a four-bedroom property and had been awarded a composite priority band B status due to her overcrowding and medical conditions relating to her current home. It asked that the resident send in any new medical documentation that could affect her suitability and it would be assessed by its independent assessors and her banding adjusted accordingly.
    2. It acknowledged the resident’s urgency to move and awarded the composite banding in March 2015. It highlighted that the resident’s bidding had been quite sporadic and had only made one bid since January 2019. It advised that the resident continued to check and bid on suitable properties.
    3. It advised that the resident had not completed the HomeHunt application and therefore her account was not live. It also highlighted that the resident should add information to her HomeSwapper account including photos of all of the rooms in the property and contact suitable matches to facilitate a move.
    4. It suggested the resident also use additional transfer systems such as Housing Moves or contact Local Authorities in the area directly or investigate the private rental market. 
    5. It advised that empty properties were all allocated in line with its allocation policy. It said that it had no power to influence the transfer process managed by other providers.
  6. There was no information provided to this service regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response and asking for escalation of the issues however a stage two response was subsequently provided by the landlord.
  7. On 9 September 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two director review outcome and addressed the following issues:
    1. Its response to the complaint submitted on 16 May 2019 – It apologised for the mistake and advised that the complaint was logged as an expression of dissatisfaction instead of a formal complaint. It offered the resident £15 compensation for the delay in her complaint being logged.
    2. Compliance with the Equality Act 2010 – It confirmed that the resident was awarded medical priority in March 2015 due to her condition and given a composite Band B on the landlord’s choice based letting system. It advised that if the resident had any new evidence from a medical professional she should send it through and it would be assessed by an independent assessor. It highlighted that it had given the resident advice on different ways to obtain a more suitable home as outlined in paragraph 10C above and that it also manually updated the resident’s account on Househunter to include her children. It also agreed to contact the resident to ascertain the areas in which she wishes to move and offered (with the resident’s permission) to contact housing providers in that area to see if they would be willing to take part in a reciprocal move.
    3. Bidding on the resident’s behalf – It had no record that an agreement had been made to bid on the resident’s behalf as this was reserved for resident’s who were elderly or vulnerable and had no support from family, friends or official bodies. It advised that there was no way for bidding to be automated on the resident’s behalf and would require her to search on the system, this procedure was the same for its choice based letting systems. It provided a contact number for the resident to call for support in the bidding process.
    4. Band A with Hillingdon Homes – It advised that different housing providers had their own policies when allocating banding to a household. The resident was issued a band B with a five–bedroom need in line with the landlord’s allocations policy. It said that it cannot comment on another services allocation policy and why the resident was awarded the banding.
  8. On 20 September 2019, the landlord contacted a local housing authority and inquired about a reciprocal request for a property transfer on behalf of the resident for a four-bedroom property. No response was provided by the local authority.
  9. On 22 October 2020, the resident gave the landlord permission to amend her bedroom need entitlement to a 3 bed need with the hope increasing her chances of securing a move to a larger property.
  10. On 20 November 2020, the landlord issued a second stage two response to the resident. The response was almost identical to the one issued on 9 September 2019 however it did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and subsequent delay and did not offer compensation.
  11. On 5 November 2020, the resident’s children’s medical needs were given a band C medical priority by an independent medical assessor.
  12. On 26 November 2020, the landlord contacted a third-party housing association regarding the banding of the resident in order to determine the difference between the two services assessment no response was provided by the local authority.
  13. On 30 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that the local authorities that responded to the reciprocal requests advised that unfortunately they would not be able to assist. It advised the resident that if any further councils got back in touch it would provide a further update.
  14. On 2 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided an update in regard to her housing situation. It said that it had received the resident’s declaration to move to a smaller property and reminded the resident to continue bidding on properties and highlighted the HousingMoves mobility scheme as a further option to move to a home in another area. It said that it had applied again to local authorities for a reciprocal move and received limited response and they had not been able to help.
  15. This service contacted the resident and she said that she had now moved into a three-bedroom property in a different area managed by a local authority.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for rehousing

  1. Evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that the resident was originally housed in accordance with her needs however over time there was a significant change in her household composition which led to overcrowding at the property. The resident raised a complaint in May 2019 about the overcrowding and that the landlord had failed to assist her in finding a more suitable property. The landlord investigated the matter and confirmed that the resident was registered with its choice based letting system and was appropriately awarded a band B composite priority status for her overcrowding. The landlord appropriately used an independent medical assessor to assess the resident’s children’s medical conditions in line with its allocations policy and the resident was granted a band C medical priority in line with the landlord allocation policy. It appropriately informed the resident that the delay in being rehoused was due to the unavailability of larger 4/5-bedroom properties.
  2. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and provided the resident with the information that she could use to secure herself the best change of a housing transfer including registering for a number of choice based letting applications and updating her information to ensure that she was receiving the correct banding. The landlord also used its discretion and took active steps in contacting other local housing providers in an attempt to secure the resident a transfer to a larger property, it appropriately conveyed to the resident that there was a lack of larger properties available but continued to encourage the resident to bid for approprate properties. Overall, the landlord took approprate steps to investigate the complaint and assisted the resident in providing information to best secure a chance of a transfer. There is no evidence of maladministration in its response to the issue regarding overcrowding at the property.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 16 May 2019 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 28 June 2019. This represents a 21 working day delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord said in its stage two response that the complaint was accidently logged as an expression of dissatisfaction instead of a formal complaint and apologised for the delay. The length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and evidently caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. It is unclear from the documentation provided by both parties about the exact date that the resident asked for an escalation of her complaint. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two director review on 9 September 2019. In the first stage two response the landlord offered the resident £15 compensation for the delay at stage one. The landlord then issued the resident with an almost identical response on the 20 November 2020, although it did not include the compensation for the stage one delay. It was not approprate for the landlord to remove compensation due to the acknowledged delay and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord investigated the complaint and worked with the resident to ensure that she had the approprate composite banding in order to ensure her best chance of securing a property. It gave the resident advice on the best way to effectively use the choice based letting systems and had an independent assessor assess the children’s medical needs inline with its allocation policy. It contacted other housing associations on the resident’s behalf in an attempt to secure alternative housing.  
  2. The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies because it failed to complete stage one of the complaint’s procedure within the correct 10-day time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. It is unclear from the documentation provided when the resident asked for the escalation of her stage one complaint so no failure can be found at stage two.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 within four weeks of the date of this report in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling delay.
  2. The landlord is asked to make this payment to the resident within 4 weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.