A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202002090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002090

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. his application to purchase a property through the right to buy scheme;
2. disrepair at his property, including a pest infestation, damage to the walls, and damp and mould;
3. the landlord’s handling of his decant into temporary accommodation;
4. his request for a property transfer.
The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord’s complaints handling requires investigation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

b) were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.

Additionally, paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

This service has been provided with correspondence between the resident and the landlord from 2017. It is evident from this correspondence that the resident made an unsuccessful application to purchase a property through the right to buy scheme in operation around this time.
It is not evident whether the resident raised a formal complaint regarding this concern at the time in 2017. As part of his complaints raised in and around 2021 (as discussed below), the resident referenced he remained dissatisfied with the outcome of his purchase application. In its responses, the landlord referenced it did not have any present records of the application.
Should the resident have raised this concern as a formal complaint in 2017, it is evident that a significant amount of time has now elapsed without the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman. This complaint would therefore be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Similarly, should the resident’s reports in 2020/2021 be the first instance he raised this concern as a formal complaint, this would also be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

f) concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

In or around early 2020, the resident began a legal disrepair claim in relation to the repair issues in his property, including a pest infestation, damage to the walls, and damp and mould. It is evident that legal proceedings were filed in relation to this claim, which included submissions from the parties.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to disrepair at the resident’s property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Various elements of the communications in relation to the disrepair case also relate to the resident’s decant and request for a property transfer, and so the investigation below will refer to these communications where necessary.
In summary, this investigation will not address the resident’s application to purchase a property through the right to buy scheme in 2017, nor will it comment on the repair issues with the property that have been subject to the legal disrepair claim.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 18 August 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a two bedroom flat. At the time the resident moved into the property with his wife and two children. Between then and now, the resident’s family size grew to two adults and six children.
The tenancy agreement notes that the property must be used as the resident’s only principle home. The tenancy agreement further notes that the resident must not allow the number of occupants to exceed the four listed in the tenancy.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that it will not consider complaints where legal action has already been instigated by the resident.
The landlord operates a decant policy. The most recent version of the policy has been in operation since 2017. The policy notes that a ‘permanent decant’ is “when a resident is moved out of their property and there is no intention to return the resident back to that property at a later date.” A ‘temporary decant’ is described as “when a resident is moved out of their property to enable significant work to be carried out and where the intention is to return the resident back to that property at the earliest opportunity.” The policy also notes that residents will be expected to return to their property once works have been completed.
The landlord’s most recent allocations policy has been in operation since May 2020. One of the objectives of the policy is to provide accommodation to relieve overcrowding. The policy notes the landlord uses a bidding system which utilises banding to determine priority. Band A (the highest band) includes circumstances where an applicant is confirmed as being “Statutorily Overcrowded as per Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985 as assessed by a local authority Environmental Health Department.” It also includes applicants that “fit into two or more categories in Band B and is judged to have a higher overall priority following assessment by the Lettings Panel.” Band B includes “an applicant is currently severely overcrowded (i.e. by two or more bedrooms),” or an applicant who has “an urgent medical need seriously affected by their current housing.” The policy further notes that the resident can appeal the landlord’s decisions made under the policy and the “case will be referred to the Lettings Panel. Any provision in this policy may be waived in exceptional and limited circumstances at the discretion of the Lettings Panel.”

Summary of events

In or around March 2020, the resident and his family was temporarily decanted in order to allow the landlord to carry out repairs, pest control works, and a mould wash to his property as part of works identified during his legal disrepair claim. At the time of the decant, the landlord advised the period of the decant would be four weeks. The landlord did not have appropriate properties available in its stock and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel rooms in the area were unavailable. The resident and his family were therefore decanted into privately rented accommodation, which had three bedrooms.
It is evident that around this time, the resident also requested to be moved to a larger property given that his existing property was no longer suitable for the size of his family. The landlord subsequently assisted the resident to register with its online bidding system, as well as its ‘home swapper’ system. It also signposted him to register with other schemes and the local authority. It also noted the lack of availability of four bed properties, and so provided the resident with a declaration for him to sign which would allow him to bid on three bed properties. It advised that while a three bed property was not ideal, it would be an improvement on the existing two bed property, and may be available sooner than a four bed property.
The resident was given Band B priority for bidding on properties. The landlord confirmed this was based on the overcrowding in his existing property. In or around May 2020, the resident expressed his desire for greater priority. The landlord advised that based on the current evidence, only Band B would apply. Regarding further evidence, it signposted him to obtain “a hazard awareness from the Environmental Health team from the local authority.” It did not go into detail about what the hazard awareness notice should include. It also advised to provide any relevant medical evidence for it to consider.
On 3 June 2020, the resident provided medical evidence relating to health conditions affecting several of his family members. It is evident, however, that this evidence did not change the resident’s banding.
The resident also noted the landlord had previously been provided with a hazard awareness notice. The landlord replied that the existing “hazard information does not state you are statutory overcrowded so as advised please ask the local authority to come out and do an inspection of your property.” It reiterated this advice on 15 June 2020.
Following the initial decant, there was extensive correspondence between the resident’s legal representative and the landlord’s legal representatives in relation to the legal disrepair claim. As part of the claim, both parties arranged for various surveyors to assess the property and identify further works. As a result, the period of the decant was extended a number of times. On each occasion, the landlord kept the resident informed of the period of extension. The period of each extension would usually be a couple of weeks to a month.
The original decant property was not available for the full period of the decant, and so the resident had to move twice during this time. Throughout the period of the decant, the landlord arranged for and paid for the storage of some of the resident’s belongings.
On 16 June 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint about the overcrowding in his existing property and his application for a new property. It is not disputed that the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss the complaint but was unable to get through. On 10 July 2020, the landlord advised it had closed the complaint on the basis that the resident did not respond to its calls.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had closed the complaint on this basis, and the landlord subsequently reopened the complaint and provided its stage one response on 4 August 2020. It defined the complaint as the resident’s request to be permanently relocated to the decant property given that he had been decanted for over three months. The landlord confirmed that the decant property was provided on a temporary basis only, and that the resident must return to the initial property once the works have been completed. It further confirmed the resident should continue to bid on alternative properties.
The resident subsequently clarified that he had not wished to necessarily be moved permanently to the decant property, but to any property with a suitable amount of bedrooms. He further clarified that it was his understanding that given that he had been in the decant property for three months, he should be considered as ‘permanently’ decanted, and therefore eligible for Band A priority. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this.
In November 2020, the landlord advised that the property was ready to return to. However; at a final inspection, the landlord identified issues with condensation in the property and so agreed to extend the decant while it addressed this. In December 2020, the landlord confirmed all works had been completed. At this time, however, a member of the resident’s family had COVID-19, and so the landlord agreed to extend the decant while they recovered.
On 25 January 2021, the resident identified a suitable property on the landlord’s bidding system and requested it give him priority for this property. The landlord replied on 1 February 2021 and advised it would be unable to circumvent the priority system. It once again noted the resident should approach the local authority to be declared as statutory overcrowded. It further clarified that while his banding noted he was overcrowded, this differed from statutory overcrowding, which was a finding only the local authority could make.
On 2 March 2021, the landlord advised that the property was now ready to move into, but that it would extend the period of the decant while the resident arranged for a statutory overcrowding assessment. The resident also provided the landlord with additional supporting letters regarding medical conditions affecting his family. The landlord passed these to its independent medical assessor; however, on 17 March 2021 it confirmed his banding would not be increased based on this evidence.
It is evident that the resident contacted the local authority in March 2021 to arrange for an overcrowding assessment; however, based on the context of the communications, the local authority was not immediately available to carry out this inspection. Around this time, the landlord agreed to extend the decant as it had identified further works in the property.
The local authority provided the landlord with a hazard awareness notice on 28 May 2021. The notice identified that there was a “crowding and space” hazard present, and that the property was occupied by a “family of seven persons who require four bedrooms.” The notice also stated that “there are no works which could be carried out to provide more space to the dwelling, therefore no work is required.”
On 3 June 2021, the landlord advised the local authority that it considered the hazard awareness notice to be different from a finding of statutory overcrowding in accordance with Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985. The local authority replied that the hazard awareness notice had been issued in accordance with the Housing Act 2004, which “replaced the Fitness Standard (s604 Housing Act 1985 (as amended)). The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) supersedes the Housing Act 1985 which you are referring to.” The landlord replied that it was aware of the different acts, but that it still considered a declaration of statutory overcrowding was required. It noted that other local authorities it dealt with provided such declarations. The local authority concluded that “the ‘statutory overcrowded’ term you refer to is based on [the landlord’s] allocation policy and not something local authorities or current legislation recognise.”
The resident subsequently queried if his banding would now be changed. The landlord replied (through his legal representative) that while the hazard awareness notice stated the property was overcrowded, it “makes it clear there is nothing further which the landlord can do to remedy this.” The landlord further noted that based on the bedroom standard cited in the hazard awareness notice, living rooms could be used as a bedroom. It noted the various ages of the resident’s children, and calculated that the bedroom standard had not been contravened. It advised that the decant period would now be brought to a close, and that if the resident refused to return to the property, it would consider issuing a Notice to Quit.
Around this time, the resident referred his concerns to this service. This service subsequently requested that the landlord open a new complaint and provide its formal response. The landlord provided its stage one response on 24 June 2021. It noted that the property had been ready to return to since 27 May 2021, and that it required the resident to return. It encouraged him to continuing bidding on suitable properties. Regarding the issue of overcrowding, it advised it would not comment on the basis it anticipated this would be subject to legal action (specifically that it was its intention to begin possession proceedings).
The resident subsequently noted the response had not addressed the period of the decant and requested the complaint be escalated to stage two.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord issued a Notice to Quit citing breach of tenancy obligations given the resident’s refusal to return to the property. It further advised that it would not provide a stage two response given that legal proceeding had now begun.
In or around late July 2021, the landlord confirmed it would no longer be funding the decant property, and this would become the responsibility of the resident. The resident subsequently requested additional time to move out. The landlord confirmed it had extended the decant property until 11 August 2021 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident and his family returned to the property around this time and the landlord subsequently withdrew its notice to quit. It also confirmed it would reopen its complaint investigation as the legal action (Notice to Quit proceedings) had ended.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 6 September 2021. It acknowledged that the period of the decant would have been distressing, but explained this had been due to a number of factors, such as COVID-19 delays, and additional works agreed to by both parties. It also acknowledged that the resident having to move to different properties during the decant period would have been distressing, but that this had been unavoidable due to the availability of those properties. Regarding overcrowding, it agreed that the property was overcrowded, but that this had already been considered when awarding Band B.
In or around November 2021, following the birth of the resident’s new baby, the landlord’s bidding system automatically updated the resident’s bedroom requirement to five. This resulted in him being unable to bid on four or three bed properties. The resident reported this on 8 November 2021. On 9 November 2021, the landlord replied and explained what had happened. It provided the resident with a waiver allowing him to bid again on four and three bedroom properties. The landlord also advised it had held a panel meeting regarding the resident’s situation, and based on the local authority’s position that it did not make statutory overcrowding declarations, it had used its discretion to change the resident’s banding to Band A.
The resident expressed his gratitude for this decision, and also requested that his priority be increased based on further medical evidence. The landlord confirmed that Band A was the highest band, and that it could not be increased even with additional evidence.
The resident had advised this service that as of March 2023, he is still at the two bed property and has so far been unsuccessful in bidding on new properties. He has also advised that he is experiencing ongoing issues with mould, which had previously been raised as part of the legal disrepair claim. It is evident that the landlord has continued to arrange mould washes to address this. Based on an internal communication of the landlord, the landlord attributes this to condensation caused by overcrowding in the property.

Assessment and findings

Decant

Where necessary works to a property will negatively impact a resident in occupation, or otherwise cause the property to be unsafe for the duration of the works, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for residents to be temporarily decanted. In this case, it is not disputed that a decant was necessary during the works identified during the disrepair claim.
The initial decant took place in March 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord worked with the resident to find accommodation that suited his needs including proximity to his work and his children’s schools. This was not an immediate process given the resident’s requirements and the availability of suitable properties, but the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident throughout.
Once a suitable property was found, the landlord appropriately advised the expected duration of the decant, being four weeks based on the works identified at that time.
It is not disputed that there were numerous additional inspections of the property as part of the ongoing disrepair case, which significantly extended the duration of the decant. On each occasion, the landlord appropriately informed the resident that the period of the decant had been increased and provided a new date for the resident to return to the property.
The Ombudsman also notes that throughout the period of the decant, the landlord arranged for the resident’s possessions, such as furniture and larger items, to be kept in storage. It also arranged for the resident’s removalists when moving back to the property. This was in line with its policies and best practice.
As part of his initial complaint in June 2020, the resident noted his understanding that as he had been decanted for a period of three months, he should be considered permanently decanted. The landlord’s decant policy which was in effect at the time of the complaint does not note that a three month decant will automatically be considered a permanent decant. Instead, a permanent decant is where there is no intention to return the resident to the property. It is evident that while there were ongoing delays, it was still the landlord’s intention throughout the period of the complaint for the resident to return to his initial property. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not consider this to have been a permanent decant.
The landlord appropriately articulated that the decant was not a permanent decant in its stage one response dated 4 August 2020. It subsequently missed the opportunity to correct the resident’s understanding about when a decant was a permanent decant as it is not evident that it provided a stage two response, as discussed further below. However, it made its position clear that it did not consider the resident’s decant to be a permanent decant in multiple communications.
Following the completion of the works, it is not disputed that the resident expressed reluctance to return to his property, given his concerns about overcrowding. On multiple occasions, he requested to extend his period in the decanted property, for example while arranging for the local authority to inspect the property. There were also occasions that while additional works had been identified, they did not necessarily require the resident to remain decanted while they were carried out. The landlord appropriately used its discretion to extend the decant on such occasions. The landlord has also advised that it incurred approximately £40,000 in expenses between May 2021 (when the property was ready for the resident to return to) and the time the resident returned to the property. The landlord has advised this service that it has not sought to recover this money.
Given that the decant was temporary, it was reasonable for the landlord to require the resident to leave the temporary property when it was no longer needed. The resident remained a tenant of the original two bed property, and as such, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to return. Given the resident’s reluctance, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider enforcement action. The landlord also appropriately warned the tenant and his legal representative that it would consider this action on several occasions before proceeding. While this would have been distressing for the resident, given that it was a term of the tenancy agreement that the resident use the property as his primary home, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to end the tenancy if the resident no longer intended to use the property as his primary home. The impact of the landlord’s Notice to Quit on its complaint response is discussed further below.
It is not disputed that the resident moved between three properties during the decant period. The Ombudsman has seen correspondence from the private providers of the decant properties which note that they were unable to accommodate extensions. While it would have been inconvenient for the resident to move, this was outside of the landlord’s control and unforeseeable given that the initial period of the works was expected to have been shorter. While the landlord missed the opportunity to recognise this inconvenience in its stage one response dated 24 June 2021, it appropriately acknowledged it and explained the circumstances in its stage two response. The landlord also appropriately recognised the distress that the extend of the decant period would have caused, but again outlined the explanations for the length of the period, which were reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the Ombudsman understands that living in temporary accommodation for over a year would have had a significant impact on the resident and his family. However, given the required works in the property, the decant and subsequent extensions were reasonable, and the changes to the decant property were beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord kept in communication with the resident (or his legal representative) throughout this period, and its actions were in accordance with its policies.

Transfer request

The Ombudsman considers it is best practice for a landlord to have a robust policy in place to assess the needs of applicants for housing. This ensures that its limited housing stock is awarded in a fair and transparent manner.
Following the resident’s request to be transferred to a new property, the landlord appropriately made him aware of its policies and the systems it had in place for bidding on such properties. It also appropriately signposted him to alternative systems such as Home Swapper, and to other providers of social housing.
It is not disputed that the landlord agreed that the resident’s property was overcrowded. Based on its policies, the landlord awarded the resident Band B, which includes properties that are “severely overcrowded.”
The landlord also appropriately encouraged the resident to provide further evidence for assessment, such as medical evidence. The resident provided such evidence, and the landlord subsequently arranged for its independent medical examiner to assess the need. The landlord then appropriately informed the resident in a timely manner that based on the assessment, the medical evidence had not changed his banding.
The landlord’s banding policy notes that for medical evidence to result in Band A, there needs to be an “emergency” medical need, whereas Band B requires an “urgent” medical need. It is evident the resident’s medical evidence did not result in an award of Band A. However, the landlord did not make it clear if the assessment resulted in a separate Band B for an urgent medical need. If this had been the case, the resident may have been eligible for Band A on the basis that he had two qualifying Band B needs, as per the landlord’s policy. Given the resident’s ongoing concern, the landlord should have been clearer on this point to ensure every avenue could be explored or understood by the resident.
The landlord’s allocations policy notes that Band A may be awarded if a finding of statutory overcrowding is made. The landlord gave prompt advice to the resident on a number of occasions that the local authority needed to determine if there was statutory overcrowding, and it appropriately signposted him to the local authority. While it initially used the term “hazard awareness” in relation to this evidence, it quickly clarified it needed a statutory overcrowding declaration.
It is evident that throughout the period of the complaint, the resident had been in contact with the local authority regarding an application for housing with the local authority. It is also evident that the local authority had made a finding regarding its own processes that there was overcrowding in the existing property. It is not evident, however, that the resident had requested the local authority to specifically determine if there was statutory overcrowding until around March 2021.
In May 2021, the local authority provided the landlord with a hazard awareness notice which stated there was overcrowding. The landlord subsequently informed the local authority that it did not consider this to be a declaration of statutory overcrowding, and that other local authorities that it dealt with issued such declarations. The local authority advised that based on its understanding of current legislation, the hazard awareness notice should be sufficient, and that it was unaware of the concept of statutory overcrowding. Following this the landlord made no further attempts to resolve the situation with the local authority. It also informed the resident that based on the hazard awareness notice, it was not required to take any action.
The hazard awareness notice provided by the local authority was broken down into two schedules. Schedule 2 stated that there were “no works which could be carried out to provide more space to the dwelling, therefore no work is required.” However, schedule 1 stated that the resident required a property with four bedrooms. It may, therefore, have been confusing for the resident when the landlord stated that there was no required actions from them based on the notice.
The landlord had already taken the resident’s overcrowding into consideration and applied its policy accordingly. It did not explain this properly to the resident. Instead, it told the resident that based on the local authority’s bedroom standard, there was no overcrowding. If the landlord disagreed with the finding in the hazard awareness notice, this is something it should have raised with the local authority, instead of communicating to the resident that it would not consider any further action.
The landlord’s allocations policy repeatedly makes reference to a lettings panel. The lettings panel should be convened when a resident appeals a decision by the landlord regarding the application of its policy. The lettings panel also has the power to waive the requirements set out in the allocations policy in certain circumstances. It is evident that the resident repeatedly appealed the landlord’s decisions regarding his banding; however, at no point did the landlord raise the possibility of convening the lettings panel to consider a review. Given that it initially refused to accept the hazard awareness notice as a declaration of statutory overcrowding, despite the local authority stating it would not make a separate declaration, this left the resident with no avenue to be able to satisfy the landlord’s requirements for Band A.
Ultimately, the landlord did convene a lettings panel itself, and it determined that the resident should be awarded Band A. This was an appropriate use of its discretion given the local authority’s position. However, the lettings panel was not convened until October 2021, some five months after the local authority’s hazard awareness notice was issued. The landlord has noted that the date from which the banding would apply was 25 October 2021. Given the resident’s repeated appeals, it is not evident why the landlord did not convene a lettings panel review earlier, as per its policies. This unreasonably caused his appropriate banding to be delayed by five months.
In summary, the landlord initially applied its policies appropriately. It awarded the appropriate banding based on its assessment and policies, and signposted the resident to obtain further evidence and assessment through the local authority. However, the landlord should have convened a lettings panel to review the resident’s circumstances at a much earlier point. The landlord’s delay in doing so resulted in the resident’s banding remaining as Band B for an additional five months. Additionally, the landlord failed to inform the resident of the possibility of a lettings panel, or of whether its assessment of the medical evidence would have resulted in a separate Band B award.
The failure of the landlord to follow its own allocations policy amounts to maladministration, for which an order for compensation is appropriate. The Ombudsman orders £1,000 compensation, being £500 for the delay to its lettings panel review, and a further £500 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing up appeals to its initial position regarding statutory overcrowding. Additionally, an order has been made for the resident’s Band A priority to be backdated to the date of the local authority’s hazard awareness notice, being 28 May 2021.
The resident has informed this service that he does not currently have the ability to bid on properties with four or three bedrooms. A recommendation has therefore also been made for the landlord to contact him and ensure this facility is made available.

Complaints handling

The resident initially raised a formal complaint in June 2020. The landlord sought to investigate the complaint by discussing the resident’s concerns. This is an appropriate step, in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. The landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone, but was unsuccessful. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make reasonable alternative attempts to contact him. Its disrepair team and housing officer were in continual communication with him by email, and so it was evident this was an option. The landlord did not do this, however, and instead chose to close the complaint. This would have been distressing for the resident, who was not given the opportunity to discuss his complaint or provide further information. It was therefore appropriate that following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord reopened the complaint and provided its stage one response.
The landlord’s stage one response misinterpreted the complaint as a request by the resident to remain permanently at the decant property. While this was not a request the resident had made, the landlord nevertheless explained why the resident was required to move back into his initial property following the works, and that his options for moving to a new property were to use the landlord’s various bidding or home swapper systems. The landlord’s misinterpretation of the complaint therefore did not have a significant impact on its response.
Following the stage one response, the resident clarified his complaint, and noted his understanding was that he should be considered for Band A due to the time spent in a decanted property. While he did not explicitly make a complaint escalation request, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to escalate the complaint based on the content of his communication, or otherwise provide its position on the resident’s queries. It is not evident that the landlord did this, which left the resident without a final answer to his concerns.
While some of the resident’s concerns were subject to legal proceedings, the concerns relating to the decant and his application for a transfer were separate to this. It was therefore appropriate that following the intervention of this service, the landlord opened a new complaint and provided a new stage one response.
The stage one response helpfully set out the landlord’s current position regarding the property being available to return to, but failed to address the resident’s concerns about the time spent in the decant property. This was a missed opportunity to recognise the impact that a year in temporary accommodation would have had on the resident and his family.
The landlord’s policy notes that it will not respond to complaints where a resident has initiated legal proceedings in relation to the subject matter of the complaint. The policy does not state that the landlord will not respond if it has instigated the proceedings. In this case, the landlord declined to comment on the resident’s concerns about overcrowding as it intended to issue a Notice to Quit. At this time, the landlord had not initiated any proceedings and so should have responded to the resident’s concerns. When the landlord did issue a notice to quite, this was on the basis that the resident was refusing to return to his property. Again, this should not have prevented the landlord from providing its position on whether the property was overcrowded. The Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable to decline to provide a formal complaint response in these circumstances, nor does the landlord’s policy allow it do so.
Additionally, once the landlord’s issued the Notice to Quit, it declined to provide a stage two response to any of the resident’s concerns, despite the fact that the concerns about the decant were unrelated.
The landlord did provide a response to the resident following its withdrawal of the notice to quit. However, the reason for failing to provide a response based on anticipated legal proceedings denied the resident the response he was entitled to. This, along with the failure to escalate his earlier complaint, amounted to maladministration. An amount of £200 compensation is ordered to reflect the impact of this on the resident. £100 should be paid for the landlord’s initial early closure of the complaint and subsequent failure to escalate the complaint, and a further £100 for its refusal to discuss issues based on legal proceedings it anticipated and subsequently issued.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraphs 42(b) and/or (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s application to purchase a property through the right to buy scheme is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, as noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to disrepair at the resident’s property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its handling of the resident’s decant into temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the resident’s request for a property transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Decant

While the length of the decant would have been distressing for the resident, this was based on further works being identified by the parties, along with the resident’s reluctance to return to the overcrowded property. The landlord appropriately extended the decant where necessary, and provided timely communications about the end of the decant. Its decision to pursue enforcement action was also reasonable and came only after several warnings.

Transfer request

While the landlord initially applied its policy correctly and gave the resident appropriate advice, it later failed to apply its policy for a lettings panel review in relation to the difficulties in obtaining a statutory overcrowding declaration from the local authority.

Complaints handling

The landlord initially failed to provide a stage two response following the resident’s expressions of concern about its original stage one response.
Regarding its later formal responses, the landlord misapplied its complaints policy in relation to legal action, which led to it providing an insufficient response, and causing an unreasonable delay to its stage two response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,200, comprising:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to consider the resident’s appeals regarding its overcrowding decision;
2. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to ensure the resident’s Band A priority is backdated to 28 May 2021.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident and ensure he is able to bid on four and three bed properties, as per its earlier offer.