A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202112428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112428

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 March 2024

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 handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 15 April 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The substantive tenancy is a 2 bedroom property. The resident lives with her 2 children.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident had been decanted previously for works to be undertaken in the property due to leaks in the pipework which caused significant damp and mould. The resident returned to her property and those same works subsequently failed. The resident made a formal complaint (prior to this complaint) to the landlord which was escalated to stage 2 as the landlord had been unable to find alternative accommodation for the resident and so she was left living in the damp and mould conditions. In the landlord’s stage 2 response for that complaint, it advised the resident that it had secured temporary accommodation for her to be decanted again from 21 December 2021 onwards.
The landlord subsequently said that it was “pleased that it had agreed to move [the resident] on a permanent basis.” It further stated that it would continue to “look for an alternative permanent home” for her. It did not explicitly state anything about returning, or not returning to her original property in that stage 2 response.
On 24 October 2022, following a conversation with the resident, the landlord advised that works on her original property were not yet complete and the let had been extended on her current decant accommodation. It confirmed that she was eligible for a permanent move. It understood that the resident had not commenced bidding, because she did not wish to move into a like-for-like property. She said she needed a larger 3 bedroom property due to her child’s additional needs. The landlord advised that the resident would need to submit relevant medical evidence to support such a request. It also advised that if works were completed on her property prior to her securing a permanent move, she would be required to move back while still retaining her band A status.
The resident said that she was confused by the landlord’s comments as she had not received login details to begin bidding. She said she had also previously been told that there was no point in her bidding until medical evidence had been submitted as she may have been eligible for a 3 bed property. She further said that the landlord was aware of the mental health issues she faced due to the ongoing problems at her property and confirmed she had received correspondence from social services and the community mental health team that expressed that she should not return to the property. She said returning would cause her “extreme anxiety”, and while she was aware she could not stay in a temporary decant accommodation forever, she asked that she be allowed to stay until a permanent property was found.
The resident made a formal complaint on 21 November 2022, in which she said:
1. The landlord was going back on its word by telling her that she now needed to move back to her original property.
2. There was no suggestion in her previous stage 2 complaint response that she would be expected to move back to the original property once the works required had been completed.
3. Her mental health was suffering again due to the stress caused by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident was undated but said:
1. It noted that the resident had been decanted for a second time in December 2021, and because of that, the landlord agreed that the resident would be moved on a permanent basis to alternative permanent accommodation. She was also awarded a band A priority to allow her to bid on new accommodation.
2. It was sorry that the resident had anxiety about moving back to her original property because of the experience she had with repairs and decants.
3. Work was due to begin on her original property.
4. It had considered the resident’s experience and agreed she could retain her band A priority for her to bid on alternative accommodation; however, it could not allow her to remain in temporary accommodation until that move had been secured. It was unable to continue to incur the costs of the private rental decant accommodation.
5. It accepted that it could have been clearer in explaining how a move to permanent accommodation would be processed, specifically in relation to confirming how her priority banding would be increased, and by sending her information on how to bid and details of the platforms she could register on to allow her to bid on properties.
6. It confirmed it had re-sent her a link to its housing transfer system and confirmed it had contacted the local authority to obtain a reciprocal agreement so that she could bid on their properties as well.
7. The priority had been awarded on a like-for-like basis for a 2 bedroom property and confirmed that the banding could only be changed if it was awarded via a medical assessment.
8. It accepted its standards had slipped and offered £75 compensation to acknowledge the lack of accurate communication and £75 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 13 December 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had not taken into consideration the medical evidence supplied to the landlord.
2. She had it in writing that her move would be permanent and that she would not be returning to her original property.
3. The landlord was now backtracking and saying that when works were completed to her original property in 6 months’ time, she would be expected to move back in.
4. She felt her mental health was now suffering as a result.
5. The landlord was aware she had been decanted twice in the past 4 years and that the problem had not been resolved. She was upset that the landlord was suggesting she would have to move back in.
6. She felt the £75 compensation offered did not help and was not something she would consider.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 25 January 2023. It said:
1. It had considered all the documentation submitted by the resident and had used that, along with the fact that her property had suffered repeated leaks, to offer the resident a “permanent decant”. She was therefore given Band A to bid on a property of her choice.
2. The resident was assessed as needing 2 bedrooms, so that was what she could bid on.
3. It had agreed with the local authority for the resident to bid on suitable properties with them and while the landlord had attempted to follow this up to obtain next steps for the resident, it had been unable to do so and so apologised for this.
4. It understood that the resident wished to bid on 3 bedroom properties due to her son’s autism; however, it said it would need to see the relevant NHS assessments so they could arrange for the resident to be reassessed for an additional bedroom.
5. It had not changed its position with regards to a permanent move, and the resident would retain her Band A priority. However, the landlord said it expected works on the resident’s property to be completed within 6 months, and therefore the resident would be expected to return to that property while still being able to bid for another permanent property.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it had discussed her with its head of service on 14 March 2023. It said:
1. It accepted that the resident was anxious about moving back to her original property due to the leak not being fixed properly following her first decant.
2. It had recognised that anxiety and awarded the resident the highest banding, and it understood that the resident had not been bidding as she wished for a 3 bedroom property.
3. It had secured her current temporary accommodation until December 2023, and the resident could remain there until that date. If she had not secured another property prior to that date, she would be expected to move back to her original property.
4. It wished to review the resident’s current position to allow her to bid on 3 bedroom properties, and this would be presented to the relevant panel in due course for consideration.
On 5 April 2023, following the landlord’s consideration of its allocations and decant policy, it confirmed that the resident was now eligible to bid on 3 bedroom properties due to the age of her children.
In December 2023, as the resident had been decanted out of her property for over a year, the landlord confirmed it could make a direct offer of a 3 bedroom property to the resident as per its decant policy, and they had one available. The Ombudsman understands that the resident did not accept this property due to its location and is still currently decanted in temporary accommodation.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said the landlord had ignored her medical evidence in relation to returning to her original property. She said she wanted to remain in the temporary accommodation until a suitable property could be found.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within this report, reference is made to the previous complaint lodged by the resident and the corresponding responses from the landlord. It is important to emphasise that this investigation does not take into account the landlord’s handling of that specific complaint, or any evidence associated with it. The mention of the complaint response serves solely as contextual information in this instance, and the Ombudsman has not considered any evidence from the previous complaint process when making a determination in this a case.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact that the thought of returning to her original property had had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination about the causal link between the issues raised and the resident’s health. However, the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused has been taken into account. A determination relating to damage caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for an insurance claim or through the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s decant policy refers to a permanent decant as:
1. When you are moved out of your home and there is no intention to return later. This usually happens when a home needs major work or may be demolished.
The landlord’s decant policy refers to a temporary decant as:
1. When you are moved out of your home because it needs significant work carried out and the intention is to return at the earliest opportunity. This move can be planned or can happen immediately.
With regards to a temporary decant, it states that residents would retain their tenancy on the original property and could expect to return when works had been completed.
It also states that where a resident has been in a home not owned by the landlord and has lived there for over one year, the resident may have their banding increased to Band A to allow the resident to bid for alternative accommodation. It states that banding would remain in place for the duration of the decant and would be removed once the remediation work on the original property was completed, at which point the resident would be expected to move back into their original home.

Permanent move

In its previous stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to relocate the resident on a “permanent basis” and assured her that they would continue searching for an alternative permanent property. However, the stage 2 response did not explicitly state that the resident would need to return to her previous property. The landlord acknowledged that its wording could have been clearer, but it was understandable that the resident believed she would be permanently moved based on that response. The ambiguous wording allowed room for the resident to believe that the offer of an alternative permanent property meant she wouldn’t have to return to her original property. The landlord should have provided a clearer response outlining its intentions.
When communicating with residents, landlords need to ensure they are clear in their responses. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out the expectations, process and if possible, a broad timeline with regards to the permanent move it had offered. Doing so would have helped to manage the expectations of the resident during her temporary decant and would have provided clarity. This is of particular importance in this case given that this was the second time the resident had been decanted for the same reasons. Not providing clear and transparent information on the nature of the decant and its intended temporary nature has caused significant confusion and distress to the resident which ultimately led to the resident raising this complaint.
While it may not have anticipated such a lengthy duration to find other suitable accommodation, the landlord should have reasonably been aware that the bidding process is protracted and lengthy and therefore should have set out its expectations accordingly. Further to this, the landlord made the offer to permanently move the resident in December 2021. It was not until October 2022 that a further update was provided to the resident, when it said she would be expected to move back to the property. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have communicated with the resident about the property’s status during its renovation, especially considering that 10 months had passed since the resident moved out. The expectation to move back was unexpected and this impacted on the resident.
The landlord’s decant policy states that where a resident had been decanted for over a year, they would have their banding increased to Band A. This would be removed once any remedial works had been completed on the original property. In this case, the landlord appropriately agreed that the resident would retain her Band A priority upon her return to her original property. As required by the decant policy a year had not yet passed at the time, but it was appropriate to offer this in the circumstances given the extended time the decant had gone on for and the significant impact the decant had on the resident. This showed consideration of the circumstances, and this would have helped improve the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident submitted medical evidence to support her request not to return to her original property. The landlord said, in its stage 2 response, that it had considered the evidence and had used it to award a higher banding and offer the “permanent decant”. It was appropriate of the landlord to confirm it had considered the evidence; However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain how it had used the evidence and why it reached its conclusion that the resident could return to her substantive tenancy. Linking the decision to its policy would have helped explain the decision making. It would have been helpful for the resident to clearly understand the decision making. This would have helped to reassure her that the landlord was taking her concerns and medical information onboard. The ineffective communication added to the frustrations of the resident.
The resident raised that she wished to be able to bid on 3 bedroom properties as she had 2 children, one of whom was undergoing neurodiversity assessments and therefore the resident had requested that he have his own bedroom. In responding, the landlord advised it could not consider such a change without medical evidence being submitted. This was a reasonable response and in line with its decant policy, which states that any alternative offer would be for a like-for-like property. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow its policy and procedure in this regard, and it correctly informed the resident of this.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord advised it was going to hold a meeting with its head of housing and director to review the resident’s medical evidence and explore if any further help could be offered to the resident. It was reasonable of the landlord to do this. It showed it was committed to helping the resident resolve the situation. However, the landlord in its stage 2 response said it had reviewed all the evidence submitted by the resident and confirmed the residents current need was for a 2 bedroom property. Therefore, while it was appropriate that the landlord escalate the issue to its head of service, it would have been more appropriate to do this prior to its stage 2 response. Not doing so delayed the outcome for the resident and would have caused distress.
However, it is particularly important to note that in April 2023 the landlord, following it looking at its allocations policy, established that the resident was now eligible for a 3 bedroom property due to her children’s ages. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have been aware of its own allocations policy and the age requirements for room allocations. It therefore could have informed the resident at the earliest opportunity that regardless of any medical evidence submitted, she would be eligible for a 3 bedroom property on the date one of her children turned 17. Not doing so caused the resident to expend unnecessary time submitting medical evidence. In failing to realise this sooner, the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident that she would be eligible for a 3 bedroom property given the proximity to her child’s 17 birthday.
The landlord’s failure to pick up on this also meant the landlord did not need to consider submitting evidence to its panel or cause the resident to expend time worrying if the panel would be agreeable to the request. Given the significant history in this case and the known impact the issue was having on the resident, knowing that on a certain date she would become eligible for a 3 bedroom would have provided reassurance to her, at a time when she was already distressed due to the lack of clarity from the landlord around the nature of her move.
To help the resident expediate a move, the landlord approached the local authority on 16 November 2022, and asked if it would consider a reciprocal arrangement. This showed a commitment by the landlord to help the resident in her situation and showed empathy with her anxieties around moving back to her original property.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised it was in the process of liaising with the local authority so that the resident could register and bid on properties on the local authority letting systems. It said it would follow-up the agreement with the local authority to enable the resident to start bidding. It apologised for the time it had taken to confirm the next steps for the resident. This was reasonable and again highlighted a commitment by the landlord to help the resident to obtain a move.
Following an email from the resident on 3 May 2023, in which she confirmed she had been refused access to the local authority housing register, the landlord appropriately contacted the local authority. However, emails between the local authority and the landlord on the same date highlight that the local authority had not yet approved a reciprocal agreement, and there is no evidence provided to suggest the landlord had followed this up prior to May 2023, 4 months after its stage 2 response. It was therefore not appropriate for the landlord to raise the expectations of the resident that it was seeking to confirm the next steps.
It was not until 13 June 2022, 6 months after it had raised the resident’s expectations, that the local authority confirmed the resident would be eligible for a direct offer of a 2 bedroom property. This was an unreasonable delay and whilst not 100% attributable to the landlord, the delay would have frustrated the resident who had spent the months prior with the hope that her application would be accepted, and she would therefore be able to bid on properties, when this was not the case at all. Landlords should ensure all information given to residents is correct, and its systems should ensure that where follow-up on a task is required, these are picked up and actioned in a timely manner.
When the local authority agreed that the resident was eligible for a direct offer of the 2 bedroom property, the landlord submitted medical evidence on the resident’s behalf to see if that could be changed to allow her to bid on 3 bed properties. Given the circumstances of the case, it was reasonable that the landlord submitted the application on the resident’s behalf and showed a commitment by the landlord to help the resident resolve the situation.
As the landlord was unsure how long the repairs on the resident’s original property would take, the landlord extended the temporary accommodation until December 2023, a year after the second decant began. The landlord advised the resident that she could remain there until December. Securing the property for a fixed period would have reassured the resident that she had time to bid on properties and that she could be settled there for a set period.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord is entitled to decide to end the decant and request the resident return to her substantive tenancy in line with its policy. In doing so the landlord should consider the impact, be reasonable in any assessment of that decision, record and clearly share with the resident its decision making.
In December 2023, the landlord made a direct offer of a 3 bedroom property to the resident. This was in line with its decant policy. However, the resident did not accept this property due to its location and she remains decanted at this time. The Ombudsman understands that any property offered needs to be suitable (in line with the policy) for the resident; however, landlords have access to a limited stock of properties and availability can be unpredictable. Therefore, it is reasonable that alternative offers maybe sporadic and limited in number, by the landlord in line with the decant policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint and advised it had partially upheld the complaint at stage 1 and offered compensation to reflect that, made up of:
1. £75 to acknowledge the lack of accurate communication.
2. £75 for the inconvenience caused.
It is unclear if the offer of compensation made at stage 1 was still being offered following stage 2, especially given that the resident advised she did not accept that amount. The landlord should have been clearer that the compensation was still available and explained how to claim this. Its response was again unclear.
In this case, the landlord advised the resident that she was eligible for a permanent move but did not explain the technicalities or process of that move. Its communication fell short of the standard expected. It did not clearly advise the resident that if the works at her tenancy were completed, she would have to move back to her original home. The lack of clarity in its response caused significant distress to the resident, who had already been decanted previously for the same reasons.
Further to this, she advised she had suffered mental health issues while living with damp and mould in the property and further advised that these feelings were recurring at the thought of returning. The landlord did go some way to help alleviate the resident’s concerns in that it approved a Band A priority for the resident and attempted to obtain a reciprocal agreement with the local authority to help her in the bidding process. The second decant had a significant impact on the resident and her family which the landlord failed to fully consider. The landlord’s unclear communication raised expectations and caused unnecessary distress. Additionally, there was a delay in recognising her eligibility for a 3 bedroom property when her child turned 17. All of this caused further unnecessary distress to the resident who had already suffered distress and inconvenience previously for similar reasons.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £800. Made up of the following:
1. £300 for the failings in its communication.
2. £100 for its delay and communication with regards to its agreement with the local authority.
3. £100 for the failure to properly consider its allocations policy at the earliest opportunity.
4. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff at the landlord must write an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider conducting a review of its communication with residents in relation to decants to ensure that residents have a clear understanding of the nature of their decant and the expectations around it.