A2Dominion Housing Options Limited (202004822)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004822

A2Dominion Housing Options Limited

28 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request to be rehomed due to overcrowding and medical needs; and
   2. the landlord’s offers of accommodation in December 2021.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
3. The resident moved to the property with a starter fixed term tenancy commencing in May 2012. The evidence on file suggests that the landlord was aware the resident needed a three-bedroom home from 19 January 2017. The resident was issued an assured shorthold tenancy in March 2019 for a further five years. At that time, the two bedrooms will have been occupied by the resident and her partner, their daughter (aged nine) and four sons (aged between seven and one year old). The resident has also provided evidence that her household were under stress and pressure on the basis that her partner was suffering physical and mental illness, her son had been diagnosed with autism, the property was overcrowded and the property was affected by mould.
4. The resident made a number of applications for her rehousing priority to be reconsidered by the landlord from January 2019. In September 2020, the landlord concluded that the resident should be placed in Band A, which is the highest priority under its allocations policy.
5. The resident complained that her circumstances, as specified in her application in January 2019, were no different to her application in September 2020. She also explained the local authority had placed her into band A before the landlord had. Therefore, she said her priority (band A) should be backdated to January 2019.
6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 7 June 2021. The landlord said:
   1. The previous policy applicable in 2019 was different to the current policy.
   2. When the policy changed the resident’s priority was considered again.
   3. On that basis, the landlord was unable to backdate the priority (band A) back to 2019.
   4. The council’s allocation policy differed from the landlord’s policy (as that was a statutory policy).
7. The resident did not agree with the decision. On 2 July 2021, she asked for her complaint to be escalated on the following basis:
   1. The landlord ought to have awarded higher banding because of the significant overcrowding and medical conditions much sooner than it did.
   2. The medical evidence showed that one of her sons needed to have his own room because of his autism.
   3. The resident felt she had been fighting with the landlord to have her priority corrected.
   4. The landlord had been responsible for lack of communication during her applications.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 9 August 2021, in which it stated:
   1. It could have communicated more quickly with the resident in respect of her applications. It apologised for the delays.
   2. The resident was offered weekly calls on a set day to overcome the communication issues.
   3. The resident was offered an intermediate rented property, but the resident would lose her security of tenure. The resident declined the property due to the increased rent.
   4. The landlord’s independent medical advisor (‘the IMA’) awarded the resident band B on 17 September 2020, based on the evidence the resident had presented. Its panel had allowed the resident to be prioritised to band A shortly after.
   5. Its lettings panel was prepared to allow the resident to bid on properties smaller than her need to ensure that she obtained a move more quickly.
9. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and having previously referred the complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2020, the resident wanted this Service to investigate.
10. On 27 January 2022, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the resident was offered two four-bedroom homes in December 2021. This was in addition to an intermediate market rent three-bedroom property offered in August 2020. The resident had rejected all these properties. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s offer of the properties (in December 2021).

Assessment and findings

The complaint about the properties offered in December 2021

11. 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 or aspects of a complaint cannot be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that complaint about the properties offered in December 2021 will not be investigated by the Ombudsman.
12. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
13. The Ombudsman has made this decision because the resident’s complaint regarding the properties offered in December 2021 has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The evidence shows that the substantive complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in August 2021. However, the offers of accommodation were made after this date in December 2021. There is no evidence the resident has raised a formal complaint at this time.

The complaint about the handling of the transfer application

14. It is important to set the context that there is a chronic shortage of social housing across England. Those competing for homes are those who are homeless, fleeing serious domestic violence and anti-social behaviour, along with those with a medical emergency to move home. That means it is integral that landlords must consider rehousing applications carefully and based on the risk to occupants. Inevitably that will mean some residents will be given more priority over others when they apply to move home. Landlords are required to apply their policies and procedures when considering the applications.
15. Paragraph 2.3 of the landlord’s policy states that all priority decisions will have a ‘priority effective date,’ which is usually the date the resident was accepted onto the rehousing register. The clause further states that where there has been a change of circumstances and priority is reassessed, the priority effective date will be the date the application move to the new band.
16. In this case, the landlord considered the new evidence on 17 September 2020 and increased the resident’s priority to band A. Therefore, the priority effective date would be 17 September 2020.
17. The resident disagrees with this. She states the landlord ought to have made the decision it did in September 2020 sooner, in January 2019. She states for that reason, the priority effective date should be January 2019. She further asserts that the IMA was not suitably qualified to make the decisions it did.
18. The question in this case is whether the resident’s banding should be backdated to the date of her application in January 2019. It is the resident’s case that it should. She asserts that the evidence provided for the IMA in 2020 was identical to the information provided earlier.
19. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord referred queries to the IMA and received advice on 23 January 2019, which resulted in overcrowding banding (Band B) and medical banding (Band C) being awarded. Whilst the resident did not agree with this, it appears the landlord took the advice of the IMA. The most recent report highlights that overcrowding of itself is not a medical ground to move home.
20. The resident sent further evidence for the landlord to consider in January 2020. This was referred to the IMA, but no further priority was awarded at that time.
21. In June 2020, the landlord updated its allocation policy, and a lettings panel came into force. The panel was introduced to objectively assess whether an applicant should be offered a direct let or banding increased.
22. The evidence shows the landlord made further referrals to the IMA on 9 July 2020, 14 July 2020, and 15 July 2020.
23. Under the policy, the resident had the right to appeal a banding decision made by the landlord. On 7 August 2020, an application to the panel was submitted. On 12 August 2020, the panel rejected the appeal. Whilst it agreed the need for the resident and their family to move, there was insufficient evidence to show the resident’s circumstances were exceptional.
24. On 24 August 2020, the landlord offered the resident a three-bedroom house, which she rejected. It is clear from this, that the landlord was keeping the resident’s circumstances under review and had made an offer of another home.
25. The resident applied to the panel again. It issued a decision on 4 September 2020, again rejecting her request to be in band A. It said the application had been correctly banded in accordance with the allocations policy. The landlord queried whether the resident was statutorily overcrowded.
26. There is evidence that the landlord asked the resident to contact the local authority to inspect the property for overcrowding. It is important to note that the allocations policy states that if the authority made a formal decision that the property was statutorily overcrowded – that would cause the banding to increase. Whilst the resident was dissatisfied with being asked to take this action, the Ombudsman cannot find fault in it.
27. On 16 September 2020, the IMA reconsidered the resident’s application again, following a referral from the landlord. It recommended that the resident should be placed into band B on the basis of the medical evidence and the previous advice given.
28. On 17 September 2020, the landlord awarded the resident band A priority. This was on the basis of her priority for overcrowding and medical grounds compositely.
29. The resident believes it was unreasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of the IMA. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that those who considered and advised on the application were healthcare providers. The landlord is not medically trained; therefore, it took advice on the medical needs of the occupants of the home. The evidence shows that the IMA considered all previous assessments since the application in 2019.
30. Moreover, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the medical advisor who assessed the application on 16 September 2020 is listed as a General Practitioner with the General Medical Council – with a licence to practice medicine (since 2006). As such, there is no evidence to suggest the expert’s recommendations could not be relied upon by the landlord. Importantly, there is no contradictory evidence from a medical practitioner of equal or higher expertise to contradict the information given by the IMA to the landlord. For that reason, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this advice.
31. The landlord clearly explained its position in its responses and offered information on additional options to obtain a higher banding and help facilitate a move. While the resident’s home situation was clearly distressing and frustrating, the landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectations by making them aware of the limited availability of housing stock and that the demand for secure and affordable housing outweighed the supply. It further explained that it was required by a nomination agreement to give a high percentage of its units back to the local authority for allocation, which made securing a move more challenging.
32. It was also reasonable for the landlord to recommend alternative housing options including: an intermediate rented property and the lettings panel offered the resident to bid on three bedroom units even though this was smaller than the resident’s housing need, it would be larger than their current property, alleviate some of the overcrowding and potentially increase their chances of moving.

Conclusions

33. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s housing situation and their concerns, and this is clearly a resident who wants to ensure their children have access to a non-overcrowded home, where her family feel safe.
34. However, there is no evidence that the landlord wrongly applied its policy in 2019. Moreover, it is clear the landlord kept the resident’s circumstances under review between 2019 and 2020. It was in line with its allocation policy for the landlord to rely on the findings of the IMA in determining whether additional priority should be given on medical grounds. The landlord also took reasonable steps to offer alternative housing options to facilitate a move to alleviate overcrowding.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s offers of accommodation in December 2021 have not been investigated by the Ombudsman. This is because there is no evidence a formal complaint has been raised or that it has exhausted the complaint procedure.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be rehomed due to overcrowding and medical needs.