Anchor Hanover Group (202003188)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003188

Anchor Hanover Group

21 December 2020


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 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 concerns the landlord’s decision not to award the resident priority status on its rehousing waiting list.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. On 28 January 2020 the resident completed a needs-based assessment form to request to be rehoused. She stated that the grounds on which she would like to move were that the current property was too small for her needs, and, due to her medical conditions, she was isolated from local amenities.
  3. On receipt of the form, the landlord informed her that it had added her to the waiting list to be rehoused on medical grounds, but her circumstances had not met the criteria for a priority transfer.
  4. The resident disputed the landlord’s response and appealed its decision. As part of her appeal, she provided additional medical evidence including a letter from her GP which described the adverse effect on her health her current living situation has had.
  5. The landlord’s lettings panel considered the resident’s appeal on 13 May 2020, and on 15 May it wrote to her to inform her of the outcome.
  6. The landlord informed the resident that the lettings panel had upheld the original decision not to award the resident priority status on the waiting list. It explained that this was because priority status is granted to applicants who are at immediate risk of serious injury, who have lost their home as a result of a serious incident (such as a fire or flood), or if they are required to move because the landlord wishes to redevelop or dispose of the property.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the additional medical evidence supplied by the resident. It noted that the GP letter (which was the second letter the GP had provided in support) requested that it review its decision, but did not confirm that the resident required to move as a priority.
  8. The landlord concluded its letter by informing the resident that if she disagreed with the panel’s decision, she could bring her case to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy describes the circumstances in which it will grant priority status to an applicant as follows:

“Top priority will be granted to existing residents/applicants who need to move because:

  1. They are at immediate risk of serious injury in their current accommodation
  2. They have lost their home either temporarily or permanently as a result of an incident such as a fire or flood
  3. They are required to move because Anchor Hanover wishes to redevelop or dispose of their property
  4. They have a need to move for other reasons, e.g. Medical need, Financial need or Wellbeing. Priority will be awarded if determined as a need, following a needs based assessment being completed and reviewed Applicants must have clear rent accounts, no history of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and their application must be supported by their area manager.
  5. All priority one applicants will need supporting documentation to evidence the reason for priority status being given.”
  1. In declining to award priority status to the resident, the landlord followed its policies and procedures, and clearly explained the reasons for its decision. It also explained why the medical evidence supplied by the resident did not meet the criteria listed in its allocations policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.