Aster Communities (202101249)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101249

Aster Communities

29 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord moving the resident from her previous property and its response to concerns that the new property was unsuitable.

Background and summary of events

The resident has lived in a one bedroom first floor maisonette under an assured tenancy since 2019. She has mobility issues, long term ill health and mental health issues recorded by the landlord.

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. Appendix 1 gives the grounds for possession. Ground 6 (a) (ii) covers the resident being decanted in order for repairs to be done on the property where the nature of the work is such that they cannot be carried out without the tenant giving up possession and 6 (a) (iv) that the nature of the intended work is such that to give access to permit the work is not practical.

The complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy states at section 1.4.2 that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Section1.4.4 says stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days

Summary of events

On 8 January 2019, an internal landlord email from the landlord’s surveyor detailed the worsening condition of the resident’s former property. The surveyor listed the costs of the necessary repairs and expressed that it would be more cost effective to move the resident and sell the property rather than repair it.
The management transfer application noted that the resident had a dog and required a one bed house or a maisonette with a garden. It also confirmed the resident’s mental health issues. The mobility difficulties question is answered as ‘not applicable’. The form recorded that she was very keen to move due to the number of problems in the property with damp and mould.
On 1 May 2019, the landlord provided a letter for the resident to give to the online transfer service confirming why she needed to move. The letter said that moisture ingress had been found coming through the solid walls and the floor. Remedial options were limited due to the listed status of the building.
The landlord’s letter of 23 July 2019 confirmed that the resident accepted the current property, a 1-bedroom maisonette. The letter acknowledged that it was not the type of property she wanted, but that the landlord hoped it would help her find a mutual exchange into an area she would prefer to live in. She would remain on the landlord’s transfer list, although the landlord could give no timescales for this. The letter advised the resident to keep searching on the online transfer service, and suggested that she submit medical evidence to support her need for alternative accommodation for the health reasons she had mentioned that day, being deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
The resident moved into the current property on 4 August 2019.
On 26 June 2020, the landlord posted mutual exchange paperwork to the resident following her advice that she had found someone to exchange with.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 24 November 2020, stating that she had been moved to another property as her own required repairs. The new property was highly unsuitable and had affected her mobility and mental health issues. She said that she needed to be moved from the property and requested compensation.
An internal landlord email on that day said that when the resident moved the property met her needs, but she since wanted an extra bedroom for her carer (the email said career, but carer would seem to be correct in this context). The landlord was helping the resident with the management move process, but she had not supplied the information requested in support of this. The complaints officer agreed to fast track the concerns to try to resolve the matter via a phone call and if the resident remained unhappy, it would be treated as a formal complaint.
The landlord called the resident and noted that she wished for the matter to be dealt with as a formal complaint. Notes from the call gave further details of the complaint:
1. The current property was unsuitable, the resident could not have a dog and felt isolated.
2. She was told the move was temporary but it had been over a year, from June/July the previous year.
3. She needed to live with or near her mum.
4. She was moved as the previous property was damp and falling apart when she moved in.
5. She was on a management list for a move, but the landlord could not guarantee how long this would be.
6. She had advised she needed a two-bed property but had not provided any evidence from GP or support worker to demonstrate this, and a management move would only allow the resident a ‘like for like’ property.
7. The resident would send in a letter with more information.
The landlord replied to the complaint on 11 December 2020. It restated the resident’s concerns and responded:
1. The resident said she would send supporting information in, but to date this had not been received.
2. The landlord noted that the resident was working with the neighbourhood officer (NO) to look for a suitable property as well as regularly checking the online property exchange pages.
3. In 2019, it was decided that due to the number of repairs needed on the resident’s property, and its listed status, remedial options were limited and costly. The resident was therefore offered a permanent decant to the current address, which the resident accepted, and the tenancy began in August 2019.
4. The resident was given a Homeloss payment of £6,300 as well as the landlord paying the removal costs and for new carpets in the property.
5. It was agreed that the resident would remain on the internal transfer list, as although the previous property was not an option due to the disrepair issues, the current one might not be sustainable due to changing health needs.
6. The resident had since advised of additional criteria concerning location and the number of bedrooms, but the landlord had not had any suitable properties in the original desired areas and she had been advised that to increase the bedroom need, the landlord would need further documentation.
7. The landlord could not uphold the complaint that the property was unsuitable and email correspondence between her and the landlord confirmed her agreement with the move. Although concerns were raised about long-term suitability, she was added to the transfer list, and the landlord continued to work towards this goal.
8. The landlord could not uphold that her mobility and mental health deterioration since the move as no evidence had been provided.
9. The resident had described feeling very isolated and unable to access support, but also that this was related to shielding due to being at risk from Coronavirus, which was beyond the landlord’s control.
10. The landlord could not consider compensation as earlier email correspondence confirmed the resident’s agreement with the move and the acceptance of the Homeloss payment.
11. Further appeal rights were given, and the resident asked to contact the landlord by 24 December 2020 to request a review if she remained unhappy.
On 10 February 2021, the resident asked for the complaint to be reopened. She stated that she only accepted the property on a temporary basis, and it was very much a downgrade. She explained that her reply was late due to ill health, and that she was forced to move into this unsuitable property as she was told it was the only one that she would be offered. The resident requested that the complaint be taken to stage two and for a copy of all correspondence regarding the move.
The landlord was unable to reach the resident by phone to discuss the issues and sent an email to request alternative contact details. No response was recorded and on 9 March 2021 the stage two complaint response was issued:
1. The landlord said that there was no option but to move from the resident’s previous property due to the extent of the repairs that were required. The previous property was unusual as a one-bedroom house with its own garden. The landlord said it completely understood the resident’s desire to move to a property like the one she had, unfortunately the landlord had to balance this against the housing stock available.
2. Having reviewed the records, the landlord could see that the resident had reservations about the move, which is why it allowed her to remain on the transfer list, and as she had been advised, no timescale could be given for this.
3. The landlord was not upholding that the resident was forced to move as she accepted it on the basis it was suitable for her immediate needs and a transfer would still be investigated. She would also be able to seek a mutual transfer.
4. The landlord referred to the resident’s email of 30 July 2019 when she said the property was suitable for her immediate needs. She had also said that the previous property was affecting her mental health which was why she was willing to move.
5. The resident had recently been advised that there were no suitable one-bedroom homes in her preferred area and encouraged to continue to bid online. She had said that she had additional criteria to be considered but had not provided any evidence of this. The landlord would continue to look for a property for her, but if she wanted to be considered for a two-bedroom property, she would have to provide medical evidence of her need.
6. The landlord said it was genuinely sorry that the resident could not have her dog with her, as she could not open the door straight out to the garden. The current property had a garden, but access was via a path from the front door. The landlord wanted to make it clear that the resident was permitted to have the dog at the property on a full or part time basis. The dog was being considered as part of finding the resident a new home, but again that did limit the number of suitable properties available.
7. The stage one response declined compensation as there had been no evidence that the situation had affected the resident’s health. The landlord noted that a Homeloss payment of £6,300 had been paid, and other expenses covered. This was paid as the resident had accepted the property.
8. The landlord continued to look for a property and the resident was urged to keep in contact with her Neighbourhood Officer (NO).
9. Further appeals rights to this Service were given.

Since the stage two response was issued

The resident replied that she remained unhappy and wanted a copy of her correspondence with the previous Housing Officer. The landlord responded and said this would be attended to via the data protection team and directed the resident to this Service again.
On 19 March 2021, a complaint was submitted by resident regarding the same issue, she was unhappy with the management move and sought a two-bedroom flat near her mum. The landlord replied that it had addressed this in the stage one and two responses, and the resident could now approach this Service.
A landlord note on 10 May 2021 records a call from another landlord regarding the mutual exchange, and that the landlord confirmed that the resident needed to be near her mother as she was her carer.
On 17 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about a mutual exchange she had found. She asked for help with moving as had been done previously due to her disability. The landlord responded that it would send the appropriate forms, but it did not help with moving costs.
The resident replied that she was unable to proceed with the mutual exchange as landlord was unable to assist with removal costs. She enclosed a letter from her doctor to assist with the management move (not seen by this Service). The landlord advised that it would not cover removal costs for a management move either but would complete the management move application and submit it.

Assessment and findings

This has clearly been a difficult period for the resident, made worse by having to shield due to the Coronavirus and living a distance from her mother. The Ombudsman appreciates the stress that this will have caused the resident and that to feel unable to have her dog with her will have exacerbated her isolation. However, this investigation must consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns, in line with its responsibilities, and are within its power to control.
The landlord was entitled to move the resident from her previous property as it was not feasible to carry out repairs with her in situ, and this is allowed for in the tenancy agreement. The resident had also expressed a wish to move from the previous property, so it was not unreasonable that the move took place.
The alternative would have been for the resident to remain in the damp property until an alternative suitable property was found. As an alternative property has still not been identified by the landlord, the resident would therefore have remained in her former property up to the current date, and until one became available.
The other option would be for the resident to find a suitable mutual exchange from the former property. However, the landlord has said that this would be unlikely to happen due to the serious damp and mould issues and this seems a reasonable conclusion. In the absence of any alternative, the resident would therefore still be in the former damp property and would not have received the £6,300 Homeloss payment.
There is nothing to support that the landlord is obliged to pay removal cost for the resident under a management move, or a mutual transfer. It made the Homeloss payment because it was unable to complete the required repairs on the resident’s previous property.
The resident has explored two mutual transfers since moving to her current address, but has not proceeded with these, most recently stating that this was due to the landlord not paying for her removal cost, which they had previously done due to her disability. This would not appear to be the case however, as seen above. The costs were paid as the landlord is obliged to keep properties in good repair and was unable to do this at the previous property, not due to a disability.
The landlord has acknowledged that the property is not ideal, but states that it was all that it had available, and it was less unsuitable than the last property. The resident agreed to the move and had inspected the property. There is no evidence that it was a once only offer, or that there were more suitable properties available at the time. The resident accepted the home loss payment and was in the new property 15 months before she complained, and after a year of shielding due to the Coronavirus pandemic, which also had an effect.
There is evidence of discussions between the resident and landlord prior to the move which indicate that the landlord had considered the resident’s needs. The response letters are empathetic and advise and signpost the resident, and her neighbourhood officer was in contact with her to support a move when this is possible. The resident had no grounds to believe the landlord would pay for the removal costs for a second transfer, so it was her decision not to proceed with the mutual exchange. Therefore, the landlord could not be said to be responsible that she had not moved on from the current property.
At the time of the previous move, the transfer form recorded mental health issues but said ‘not applicable’ to mobility issues. The landlord has said the resident can have her dog at the property, and that it will include the dog in future move plans. It asked several times for the resident to provide the evidence to support why she now requires a two-bedroom property, but she had not done so. This indicates that the landlord has been supportive and mindful of the resident’s circumstances, which did not include mobility issues at the time of the move.
This Service has no evidence that landlord has suitable property of its own to move the resident to. It has indicated its support of a move and responded to enquiries from another landlord to facilitate this. Ultimately, if the landlord does not have suitable alternative properties, it is limited to what it can provide.
Whilst this Service is sympathetic to the resident’s situation, the fact the resident remains at the property would not appear to be caused by a service failure on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord moving the resident from her previous property or its response to concerns that the new property is unsuitable.

Reasons

Given all the circumstances, and the available housing stock, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s previous move and her further request to move, was not unreasonable.