Beyond Housing Limited (202323915)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323915

Beyond Housing Limited

26 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which commenced on 9 March 2015. The landlord is a housing association. The property is located on the first floor and is described as a 1-bedroom property.
  2. The resident has medical conditions that affect his mobility. The resident has 2 support workers.
  3. The landlord’s records show that in March 2020, the resident’s housing application was in the silver category of the choice-based lettings system. Around 3 years later, on 21 March 2023, the resident obtained a medical letter from his GP which set out his mobility problems.
  4. The resident’s housing application was assessed on 11 April 2023. This determined that his priority band date was 11 April 2023 and he was eligible for a ground floor property with a level access shower.
  5. On 10 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that for the past 8 years, it had acted harshly and unfairly towards him. The resident stated that:
    1. He struggled to climb the external steep concrete steps to access the property and had faced false allegations from the landlord.
    2. He was affected by his medical conditions.
    3. An altercation with the housing officer on 13 March 2023 resulted in court action in which he was accused of assault. The resident stated that the finding had not been upheld by the court. However, he had to pay the housing officer £150 compensation.
    4. He had visited the landlord’s office on 27 March 2023 to provide a medical letter and its officers had refused to remove the letter from the envelope. This resulted in the police being called and a 12-month injunction was in place to prevent him attending the landlord’s offices.
    5. He admitted he had raised his voice to officers. However, he maintained that he told the truth and was aware of the need to control his emotions. The resident went on to explain that he was affected by past painful situations which led to a sense of helplessness and could cause him to easily take offence.
  6. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 17 October 2023. It set out that its response would not include the events leading to the court hearing for assault on its housing officer or the decision made at the Magistrates Court. The landlord stated that:
    1. The resident had not started repayment of the court costs that were awarded and this had affected his transfer application. The resident should contact its income team to make a payment arrangement.
    2. The resident had attended its office to supply medical information. However, it considered that the resident’s behaviour to its staff was unacceptable. This was described as shouting, swearing and stamping of his walking stick aggressively at staff. The police were called and the resident was asked to leave its office.
    3. The medical letter dated 21 March 2023 had been assessed and confirmed that the resident’s housing application was in the silver band. The resident had not been actively bidding for vacancies. He was able to make 3 bids each week and was ranked as number 30 for a ground floor flat. In order to improve his opportunities of obtaining a property, the resident was advised to widen his areas of choice and to consider applying to other housing providers who advertise with the local council.
    4. The landlord advised that until the outstanding court costs were repaid, the resident would be ‘overlooked’ for an offer of accommodation as the local council allocations policy did not allow a person to move with a housing related debt outstanding.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 31 May 2024, advising:
    1. The medical letter provided by the resident had been assessed and his housing application was in the silver priority band.
    2. Until recommendations were received from occupational therapists, it could not act regarding the resident’s request for a level access shower. Neither could it act regarding his request for ramped or level access to the property. It provided the resident with the contact details for the occupational therapist so that he and/or his support workers could request an assessment.
    3. The resident had made 18 unsuccessful bids for a property. When shortlisted for a property, the resident was placed from between numbers 16 and 97. In addition, the resident’s application had been skipped on 5 occasions as he had a housing related debt from the court costs.
    4. The resident should contact the income team to discuss repayment of the housing debt. However, no payment had been received. It suggested that the resident contact the income officer to make a payment arrangement or consider obtaining alternative housing in the private sector.
    5. The resident could contact adult social care to obtain information regarding a move to supported accommodation. It explained that supported accommodation could provide assistance and support with any care and bathing requirements.
    6. If the resident cleared the housing debt, this increased the likelihood of him receiving an offer of a property. Applicants placed in the gold category have a greater housing need for accommodation than the resident and would be considered ahead of him for any vacancy that becomes available.
  8. On 4 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 complaint response. It advised that it had investigated the reasons why it did not receive his complaint escalation and found that the relevant correspondence from February 2024 had not been forwarded to the complaints team. It made a compensation award of £175, broken down as £50 for the late registration of the complaint and £125 for the inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. The resident expressed that his preferred outcome was to move to a suitable property due to his difficulty managing the external stairs to the front door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we cannot consider complaints that are the subject of court proceedings, or were the subject of court proceedings, where judgement on the merits were given. On 13 April 2023, there was a court hearing related to the landlord’s application for an injunction. This was apparently regarding incidents at the resident’s property and the landlord’s office. The resident refused representation at the hearing. The landlord’s injunction application was successful and included a power of arrest for 12 months starting from 14 April 2023.
  2. Therefore, this investigation cannot consider the facts related to the visit to the resident’s property on 13 March 2023 and the resident’s visit to the landlord’s offices on 27 March 2023 which led to the landlord taking action against the resident. Costs of £1,600 were awarded against the resident who did not raise an objection at the court hearing regarding this. It is noted that the resident disputes that he is liable for the payment of the court costs but this is not a matter that the Ombudsman can assess.
  3. The landlord is a member of the North Yorkshire Home Choice common allocation scheme. This operates the choice-based lettings scheme under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 to partner landlords. If the resident is unhappy with the administration of his housing application, the resident can request a review. Alternatively, he can escalate his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who can investigate the handling of allocations and priority banding under local council choice-based lettings schemes. We are unable to consider such matters as per paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair;
    2. put things right;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  5. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Housing transfer request

  1. The resident has an active housing application for a move to alternative accommodation. The landlord is a partner to the local council home choice allocations scheme and its vacancies are let through the scheme. The landlord has an exceptional move policy which sets out the circumstances in which it will consider a management move: for survivors of domestic abuse, or violence, those who have requested the right to succeed the tenancy and where a support package has been agreed by the multi-agency public protection arrangement for ex-offenders. It also includes where it has assessed that major works are required to the property. The resident’s circumstances do not qualify the resident for a management move under its exceptional move policy.
  2. The home choice allocations policy sets out that having arrears will be a factor in the allocation of properties and those with a housing debt will not be considered for a move. The costs awarded by the court is a debt owed by the resident until repaid. It is noted that the resident disputes that he is liable to pay the court costs but he had the opportunity at the court hearing to dispute his liability for these and did not do so.
  3. It was reasonable that, through its complaint responses, the landlord explained to the resident the implication of not repaying the housing debt. It also suggested that the resident contact its income officer to agree repayment, which may have included a financial assessment, calculating a realistic weekly contribution that the resident could make to reduce the debt. The information provided to the resident allowed him to make an informed choice regarding this and the potential impact of not agreeing repayment of the debt. Furthermore, the landlord is obliged to give advice in accordance with the rules outlined in the home choice allocations scheme to ensure that it is fair and consistent.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed to the resident that his March 2023 medical letter had been reviewed and the housing application updated. It advised that his application was in the silver band and that he had been assessed as requiring a level access shower and ramped or level access to the property. There was no service failure from the landlord in this regard.
  5. It was reasonable that the landlord explained to the resident that, before it could carry out any internal and external adaptations requested by the resident, it needed advice from the local council occupational therapists. The resident has disabilities that impact his living conditions and it would be necessary for occupational therapy to assess and give advice regarding any potential works that could improve his use of, and access to, the property.
  6. Occupational therapists are qualified to make such assessments and to give advice to the landlord about temporary and permanent aids and adaptations to help and support people living in their properties. The landlord reasonably signposted and provided the contact details for the occupational therapists to allow the resident and/or his support workers to make a referral. However, the landlord’s tenant management policy explains that for its vulnerable customers, it adopts a person-centred approach. It could therefore have made the referral to the occupational team on the resident’s behalf. This was a shortcoming.
  7. The landlord also gave advice to the resident about his position on the housing list with the number of bids he had made to find alternative accommodation. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident that he should consider increasing the areas in which he was willing to accept housing to give a greater opportunity of obtaining accommodation. The advice also set out that infrequently making bids affected his ability to obtain an offer so he needed to be more active in selecting properties that he was interested in.
  8. In light of the resident’s personal circumstances, the landlord suggested that the resident consider other social housing providers such as the local authority, finding housing in the private sector and speaking to adult social care about moving to supported housing. These were all suitable options for the resident to consider as it increased the choices available to him.
  9. It is understandable that the resident feels frustrated at not being able to move to another property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has unfairly prevented this. It was reasonable that it outlined in its complaint responses the importance of agreeing a payment arrangement to clear the debt on his rent account. It explained that this would increase his chances of getting a move. It was also appropriate that the landlord demonstrated it had assessed the resident’s medical circumstances, informed him of the allocations scheme priority banding and signposted him to alternative re-housing options.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.