Coastline Housing Limited (202225100)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225100

Coastline Housing Limited

5 September 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 applicant 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:
    1. handling of the applicant’s housing application;
    2. response to the applicant’s concerns about banding; and
    3. handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The applicant is not a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. An application was made for a property in October 2022, however her application was bypassed. The property required a local connection and although the local connection tick box had not been checked, she provided additional information confirming she did meet the local connection.
  2. The applicant and landlord exchanged emails on 9 and 10 November 2022 regarding why her application had been bypassed and that her position had gone down in the list despite her application and circumstances remaining the same.
  3. On 21 November 2022, the applicant made a formal complaint about the handling of her application and felt the process had not been followed correctly. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to offer her the next available property.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. It apologised and fully accepted the errors that occurred when the property was shortlisted. It skipped her application because it did not think she satisfied the required local connection. However, having investigated the matter it did accept the applicant met the criteria for the local connection. It also said it had changed how it processed applications to ensure this mistake would not recur. For the inconvenience caused, it offered £100 compensation. In addition, it explained it must follow its lettings policy by letting homes to whoever has the highest housing need.
  5. Following the stage 1 response, the applicant said she was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled the matter and asked to escalate her complaint. It subsequently arranged a Panel review on 21 December 2022 in which the applicant attended in person to discuss her concerns.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 January 2023. It reiterated its position in its stage 1 response. Additionally, it said that had she been considered for the property, there were at least 12 other applicants with a higher need and a local connection, and it was highly unlikely she would have been offered the home. It also explained the applicant’s banding had been decreased to Band 2 following an internal review. It increased its offer of compensation to £150 in recognition of the time and inconvenience.
  7. The applicant referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 January 2023. She was unhappy because she was bypassed for a property for which she had a local connection. As a resolution to her complaint, the applicant would like to be put forward for the next available property.

Assessment and findings

Lettings policy and local connection

  1. The landlord operates its own waiting list for properties including rent-to-buy called Homehunt. Many of the landlord schemes are covered by Section 106 planning restrictions that strictly limit who can move into a home. These require a local connection to a primary parish and have to offer homes to people from that local parish.
  2. The landlord’s lettings policy states that applicants will be awarded housing priority need 2 (medium priority need) if they are under or over-occupying their current home by one or more bedrooms. If an applicant is under or over-occupying a landlord property by two or more bedrooms, they will be awarded housing priority need 1 (high priority need).
  3. It is noted Homehunt automatically shortlists applicants by three sets of criteria- housing priority need (‘band’), preference labels (such as local connection) and time that applicant has been registered in that band.

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right; and
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the applicant. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. This investigation will examine whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the applicant’s concerns and enquiries, and acted reasonably in all circumstances.
  3. Landlords are required to apply their policies and procedures, and to consider the need based on the risk to occupants when considering applications. This inevitably means that some applicants who apply to a home will be given higher priority than others.
  4. On receiving a bid for an advertised property on Homehunt, the landlord has an obligation to allocate a property to a shortlisted applicant taking into account which applicant had the highest housing need as well as their local connection. It should also respond to applicant’s queries setting out their options in a reasonable timescale.
  5. The applicant made a bid on the property in question around 10 October 2022. This property was subject to a section 106 restriction, and the landlord had a duty to let the property to an applicant who satisfied the local connection criteria.
  6. The landlord stated when an application is received, its lettings team primarily review whether any relevant local connection box has been ticked. A second brief review is carried out to ensure additional information has been taken into account. On this occasion, the landlord’s records showed the application had been bypassed because the tick box for local connection had not been checked.
  7. Given the landlord has approximately 12,000 applicants on its waiting list, it was reasonable for it to automate the process and the onus was on the applicant to check the local connection box. However, it accepts that it may be difficult for applicants to know where parish council boundaries start and end.
  8. The applicant contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022 to query why her application was showing as bypassed. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the error that occurred when it shortlisted the property. The landlord accepted the applicant did in fact satisfy the local connection and that her application should not have been bypassed and acknowledged the frustration caused.
  9. While the service acknowledges the frustration this would have caused, the landlord’s records indicated there were at least 12 families with a higher housing need. The landlord stated that the property in question was allocated to an applicant ahead of position 12 and therefore even if the applicant had checked the box, she would not have been allocated the property and therefore has not been disadvantaged.
  10. The landlord declined the applicant’s request to be put forward to the next available property. It had a duty to offer each property that becomes available to the applicant in the highest housing need and who has been on the waiting list longest. It would not change this process of letting properties in light of an error made. Given the circumstances, this was an appropriate approach to take.
  11. The applicant said she had been applying for properties for over 6 months. While the applicant’s home situation was clearly distressing and frustrating, the landlord acted appropriately in managing the applicant’s expectations by making her aware of the limited availability of housing stock in the area and that there is a higher demand for secure and affordable housing.
  12. The landlord demonstrated it learnt from outcomes and implemented new processes to prevent a recurrence of this issue. Before a property is now allocated, an applicant will be asked to evidence and determine their local connection. The Ombudsman considers this was good practice and that the landlord sought to improve its services by making things more straightforward for its applicants.
  13. The Ombudsman is empathetic of the applicant’s housing situation and their concerns, and this is clearly an applicant who wants to ensure their children have access to a non-overcrowded home. However, there was no indication of maladministration on the part of the landlord with respect to its handling of the application. Its approach was in line with its lettings policy and while an error regarding local connection meant her application was bypassed, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the landlord’s actions impacted the applicant’s chances of being allocated the property.

The landlord’s response to the applicant’s concerns about banding

  1. The landlord had an obligation to respond the applicants’ queries and complaints about banding within a reasonable timeframe, setting out their available options and providing sufficient information to facilitate a desired move.
  2. The applicant made a query on 9 November 2022 regarding her application. The landlord responded the next day informing that her application was initially incorrectly banded when she placed her bid and apologised for this. The landlord addressed the applicant’s concerns about her banding being decreased from Band 1 to Band 2. It also said the applicant should have been in Band 2 from the beginning of her registration with Homehunt and it would report this back to Homehunt. The landlord responded promptly to the applicant’s concerns and took appropriate action in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord explained that Homehunt initially placed her in Band 1. However, under the landlord’s lettings policy, the Band 1 status can be awarded to its tenants who are under or over-occupying a landlord property by two or more bedrooms. At the time of application, the applicant was not occupying a landlord property. The landlord further explained that Homehunt was unable to differentiate between landlord and non-landlord homes at the point of registration. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged her application had been inaccurately prioritised as Band 1 instead of Band 2 and took steps to remedy this and it did so in a reasonable timeframe.
  4. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances. It promptly informed her of her band and her position and why it had changed, so she could make an informed decision about her options.
  5. While the Ombudsman appreciates the applicants situation and her comments that the banding error was not her fault, the landlord’s records indicated that it had acted fairly by carrying out an internal review of all Band 1 applicants.
  6. Moreover, the landlord regularly assessed each application at shortlist to enable allocations to those applicants in urgent need first and the Ombudsman considers this is a reasonable approach to take. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest the applicant was treated unfavourably and the landlord’s response to her concerns about banding was satisfactory.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from acknowledgement. Upon a request to escalate a complaint, the landlord aims to arrange a Panel meeting within 10 working days of the request. After the panel meeting it aims to issue its stage 2 response within a further 10 working days.
  2. The applicant contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022 querying why her application had been bypassed. The landlord responded the same day. Subsequently, the applicant made a formal complaint on 21 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint the next day. The landlord provided its formal responses in a timely manner in line with its complaints procedure.
  3. In the applicant’s complaint to the Ombudsman she stated there were no telephone conversations records and it was the landlord’s word against hers with respect to a promised call back. While the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of telephone recordings, the landlord apologised for its miscommunication and implemented a new phone system to put things right. This was an appropriate action to take and demonstrated the landlord had learnt from this case.
  4. It was unclear when the property in question had been allocated. However, in the landlord’s email of 9 November 2022, it clearly suggested that it would contact the applicant if she was successful for the property, despite the fact that it had already been allocated by this point. This was a service failure as the landlord failed to be transparent in its communication with the applicant. The landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a proportionate level of redress, albeit not what the applicant was seeking.
  5. Overall, the landlord did not dispute there were service failings in its communication. It offered £150 compensation for this in its final response to reflect time and trouble. The landlord emphasised that the compensation was offered for failings in communication as opposed to the applicant missing out on a property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the applicant’s concerns about banding.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, with respect to its handling of the complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord should pay the applicant £150 offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.