Community Gateway Association Limited (202335999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335999

Community Gateway Association Limited

31 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to a new property.
2. The landlord handling of reports about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives with their children. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord allocates properties through a choice based letting scheme. This scheme is a partnership between several local authorities and housing associations who operate in the region.
In, or around, December 2022 the resident applied for a housing transfer after being the victim in a violent incident. On 1 February 2023 the police completed a priority move request to support the resident’s application. The landlord awarded the resident band A priority (the highest priority) on the transfer list.
On 6 December 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. They said they were unhappy that:
1. The landlord was leaving them and their children at risk in an unsafe property by putting up barriers to prevent rehousing.
2. A staff member had made unsubstantiated claims about the resident not being allowed to live in the wider city area.
3. They had been left feeling the landlord was discriminating against them.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 December 2023. It said:
1. The police had told it that moving the resident to nearby areas would put them at significant risk and would likely worsen the issues faced by the resident.
2. It had a duty of care to ensure any new property met the resident’s needs.
3. The staff member had a duty to act on information provided by the police and their actions had been in line with that.
4. It did not have enough properties to meet demand. Sometimes residents would need to move to areas outside their chosen preference.
5. It was sorry to hear the resident felt they were being discriminated against, but it did not agree this was the case. It had a duty of care to support the resident to live in a safer environment and its allocations team would continue to monitor for suitable properties. It encouraged the resident to bid on any properties that met their requirements.
6. It would continue working with partners to locate a suitable property as soon as possible. It confirmed the resident had band A priority and their application had the correct information about areas they were able to move to.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on the same day (20 December 2023). They said they believed the stage 1 response had been based on wrong information and the landlord had not looked at their complaint properly.
The landlord issued its final response on 11 January 2024. It said:
1. It had a duty of care to follow information from external agencies to ensure the resident’s safety.
2. The police had advised it that the only way to effectively safeguard the resident would be to move them out of the wider city area entirely.
3. It understood such a move was not the resident’s preferred option and apologised if it made the resident feel they were being discriminated against.
4. It would be discussing the resident’s case at the next steering group meeting for the letting scheme. It would continue to work with its partners to locate a suitable property.
On 7 February 2024 the resident confirmed that they wanted this service to investigate their complaint. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported matters which they indicated were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to a new property

There does not appear to be any dispute that the resident has band A priority status for their housing application. The landlord’s actions in asking the police for information to support the housing application was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
When requesting a priority move the police advised that the landlord should move the resident out of their local area. The landlord has provided evidence that it told the resident on 27 February 2023 that any move would need to be at least 2 miles from their current property. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to have taken.
The landlord has provided a copy of an email dated 3 July 2023 from the resident’s social worker which explained the resident had been the victim of further violent incidents. On the same day, the landlord spoke to the resident to advise that it would now only consider moves that were outside the wider city area. It was reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed its position on safe locations when it received new information.
The landlord has provided this service with evidence that it had been in contact with the police in relation to the resident’s move request. This evidence shows the police advised they could not support moving the resident to any areas within the wider city area as it would not resolve the issues and could worsen them. It was reasonable for the landlord to have used this information when deciding what areas would be suitable for the resident to move to.
There is no evidence that, at the time of the resident’s complaint, the police’s position on safe areas had changed. The explanations provided by the landlord in its stage 1 and final responses were reasonable and were in line with the information it had available.
Between the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the landlord told the resident that it felt it should review the police’s advice regularly and its tenancy team would contact the police early in the new year. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
The landlord has provided evidence that it took the above action at the end of January 2024. The police advised that the best option would still be a move out of the wider city area. However, it was accepted that the resident was reluctant to do this. The police also advised that, due to the passage of time, some significantly distant areas within the city may now be safe.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2024 to discuss their housing application. It advised the resident about 3 properties that were available in the newly identified safe areas. This was a reasonable action by the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident stated they did not bid on these properties as they were not interested in moving to those areas.
While the Ombudsman accepts that the situation faced by the resident is likely to have been distressing and frustrating, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to ignore the information other organisations had provided. It was appropriate for the landlord to have used this information to decide what areas would be safe for the resident to move to.
There is no evidence that the landlord had suitable available properties that it could have offered to the resident but failed to do so, or inappropriately prevented the resident bidding on or being shortlisted for a property.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to a new property.

The landlord handling of reports about staff conduct

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether a staff member of a landlord has misconducted themselves. It is instead to consider whether the landlord’s handling of any reports was reasonable and in line with its policies.
The landlord’s disciplinary policy states that when an allegation is made against a staff member the normal initial step is for an informal discussion to take place. There is no requirement to immediately undertake a formal investigation.
The landlord has explained to this service that, after it had reviewed the information it held, it had spoken to the staff member concerned. Following this discussion, it was satisfied the staff member had acted in line with its internal policies and the police advice. It had therefore decided to take no further action against them.
Given the finding reached at paragraph 18 and that the available evidence does not support the resident’s allegation against the staff member, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions in respect of the reports about its staff were reasonable. The actions taken and the outcome reached were in line with its disciplinary policy and were appropriate.
Based on the available evidence, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to a new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.