Fairhive Homes Limited (202435735)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202435735

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Fairhive Homes Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

12 December 2025

Background

  1. The resident and her 5 children live in a 3-bedroom property suitable for 6 people. The landlord records she has mobility problems. The resident sleeps and uses a commode in the living room because the toilet is upstairs and the stairs are too narrow for a stairlift.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  2. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  2. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The rehousing request

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s rehousing request in line with its allocation policy. It supported her to find alternative rehousing, but it had to wait for a larger property to become available. It did not keep her up to date and manage her expectations.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy timescales, but it did not address the health concerns and safety risks she raised in her complaint.

 

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must follow our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • the apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic
  • it has due regard to our apologies guidance

No later than

09 January 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:

  • £100 for the time and trouble the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request caused her
  • £100 for the time and trouble the landlord’s complaint handling caused her

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

09 January 2026

3

Health and vulnerability record keeping

The landlord must contact the resident to get up to date information about the health and vulnerability of her family. It must assess any health risks and consider if it needs to refer her for further support and update it records.

No later than

09 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

Rehousing and options

We recommend the landlord discuss the resident’s rehousing options with her to explain its internal management moves procedures and the role of the local authority in supporting residents with health needs. We also recommend its explains why it cannot convert her property, or the neighbouring property.

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

5 November 2024

The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the delay offering her an internal transfer. She said she could not go to the toilet on her own and the landlord had not acknowledged her health needs and safety risks which were getting worse.

6 November 2024

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint

11 November 2024

The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it added her to its internal transfer list the previous year but no suitable 5-bedroom properties had become available and it had previously told her it did not have many larger homes. It said a local authority registered her on its lowest rehousing band because she did not have a local connection so she should contact her local authority which it could support her with. It said she had high rent arrears and its policy was not to allow moves where there are rent arrears. It offered her an appointment with a rent and welfare advisor. It said it would support her to move but it was not its legal due to do so. It said it spoke to her about her rehousing options and it did not uphold her complaint.

11 November 2024

The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She asked the landlord to confirm it had escalated the complaint the next day.

2 December 2024

The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged she needed to move but finding a suitable 5-bedroom property was difficult. It said she was on its internal rehousing list since she first made contact about her housing situation, but no suitable properties had become available. It said it only owned 5, 5–bedroom houses which rarely became available. It said she should contact her local authority because she did not have a local connection to another local authority. It said it could not say when a 5-bedroom house would become available and it could not offer much further help. It did not uphold her complaint.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. To put matters right she said the landlord should rehouse her and provide compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint

The resident’s rehousing request

Finding

Service failure

What we have not investigated

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim she should get independent legal advice.
  2. The resident said as resolution to the case, she would like to move to a different property. We cannot tell a landlord to move the resident or comment on how it should allocate vacant properties. Instead, our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
  3. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request. However, we cannot assess the local authority’s decisions on her rehousing priority as this is not the landlord’s decision. Complaints about local authorities are for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident is unhappy with the local authority’s decisions, she should complain to the local authority, and then the LGSCO.
  4. The landlord merged with the resident’s former landlord in 2023 and accepted her onto its internal rehousing list based on the former landlord’s records. It wrote to her to confirm her property and area choices and referred her to rehousing information published on its website. It explained her former landlord had not offered her a property since September 2000 because it had few suitable properties in the areas she wanted. These actions took place over 12 months before the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in November 2024.

What we have investigated

  1. This investigation looks at events leading up to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 5 November 2024.
  2. The landlord’s allocation policy allows it to arrange internal management moves when a property needs adaptations and rehousing is the most effective solution. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed the property in 2021 but could not recommend a stairlift for the resident to access the WC because the staircase was too narrow. The landlord’s decision to seek a management move based on this information was supportive. It also acknowledged the family were overcrowded and required a larger property.
  3. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says it will support residents to access specialist advice and it will respond to adaptation requests made by an OT following a needs assessment. There is no evidence the landlord recommended a new OT assessment to consider if the resident’s needs had changed since 2021. However, the resident said an OT told her any new assessment would not change matters because the property was unsuitable for the family.
  4. The landlord had to wait for suitable property to become available before it could offer the resident rehousing. It held weekly meetings to consider if any empty properties met her needs which was positive. However, it did not communicate these actions or reassure her it was still trying to rehouse her to manage her expectations. This caused the resident time and trouble pursuing matters as a complaint in November 2024.
  5. The landlord empathised with the resident’s housing situation in its complaint responses. It explained it found no suitable properties that met her family’s needs. It said it already provided information about rehousing options, the local authority had a legal duty to rehouse her, and it could support her to make a rehousing application. The landlord’s advice and its assessment of her situation was in line with its allocation policy. It said her rent arrears may affect her rehousing options and offered her an appointment with a welfare advisor which was supportive and in line with its rent arrears policy.
  6. The landlord could not have done more to find a larger property to offer the resident. However, it did not acknowledge the distress its failure to keep her up to date and manage her expectations caused. It also did not suggest getting an updated health or support needs assessment to consider whether it could do anything else to support her while she waited for a rehousing offer. Taking this into account, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  7. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where we found failings that caused detriment to the resident the landlord has not put right. We have also ordered it to contact the resident to discuss the health and vulnerability of the family, consider referring her for further health and support assessments, and update it records.
  8. Since the landlord sent its final complaint the resident said it has not responded to her request for it to convert her house into a larger property. We have not seen evidence of her request, but the landlord told us it explained why it could not convert the property or rehouse her neighbours to make her property larger. We have recommended the landlord speak to the resident about these matters again and follow this up in writing.
  9. Since it sent its final response, the landlord offered the resident a 4-bedroom property. She confirmed on 1 December 2025 she hopes to accept the offer in January 2026.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days by telephone or email.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 4 working days in line with its complaint policy. It did not acknowledge her stage 2 complaint but it replied to this within 15 working days which was in line with its policy.
  3. The complaint responses incorrectly said the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2024, instead of 5 November 2024.
  4. The landlord did not address the resident’s stage 1 complaint about her health concerns which she said it had not acknowledged and which were declining.
  5. Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 in line with our remedies guidance to put right the impact of its failings on her. We have also ordered it to discuss the resident’s health concerns with her to ensure she has access to support.

Learning

  1. The landlord did not refer the resident to support services or recommend she do so herself to get up to date advice to support her rehousing, vulnerability, and health needs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s records were poor. It did not keep or provide us with accurate records of its conversations with the resident about her rehousing situation.

Communication

  1. The landlord could have improved its communication. It kept the resident up to date via its complaint responses, instead of when it reviewed her rehousing circumstances. It would have been better if it provided her with regular updates.