Gateway Housing Association Limited (202214087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214087

Gateway Housing Association Limited

29 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 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 for a chain let.
2. The landlord’s handling of communications over future chain lets.

Jurisdiction

Not all complaints brought to the Ombudsman can be investigated. What we can and cannot investigate is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and this is set out in the Scheme.

The local authority’s involvement in the chain let

A chain let is essentially the local authority letting a property to one tenant with the option of immediately swapping with another, who in turn can swap it with another – creating a chain. The ultimate decision of whether a chain let will be agreed upon lies with the local authority. This is because the landlord and the local authority have a common lettings policy.
This service is only able to investigate complaints brought by residents against their landlords. The complaint, under paragraphs 34(a) and 41(b) of the Scheme, must relate to an act or omission by the landlord. 41(b) of the Scheme states:

“41. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (b) concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme”.

In this case, we can only look at what the landlord complained of did and did not do, and we cannot assess how the local authority handled the matter – as it was not acting on behalf of the landlord. It was making its own decision under its own allocation policy. Therefore, the local authority’s handling of the matter will not be investigated as part of this complaint under paragraphs 34(a) and 41(b) of the Scheme.
The resident’s complaint includes issues relating to the landlord’s communication and the errors it made that affected her chain let request, including a housing management panel. It was the local authority that decided so the Ombudsman cannot look at that under paragraphs 34(a) and 42(b) of the Scheme, as it was not an act or omission by (or on behalf of) the landlord complained of. We can look at the landlord’s communication in respect of this.

The landlord’s handling of future chain lets

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time scale;”
The resident requested this service consider a complaint that her landlord has not worked with her to identify suitable properties for a chain let following the failure of the first chain let. Whilst the Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident requested this of the landlord there is no evidence that this issue has been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. It is therefore out of jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman will consider how the landlord processed the resident’s request, including whether it followed its processes and procedures, and acted reasonably.

Background

The resident has a two-bedroom property. The resident’s property is an assured tenancy that started on 30 July 2007.
There are five occupants in the resident’s household, including three children one of whom has significant health issues. The resident felt that her property was unsuitable due to overcrowding and her son’s medical conditions and sought her landlord’s help in arranging a chain let.
The resident identified a three-bedroom property (“the property”) that was suitable for her family’s needs and asked her landlord if it could form part of a chain let. The landlord agreed on 20 January 2022 to consider this but advertised the property for general let the next day in error. It requested the local authority withdraw the advertisement on 24 January 2022.
On 31 January 2022, the local authority agreed to suspend any shortlisting of suitable candidates for the property so the chain let could be considered. The local authority requested additional information from the landlord about the chain let on 1 February 2022. The local authority decided not to proceed with the chain let on 2 February 2022 after not receiving the information.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 February 2022 to offer a viewing of the property in error. The resident contacted a former councillor to obtain advocacy assistance and the landlord liaised with the councillor. The landlord and councillor agreed to make a referral to the local authority’s housing management panel. This was to consider the circumstances around the rejection of the chain let to see if the panel would agree on a move.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 March 2022 that her housing officer had acted unprofessionally. The resident:
1. Was concerned the landlord had incorrectly advertised the property.
2. Was unhappy her landlord had offered a viewing of the property after the local authority told the landlord it could not be part of a chain let.
3. Requested the landlord make an application to the local authority’s housing management panel to remedy the injustice and distress she felt.
The landlord submitted a referral to the housing management panel on 23 March 2022 for a larger property and emergency move. The panel refused this on 4 April 2022.
On 22 May 2022, the resident complained that her landlord had told her that she should reapply to the local authority for a priority and was unhappy with the landlord’s actions.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident and stated:
1. It could not uphold the resident’s complaint about the handling of her chain let request as it was not its decision to not proceed with the chain let. The local authority, after initially accepting to consider a chain let, decided not to proceed as the chain let conditions were not satisfied.
2. It communicated the outcome of the decision to the resident over the telephone and in writing to the former councillor representing her.
3. It took her case for emergency housing to a housing management panel, but the panel refused this as the panel assessed the resident as having sufficient priority on the housing register.
4. It accepted there was some miscommunication over what assistance it could offer the resident following the panel’s decision and over the advice about reapplying for priority.
5. It was unable to rehouse the resident itself as only the local authority could agree on this through its housing register.
6. It offered £50 compensation for the six-week delay in communicating its position.
The resident asked her landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 June 2022. She stated that:
1. The landlord had not accepted the mistakes it had made.
2. The landlord failed to consult her over the submissions it made at the panel and did not act in her interests.
3. She was unhappy about the level of compensation.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord responded at stage 2. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry it advertised the property, but this did not affect the overall outcome as the local authority agreed to suspend the shortlisting to consider the property for a chain let.
2. The miscommunication from the landlord over the chain let was because of miscommunication from the local authority.
3. The outcome of the housing management panel was outside its control and the panel decided based on the evidence from the housing register.
4. It consulted with the former councillor over the housing management referral and the referral contained information, already available to the local authority from its housing register.
5. The referral focussed on the oversights that caused the council to not proceed with a chain let but the panel decided that these were not exceptional, and that the resident had sufficient priority.
6. It should have informed the resident of the outcome of the panel’s decision in April 2022 and the landlord was improving communications internally and with the local authority.
7. It believed it presented the case at the housing management panel without bias. It presented to the panel the letter sent in support of her case dated 13 March 2022.
8. It understood the resident did not wish to pursue a complaint against her housing officer.
9. It could not grant the resident another property outside the local authority’s common housing register.
10. There were no intentional errors by the landlord and the errors identified and addressed in the stage 1 response did not impact the outcome of the chain let decision or panel decision. Therefore, it could not uphold the resident’s complaint on these points.
11. It accepted the delay in informing the resident of the panel decision was too long. It also accepted it could have used more sensitive language in its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £150 for these failures.

Assessment and findings

The allocation policy of the common housing register partnership requires the landlord and local authority to identify vacant properties for chain lets and not advertise them. The landlord was therefore at fault for requesting the local authority advertise the property as it should have withdrawn the property. However, the landlord contacted the local authority on 31 January 2022 and prevented anyone from being shortlisted for it. This was prompt and appropriate as it allowed for the consideration of the property for a chain let.
The local authority considered the property for a potential chain let but refused to proceed with this as it did not have all the information it needed. The resident holds the landlord responsible for not communicating with her to obtain details of other residents who would be interested in moving.
The landlord explained that it was not aware that there were chain let criteria and it was the local authority that removed the property from consideration. This was a decision taken independently of the landlord and the policy does not offer details of any criteria. The landlord ought to have been aware of the information the council required to fully assess the chain let. It was not appropriate for the landlord to be unaware of this to manage the resident’s expectations and understand the likelihood of the chain let being agreed upon.
The wording of the allocation policy indicates that all partners need to work together to identify vacant properties. It was therefore not solely the landlord’s responsibility, and the evidence shows the landlord was willing to work with the local authority to facilitate a chain let. It would have been open to the local authority to either contact the resident or allow more time for the landlord to gather the information.
The nature of a chain let is uncertain as it is dependent on several parties and must be agreed upon by the local authority. It was never within the gift of the landlord to guarantee a chain let. The allocations policy is clear that there is a shared responsibility to make them work and it is the local authority who has primary responsibility for managing the policy. The evidence shows the local authority did not make clear to the landlord what information was needed and allow enough time for it to provide it. Had the landlord contacted the resident and provided information about other properties there is no guarantee that the chain let would have proceeded. For these reasons, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the failure of the chain let.
When it was clear that the chain let was not proceeding the landlord took appropriate action by agreeing to submit a housing management referral. The landlord submitted the referral promptly and sent to the panel the letter the resident requested detailing the errors. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take as the resident had requested this to satisfy her complaint.
The evidence shows that the landlord consulted with the resident’s representative over the application to the housing management panel. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assumed the representative would update the resident.
The landlord failed to update the resident on the outcome of the housing management panel on 4 April 2022. It was not until May 2022 that the resident established the outcome of the panel meeting. This was a failure of communication by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint process.
The resident was unhappy with the refusal of her application for an emergency move by the panel. The panel took a decision based on the evidence available to it which the resident could have challenged by requesting a review of its decision. This service has not seen any evidence that the information provided to the panel by the landlord was inaccurate or biased.
The landlord attempted to offer redress for its failings in advertising the property and failing to communicate the outcome of the panel meeting promptly. This would have caused the resident distress and anguish. The landlord also acknowledged that its tone was insensitive at times which would have left her feeling unsupported.
The Ombudsman also notes it is a regulatory obligation for housing associations to have a policy on how it allocates tenancies under the Regulator’s Tenancy Standard. This was not provided to this service, nor could it be located on the landlord’s website. Whilst the landlord is entitled to have a direct nomination relationship with the local authority, and indeed many housing associations do, it should also have a management transfer and decant process. The Ombudsman notes that the option of a management transfer is not set out in the joint allocation policy.
It is noted that the landlord sought to facilitate another chain let but the resident had concerns about the level of communication over this. As previously noted, this service is unable to consider the complaint about communication of future lets. This is because this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident would have experienced distress and inconvenience in relation to the collapse of her chain let. This is especially due to the landlord’s delay in communicating the panel decision and advice to reapply for a priority. The Ombudsman also considers that the impact on the resident and her familyjustifies a higher amount of compensation.
In short, the Ombudsman found that the landlord could not be responsible for the local authority’s overall decision. Nevertheless, there were some errors, namely allowing the property to be advertised for general letting, not providing the right information to the local authority to assess against the chain let criteria, and the time taken to communicate the panel’s decision.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the chain let.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to increase the compensation offered to the resident to £300. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. The landlord must pay all outstanding amounts to the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination.
The landlord must write to the resident and set out all her options of being able to move home. This must include what action it intends to take to identify future direct or chain lets. It must do this within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the local authority to ensure that the criteria it applies, and its guidance are either produced or reviewed to ensure greater clarity and transparency over chain lets.
2. Arrange training with the local authority over chain let requests to ensure consistency.