Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202002958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002958

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

13 September 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports that the landlord falsified documents.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of data breaches.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. Under paragraph 39(m), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The resident made a complaint that she had suffered a data protection breach. The Ombudsman considers that the handling of such requests falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m), as that aspect would be more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to review. In the circumstances, the following complaint is deemed to be out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s data breaches.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupies her home under an assured tenancy with her adult and dependant sons. The resident suffered from medical conditions and her young son suffers from mental health issues. The landlord transferred the resident from her previous tenancy on 18 November 2019 following the resident’s son suffering a serious assault in the locality.

Legal and policy framework

Under the then lettings policy, where an applicant or a tenant has received two suitable offers of accommodation but has refused both offers, their application would be suspended from the waiting list for 12 months. In most instances, the landlord would ensure that the size of the dwelling offered matched the size required by the household. Additional offers may be considered in the case of tenants that the landlord wished to transfer for operational reasons or in exceptional circumstances.
Under the complaints policy, the process was a three-stage one. The first and second stage response would be provided in 10 working days. The third stage would be heard by a panel including the Chief Executive Officer of the landlord. It would convene within 20 working days of the request and a response provided within five working days of the hearing. The landlord has since adopted a two-stage procedure.

Chronology

On 22 May 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to add “Please could you add me for a three-bedroom only. on the transfer list.” The landlord replied the following day that “All changed, just three-bedroom now on transfer request”. On 18 November 2019, the resident was transferred under a direct let to a two-bedroom property.
On 28 December 2019, the resident made a complaint in relation to her housing officer, who shall be referred to in this report as HO1. The complaint was about HO1 sharing information with another tenant, who will be referred to as Tenant A. She also felt it was unfair that Tenant A was being allocated a three-bedroom property. She reported that HO1 had informed the resident that the property she had moved into was to be the only offer. The property was a small two-bedroom one and she was down for three bedrooms or big two bedrooms in order to accommodate her 32 and 15 year-old sons. She reported that HO1 told her that her priority should be to get her dependant son moved, even though her adult son would be homeless. The second bedroom was only 7 feet by 6 feet. The property was isolated and it was difficult for her, in particular as she was disabled, to access town, her GP, and support group. She requested a management transfer. She was concerned that Tenant A was aware of her new address.
On 29 December 2019, the resident wrote further concerning her complaint. Her son, who suffered mental health issues as a result of the assault, would be isolated. HO1 had informed the resident that another (“HO2”) had made “unsavoury comments” about her. When signing the tenancy agreement, HO1 had told her that HO1 had signed the resident’s signature on a document as HO1 had forgotten to ask the resident to sign some documents and the move would not have gone through without it. The resident felt she had been taken advantage of because of her disability. She was not aware what documents the housing officer had signed.
On 30 December 2019, the resident wrote again stating she had lost trust in the housing officers due to the data protection breach and lack of sensitivity. The resident had signed the tenancy agreement but not other documents.
On 10 January 2020, the resident wrote further as follows: HO1 had attended to carry out a property inspection on or around 23 October 2019 and therefore this was the document HO1 would have signed. The resident’s view was that she was encouraged to take the two-bedroom property as HO1 was a close friend of Tenant A who, according to the resident, wanted a three-bedroom property.
On 9 January 2020, a neighbour of the resident informed the landlord that she had overhead a conversation between other two neighbours whom she did not name that the resident had moved to a specific area. She would update the landlord. According to later correspondence, one of the neighbours who was overheard was Tenant A. The landlord updated the resident regarding its investigations and referred to the resident not wishing to disclose details of independent witnesses.
On 10 January 2020, the resident wrote again to explain, in response to enquiries by the landlord that HO2 and a surveyor were at the property on the day of the viewing, on 21 October 2019. HO1 had sent the resident photos of the new property on 15 October 2019 which was when HO1 had informed the resident this would be the only offer. The resident had overheard a neighbour discussing her move and whereabouts, however she had signed the tenancy. Had she been aware that her neighbours knew of her whereabouts, she would not have signed the tenancy. This concerned her as one of her previous neighbours knew the perpetrator of her son’s assault.
On 17 January 2020, the resident made a freedom of information request from the landlord for the documents including the documents she said she had not signed.
On 17 January 2020, the landlord sent the resident its first stage complaint response as follows:
1. The resident reported that she had overheard HO1 tell another person that she was moving. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis she had not provided any “independent corroborative evidence” in order to verify the complaint. HO1 had denied, when asked, sharing information about her move. It also interviewed Tenant A. There was no indication that she knew where the resident had moved to. When Tenant A learnt the resident had moved, HO1 had informed her that she could not discuss the move with Tenant A. It had found no evidence to confirm that HO2 had made unsavoury comments to HO1 about the resident. It did find that not all communications with her had been recorded on its database/computer system as it advised its staff to do. It had since ensure that all future conversations were recorded.
2. The resident had confirmed that the signature on the tenancy agreement was hers. It had compared the signature on all other documents she had signed as part of the transfer and allocation process with her signature. It concluded all the signatures were hers. HO1 had denied signing anything in her name. It did not uphold the complaint.
3. It did not uphold the complaint that HO1 had informed her that she would not get another property offer other than the one she moved to but did not explain its reasons.
4. In relation to the landlord unlawfully “overcrowding her”, the resident had informed another housing officer that she had wanted the new property and she was moving for personal reasons. That officer did not recall other conversations except those that concerned its condition. She had appeared “happy”. HO1 said the resident expressed doubts when the resident signed the tenancy agreement. It stated that the HO1 did not inform the resident that she would not get another offer.
5. It noted that the resident had been offered two other two-bedroom properties which she refused as she wanted to wait for a three-bedroom property to accommodate her adult son. It considered that by her moving her adult son into the previous property, she had intentionally “overcrowded” the property and this was a breach of her tenancy agreement and conditions. It noted that instead of acting on this breach, it worked with her to try and find her suitable alternative accommodation because of her son’s experience and made it clear that it had no duty to rehouse her adult son with her. She had not provided evidence that the elder son was her or her younger son’s carer. It looked to offer a three-bedroom when one became available but as those properties were limited, it had also offered her two-bedroom properties. It also worked with the local authority to get her application accepted for a managed move to any suitable property (not just the landlord’s) based on her circumstances. She was aware that her adult son could not move into the current property and so in signing the tenancy agreement, she accepted that this was the case. It found that not all conversations with the housing officer had been recorded on its system.
6. In related to ASB she had reported by Tenant A, while HO1 was aware of the allegation, the resident would have to “make it more formal” for it to action the report. It understood why the resident had been reluctant to do so. The landlord did investigate anonymous complaints but was limited on what action it could take.
7. It would not normally accept a transfer application within 12 months of the start of a tenancy, however in this case, having listened to the barriers the resident was facing, it would accept a transfer application from her. Her priority banding would not be high and it could take a long time. It suggested she should explore a mutual exchange.
On 18 January 2020, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. Her adult son was supporting her and her younger son. She did not say he was her carer. She was not aware of any tenancy breaches. She was in receipt of a disability allowance which meant she could chose who to be her carer. She had not stated that she had overheard Tenant A and HO1 talking about her move. She had overheard Tenant A talking to a neighbour about her move. She understood the landlord did not have a banding system. She wished to apply for a transfer.
The landlord replied on 23 January 2020 offering to discuss the complaint on the telephone. It also reassured her that it assessed banding in line with its policy.
On 29 January 2020, having requested and obtained a copy, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she did not sign the inventory form dated the 23 October 2019 and the signature was not hers. She did not ask HO1 to sign it on her behalf. Moreover, HO1 had informed the resident that she, HO1, had signed it.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its second stage complaint response on 7 February 2020 as follows:
1. The issues of conversations between neighbours regarding her move, unsavoury comments by HO2 and the property being the only offer involved one person’s word against another. It had been unable to conduct any further meaningful investigation of those complaints.
2. Her complaint that HO1 had signed the document was upheld. While there were two contradictory assertions, it found that, on balance, the resident’s version was more likely than not to be correct. It apologised that it did not provide her a good standard of service. The form had had no detrimental effect on the approval of her transfer application.
On 7 February 2020, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated to stage three. She was concerned she would be on a low banding.
The landlord confirmed that it would consider the resident for a three-bedroom property should one become available and that she was in “top priority” for this. It was unable to share details regarding the action it was taking regarding HO1.It stated that it would escalate the complaint to stage three.
On 29 April 2020, the resident reported that her son had attempted to take his own life, due to her housing circumstances.
In May 2020, there followed a discussion about the availability of the resident’s advocate at the panel review.
On 2 June 2020, the landlord made enquiries about witnesses to the alleged conversation about the resident’s move and their potential attendance at the panel hearing.
On 22 June 2020, the landlord wrote with the findings following the third stage panel hearing on 27 May 2020 and her advocate’s attendance on the 17 June 2020 by conference call.
1. The panel requested that an independent review of signatures on the forms was undertaken to ascertain whether there had been any falsification of the resident’s signature.
2. It found there were some anomalies in following the lettings policy and internal service standards. However, the panel felt that there was no evidence that she was advised that this was her final offer of accommodation, based on her having refused two other properties and that, as part of the lettings process, the landlord operated a process of three refusals.
3. There was no evidence to support the allegations that HO2 had made unsavoury comments about the resident.
4. The panel recognised the importance of her being allocated a three-bedroom property closer to her family and friends to enable the continued support for her youngest son. She was to be put on the transfer list for a three-bedroom property, which would ordinarily not be permitted, as this would contravene the 12-month timeframe with its lettings policy.
5. It concluded that there was a need for the staff involved in the allocation of properties to be given training on making decisions to ensure consistency and adherence to policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2020 reporting the opinion of a handwriting expert. The available documents provided strong evidence that she did not make the signature reproduced on the Home Visit Form. Falsifying a person’s signature was a serious issue. The Chief Executive was sincerely sorry for the distress this matter had caused her. It would be dealt with accordingly under its disciplinary procedures.
The landlord informed this service on 22 September 2020 that disciplinary action had been taken. The Ombudsman has seen the evidence and is satisfied that those proceedings took place. This Service cannot, for data protection reasons, share the evidence with the resident. The landlord had reported the incident to the Regulator for Social Housing following which it was to commission a lettings review to strengthen its letting practices. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the Regulator for Social Housing was content with the action it had taken regarding the matter. It had updated both its policy and procedures and employed a specialist Lettings Manager to strengthen its controls within the lettings service. A revised lettings policy has been put in place.
The resident has since arranged a move, presumably through a mutual exchange, to another property. While it was not expressly part of her complaint, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that she was of the view she should have been offered compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord falsified documents and her reports of staff conduct.

It was not disputed that the HO1 signed an inspection list dated 23 October 2019 in relation to the resident’s property on behalf of the resident, apparently with the purpose of representing it was the resident who had signed the document. The issues for the Ombudsman to consider is the time the landlord took to reach this conclusion, what practical effect and impact the incident had on the resident, and what steps the landlord took as a result.
It was reasonable of the landlord to have investigated the resident’s report that HO1 had signed the document in the resident’s name by comparing the document with other documents the resident had previously signed. On the face of it, it may have been difficult to have concluded whether the signature was that of HO1 or the resident. However, the landlord could have been more enquiring and open-minded in the face of what was a serious allegation. It could have met with the resident to discuss the matter, or at the very least provided the resident with a copy of the document, at the outset.
However, it was a short period before the landlord reviewed the matter and changed its position. Given its conclusion, it was reasonable and appropriate that the landlord then investigated further, albeit it took the resident to escalate the request in order to refer the matter to a more senior level. The landlord should have considered such a step at an earlier stage and without being prompted by a complaint. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The document itself had no legal effect in terms of whether the resident was bound by the tenancy. The crucial document was the tenancy agreement, which, it was not disputed, the resident had signed. The purpose of the document signed by HO1 was to record any defects and any agreed works in the property and would have been only relevant in relation to any disrepair. While, according to the resident, HO1 stated that she signed the document in order to expedite the move, whether the document was relevant would have been a matter of internal administration. In the circumstances, unless the resident was disputing the contents of the form, of which there was no evidence, HO1 signing it had no practical effect. The signature only evidenced that the resident agreed with the contents of the document.
As the landlord has noted, signing as the resident was a serious matter. It also impacted on the resident’s sense of trust and confidence in the landlord. It is noted that the landlord’s actions were prompted by the resident pursuing her complaint. However, it was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to investigate the matter and to update the resident and apologise. It was also appropriate that the landlord undertook a disciplinary process and referred itself to the regulator and took advice. In the circumstances, given there was no practical effect of the incident on the resident, it apologised and the landlord demonstrated it took the matter very seriously, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions constituted reasonable redress by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.

In terms of the resident’s report that HO2 made adverse comments to HO1, it was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the matter. While the resident did not expect either housing officer to be frank, if HO2 had made an inappropriate comment, and was therefore sceptical about the outcome, there was no evidence on which basis the landlord could take the matter further. It was reasonable of the landlord to identify that it had failed to record its discussions, to appreciate the importance of doing so, and has stated its intention to address this. While the landlord has already taken steps in that regard, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in any event.
While the Ombudsman is not investigating whether a breach of data protection took place, in terms of HO1’s conduct, the evidence showed that the landlord investigated the matter and made enquiries with potential witnesses. While it obtained evidence that indicated that Tenant A had talked to a third party concerning the resident’s move, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it was HO1 who had informed Tenant A that the resident had moved. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable of the landlord not to take any further action.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.

The resident’s further complaint concerned whether HO1 had misrepresented to her that the property she moved into was the landlord’s final offer and therefore she felt that she had no option but to take it. The Ombudsman notes there is a dispute about what was said. However, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities which version is correct on the basis of the evidence available to it. However, it can consider how the landlord addressed the issue and whether it acted reasonably and proportionately.
The landlord acted reasonably in investigating the matter by making enquiries. It, again, was unable to reach a conclusion about what had been said. The way it framed its conclusion was not clear, nor did the landlord explain what were the anomalies that it referred to in the panel outcome. That its policy stated that the landlord operated a process of a maximum of three offers would have been an indication, although not conclusive, that the resident had been told that it was a final offer. However, the policy also allowed for the landlord to use its discretion in circumstances such as the resident’s, therefore it was also possible HO1 did not give such a warning. In addition, the resident’s view was that the landlord had not made previous offers. The issue is very borderline. However, regardless of the conclusion, the landlord acted reasonably by offering a priority move to the resident to the size of property that she had requested. While it did so in response to the resident’s personal circumstances, in the view of the Ombudsman, that also constituted a fair outcome, and the optimum solution it was possible for the landlord to provide.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have a clear lettings policy in place and record its conversations, which points the landlord itself has picked up and addressed. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord has since adopted a more detailed lettings policy. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to have recorded in writing that it had made offers and informed the resident of the consequences of refusing an offer, again in writing. There was no evidence of such correspondence. This contributed to the lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances of the offer of the property.
While the policy was unclear, it would be unusual for a social landlord to allocate a three-bedroom property on the basis of a returning adult child, however again it was reasonable of the landlord to exercise its discretion to do so, given the family circumstances.
There was no evidence that, if HO1 had informed the resident that it was making a final offer, she had done so in order that Tenant A was allocated a three-bedroom house.
It is very evident that the resident was distressed and felt isolated in the property she moved to, on her own and her son’s behalf and they are both vulnerable. She was of the view the move had exacerbated her and her son’s mental health. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration, if there were any, had contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health.
The landlord accepted the resident’s application as a priority to move to a three-bedroom property on 11 February 2021. It reasonably exercised its discretion to override its policy that an internal applicant would have to wait 12 months after a move. It placed her on its housing list for a three-bedroom property. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer to move the resident to a three-bedroom property as a priority was a reasonable response in relation to the resident’s request for a move.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord falsified documents.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.
In accordance with Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of data breaches was in the Ombudsman’s opinion, outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s report that the housing officer had signed a document in her name without her permission. While the incident effected the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord, there was no evidence of any practical impact on the resident. While there was some delay, the landlord evidenced that it took the matter seriously and acted appropriately in response to the resident’s response.
The evidence showed that the landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s reports of staff conduct. There was insufficient evidence upon which to take the matter further.
While the Ombudsman did not identify a service failure in relation to the resident’s request to move, it reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns about her current property, exercised its reasonable discretion and accepted her application to move to a three-bedroom property as a priority.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that its staff members records its discussions with residents.
2. The landlord should ensure its offers of accommodation are in writing together with any warning whether it is making a final offer.
3. Where the landlord has reason to believe that a resident’s complaint about a staff member is justified, the landlord must consider further internal investigations.
4. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.