Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202015474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015474

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

3 April 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. An application to split the household.
2. The subsequent formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint the resident held a secure tenancy of a three-bedroom flat, with two double bedrooms and one single room. The flat was located on the third floor, and she lived there with her daughter and grandson. The flat was owned by the landlord. She sought to re-house the family in two, one-bedroom properties. The resident has complained that the landlord insisted that she be re-housed before it would re-house her daughter, which, she explained would cause major disruption and inconvenience as her daughter would be left in a flat with no cooker/fridge etc.
The resident sought permission to split the households, whereby her current flat would be returned to the council and both the resident and her daughter would each be offered a one-bedroom property. She submitted a split tenancy form on 19 May 2020. In this form she included a request that her daughter be housed first. She also stated that she had not received the Split Household Information Sheet.
The ‘Split Household Information Sheet’ sets out how such requests are dealt with. This states: “Split households are where a household who are under-occupying their current home are moved to two separate properties. The current tenant transfers to one property and an adult member of the household moves to another property with a new tenancy being created.”
The form also states “The following is very important to bear in mind when you are considering applying for a split household:
1. The tenant will be offered rehousing first.
2. The adult applicant will not be offered housing until the tenant has formally accepted an offer of rehousing.”
The information sheet was forwarded to the resident on 19 June 2020.
On 28 September 2020 the resident received an email that included an attachment confirming her registration. The email stated “I have updated out (sic) notes regarding the split house hold and that your daughter needs to be rehoused first”. The resident took this to be confirmation that the landlord had agreed to her request.
The resident was asked to complete a further split household form in order to progress the application on 17 November 2020. The landlord’s process map regarding split household applications indicates that that both the resident and the adult applicant will be asked to complete separate forms. “By completing the form both agree the tenant will move first before the adult applicant where possible”. The resident’s email in response stated, “I agree with the content of the form and myself and my daughter both agree to accept 1 bedroom properties each.” The resident also specified that she wanted a street property, rather than a flat in a block. The application was approved on the same date.
The resident was invited to a viewing in December 2020. The offer was initially accepted but then refused by the resident as she was dissatisfied with the condition of the kitchen and bathroom. She requested that these be replaced, but this request was refused as the landlord was satisfied that both met its lettings standard. An offer made to the resident’s daughter was withdrawn due to the resident’s refusal.
The resident wrote to her councillor on 18 December 2020. She explained that she was unhappy about the decision not to replace the kitchen and bathroom and the lack of transparency as to which member of staff had ultimate responsibility for the decision. A surveyor was called and attended. The resident reported that he appeared to agree with her regarding the condition, but the request was still refused. She explained that she worked as a surveyor for a social landlord, and it would not have let a property in that condition. She stated that she had spent thousands on her property and did not see why she should accept a property that was in worse condition than the one she was returning. She was also distressed that the offer to her daughter was withdrawn and that this was used as added pressure to try and make her accept the tenancy offered. She expressed her disappointment that the properties would now have been offered to others and asked for the councillor’s views. She also wrote to the landlord expressing the same and stating that she was looking forward to viewing the next property.
The resident has provided a photograph of a message from the landlord asking if she would be interested in the particular property. Internal records held by the landlord state that two split households applicants were put forward for the next available property. The other household was invited to view the property first as they had been waiting longer for an offer to be made. This household accepted the offer, and the resident was not offered a viewing.
The councillor raised the issues with the landlord and forwarded its response to the resident on 22 December 2020. This explained that the application was approved as a Director’s decision as there was no provision within the landlord’s policies to allow a resident to split the household. Residents could therefore only split their household at the landlord’s discretion. Having stated that there was no policy, the letter proceeds to refer to a policy and process. It explained that the non-dependent adult (the resident’s daughter) within such a household application for re-housing is suspended on the housing register, until the main tenant (the resident) has accepted a property. This prevented increasing the existing under-occupation that may occur by offering the non-dependent a new tenancy, whilst the old tenancy continues.
The landlord explained what had happened with the viewings and offers and that the officers and surveyor had been spoken to. The landlord was satisfied that the property met the letting standards and could see no justification for incurring charges for removing and replacing the kitchen and bathroom. The letter set out the extensive demand for council properties and the numbers on its waiting list. It confirmed the property had been offered and accepted by a homeless household. It concluded that the officers were correct to rescind the offer to the resident’s daughter as explained above.
The resident was dissatisfied with this response and sent her comments to the councillor. These were forwarded to the councillor and a second response was obtained from the council. Again, this was forwarded to the resident who returned the email with her comments on 28 January 2021. The resident’s dissatisfaction largely concerned the transparency of the policy documentation, the condition of the property offered, the decision not to replace the kitchen and bathroom, the rescinding of the offer to her daughter and the fact that no further viewings had been arranged.
The process was repeated on further occasions, with the landlord responding to the councillor, the councillor forwarding it to the resident and the resident sending comments to the councillor, culminating with a response from the Head of Allocations and Lettings on 12 May 2021. A formal complaint was then made by the resident on 13 May 2021, which referred to the exchange of correspondence.
The landlord issued its response at stage one of the complaints procedure on 8 June 2021. The letter noted that the central theme of the complaint was the landlord’s insistence on the order in which it would rehouse the household and the lack of recognition that there had been an email from the Supported Moves Officer, which, the resident believed, agreed that the resident’s daughter could move first. The landlord again confirmed that the message from the Supported Moves Officer was confirmation of the request rather than an agreement to the request.
It partially upheld the complaint on the grounds that there was delay in the resident receiving a response for the Head of Allocations and Lettings (the final response to the councillor queries). In regard to the rest of the complaint the landlord was unable to identify any grounds where the landlord failed to act or acted in an improper way. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
The resident submitted her comments and requested that the matter be escalated on 8 June 2021. The complaint was acknowledged and the landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 15 June to discuss her concerns. It contacted her again to advise that its response was going to be slightly delayed. The response at stage two was sent on 19 July 2021 along with an apology for the delay.
The response addressed the following areas of complaint:
1. Split household process and the message indicating that the resident’s daughter would be moved first.
2. That no further offers of suitable properties, or any explanation had been provided.
3. The standard of the investigations both in the initial response to the councillor and at stage one.
4. Delays in responding to the initial complaint.
The landlord reviewed the evidence and confirmed again that the message from the Supported Moves Officer was her noting the resident’s request that her daughter be moved first. It did not accept that this was evidence that the request had been agreed but noted that the resident should have been advised at the time that this would not be possible. The letter noted that the previous responses had fully explained why the main tenant needed to move first.
The landlord was satisfied that the matter had been responded to appropriately.
The landlord confirmed that the property offered had been post inspected and that the lettable standards had been provided to the resident. It explained that where there were instances when an intended occupier questioned the letting standard, this would not generally prevent them from moving in. The contractor would be invited back, and any works needed would be undertaken. There is a section missing from the letter regarding the information provided by the repairs team. However, it is clear that the landlord was satisfied that the kitchen and bathroom met the lettable standards. The letter confirmed that the resident’s application for re-housing was still active.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not happy with the initial investigation as the officer was not aware of the expression of interest in the property awarded to another applicant. An apology was given, however the investigation into the viewings was accurate and reflected the evidence available. The landlord was satisfied that the resident had been given a full explanation as to why she was not invited to view the property in the answers to the councillor’s queries.
The landlord reviewed the seven member enquiries presented by the councillor and found that all were responded to on time with the exception of the final response which was sent once the staff member in question returned from annual leave. An apology was given but the landlord noted that the information provided, and the landlord’s position did not change. There was therefore no disadvantage caused by this delay.
The landlord was satisfied that the stage one response fully addressed the concerns raised in the complaint but noted that its final sentence was not accurate as it referred to how it “managed your move.” The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not moved and corrected its wording to read it was “satisfied the Council have managed the beneficial transfer process appropriately.”
Both the resident and her daughter have now accepted new tenancies.

Assessment and findings

When dealing with allocations the landlord must have regard to the statutory guidance set out in the Code of Guidance on the allocation of accommodation. Transfers of existing tenants are covered in s.159(4A) and (4B) which confirm that transfers at the tenant’s request, where the authority is satisfied the tenant does not have reasonable preference, do not fall within Part 6 of the Housing Act and housing authorities may set their own transfer policies in relation to these tenants.
The landlord has a split household policy and process that covers transfers whereby a household gives up a larger property in exchange for two smaller properties, thereby returning family sized accommodation to the landlord. The policy is clear regarding the order in which rehousing will take place. The main tenant will be rehoused first, thus terminating the original tenancy. The second resident will either be housed simultaneously or will remain in the original property until an offer can be made. Rehousing in this order prevents the original resident from changing their mind, once the second adult has been housed. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this policy requirement is fair in the circumstances as it seeks to safeguard the landlord’s limited resources whilst ensuring that both adults are suitably housed.
It is accepted that the resident requested that the order be altered, but not that the landlord agreed to this. The landlord’s position is that its notes were updated to include this request, but not that the request was approved. An earlier email dated 16 June 2020 advised the resident that the application had been passed to a more senior officer. She was therefore aware that the Supported Moves Officer would not be making the decision. There was also a later email exchange where the resident confirmed on 17 November 2020 that she agreed with the contents of the form. The form clearly identifies the order in which rehousing will be offered. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no intention to approve the request and the that the intention was to record the request. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have explicitly denied the request to avoid the ambiguity highlighted by this complaint. It has also apologised to the resident.
Once an offer was made, the resident raised her concerns regarding the kitchen and the bathroom. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend to inspect, and that the decision was then taken that the property met its lettable standards. The resident was unhappy that it was not made clear which member of staff had responsibility for making this decision. This investigation has found that the landlord requested the attendance of the surveyor, as was appropriate. It considered the surveyor’s opinion as to whether it was reasonable for the property to be let in its current condition and concluded that it was. This was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make. The decision was made clear to the resident and was explained on a number of occasions. Which member of staff made the decision, or whether it was a joint decision would not have altered the position for the resident.
The resident has also pointed out that she had made a number of improvements to the property she was returning to the landlord, and she did not therefore want to accept a property that needed work. When homes are vacated the landlord will generally remove any tenant improvements and replace them with standard features. This prevents the landlord from inheriting a maintenance and repairing obligation for fixtures and fittings that they have not installed. Whilst the resident has undoubtedly improved and modernised her home, the landlord was under no obligation to offer an equivalent property and was unlikely to receive any benefit from the improvements. There is little evidence of this being explained to the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord suspended or terminated the resident’s application following her refusal of the offer. The landlord confirmed that her application remained open and that the lack of offers related to the limited number of available properties that met the resident’s selection criteria.
In relation to the property that the resident was asked if she was interested in viewing, the landlord has provided an explanation as to why no viewing took place. Length of waiting time was used to prioritise the two households and a viewing was offered to the household who had been waiting the longest. This was a sensible approach that sought to treat the households fairly. It is noted that there is no reference to this priority in the landlord’s guidance, nor was it explained to the resident until after she submitted her concerns.
The landlord investigated this matter on a number of occasions in response to the councillor’s queries. Whilst the information provided has not always included the level of detail wanted by the resident, the landlord’s position has been clear throughout, and it has provided adequate explanations. The noted shortcomings are not of a degree to warrant a finding of maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint handling

As the resident initially raised her concerns via a councillor, she received several responses and entered into correspondence with managers regarding the issues before a formal complaint was logged. The landlord’s complaint policy distinguishes between complaints and enquiries from councillors and confirms that such enquiries are not considered to be complaints. The landlord was therefore acting in accordance with its policy; however, this distinction caused some delay in the matter reaching the formal complaints process.
The complaints policy defines a complaint as follows: Any expression of dissatisfaction about the council’s provision of, or failure to provide, a service for which it has responsibility. An early response to the councillor recognises that the resident was complaining about a service and confirmed it had “investigated the complaint”, yet there was no offer to deal with the matter through the formal process was made.
By March 2021 the resident was telling the landlord that she wanted a final response in order to bring the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord continued to deal with the matter as a councillor enquiry and did not register it as a complaint until May 2021. It therefore took the resident longer than was necessary to access the complaints process. The landlord’s failure to process the matter as a complaint resulted in inconvenience as the resident had to take time and trouble to pursue the matter.
Once the matter entered the complaints process it was dealt with fairly and the resident was kept informed and updated.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the application to split the household.
2. There was maladministration in relation to its handling of the subsequent complaint.

Reasons

The landlord complied with its policy requirements when managing the application to split the household. It provided appropriate explanations and undertook adequate investigation and reviews of its actions.
It took too long for the landlord to recognise the matter as a complaint. As a result, the resident had to continue to raise the issues and was caused inconvenience and distress.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following order:
1. That the landlord pays the resident £200 for its delay in identifying the matter as a complaint and the time and trouble caused to the resident.
2. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

That the landlord reviews its handling of councillor’s enquiries and how it can signpost residents to the complaints procedure at an earlier point in time.