Housing 21 (202206023)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206023

Housing 21

28 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.

Background

  1. The resident was an applicant of the landlord, for a home in its Extra Care scheme. The Extra Care scheme provides care support for residents. At the time of his application, the resident was residing in temporary accommodation having been evicted from his previous property due to accusations of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
  2. In November 2021, following a referral from the local authority, the resident attended an assessment for a potential property with the landlord. However, the landlord refused the application. At the time it advised the resident the refusal was was due to the property being unsuitable for his needs.
  3. In March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He stated the outcome of the assessment had been delayed, the landlord had provided conflicting information regarding why his application had been refused, that it had only recently been explained that he was not eligible for the housing he had applied for and that staff members had behaved unprofessionally when dealing with his application. He also raised concerns that he had been given incorrect advice about other vacant properties and the landlord had not turned up to a review meeting of his application on 1 March 2022.
  4. In its Stage One complaint response of 7 March 2022, the landlord disputed it had contacted the resident late, or that staff members had behaved unprofessionally. However, it did acknowledge that normally an application response should be sent in writing. It promised to rectify this for future responses. It agreed that the resident had received conflicting messages regarding his application and offered an apology for this. It clarified its position that he was not eligible for the scheme due to his previous ASB eviction. It also stated the property he had been put forward for was for those in need of a certain level of domestic care, which the resident was also not eligible for. The landlord apologised for any confusion caused regarding the other void properties and explained that the information supplied had been correct but acknowledged that it was confusing. It also apologised for having failed to notify the resident it could not attend the review meeting, citing sickness as a reason for its absence.
  5. The resident requested that his complaint be escalated and reiterated that the landlord had delayed when contacting him regarding his application. He queried the information given about void properties and also requested more information to clarify his eligibility regarding the care requirements. He queried why the local authority has sent his application to a scheme he was not eligible for and questioned the validity of this statement.
  6. In its final response on 7 April 2022, acknowledged there had been failings regarding its communication and offered £50 compensation. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s application should never have been accepted for consideration, as it could not be accepted due to its existing policy in relation to the resident’s previous ASB eviction. It apologised for this and also stated that the resident should have been told of his right to appeal its decision to deny his application. The landlord advised it had decided to treat the resident’s complaint as his appeal, but it now ultimately upheld its original decision. It offered an additional £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide the correct advice in this matter.
  7. When referring this complaint to this Service, the resident stated he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he felt it did not provide enough detail when explaining how the errors occurred in submitting his application. He stated he wanted the landlord to be more flexible in its attitude towards his application.

Assessment and Findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised he feels that the local authority also committed errors in the handling of his housing application. However, under paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As the local authority’s actions in this case did involve its role as a landlord, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) would be the appropriate body to investigate should the resident wish to progress a complaint against them, if he has not already done so and this investigation will concentrate on the actions of the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.

  1. The landlord’s lettings policy states that properties providing Extra Care are allocated through nominations agreed by joint allocation panels made up of representatives from the landlord and the local authority. The nomination or offer will take into account the level of care needs of the applicant and ensure a balanced community profile. Applicants nominated by local authorities must also complete the landlord’s application form (in conjunction with the local authority assessment). The landlord reserves the right to refuse a nomination if the applicant does not meet the normal eligibility rules.
  2. The landlord’s letting policy also states that it will refuse an application from an applicant who is deemed to be unsuitable. This includes where the applicant has been evicted from any other retirement or general needs housing due to rent arrears, antisocial behaviour, damage to property or any other noncompliance with tenancy conditions. The applicant has a right to appeal any decision made in connection with their application for housing and the landlord will inform them who they should address the appeal to and that it should be made within 14 days.
  3. Due to an error, the landlord did not initially identify that, according to its lettings policy, the resident was not eligible for its scheme due his previous ASB eviction. Records show it initially refused the resident’s application to a specific property in November 2021 as it deemed the property to be unsuitable, rather than refusing the application based on his previous eviction. Additionally in March 2021, the landlord assessed the resident’s care requirements, concluding that he was not eligible for the scheme, as he did not require the level of care on offer at the property as an Extra Care residence.
  4. While the conclusions that the landlord arrived at were reasonable and in line with its policies, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately by proceeding with the application for a number of months and carrying out further needs assessments. This was despite the application form, submitted by the local authority, clearly stating the resident was evicted from his last property and providing additional supporting information. To be in line with general good customer service, it should have understood the parameters of its own scheme and communicated the correct information to the resident from the outset. That it did not do so amounted to service failure.
  5. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it made an error by agreeing to consider the resident’s application to its housing scheme, as the resident was not eligible for the property. It acknowledged it should have been aware of the limitations of the scheme and advised the resident in a timely fashion following the application. It has also acknowledged its communication was below the standard it would have expected to provide. The landlord identified that, according to its policies, the resident should have been told of his right to appeal its decision, but he was not. While this was a failing, the landlord acted reasonably by treating his complaint as an appeal. It then reviewed his case, but ultimately decided that due to the reasons already stated, he was not eligible for its Extra Care scheme.
  6. To rectify its mistakes, the landlord apologised for the way it handled the resident’s application. It explained why the resident was not eligible for the scheme, both in regard to the history of ASB and the requirements for care. It also explained its system with advertising void properties and offered a further apology for any confusion. It advised it would provide staff with further training, to process future applications more effectively. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the inconvenience caused, and offered to reimburse any expenses that the resident incurred by its mistake. The resident advised he wanted the landlord to donate the compensation to charity.
  7. From the evidence available, it is clear that failings by the landlord when handling his application clearly caused distress and disappointment for the resident and damaged his confidence in the service provided. However, the overall outcome for the resident was not affected by the landlord’s errors, as the resident remains ineligible for this particular housing scheme. While the resident has advised he would like the landlord to be more flexible regarding its lettings policy, it was entitled to reject his application and was not obligated to exercise its discretion to set aside its policy. The landlord has acknowledged its failings, and made attempts to put things right by apologising, outlining that it will provide further staff training and offering the resident a small amount of compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the steps taken by the landlord in response to the concerns the resident raised were appropriate and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s housing application.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider:
    1. Paying the compensation offered in its complaint response, if it has not done so already, and reiterating its offer to cover any travel expenses incurred by the resident due to its mistakes.
    2. Sharing the details of this case with relevant staff and providing further training to staff who handle housing applications and referrals from the local authority, to ensure they are managed in line with its policies and procedures.