Hyde Housing Association Limited (202006710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006710

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 March 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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed flat on the 3rd floor of a purpose-built block. She holds an Assured Shorthold Tenancy with the landlord, a Housing Association. She has resided at her home (‘the property’) since 2009.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. Its policy advises that it aims to respond to complaints at Stage One within 10 working days and within 20 working days if a complaint is escalated to Stage Two.
The landlord does not operate its own waiting list, instead accepting nominations from Local Authorities for its vacant properties. Its Urgent Moves Procedure outlines the circumstances under which it will move tenants to an alternative property. Section 3.3 of this policy states that:
1. ‘The procedure cannot be used…in cases of overcrowding to support a move to a larger property’.

Summary of Events

On 21 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that it ‘apologised for the delay’ and had had to ‘refer your application to our welfare benefits team and they have concluded that the property has come back unaffordable based on the financial information you have provided’. It apologised to the resident but clarified that ‘applications are based on affordability’ and provided a number for the resident to contact if she wished to discuss the matter further. This Service has not seen any further details regarding what the delay the landlord referred to was, the application it mentioned, any assessment carried out by the landlord’s Welfare Benefits Team, or details of any properties that had been applied for by the resident. However, it appears that the email was sent following the resident’s application to be moved to a larger property.
The resident replied to the landlord the following day and advised that she wished to make a ‘formal complaint’. In her email she requested that the landlord provide ‘a breakdown of the workings in the formal decision from the ‘Welfare Benefits Team’ (regarding affordability)’, the details of who made the final decision and who made the decision to nominate her for the property. She stated that the property she had been offered would still have been too small (as her children would have been sharing rooms) but that the landlord was also already aware of her financial situation and she had been ‘offered (the) property based on knowledge not only of my family composition but the income I use to pay (my rent) and (my) rental history’. She further advised that her family consisted of 6 people living in a two-bedroom flat and the overcrowding had been exacerbated by the coronavirus related lockdown. She stated she would also be contacting the Local Authority and requested a prompt response from the landlord.
Following the resident’s complaint, there is no evidence that she received an acknowledgement or further response from the landlord in accordance with its complaints procedure. The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 7 October 2020 to request assistance and this Service got in touch with the landlord the following day, requesting that it engage its complaint procedure and provide the resident with a formal complaint response.
The landlord advised this Service it did not have any record of having received a complaint from the resident. However, it emailed the resident on 9 October 2020, and advised that her case had now ‘been raised as a Stage One complaint’. It advised it had tried to contact her to discuss the complaint and was aware that she was unhappy with its response to her reports of being overcrowded (which is how the complaint was initially described by this Service). It requested the resident provide further details so it could understand what she was unhappy with ‘specifically’ and ‘what we can do to put things right’. It advised it would investigate the matter and had asked that its Tenancy Team ‘review their interactions with you, and compare this to our policies’ and would provide its complaint response on or before 6 November 2020.
However, the landlord did not provide a complaint response and the resident again contacted this Service for assistance. She contacted this Service on 13 November and 16 December 2020, advising that she had been offered a property by the landlord in August 2020 which had then been withdrawn on the grounds of affordability, which she stated was a difference of just £10 per week from what she was currently paying. This Service contacted the landlord on several occasions to request that it progress the resident’s complaint and provide a response. It eventually provided a Stage One complaint response on 26 January 2021.
In its response the landlord advised that it understood the complaint to be regarding the resident’s ‘concerns with being overcrowded in your home’. It advised that it had ‘checked all the details of (her) complaint to find out what had happened’ and noted the following:
1. It advised that the resident had been asked to fill out an affordability assessment when she ‘applied for the previous property’ and she had clarified with the landlord (although this Service has not seen records regarding the call referred to) that she was ‘unsure of what this was, and filled it out as best you can with rough figures’.
2. When the assessment was completed, ‘it was deemed to be unaffordable based on the values you have provided’.
3. Following this, the resident had contacted a Team Leader in its Empty Homes and Lettings Team, but she had not received a response.
4. Having reviewed the case, it could not locate any service failures regarding the lettings process’, other than the lack of response from the Team Leader.
5. It advised that the assessment process was automated and ‘is based on the information you provided’ and recommended that, in future applications, the resident ‘carefully consider the details you put in, and ensure that they are as accurate as possible’.
6. It acknowledged that there had been a ‘service failure for a lack of communication and for the length of time taken to respond to your complaint’, which it partially attributed to ‘a lack of understanding of what your concerns are’. It offered an apology and £100 compensation for its delayed response, requesting that the resident advise if she was accepting the offer within two weeks.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2021 to advise that she was unhappy with its Stage One response and to request that it escalated the complaint and provide a further response at Stage Two. After further chasing of the landlord, it responded to this Service on 10 March 2021 to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and contacted the resident the following day. It issued its Stage Two response on 22 March 2021.
In its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord noted that it had discussed the complaint with the resident on 17 March 2021 (this Service has again not seen records regarding this conversation). It noted that it understood the resident’s ‘frustration’ at the length of time it had taken to respond to her original complaint and clarified that this was the reason it had offered £100 compensation. It noted that the resident felt its Stage One response ‘did not address your complaints over the affordability process’ and that she remained unhappy that it had ‘refused your nomination for a 4-bedroom house on that basis’. It also noted that the resident had enquired why, having been rejected for one property based on affordability concerns, she was then offered a more expensive property a few weeks later. Finally, it noted that the resident had advised that its Complaints Officer had criticised her ‘for having too many children’.
After carrying out its investigation, the landlord advised the following:
1. Having spoken to the Complaints Officer, they apologised if they ‘came across’ as if they were criticising the resident and clarified that they had been trying to explain that when the resident took on the tenancy (in 2009), ‘the property was suitable and that you chose to have more children which resulted in you being overcrowded’.
2. It found ‘no basis to change the (Stage One) decision, which was not upheld’ and did not find any failings when ‘(we) rejected your nomination from (the Local Authority) on the grounds of affordability’.
3. It referred to a further phone call with the resident of 19 March 2021 (details of which this Service has not seen) and clarified that it had explained her nomination ‘had been rejected because you would have been affected by the Benefit Cap, which limits maximum levels of benefit, and Housing Benefit would not have covered £75 of your rent per week’. It advised that its policy was ‘not to let people move into accommodation that they cannot afford’ and that it based its decision on ‘the information you provided on the affordability form you completed online’.
4. It clarified that, regarding a further nomination a few weeks later that was ‘even more expensive’, this had been made by the Local Authority ‘as they control access to housing within their borough and (we) must make the offer in line with their decisions’. It noted that, after being rejected for the property, the resident had provided further information regarding Discretionary Housing Payments and ‘other income’ but ‘it was too late for this property’ as the landlord had already offered it to the next person on the Local Authority’s nominations list. It explained that it had ‘very tight targets to let empty properties’.
5. It apologised if the resident ‘felt (we) did not respond quickly enough to some of the further information you provided’ and advised that this had been raised with the relevant team.
6. The landlord also provided advice on how the resident could avoid the benefit cap, explaining that she could either find part time work or ‘get confirmation from (the Local Authority) that they will cover any shortfall in benefit’.
7. It confirmed that the £100 compensation offered at Stage One remained available.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 May 2021 to advise she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She reiterated that the landlord had been rude to her, citing the comment about her choice to have more children, and advised that aside from being overcrowded, she was suffering from a slipped disc and her third-floor flat did not benefit from lift access. In further correspondence with this Service, the resident advised that she considered the £100 compensation offered to be insufficient and, to resolve her complaint, she believed the landlord should transfer her family to a more ‘suitable’ property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request

As part of this investigation, this Service wrote to the landlord to request information relevant to the resident’s case and its handling of the issues. In particular, the landlord was asked to provide further evidence including:
1. Information relevant to the resident’s request to be transferred and the related affordability assessment.
2. Correspondence or contact notes concerning the resident’s request to be transferred.
3. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into (the resident’s) request and evidence relied upon in the decision making.
4. Any correspondence, contact notes, meeting/panel notes concerning the assessment of (the resident’s) housing needs.
5. An explanation of any assistance offered, or currently being offered to (the resident).
6. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation and assessment of the affordability requirements.
7. Information concerning any assessment of the application.
8. The landlord’s records concerning the affordability assessment undertaken by the landlord.
9. Correspondence or contact notes concerning the landlord’s decision-making process.
However, the landlord has not provided any of the above information and advised this Service on 22 July 2021 that it had provided all the information it held, which was in the form of email and complaint correspondence with the resident. A follow up enquiry from this Service on 2 March 2022 to clarify if there was any other information the landlord held in its records was not responded to, so this investigation will assume that all the available information has been provided.
This raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping as there are significant gaps within the information provided. This Service has not seen evidence regarding the resident’s original transfer request, details of the financial information the resident provided (or details of her financial assessment), details of the properties referred to in the complaint (including the rent and dates the nomination offers were made), and any information regarding further investigations or re-assessment carried out by the landlord after the resident had queried the affordability assessment and any further.
This Service is not able to determine whether the landlord was correct to conclude the properties the resident was nominated for were affordable or not, in part due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord to this investigation. However, this Service will determine whether the landlord’s overall response was reasonable.
As noted above, the lack of information that has been made available to this investigation regarding the resident’s original transfer request through to the affordability assessment is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to outline or justify many of the steps it took.
As above, it is not clear when the resident initially contacted the landlord regarding a transfer, and the first piece of evidence seen by this Service is a reply from the landlord to the resident dated 21 September 2020, which apologised for a ‘delay’ and advised that the property the resident had been nominated for had been determined to be ‘unaffordable’ by the Welfare Benefits Team. However, this Service has not seen the original contact from the resident.
In response, the resident requested the landlord provide a ‘breakdown of the workings in the…decision’ from the Welfare Benefits Team but there is no evidence that it did so. Rather, the landlord simply advised in its complaint responses that the process was automated, and the assessment was based on information provided by the resident herself. While this was not an unreasonable explanation from the landlord and it had the right to determine that the property was unaffordable in accordance with its policies, to ensure transparency and appropriately address the concerns she raised, the landlord should have provided further information as she had requested.
It is also noted that, in the landlord’s Stage One response, it referred to the fact that the resident had apparently advised that she had not understood what the assessment form was and the information she provided was ‘only based on rough figures’. Having acknowledged in its complaint response that the resident had raised concerns over the accuracy of the assessment, regardless of whether she herself had provided the information or not, the landlord should, so as to treat the resident fairly and maintain transparency, taken steps to review the information it held and ensure that any future nominations were assessed using up to date and accurate financial information.
The landlord has advised this Service that it does not maintain its own transfer/waiting list and nominations to its available properties are made by the Local Authority or can be applied for via the Housing Jigsaw website. This Service therefore acknowledges that the resident’s desired outcome from her complaint – that the landlord moves her family to a larger property – is not something the landlord will likely be able to do. The landlord’s Urgent Moves Procedure makes clear that it will not move residents on grounds of overcrowding, so it acted in line with its policies when it advised the resident that she would need to seek rehousing via the Local Authority.
It was also reasonable of the landlord to advise in its Stage Two response that it had determined the resident was affected by the Benefit Cap and advised her of ways in which to remove herself from the cap. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have offered further advice to the resident on the housing options that were available to her, such as providing contact details for organisations who may offer further support with obtaining employment, or exploring the possibility of a Mutual Exchange.
Internal landlord records show that after being contacted by this Service on behalf of the resident in October 2020, it requested that her housing options be reviewed and for a summary to be provided of ‘what actions we have taken’ regarding her reports of overcrowding. In the information provided, there is no evidence of any actions the landlord had taken regarding further advice or making the resident aware of the options that were available to her, other than the brief advice regarding employment and Discretionary Housing Benefit referred to above. This indicates that the landlord missed opportunities to proactively engage with the resident and, as well as better understanding her circumstances, manage her expectations regarding the potential to be rehoused.
While the landlord’s Stage Two response contained an apology if the resident felt that it could have responded more promptly after she provided further financial information and its Stage One response acknowledged that a Team Leader had not responded to an enquiry, its explanation that it had to move on to the next nominee quickly was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any kind of investigation to ascertain whether the property would have been affordable for the resident based on this updated information and whether she may have missed out on the property as a result. This was not appropriate and, despite finding ‘no fault’ in the lettings process and not upholding her complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord is not able to fully evidence its actions following the resident’s initial contact regarding overcrowding or how it dealt with the nominations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered

The resident first submitted a complaint to the landlord on 22 September 2020. Following this, there is no evidence that the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint or engaged its complaints procedure. This was not a reasonable response from the landlord, and it caused the resident to take the time and trouble in contacting this Service for assistance.
Following contact from this Service on 8 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and advised it would respond ‘on or before 6 November (2020)’. However, it did not do so, causing the resident to contact this Service again. After writing to the landlord on 13 November 2020 to request that it provided the resident with a response, the landlord did not do so until 26 January 2021, some four months after the original complaint was made. This was not appropriate and mean the landlord did not act reasonably through its failure to provide a response within its stated timeframe of 10 working days.
In its Stage One response, the landlord apologised for the delay in answering to the resident’s complaint and advised this was due to ‘internal case management and a lack of understanding of what your concerns are’. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is a vague explanation for such a significant and apparently avoidable delay, especially as the landlord had already acknowledged the complaint on 9 October 2020 after contact from this Service. If there was confusion over the precise nature of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had ample opportunity to contact her and clarify the concerns she wished to raise, but there is no evidence that it sought to do so.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its Stage One response and for the ‘lack of communication’, and its decision to offer the resident a small amount of compensation to reflect this was reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see. However, the landlord then proceeded to also miss its target for issuing its Stage Two response, doing so 10 working days outside its stated target of 20 working days. While this was a relatively short delay, it is noted that the landlord did not acknowledge this or offer an apology and it nevertheless contributed to a further delay in the overall complaint handling process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have considered revising its compensation offer upwards in light of this further delay and taking into consideration its previous handling of the case, and an Order has been made at the end of this report to reflect this.
As noted above, there are also concerns regarding the quality of the landlord’s record keeping and the lack of information it has been able to provide this Service regarding the resident’s original transfer application and how this was progressed. While this lack of evidence means the landlord is unable to fully demonstrate and justify some of the actions it took, this is information which also should have been considered within the landlord’s complaint responses and there is no evidence that it did so. This was not appropriate and meant that the landlord did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, treat the resident fairly by providing a comprehensive complaint response at either stage.
As the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code outlines, complaint responses should ‘address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions’, as well as providing ‘the reasons for any decisions (it) made’. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, by not responding to the resident’s request for a breakdown of how the financial assessment was carried out and not providing a more detailed explanation of the process, the landlord’s response did not appropriately adhere to the Code.
In subsequent correspondence with this Service, the resident has advised that she believes the landlord acted unfairly when requesting that she confirm within two weeks whether she was willing to accept its compensation offer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure does not set out any timeframe for how long a compensation offer will remain open for, but it is noted that the landlord advised in its Stage Two response that the offer remained open for a period of fourteen days. This does not seem unreasonably short and should have given the resident enough time to consider the offer.
It is also noted that in correspondence with this Service, the resident has advised she was still unhappy with the landlord for, as she felt, ‘criticising’ her for having more children. However, the landlord did address this issue within its complaint response, albeit briefly, advising that the member of staff involved apologised if the resident had taken their comment that way, but they had been trying to explain that the property was not overcrowded at the time the tenancy began. While it is acknowledged that the resident remains unhappy with the comments, and their implications, this Service has not seen evidence of the exchange and the landlord’s explanation and accompanying apology for causing any offence was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.
2. The landlord’s record keeping regarding this case.

Reasons

From the information available, there is no evidence of service failure regarding how the landlord handled the resident’s application for a transfer to a new property. While it should have been more proactive in engaging with her to establish it had accurate financial information once she had raised concerns over the information it held, it was reasonable in advising that its assessment was automated and had been based on details provided by the resident herself.
However, there is no evidence that the resident missed out on any properties through a failing of the landlord and its explanation regarding the further, more unaffordable, property being offered to the resident was reasonable, explaining that the Local Authority were responsible for those nominations.
There was a significant delay in providing the resident with a Stage One complaint response and no evidence that the landlord properly engaged its complaint procedure, even following contact from this Service and after initially acknowledging the complaint. This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay and caused the resident time and trouble in chasing the landlord and contacting this Service, as well as uncertainty while awaiting a response. While the landlord was reasonable in apologising and offering compensation, there was then a further, albeit shorter delay, in providing its Stage Two response, for which it did not apologise or consider revising its compensation offer.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Pay the resident £275 compensation (consisting of an increased payment of £175 to better reflect its overall complaint handling failures and an additional £100 for its poor record keeping regarding this case).
2. Contact the resident to carry out a new affordability assessment, offering support if required so that she fully understands the process, and ensuring that it has accurate current financial information.
3. It should also contact the resident to discuss her housing options and identify if any further support is required regarding signposting to any other relevant authorities or potential housing providers. The landlord should then write to the resident to summarise the options available to her and provide this Service with a copy of the letter.
The landlord should provide proof of compliance with the above Orders within four weeks of the date of this letter.