Incommunities Limited (202342063)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342063

Incommunities Limited

25 October 2024

 

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 request for a management transfer.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her partner.
  2. The resident is vulnerable and has pulmonary hypertension, heart failure and diabetes. She also requires the use of a wheelchair and 24 hour access to an oxygen machine.
  3. In April 2021, the resident requested a transfer to alternative accommodation due to her medical needs. The landlord wrote to the resident and declined the request because she had not been in the tenancy for more than a year but advised she could submit medical evidence to the landlord once the tenancy had been active for 2 years.
  4. On 9 October 2022, a family member of the resident wrote to the landlord raising new concerns about the suitability of the property, and how the resident’s health was deteriorating. The family member also raised issues about anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block.
  5. On 13 October 2022, the landlord called the resident to discuss the situation and provided advice about how to register and bid with the local authority’s bidding system. The landlord also sent a letter to the resident, which provided rehousing advice, and information about reporting ASB to the landlord and the importance of providing evidence to support ASB allegations.
  6. Between October 2022 and April 2023, the landlord’s internal logs shows that the resident contacted the landlord on different occasions about properties she had saw on the bidding system and that the landlord was considering suitability of these properties.
  7. On 19 September 2023, the resident called the landlord to raise further concerns about the suitability of her home and asked for the landlord to visit and assess the property for her medical needs. She also said she was unsure if the banding of her housing application was correct. The landlord said it could not increase her banding any further, as this decision was for the local authority to make. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority’s occupational therapy service to assess the suitability of the property for her medical needs.
  8. On 25 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In her complaint, she said the landlord’s staff were not listening to her and raised further concerns about the suitability of the property and her requirement to move.
  9. On 28 September 2023, the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint. It said that it had previously provided rehousing advice in October 2022, it could not increase the resident’s banding as this was for the local authority and explained about the shortage of adapted bungalows or ground floor housing.
  10. In October and November 2023, social services and occupational therapy shared supporting letters with the landlord. The letters summarised the resident’s vulnerabilities and how she required wheelchair accessible ground floor accommodation. The landlord engaged with social services and occupational therapy to understand the situation and to see if adaptations could be made to the existing property.
  11. On 15 November 2023, occupational therapy advised the landlord that it deemed the property could not be fully adapted to meet the resident’s needs.
  12. On 27 November 2023, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord and raised concerns about the suitability of the property.
  13. On 19 December 2023, the resident raised a further complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure about the same issues.
  14. On 19 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that her request to be considered for an internal transfer had been approved.  This was following the landlord engaging with social services and occupational therapy and it reaching the conclusion that the property could not be adapted. The landlord also gave the resident advice how to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal process.
  15. On 1 February 2024, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The landlord summarised its understanding but did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said it had done everything possible to support the resident and explained the challenges it had with limited housing availability. It also reiterated that she was now being considered for internal transfers. The landlord also said its staff had provided the correct advice.
  16. Between May and September 2024, the landlord’s notes shows that it was considering properties for the resident when they were becoming available but was unable to find one that met her needs.
  17. In September 2024, the landlord contacted the resident confirming it identified a suitable property and arranged a viewing. The resident has told this service that she has now moved into the new property.
  18. The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request to be transferred to more suitable accommodation and is seeking compensation as an outcome to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a transfer to another of the landlord’s properties from April 2021. Whilst we recognise the resident raised concerns about her banding and housing application, the Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about housing applications which are managed by a local authority. The resident may be able to refer any complaint about the handling of her housing application to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is explained in paragraph 42.j of the Scheme which says we cannot consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. In her complaints to the landlord, the resident also raised concerns about how the landlord’s staff responded to her requests to be rehoused. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual staff members from an employment/disciplinary perspective. This service will therefore consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. If the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any orders or recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than an individual. We will focus on what the landlord needs to do to put things right for the resident rather than any disciplinary action it may take towards staff members. This is explained in paragraph 42.h of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which was says we may not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy describes the landlord’s approach to letting its properties. The policy explains how the majority of its properties are advertised and let through the local authority’s bidding system.
  2. The policy also explains how the landlord retains some properties to be considered for direct lets. These are assessed against set criteria and may be used to support existing residents who are experiencing issues such as serious anti-social behaviour, major repair issues, health and safety related matters, or for those who may require a move due to their current property being unsuitable because of their disabilities.
  3. The landlord’s tenancy management policy also provides further information about internal transfers. The policy says that, in the first instance, all of its residents are encouraged to join the local authority’s bidding system. The policy also says that the landlord may refuse transfer requests if the tenancy is less than 2 years old.
  4. The landlord’s adaptations policy explains that major adaptations are usually completed following a recommendation from an occupational therapist. The policy says that if the property cannot be adapted then the landlord would support the resident with a transfer to a more suitable property.

The landlord’s handling of the management transfer

  1. When the resident initially requested a management transfer the landlord declined this because she had not lived in the property for more than 1 year. The landlord’s refusal for this transfer was based on its tenancy management policy, which says it will not consider transfer applications if the tenancy is younger than 2 years. Whilst the staff member advised 1 year following the resident’s initial request, the policy does set a requirement of 2 years. This was a possible misunderstanding by the landlord’s staff. The apparent error does not seem to have altered the landlord’s decision as it would have refused the resident’s transfer request regardless of whether she needed to have 1 year’s tenancy or 2 years. However, the landlord should ensure that staff are giving the correct information to residents, in line with the transfer policy. Although it was understandable why the landlord declined the request in line with its policy, it missed an opportunity to make further enquiries about the resident’s medical conditions and the impact the property may have been having on her at the time. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to occupational therapy at this stage to assess whether her current property could be adapted to meet her needs. The landlord advised the resident to submit medical evidence after 1 year had elapsed be considered for a further application.
  2. When the resident’s family member contacted the landlord to raise concerns about her deteriorating health, the landlord called the resident and explained the local authority’s rehousing process. The landlord also followed up in writing. The landlord explained the resident was in the correct banding. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss these new concerns. As the landlord explained in its complaint responses, it has no control over the local authority’s rehousing process, including the allocation of bandings. Therefore, the landlord was unable to change the resident’s banding and only the local authority could change this.
  3. When the landlord received the supporting letters from social services and occupational therapy, it then made enquiries with its adaptations services to consider if the resident’s property could be adapted. This was appropriate, and in accordance with the approach outlined in its adaptions policy. When occupational therapy advised the landlord that a transfer would be the best option, the landlord approved the resident’s transfer application request. From this point, the landlord evaluated properties that were becoming available to assess them for suitability for the resident. This was all reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was exploring potential properties for the resident.
  4. In September 2024, it is noted that the landlord identified a suitable property and this was offered to the resident. The landlord and the resident have told this service that the resident has now accepted a new property and signed the tenancy agreement on 14 October 2024.
  5. The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s medical needs at the time she first requested a management transfer was wrong. Whilst it’s policy does say that it would not consider transfer requests within the first 2 years of a tenancy, it did not appear to effectively consider the medical needs of the resident at the time. This may have been distressing for the resident who felt that she was not being heard by the landlord. Furthermore, when the resident’s family member raised later concerns it is unclear if the landlord reconsidered its position on this. This was also wrong and these failures results in this service making a finding of service failure.
  6. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident to contact occupational therapy first, to asses her current property before offering a transfer. Whilst there was no guarantee the landlord may have been able to move the resident more quickly if it had have considered her medical conditions at the time, it missed an opportunity to identify any additional or new needs the resident may have.
  7. In assessing what the landlord now needs to do to put things right, the Ombudsman considers our remedies guidance available on our website. In view of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the missed opportunities to assess her situation sooner, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation and write an apology letter for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 25 September 2023 and the landlord responded on 28 September 2023.
  3. When the resident complained again to the landlord on 18 December 2023, the landlord appears to initially have interpreted this as a new stage 1 request. Although the resident did not explicitly request for her complaint to be escalated, the landlord should have recognised that a previous stage 1 about the same issue had been completed and escalated the complaint to stage 2 at that point.
  4. On 5 January 2024, the landlord appears to have amended this to a request to escalate to stage 2 of its complaints procedure and sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on the same day. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 1 February 2023.There was a 12 working day delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint response as a result of this. This was further impacted by the landlord’s failure to recognise, acknowledge, or apologise for this in its stage 2 complaint response. Due to this error, the Housing Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord with regards to its complaints handling.
  5. In deciding what the landlord now needs to do put things right, the Ombudsman relies on our remedies guidance. The landlord’s compensation policy also says that it follows the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and enables it to make payments where it has failed to meet target response times. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and its failure to apologise for the delays.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for a management transfer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £350 of compensation, comprised of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the management transfer request
      2. £100 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint
      3. Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears
    2. Write an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that landlord arranges a follow-up visit to the resident in her new property to assess for any other support the resident may require, if it has not already done so.