Incommunities Limited (202503966)

Background

1. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a 3-bedroom house, where they live with their 3 children. The resident has told us that 1 child has learning difficulties and cannot share a room, and another is undergoing assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of an emergency transfer request, made following reports of domestic abuse and on-going safety concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a transfer request.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of a transfer request.
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
6. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of a transfer request

7. We found that prior to our investigation the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for the failures in its handling of the resident’s transfer request. We also found the landlord’s handling of the transfer request following its complaint responses was fair and reasonable.

The complaint handling

8. We found the landlord has not evidenced it acknowledged the complaint at stage 1. However, this did not cause the resident any detriment, and the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was fair and reasonable.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy sets out when it may offer an emergency transfer. It says in limited circumstances, usually when there is a risk of immediate violence or threats to a resident’s safety, the landlord may be able to offer an emergency transfer to one of its homes, subject to availability. Under its policy, the landlord will only make 1 reasonable offer.
10. Elsewhere in the Allocations and Lettings Policy, the landlord sets out reasons for why it may refuse a transfer. This includes cases where a resident owes the landlord money, unless they have settled half the debt and maintained a payment plan for at least 6 months. The policy does not specify whether this applies to emergency transfers.
11. The landlord’s Domestic Abuse Policy sets out how it will support residents who have experienced domestic abuse. This, in part, says the landlord will take a survivor-led approach in all cases, the resident’s safety is of key importance, and the landlord will consider this when options to tackle domestic abuse are explored. The policy also says if the resident is in acute danger and is unable to move to family or friends the landlord will help the resident to move to a safe location as a matter of urgency.
12. Following reports of domestic abuse, the landlord agreed to the resident’s emergency transfer request in November 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy and demonstrated an awareness of the urgency of the situation. This was fair and reasonable.
13. In housing transfer cases, a landlord’s ability to move a resident is dependent on the availability of an appropriate property. In line with its policy, prior to its stage 2 response, the landlord offered 2 properties when they became available. This was fair and reasonable.
14. Given the resident’s safety concerns, following this the landlord prioritised a move outside of the local council’s area. The landlord did not support the resident’s bids on 2 properties because the resident was in rent arrears. This was not in line with the landlord’s commitment to prioritise the resident’s safety in its Domestic Abuse Policy. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy does not state that the exclusion the landlord relied on applies to emergency transfers. So, it was not fair and reasonable for the landlord to apply this exclusion in the circumstances.
15. Additionally, neither policy states that the landlord must move the resident outside of the local council area. The landlord’s decision to focus on properties outside of the local authority area, despite the resident’s preferences, was not in line with the landlord’s policy to take a survivor-led approach. So, this was not fair and reasonable.
16. The landlord recognised the above failures in its investigation into the resident’s complaint. To resolve matters, it offered the resident £300 for its failure to approve the transfer and the delay this caused, and an additional £200 for any distress and inconvenience. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and our Service’s remedies guidance, for the failures the landlord identified and the impact on the resident. The compensation award was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
17. The landlord also committed to prioritising the resident’s transfer request and confirmed it would not refuse a transfer to a suitable property. The landlord updated the resident’s areas of choice to help ensure the resident was offered a property in an appropriate location. However, the landlord noted it could not give a timescale for when it could offer a property, as this depended on what properties became available. This was fair and reasonable as the landlord can only offer a transfer when a suitable property becomes available.
18. Much of the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction relates to the landlord’s handling of their transfer request following its stage 2 response, including that the landlord has not sufficiently helped with their transfer. While our investigations are limited to the complaints process under investigation, we expect to see evidence that landlords have followed through on the commitments made during their internal complaint process. So, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the commitments made in its stage 2 response.
19. On 7 August 2025 the landlord offered the resident a 3-bedroom property in one of their preferred areas. The evidence we have seen suggests the resident declined this because the living room was too small. The resident has told us it was not appropriate for the landlord to offer a downsized property because their children cannot share a room. We expect landlords to consider the number of bedrooms required when offering a property, but we do not expect landlords to determine allocations based on room size. The resident’s current property is a 3-bedroom house, as was the property offered on 7 August 2025. We do not think it was inappropriate or unreasonable for the landlord to offer this property.
20. The landlord’s policy says it will make 1 reasonable offer. However, in consideration of the resident’s circumstances, the landlord decided to continue looking for a property for the resident. This is commendable and demonstrates the landlord understood the seriousness of the situation and was committed to supporting the resident.
21. On 26 August 2025 the landlord offered the resident a 3-bedroom house. However, this was declined due to safety concerns. Following this, the landlord further updated the resident’s areas of choice, and it did not treat this property as a reasonable offer, for the purposes of its allocations policy. This was fair and reasonable, given the resident’s concerns.
22. The landlord also notified the resident that any future offer which met their requirements would be treated as a reasonable offer in line with its policy. It said if a reasonable offer was declined, the resident would have to bid for homes with the local council and other housing associations. It provided information on how to do this. It was appropriate for the landlord to clearly communicate what support it could give but also to manage the resident’s expectations. This was fair and reasonable.
23. Following this, the landlord informed us that on 15 October 2025 it offered the resident a 3-bedroom property in a suitable area. We have been told the resident declined this because the bedrooms were too small. As this was a 3-bedroom property in a suitable area, it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to offer this.
24. Having carefully considered what’s happened, while there were some failures by the landlord, identified in its stage 2 response, we are satisfied the compensation and remedies it has offered were fair and reasonable. We are satisfied that following the stage 2 response, the landlord treated the resident’s transfer as a priority and offered reasonable properties as they became available. So, we have not asked it to pay further compensation.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge all complaints within 2-working days. It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
26. We have not seen evidence the landlord sent an acknowledgment at stage 1 of its complaint process. However, there is no indication this caused the resident any detriment as both its stage 1 and 2 responses, and stage 2 acknowledgment, were issued in good time. Therefore, we are satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.