Leicester City Council (202119277)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119277

Leicester City Council

13 March 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

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

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was an applicant for a mutual exchange to a property managed by the landlord.
  2. The applicant lives in a one bedroom property with her two children which the landlord acknowledges is overcrowded. She made an application for a mutual exchange to a larger property.
  3. The landlord began checks on the parties to the application as part of its procedure to authorise the exchange. While these checks were still underway the applicant undertook refurbishment works at the exchange property and paid for these herself. The landlord’s checks identified factors regarding the circumstances of the other tenant which meant the exchange could not be approved. The landlord cancelled the exchange.
  4. The applicant complained to the landlord about its handling of the mutual exchange. She felt that communications with the landlord’s housing officer had been poor and that her expectations had been raised adding to the frustration and anxiety she experienced when the exchange did not go ahead. The applicant’s stage 2 complaint also asked why instructions that she did not wish to speak to a particular housing officer had been ignored. She asked to be compensated by the landlord for the money she had spent on refurbishments at the exchange property.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its failure to pass on the applicant’s instructions regarding contact with a named housing officer but did not uphold the substance of the complaint. The landlord concluded that; its staff had behaved appropriately, it had not encouraged the applicant to carry out works at the property before the mutual exchange had been approved and money spent refurbishing the exchange property had been at her own risk.

Assessment and findings

  1. The applicant lives in an overcrowded one bedroom property with her two children. She had been assessed as within priority band 2 for rehousing and advised that there would be a long wait to be allocated to a larger property.
  2. The applicant was supported by the landlord’s housing officer in identifying a suitable mutual exchange property and a mutual exchange application was made.
  3. The landlord carried out checks before agreeing to the exchange in line with its procedures. In advance of these checks the housing officer would not have known that there was an issue with one party to the application which prevented the exchange.
  4. The applicant acknowledges that before these checks were completed, she made her own arrangements to carry out refurbishment works at the exchange property.
  5. The landlord’s checks identified factors relating to the other party which meant that it could not authorise the exchange. The detail of the checks could not be shared with the applicant because of the landlord’s duty not to disclose the personal data of a third party.
  6. Through no fault of her own the applicant was unable to exchange her tenancy for the more suitable, larger accommodation (the exchange property). She contacted the landlord to ask for an explanation of the decision and was telephoned by a housing officer who she had previously asked not to deal with.
  7. The landlord’s position is that it then discovered that the exchange had taken place without prior written approval or completion of the assignment paperwork and that this was classed as an ‘illegal’ exchange. After taking legal advice the landlord cancelled the exchange.
  8. The applicant made a complaint to the landlord about the way her mutual exchange application had been handled. Her view was that her expectations had been raised by the housing officer and she had been encouraged to carry out work at the property before the exchange was approved. She was also upset that the housing officer had telephoned her, despite having previously asking not to deal with that individual due to the impact on her mental health.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint demonstrated that the applicant’s concerns were taken seriously. The landlord investigated its failure to respond appropriately to her request to avoid contact with the named housing officer and this failure was acknowledged and an apology given for the distress caused.
  10. The landlord also considered allegations made by the applicant that she had been encouraged to carry out work at the exchange property and that the housing officer had behaved inappropriately. The landlord said that the housing officer denied the allegations and pointed out that in emails the housing officer had made clear that an inspection of the property would be required before the exchange could be signed off. The landlord concluded that the housing officer did not disclose anything more than the limited information necessary to explain the decision and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the housing officer had behaved inappropriately.
  11. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s finding that its officer did not inappropriately raise the applicant’s expectations about the mutual exchange and did not encourage her to spend money on redecorating the property. It follows therefore that the resident carried out work at her own risk and is not entitled to be compensated for this expenditure. For completeness the Ombudsman would have appreciated reassurance that the resident had been given the warning to mutual exchange applicants presented on the landlord website ‘Do not make major changes to your life until your swap is approved and you have signed the paperwork’.
  12. The applicant was unhappy about the landlord’s characterisation of her actions as an ‘illegal exchange’ and contacted the landlord again, after the escalation to stage 2, insisting that she had not moved into the property. The landlord responded to explain why it considered unauthorised use of the exchange property to be an illegal exchange it also suggested options to reapply for the exchange or apply for an alternative exchange. The landlord and the applicant have different understandings of the term ‘illegal exchange’. It remains however, that whether or not the applicant had in fact moved into the property, made no difference to the outcome for the applicant which was that factors outside her control prevented the exchange going ahead.
  13. The applicant is living in unsuitable, overcrowded accommodation and is understandably anxious to move into a larger property better suited to her family’s needs. Having identified a mutual exchange which she anticipated would provide a new home it must have been both extremely disappointing and upsetting to be told that, through no fault of her own, the exchange could not go ahead.
  14. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence however that the applicant was encouraged by anything the landlord said or did to take the step of investing in the exchange property by carrying out refurbishments before the landlord’s proper procedures had been concluded and the exchange documentation completed.  The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord treated the applicant’s complaints seriously and sympathetically dealing with the complaints thoroughly and in a way which acknowledged mistakes and attempted to assist the applicant in achieving her desired outcome of a move to a larger property.
  15. During the period that her complaint was being considered by the landlord’s complaints team, the resident also complained to the Local Authority’s Mayor’s Office about the handling of her mutual exchange application.   These complaints were referred to the landlord’s housing manager who looked at them separately and whose responses were broadly consistent with responses from the complaints team.  The housing manager’s responses have been considered when looking at the landlord’s overall response to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to contact the applicant a further time to explore her options for obtaining suitable alternative accommodation.