Midland Heart Limited (202010414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010414

Midland Heart Limited

5 August 2021


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 response to the resident’s concerns regarding her property transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 25 May 2020. Prior to this she was a tenant at a different property of the landlord in another location.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes it will acknowledge a complaint “as soon as possible” and then aim to respond within 10 working days,
  3. The landlord operates an allocations policy. The policy notes that the landlord will advertise properties on its website and that the first applicant that meets the criteria will be awarded the property. It may also offer properties directly to residents where the police have advised it is not safe for the tenant to remain at their current property. The policy also notes it may offer an internal transfer where the property is overcrowded, the resident lives too far from their place of education to reasonably commute, or where the resident needs to be closer to a care provider. The policy further notes that where children are over 16, or are over 10 and of different genders, a separate bedroom is required for each.

 

 

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that in or around January 2018 the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord which was subsequently investigated alongside the police. It is also not disputed that the resident made further reports of ASB in or around July 2018 and also reported an arson attack on her vehicle in or around December 2018. On each occasion, the landlord investigated the reports alongside the police. In or around January 2020, the resident reported that her property had been attacked and damaged, and that her husband and son had also been violently attacked by her neighbours, who were not tenants of the landlord.
  2. On 5 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident that the police had placed a ‘SIG’ safeguarding marker on the resident’s property but had not issued a ‘threat to life’ warning. It advised that in order to offer an emergency move, a threat to life warning would need to be issued by the police. The landlord has provided this service with its incident records which note that on 2 March 2020, the police decided to issue a verbal threat to life warning. Evidence shows the necessary written paperwork confirming the threat to life warning was not issued by the police until 25 March 2020. Email communication with the resident from 8 April 2020 shows the landlord confirmed it was considering the emergency move and also recommended that the resident register with the Local Authority for housing/emergency accommodation. The landlord subsequently approved an emergency move on 16 April 2020.
  3. On the same date, the landlord advised the resident that it would offer her the next available three-bedroom property outside of the city the resident currently resided in. It also advised only one offer would be made, but that the resident could continue to bid on other properties through its website. On 1 May 2020, the landlord reiterated it was continuing to search for properties and that the location would be outside of the city the resident currently resided in. On 4 May 2020, the landlord made an offer of a property in a neighbouring city. It is evident that the resident inspected the property and accepted it shortly after.
  4. It is not disputed that the resident reported concerns about the property in or around July 2020, and that she subsequently made a formal complaint on 14 August 2020. She noted that throughout the period she had experienced ASB, the landlord had also issued warnings against her and demanded that she remove CCTV from her property. She advised that due to the circumstances at her previous property, she felt she had no option but to accept the property, but that she considered the new property to be unsuitable. She also advised that she had three children and that the property was therefore overcrowded. She further advised that she considered the landlord had taken “full advantage of our circumstances and her personal grudge” in offering them the new property. Finally, the resident advised she had been receiving medical care in the previous city, which she no longer had access to, however, she did note the landlord had advised her to register with her local provider.
  5. On 4 September, the landlord advised it had logged her complaint as a formal complaint on 28 August 2020 and that it would provide a stage one response by 14 September 2020. On 9 September 2020, the resident advised that she had bid on properties she considered suitable on four occasions in February/March 2020 but had been unsuccessful. She also reiterated her concerns that the landlord had a “grudge” against her and had moved her into an unsuitable property as a result.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 2 October 2020. It apologised for the delay to its response and advised it had taken additional time to investigate. It set out the chronology of the ASB complaints from 26 January 2018 onwards and outlined the steps it had taken. It concluded that all its actions had been in line with its ASB policy. Regarding the resident’s emergency move, it noted it had advised the resident the location would be outside of the city and that it would only make one offer. It also advised its policy in such circumstances was to offer a like for like property, but that in this instance it had offered a three-bedroom property, which was an improvement on the resident’s previous two-bedroom property. It noted the resident’s concerns over the requirements for bedrooms to be a minimum size but advised this only applied to newbuild properties. It further advised that the purpose of the move had been to remove the resident from danger and that she was still able to continue bidding on other properties.
  7. On 5 October 2020, the resident requested an escalation to stage two and advised she was still dissatisfied that the property offered was not a four-bedroom. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 8 October 2020 and advised it would respond by 5 November 2020.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 5 November 2020. It reiterated that the police had issued a threat to life warning, and that it had arranged for the emergency move in accordance with its policy. It also reiterated that its policy in such instances was to offer a like for like property, but that in this instance, the first available property had an extra bedroom and so this was offered. It noted that the resident had not expressed any concerns about the property prior to accepting the offer. The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns that the landlord had discriminated against her in offering her this property but concluded it could not find any evidence of discrimination. It further reiterated she could continue to bid on other properties.
  9. On 6 November 2020, the resident disputed that a threat to life warning had been issued. The landlord subsequently advised her on 9 November 2020 of the details of the police officer who had issued the warning. The resident has since noted to this service that the threat to life warning did not direct the landlord to move the resident outside of the city, only the local area.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy notes it will offer an emergency move where the police have advised it is not safe for the tenant to remain at their current property. It is not disputed that the police verbally advised the landlord on 2 March 2020 that it had issued a threat to life warning. However, the written paperwork confirming a threat to life warming was not issued until 25 March 2020, after which the landlord would be in a position to consider an emergency move. It is also evident that the resident had previously queried an emergency move and that the landlord had advised her a written threat to life warning was required. The landlord’s policy does not indicate in what timeframe it will approve an emergency move following advice from the police, however the landlord did advise the resident on 8 April 2020 via email that it was considering the emergency move and also provided suitable recommendations/actions for the resident to take whilst waiting to hear the outcome. The recommended actions included registering with the Local Authority, which was appropriate considering the legal obligation for housing and authorising emergency accommodation lies with the Local Authority. It is accepted that the landlord’s role is limited to, supporting the Local Authority to rehouse residents in an emergency, subject to the availability of appropriate housing stock. The landlord approved the emergency move on 16 April 2020 around three weeks after the official written threat to life warning had been issued by the police. The Ombudsman would consider this a reasonable timeframe for a landlord to consider and confirm its position with regards to an emergency move.
  2. It is also not disputed that the resident made a number of bids on potential properties in the interim period between the verbal threat to life warning and the landlord’s approval of an emergency move. While it is not evident that these properties would have been appropriate for the landlord’s emergency move criteria, it is evident that the delay between the verbal and written warning being issued was not due to the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appropriately kept the resident informed of her options as evidenced in the email sent on 8 April 2020 and did not cause a prolonged delay with the time taken to assess and approve an emergency move. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and reasonable in terms of the information provided and timescales taken.
  3. The landlord’s allocations policy does not note that emergency moves require a resident to be moved out of the city in such circumstances as experienced by the resident, nor is it evident that the police’s threat to life warning recommended this. Given the violent nature of the ASB experienced by the resident’s family, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident away from the area, including to the neighbouring city. It is evident that the landlord advised the resident that this was its intention on multiple occasions, and it is not evident that the resident raised any concerns at any time prior to accepting the new property. While the resident subsequently expressed her concerns regarding the location of the new property after she accepted it, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision to choose this location was reasonable and it clearly articulated its intentions to the resident.
  4. It is not disputed that the resident has three children and that based on the landlord’s allocations policy, the resident would require a four-bedroom property in order to not be defined as overcrowded. It is also not disputed that the resident was moved from a two-bedroom property to a three-bedroom property. The landlord advised the resident that in instances of an emergency move, its policy is to move a resident to a like for like property. This information is not included in any of the policies or documents made available to this service, however, the Ombudsman considers such an approach to be reasonable as the purpose of an emergency move is to remove a resident from immediate danger and not offer an improved property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to move the resident to a similar property in the circumstances. It is also evident that it made the resident aware of its intention to offer a three-bedroom property on 16 April 2020 and it is not evident that the resident raised any concerns at this point, or when viewing the property prior to accepting it.
  5. The landlord’s allocations policy notes that it may offer an internal transfer where a property is overcrowded, the resident lives too far from their place of education to reasonably commute, or where the resident needs to be closer to a care provider. It is evident that the resident expressed that the property she has been relocated to is overcrowded and that she has struggled to rearrange her medical treatment in the new city. She has also advised this service that she has struggled to enrol her children in school in the new city. As noted above, while it was reasonable for the landlord to choose the new property for an urgent transfer, and also while it is appropriate that it has continued to advise the resident to bid on new properties, given that it was aware of the overcrowding issue and the resident’s concerns about access to care, it would have been helpful for the resident had it addressed its position on the possibility of an internal transfer, which it did not do in this instance.
  6. While the resident has expressed her concerns that the landlord chose a property which she considered unsuitable due to a “grudge” against her, this service has not been provided with any evidence to indicate the landlord acted deliberately improperly and it was reasonable that the landlord addressed this concern and concluded the same in its formal response.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will acknowledge a complaint “as soon as possible.” It is evident that the resident made her complaint on 14 August 2020. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications which note it was aware of the complaint on 21 August 2020. It is not clear, therefore, why it took until 4 September 2020 to formally acknowledge the complaint, nor why it advised the complaint was logged as of 28 August 2020. Additionally, while it was appropriate that the landlord initially set out a timeframe for it to respond, and that it also appropriately apologised for exceeding that timeframe due to the time it took to investigate the issue, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to keep a resident updated where it will miss a timeframe, which it did not do in this instance. Given that it remained in contact with the resident throughout this period, however, the Ombudsman does not consider the delays to constitute service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about her property transfer.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s decision to relocate the resident to a neighbouring city was reasonable in the circumstances and it is evident it informed the resident of its decision to do this on multiple occasions. The resident did not raise any concerns about this prior to accepting the new property.
  2. Additionally, the landlord’s position that it only offers a like for like property in instances of emergency moves was reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
  3. It is evident, there was no significant delay between the landlord being informed by the police that a written threat to life warning had been issued and its communication that an emergency move had been approved. During the time a verbal threat to life warning was confirmed and a written threat to life warning being issued by the police, the resident had identified a number of available properties she considered suitable, which evidently were not available when the landlord approved the emergency move, meaning she missed the opportunity to be considered for them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord cannot be held accountable for the time taken by the police to issue a written threat to life warning, as it could only proceed with its assessment of an emergency move once it had received the necessary paperwork. With regards to the time taken by the landlord to assess and approve the emergency move, a period of three weeks between 25 March and 16 April 2020, this is considered reasonable as the landlord maintained communication and made appropriate recommendations to the resident within that period.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and advise her of its position on an internal transfer in relation to her concerns about access to health care and schooling.
  2. The landlord to update its published policies regarding emergency transfers, in particular, the timeframes to grant approval and that it will only offer a like for like property.
  3. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.