Midland Heart Limited (202212784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212784

Midland Heart Limited

19 December 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 25 May 2020. The property is a three-bed house. The landlord has physical and mental vulnerabilities recorded for each of the residents.
  2. The resident was moved to their current property as an emergency, using its direct offer process, after a threat of life warning was issued by the police. This Service previously investigated a complaint relating to this move, as the resident had challenged the decision to move them to a different city. The determination in that case was that there was no maladministration found in the landlord’s management of the move.
  3. As part of the previous determination, the landlord had been required to write to the resident and provide information on seeking a further move. Within that letter it quoted it’s allocation policy and said that the resident would need to bid on a new property, as the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. 
  4. The resident disputed the information provided in the letter and said that the landlord had used a previous policy within its reasoning for rejecting the request for a direct transfer. The resident maintained that the property was unsuitable and their circumstances should mean that they are offered a move using a direct offer. The resident followed the landlord’s internal complaint policy but remained unhappy with the outcome.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that “once a property is advertised, the first applicant to submit an expression of interest, that includes all of the required evidence, will be given first opportunity to accept the property”.
  2. The allocations policy says that “there are occasions when we may offer a property directly to an existing resident without advertising the property” through a “direct offer”. It details five instances in which this may happen, including the police recommending a resident be moved due to safety concerns. 
  3. The allocations policy also says that existing residents “that are adequately housed, will not be eligible to transfer, unless they can evidence additional needs that cannot be met by their existing accommodation”. Some examples of additional needs are listed as overcrowding, living too far from work and medical needs.

Summary of events

  1. Following the previous determination by this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2021. Within the letter the landlord addressed the resident’s request to move to another property. The landlord said that the resident’s previous move was completed using a ‘direct offer’ and quoted the policy that had been followed in that instance. It said “having assessed your current situation, you are eligible to bid for an internal transfer to a four-bedroom house”. It said that the resident was registered on its app but had not placed any bids on it. It suggested that the resident bid for any properties that met their needs through the app. 
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2022 and raised a formal complaint. The complaint letter said the landlord had not acted in line with its own allocations policy. The resident said it had incorrectly quoted its own policy in a previous letter, as it had used two different versions of the policy. He said that the landlord’s letter, dated 19 November 2021, had indicated that his previous request to move property was based on “desire” rather than “needs”. The resident said that based on his family’s circumstances, he would be eligible for an internal transfer. The resident also said that the allocations policy does not state that a “resident needs to bid for internal transfer” and asked “why am I getting treated differently”.
  3. The landlord responded on 4 August 2022 to acknowledge the complaint and advised that somebody would contact the resident to discuss the complaint.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 August 2022, detailed its understanding of his complaint and asked him to confirm his “desired resolution”. He replied the same day and said he wanted “an internal transfer” back to the city he had lived in prior to the move in May 2020. He said that this was due to medical needs and a lack of friends and family in the current area, as he was “forced to move” there. The resident also requested “about £2,000” in compensation, to assist with “removals costs and carpet”.
  5. Internal emails from the landlord show that the complaint handler sought information from the relevant teams regarding the resident’s request for a move.
  6. In an internal email dated 8 August 2022, the landlord said that the residents could be eligible for a four-bed property. It then said that despite being registered on its website to bid for properties, the residents were “yet to place a bid”. It also said that “75% of 4 beds” in the desired area “are allocated via the local authority due to the agreement with the local council”. It said the resident would be “best off registering with the local authority, if they want a four-bed”. 
  7. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 August 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s concern that two different policy’s had been referenced in the letter from November 2021 but said this was not correct. It said “the quoted policy has been taken directly from our up-to-date Allocations policy that was created in 2019” and provided a copy of the quoted part of the policy for reference. The landlord said that if the resident required a move it “would ask that our customers look to place bids on properties”. It provided further information on the process of bidding on its properties and suggested looking into other housing providers in their desired locality. The complaint was not upheld.  
  8. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two on 24 August 2022. The resident said that the landlord had mixed two policies together when referencing it in relation to his request. He maintained that he was eligible for an internal transfer and said his complaint had not been understood.
  9. The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 September 2022 and the complaint was not upheld. Within the response it said the following:
    1. The policy quoted in the letter from November 2021 was correct and was not made up of parts of two separate versions of the policy.
    2. It said that the information it had provided around bidding on new properties was correct.
    3. It said it was satisfied that it had carried out the required actions from the previous determination from this Service.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 14 September 2022 and requested an independent review. The complaint was duly made on 21 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

  1. The policy quoted by the landlord in its letter dated 19 November 2021 was the same as that found in version 5 of its allocations policy. It is the view of this Service that the landlord correctly quoted it and it had not been combined with a previous version of the policy.
  2. The resident had said the property was overcrowded and was too far from required medical care and work. These conditions, in line with its policy, would mean that an internal transfer may be applicable. Within the letter from 19 November 2021, the landlord had already made it clear that the resident would be eligible for an ‘internal transfer’ and directed them to bid on suitable properties using its app. However, throughout the complaint correspondence there then appeared to be some continued confusion around how an internal transfer worked.
  3. In his complaint, the resident questioned the wording of the policy around an ‘internal transfer’, as he said it does not specify that bids need to be made for this type of transfer.
  4. It is the understanding of this Service that the landlord’s allocation policy sets out that its allocations process relies on bids being made on advertised properties. This includes those looking to obtain a property using the internal transfer process. Although the internal transfer section of the policy does not specify that bids would be required, it also does not say that it would be exempt from the bidding process which is detailed earlier in the policy.
  5. The only exception to the bidding process within the policy is the ‘direct offers’ process. This section of the policy says that under certain circumstances it may offer a property directly to a resident without it being advertised. The circumstances in which this process may be followed are then detailed in the policy. As the resident did not meet any of those criteria, he would not qualify for a direct offer and would instead need to follow the standard process for an internal transfer due to ‘additional needs’.
  6. Given that bidding on advertised properties would take longer than using the direct offer process, it is understandable that the resident would want to follow a similar process to that used in their previous move. However, as the resident did not qualify for a direct offer, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to use the bidding process for an internal transfer. It is the view of this Service that the landlord provided consistent and accurate information to the resident around their eligibility for a move, in line with its policy. Having reviewed the landlord’s management of this process, there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a direct transfer.

Reasons

  1. The landlord made it clear to the resident that they qualified for a move using an internal transfer but this would require them to bid on properties. It was reasonable for the landlord to maintain this position, as the resident did not meet the criteria which would mean they were exempt from the bidding process. The landlord acted in line with its policy throughout its management of the request and in providing the information it did throughout the complaint.