Notting Hill Genesis (201814438)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201814438

Notting Hill Genesis

07 May 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 resident complained about the property the landlord offered following their transfer request. Specifically, they complained about:

 

  1. The location of the property.

 

  1. The size of a bedroom in the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy for a two-bedroom four-person property, owned by the landlord. In January 2019, an incident occurred between the resident and their neighbour, which resulted in the resident being hospitalised.
  2. The resident informed the landlord that they did not feel safe to return to the property and the landlord offered the resident a transfer to another property, located approximately five miles away. The resident moved to their new property on 11 February 2019. 
  3. It is apparent that at some point, the resident emailed the landlord with concerns about the location of the property they had moved to. The landlord responded on 1 May 2020 and explained that it offered the property to the resident, as they were involved in an incident with their neighbour and informed that they did not want to return to thier former home. It explained that due to the impact the incident had on the resident and their family, it tried to move them as soon as possible and put the safety of the resident and their family first, when considering the property offered. It concluded that it believed its decision to move the resident to the property met their needs at the time.
  4. The resident replied to the landlord on 8 September 2020 and said that they wished to escalate their complaint as they remained unhappy with its response. They explained that they were not happy with the location of the property they had been offered and believed one of the bedrooms was too small. They said that they wanted to be transferred to a property with either two double bedrooms or, three bedrooms, in the borough they had been transferred from.
  5. On 6 November 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response to the complaint. It said that due to the nature of the incident which resulted in the transfer request, it could not, at the time the request was made, offer the resident a property within the locality of their former home. It explained that this was because it had to safeguard the resident and their family from the incident reoccurring and reiterated that it considered the property it offered appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, it acknowledged the resident’s concern about the size of the second bedroom and agreed to attend the property to measure the room in question. It said that if the room was found to be smaller than its standard for a double bedroom, it would uphold the resident’s complaint and award the resident a band A priority for a transfer, even though technically, they did not meet the criteria for the band A priority.
  6. After the complaints procedure was completed, the landlord attended the property to measure the room. It wrote to the resident on 26 November 2020 and confirmed that it found the room in question was smaller than its standard for a double bedroom and therefore, upheld their complaint. As agreed in the final response, it said that the resident had been awarded a band A priority for a transfer and it backdated this to their tenancy start date.
  7. The resident referred their complaint to this Service for a formal investigation on 13 January 2021.

Policies

Allocations and Lettings

  1.  The landlord’s policy states that transfers are eligible for existing residents who meet a criteria, whose current home no longer is suitable for their needs. Residents are awarded priority band according to how their housing affects their circumstances. The landlord’s policy defines that “Band A” priority is given to an applicant who faces imminent personal risk, which is life-threatening by remaining in their home.

 

  1. In accordance with section 5.2 of the policy, related to direct offers, in cases where a resident is given a band A priority, the landlord makes one reasonable direct offer. A reasonable offer is one that that alleviates the imminent risk to the household by moving them to a different location.

 

  1. The landlord states the property will be like-for-like with the same number of bedrooms. It states that if it makes a direct offer which is reasonable and the tenant refuses this, it may consider whether a lower banding can be given to the tenant.

 

Assessment and findings

Location of the property offered

  1. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy, as mentioned above, sets out the criteria an application must meet and the ways in which offers can be made to an application. The resident was a victim of a serious incident involving a neighbour and notified the landlord that they did not want to return home after the incident. At the time, the resident therefore met the criteria for a band A priority and was appropriately awarded this.
  2. This Service has not been provided with copies of the correspondence between the parties in relation to resident’s request for the transfer. As we have not reviewed the correspondence, we are not able to comment on or assess what information the resident provided in support of their request and what information the landlord may or may not have provided to the resident when it offered the property. Although, it can be expected that the landlord, when assessing the request, would have taken into consideration the resident’s housing need as well as the circumstances which resulted the transfer being required. In this case, the safeguarding of the resident would have been one of the most important considerations for the landlord when identifying a suitable property. In addition to this, the offer would have been dependent on the stock the landlord had available to offer at that time.
  3. The landlord made the resident a direct offer of a property. This was appropriate, as it is likely to have been the most efficient and effective way of securing the resident a transfer, which was necessary given the circumstances surrounding the need for the resident to move.
  4. At the time the transfer was requested, the resident had been involved in a serious incident with their neighbour and satisfied the landlord’s criteria for priority move. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy and appropriately awarded the resident with a band A priority. It made a direct offer of a property outside of the area the resident was moving from. This was reasonable and in line with its policy which sets out that the landlord will move residents at risk of violence or threatening behaviour to a property in a different area. When the resident raised their complaint about location of the property, the landlord provided a reasonable response and explained its decision making.
  5.  

Size of the second bedroom

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy indicates that a direct offer property and the property the resident is being moved from, will be like for like, with the same number of bedrooms. The policy does not advise whether the sizes of the two properties would be the same, but it does state that in cases where the landlord cannot offer a like for like property within a three-month period, it will consider offering a similar property.
  2. The property the landlord offered the resident was, to the landlord’s understanding, a two bedroom, as was the resident’s former home, so would have been considered like for like. The landlord therefore, followed its policy when offering the property to the resident.
  3. When the resident brought their concern about the size of the room to the landlord’s attention, the landlord took appropriate action to by offering to inspect the property and agreeing in advance that it would help the resident move if the bedroom were found to be too small.
  4. When the landlord attended to measure the room in question, it found that it was smaller than its standard and upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that it had made an error in offering the property. This was fair for it to do.
  5. To resolve the issue, the landlord used its discretion and awarded the resident the highest banding priority it could so that the resident is able to secure a move. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its error and took steps to ensure that the resident is in the best position to be able to move to another property, when one they consider to be suitable becomes available, which resolves the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the property it offered the resident following thier transfer request.

Reasons

  1. As the resident was a victim of an assault involving a neighbour, it was appropriate for the landlord to safeguard the resident and make an offer of a property outside of the vicinity of the property they were moving from. The offer of the property albeit, away from the resident’s support system, was a way to alleviate the risk the resident may have faced if they stayed in the property which was their home at the time of the incident. It is unfortunate that the resident is not happy with the location of the property due to its distance and the implications this has had. But the landlord made a reasonable offer at the time the transfer was requested, which was in line with its policy.  When responding to the complaint, the landlord provided its rationale for making the offer, which was satisfactory.
  2. The landlord explained that its records showed that the property it offered to the resident had two bedrooms and was therefore considered a like for like offer. It is important to consider the circumstances under which the transfer took place. Emergency transfers necessitate a quick response from landlords and the provision of alternate accommodation at the earliest opportunity. Such circumstances do not always allow landlords time to carry out inspections or surveys.
  3. When the resident raised their concern about the size of the bedroom, the landlord proposed inspecting the property with clear outcomes linked to what it’s inspection may find. This was a reasonable approach. On finding that the room in question was smaller than its standard for a double bedroom, it awarded the resident priority banding for the next available property which is suitable for their needs. The landlord can only move the resident when a suitable property becomes available, by allocating the resident the highest banding allowed under its policy, it has provided them with the opportunity to move as soon as a suitable property can be found. This was reasonable give the circumstances of the complaint.