Notting Hill Genesis (202109990)

Back to Top

  

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109990

Notting Hill Genesis

13 May 2022


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 housing application.

Background

  1. The resident was a prospective tenant of the landlord. She applied for a scheme that allows residents to pay a lower rent amount to help them save for a deposit to buy a property.
  2. The resident applied to the scheme and her application was put on hold on 29 January 2021, as she had not completed her employment probation, which was a condition of the scheme. The landlord advised her that it could not reserve a property for her and that two-bedroom properties were prioritised for households with dependent children. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2021 to proceed with her application. The landlord said that there were no one-bedroom properties available and two-bedroom properties were reserved for households with dependent children, so her application would be closed. It advised her of other suitable developments which she could apply for.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord, as she had invested time into her application and said she was not told when she initially applied that two-bedroom properties were reserved for households with children. In the landlord’s response, it said that during a review of its allocation process, it had identified that applicants without dependent children were unlikely to be accepted for a two-bedroom property, so it decided it would no longer allow such applications, to prevent confusion. It apologised and acknowledged that this could have been made clearer when the resident initially applied and said it had “taken steps to improve the clarity of information provided in our application pack”.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied that she had not been initially informed that two-bedroom properties were reserved for families with children.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries regarding her application, as it provided prompt responses, clearly explaining its allocation policy and apologised for the lack of clarity in its initial correspondence. When the resident initially applied, the application pack stated “2 and 3 bedroom properties will be prioritised for households with dependent children.” It did not provide her with a guarantee that her application would be successful and stated that it would discuss available properties when she resumed her application. When the resident contacted the landlord to resume her application, the landlord clearly noted that if the applicant did not have dependent children, she would only be made offers of one-bedroom properties. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord closed the resident’s application as it no longer had any availability of one-bedroom properties, and she was not eligible for a two-bedroom property.
  2. It was reasonable that the landlord changed its allocation policy following a review in April 2021, as it had identified that applicants without dependent children were unlikely to be successful when applying to two-bedroom properties. The landlord can alter policies at its discretion, and it was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of this review in its complaint response and explained that its policy had been changed to avoid any confusion. Although it may have been helpful for the landlord to inform the resident of this change at the time of the policy review, it would not have been obliged to do so as the resident did not have an open application at that time. The resident was also already aware that she was unlikely to be allocated a two-bedroom property, as the landlord had discussed this when she initially made her application.
  3. While the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident is acknowledged, the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies and there is no evidence of service failure. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the time she had invested in her application, so it was appropriate that it signposted her to alternative developments that she may qualify for and said that it could contact her if any suitable properties did become available. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint, as it improved its application pack to prevent similar situations occurring in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s housing application.