Onward Homes Limited (202110847)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110847

Onward Homes Limited

10 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 request to be rehoused for her medical conditions.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident is a 71-year-old tenant of the landlord with medical conditions affecting her mobility. She lives in a block of flats in a property that is located on the second floor and is only accessible via approximately 45 steps.
  2. In August 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord via this Service regarding her application to be rehoused in a ground floor flat. She was dissatisfied that, over the course of a few years, available ground floor flats were provided to other residents instead of to her. The resident was also dissatisfied that she was not informed of available ground floor flats being advertised on the landlord’s website. She wanted to be relocated to a ground floor flat or to have a stairlift installed by it.
  3. In September 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint by explaining that it advertised all available properties through the local housing authority but that, if it was still unable to fill out the vacant properties, it advertised these through different means, such as its website. The landlord further explained that she would need a report from her occupational therapist that highlighted her specific needs and that, if the report expressed an urgency for her to be moved, it could review available accommodation for her.
  4. The resident then escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure in September 2021, stating that it had not done enough to resolve her issues. She also provided the landlord with a doctor’s note which confirmed that, due to her arthritis and breathlessness when walking up the stairs, she was struggling with stairs so that a move to a ground floor flat was supported.
  5. In November 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s final stage complaint by stating that it did not keep an internal waiting list, as it let most of its properties via its local housing authority partners. It instead encouraged residents who wished to relocate to join their local housing register or to seek a mutual exchange, in order to maximise their chances of obtaining a property that met their needs. Due to this, the landlord did not inform the resident of the property that was available on its website. The landlord confirmed that the resident had previously made it aware that she was seeking a ground floor flat, however, and so it apologised for not informing her of an available one.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord explained to the resident that it would only let properties outside of the usual routes if these were for emergencies or exceptional circumstances, such as health and safety issues. It added that her doctor’s note was not enough for this, and that a full occupational therapist’s assessment of her property was required, in order for it to determine the suitability of this for her. After the assessment, the landlord would have a discussion with its local housing authority partners to establish whether adaptations would need to be made to the property, or whether being rehoused would be more appropriate for her.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied, and so she brought her complaint to this Service. As a resolution, she confirmed wanted either a stairlift to be fitted, or to be relocated to a ground floor flat, as well as to receive compensation for the way that she was treated by the landlord.

Reasons

  1. Under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused for medical reasons, for which she seeks a stairlift to be installed at her property, or a relocation to a ground floor flat, together with compensation. However, complaints concerning rehousing applications that meet the reasonable preference criteria, such as the resident’s medical grounds,  being dealt with by the landlord acting on behalf of the local housing authority, fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. For this reason, the complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.