Origin Housing Limited (202205416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205416

Origin Housing Limited

28 February 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. How the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer, specifically the reciprocal transfer through the local authority.
   2. The handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat.
3. The resident has experienced ongoing issues of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour since 2008 which resulted in court proceedings. Due to the ongoing ASB and related court case, the resident submitted an application for a management transfer on 23 November 2021, which was approved on 9 February 2022. On 14 April 2022, the landlord contacted a local authority who owned housing stock in an area the resident had requested to be rehoused in to request a reciprocal transfer on behalf of the resident. The landlord described the resident’s circumstances, that he had been approved for a management transfer, and explained that the resident’s Mother lived in the area covered by the local authority and the resident wished to move closer to her as he acted as her carer. The Local Authority sent an application form to the landlord on 10 May 2022, which was completed and returned on 16 May 2022.
4. On 17 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint about how it had handled his transfer request. The landlord’s records described the elements of the resident’s complaint as:
   1. He was dissatisfied with the progress the landlord had made with regards to requesting a reciprocal transfer and did not think the application was made with the correct local authority, as a second local authority was closer to where his Mother lived.
   2. The staff member handling the application had to request information about his preferred areas twice and the resident did not think that the staff member properly engaged with him. He was also not informed by the staff member that there was no guarantee that the local authority would accept a reciprocal transfer.
   3. He was dissatisfied with the slow progress of the transfer, which he felt was deliberate by the landlord as it had no intention of allowing a transfer to be completed.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Acknowledged that the resident would like to be rehoused as soon as possible, but noted that it didn’t own any housing stock in the areas the resident wished to move to, and that it had no control over the organisations who did own vacant properties in those areas.
   2. Explained that of the two local authorities which owned housing stock in the resident’s preferred areas, one would accept an application for a reciprocal transfer application from the landlord, while the other would only accept an application directly from the resident. The landlord also explained that it had no obligation to complete the application under its policies and procedures, but it had offered as much assistance as possible in helping the resident to be rehoused.
   3. Noted that the resident had stated his dissatisfaction that the local authority may only offer him temporary accommodation. The landlord explained that it had no control over whether the local authority accepted the reciprocal transfer request or what type of property it offered him if his application was successful.
   4. Stated it was satisfied with how the staff member assisting the resident in his transfer request had handled the matter. The landlord noted that the staff member had properly explained the reciprocal transfer process and that the local authorities had no obligation to accept the transfer. The landlord also explained that the staff member had been in contact with the local authority in April and May 2022 to progress the application and while it appreciated that the resident was unhappy with the slow progress it was making, it had no control over the local authority’s decision-making process,
   5. Apologised for the delay in providing the stage two complaint response and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience that this had caused.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as him being given misleading information from the landlord about the reciprocal transfer process and that there was no proof the landlord had attempted to get him rehoused by the local authority. The resident also stated his dissatisfaction with how the complaint was handled. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive suitable compensation and to be properly registered with the local authority.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord states that it will consider offering a management transfer to a tenant who is at risk due to ASB, harassment, domestic violence, has urgent medical problems, or is urgently required to move for management reasons. A neighbourhood manager will complete a management transfer request form with the tenant and the request will then be considered by a panel made up of at least two heads of service. The landlord’s management transfer policy also states that “where the situation is urgent, there is a real and immediate threat to a resident’s safety and [the landlord] do not have a suitable property or temporary accommodation available, we will work with the relevant Local Authority and other housing providers to re-house the resident”.
8. Managed housing reciprocals are a transfer scheme that allows individuals and families with social tenancies who are at risk to move to a different area while retaining their tenancy. While management transfers will usually offer a tenant a property on a like-for-like basis, a reciprocal transfer may offer a different type of property depending on what type of housing stock is available in the requested area.
9. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Scope of investigation

10. As part of his complaint, the resident had highlighted his dissatisfaction with how the local authorities had handled his reciprocal transfer requests. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This position is in line with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.

How the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer, specifically the reciprocal transfer through the local authority.

11. Once it had received the resident’s request to be rehoused, the landlord had a duty to respond to the request in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
12. Management transfers are not considered as part of a landlord’s normal transfer and/or allocations procedure. As management transfers are deemed to be initiated by the landlord, they are not covered by allocations rules in the Housing Act 1996. The decision to agree to the transfer and the type and location of property that is subsequently offered is made solely at the landlord’s discretion. This is independent from any banding and/or bidding scheme operated by the landlord itself, or on behalf of another party.
13. The Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord has used its discretion fairly, taking into account the individual circumstances in each case, and whether it had properly followed its published policy. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the landlord has treated the resident unfairly. A request for a management transfer was considered by a panel and approved, in line with its policy. The landlord also followed its policy by contacting a local authority and requesting a reciprocal transfer as it did not own any housing stocking in the resident’s preferred areas to move to. The evidence provided by the landlord showed that it completed an application with the resident and sent it to the local authority, which confirmed its receipt. While the length of time it has taken the local authority to consider the request is understandably frustrating for the resident, the landlord has no control over the reciprocal transfer process once the application had been made. Moreover, as detailed above, it’s not within the remit of the Service to comment on local authority’s rehousing procedures. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer request.
14. The resident has also complained about the poor level of information provided by the landlord. The resident stated that he was not made aware that there was no guarantee that he would be approved for a reciprocal transfer, that the local authority may only offer temporary accommodation, that the landlord could not submit an application to his preferred local authority and that he would have to apply directly. The resident noted that if he had been made aware of these issues at the time, that he would have looked into other rehousing options available to him rather than waiting for the result of his reciprocal transfer request. The landlord disputed the resident’s comments and stated that it was satisfied that the staff member who assisted the resident in submitting the management transfer application and the reciprocal transfer application had provided all the necessary information.
15. The resident provided the landlord with his recollection of events during the complaint process, and the landlord has provided the resident with the staff member’s recollection of events in its complaint responses. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s claims by interviewing the staff member and reviewing the internal correspondence between the staff member and the resident. As the staff member disputed the resident’s description of their conversations and there is no corroborating evidence to show service failure by the staff member, it was reasonable for the landlord not to uphold this element of the complaint. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the clear confusion that these conversations caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

16. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at stage two of the complaints process. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 31 May 2022 and the stage two complaint response was sent on 25 July 2022; 18 working days outside of its target of 20 working days. Moreover, the email sent by the landlord acknowledging the escalation request incorrectly informed the resident that the stage two response would be providing within ten working days. This caused clear inconvenience to the resident, who sought the assistance of this Service in order to receive the stage two complaint response.
17. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £150 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by making changes on its system to its email templates to ensure the correct timescales were provided to complainants in the future.
18. The landlord’s compensation offer of £150 is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. A payment of £150 that recognised the delay in providing the stage two complaint response, the confusion the email giving the incorrect timescale caused and the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to contact this Service in order to receive the complaint response was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong with regards to its complaint handling were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman deems that there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s management transfer.
20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman deems that the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Orders

21. Within four weeks of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failure associated with the management transfer.
    2. Assess if the resident qualifies for a referral to Safer London’s Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme. If it decides that the resident does qualify, the landlord should submit a referral to the PLHR scheme. If it decides that the resident does not qualify, the landlord should contact at least one local authority in the resident’s chosen area to try to arrange a reciprocal transfer.

Recommendations

22. As the finding of reasonable redress was based on the landlord’s compensation offer of £150, it is recommended that the landlord now pays this to the resident if it has not done so already.