Peabody Trust (202212877)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212877

Peabody Trust

15 February 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 19 October 2009. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives at the property with her family.
The resident has sought to be rehoused. She applied for a transfer and was awarded a ‘Band B’ medical priority banding on 8 March 2022. She was awarded this banding due to being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychologist who conducted the assessment said that the resident’s housing situation was impacting her in a way that was “limiting her scope for recovery.” It suggested she would benefit from alternative housing location that was low density.
On 14 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service. She stated that she had made a formal complaint the previous week and had not heard back from the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord on 16 September 2022 and requested that it raise a complaint. A complaint was subsequently logged on 20 September 2022. As part of her complaint, the resident said the following:
1. When she initially bid on a suitable property, she was showing as 4th in the priority list, but when the bidding closed, she was 34th.
2. Following the landlord’s advice, she contacted her Neighbourhood Manager, regarding her bid. However, the Neighbourhood Manager advised they were on holiday and told the resident to contact the customer hub. She had contacted both the customer hub and the transfer team but did not receive a reply.
3. The resident said she felt “ignored, singled out, and discriminated” against and had been left feeling “mentally, emotionally, and physically damaged.”
4. The resident had seen the same property advertised on the local authority’s website on 14 September 2022. She therefore felt like her bid had been ignored.
5. She felt the system was being manipulated and that the landlord was not supporting her need for a move.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord gave its stage 1 response, which said:
1. The property the resident had bid on had not yet been viewed by any applicants due to the extent of work that needed to be carried out on the property. The landlord apologised that it had taken so long to communicate that to the resident and acknowledged that the lettings team should have contacted her earlier.
2. It noted that the resident had been shortlisted for the property. The bidding for this property closed on 30 May 2022, when she was in position 34. The resident may be invited for a viewing, depending on the outcome of the applications of those in a higher position.
3. It confirmed that the property on the local authority’s website was a different property but the same picture. It apologised for the confusion this had caused.
4. It was looking at ways to keep residents better informed about their bids to ensure transparency.
The response contained no information about how to escalate the resident’s complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 25 October 2022, the resident advised that she had emailed previously and asked for her complaint to be escalated. This Service has not been provided with this email.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022, and apologised for the delay. It said the following:
1. The resident had contacted the landlord in July 2022, but it could not see any evidence that it had contacted her back. It apologised and understood that this would have increased the resident’s frustrations.
2. It reiterated that the property the resident had bid on had undergone repairs, which affected the viewing timeline. It confirmed the repairs were still ongoing.
3. The resident’s bidding position for the property remained at 34, and there were several applicants ahead of her who had management transfer applications. It explained what that meant and that her position regarding this property was “unlikely to change soon.”
4. The resident had contacted the neighbourhood team in September 2022 and complained about the lack of communication from her Neighbourhood Manager. During that call, the resident felt that the landlord had made excuses for the lack of contact. It apologised and acknowledged how that made the resident feel.
5. While the resident’s position would not change, it would have been reasonable for the Neighbourhood Manager to respond to her to clarify the process and to ask the rehousing team to contact her if necessary. It said that it could have managed the resident’s expectations better.
6. It apologised that the stage 1 response contained no information about how to escalate her response.
7. The service it had provided was not at the level expected. It apologised for its failings. It had since identified further training needs to improve complaints handling going forward.
8. It offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and £50 for its poor complaint handling.
In contacting this Service, the resident said she felt “robbed” of a legitimate opportunity to move. She said she felt ignored and neglected by the landlord. She said she had bid on a property that had been active for 5 months which was then sent to the local authority for “hundreds of thousands” of people to bid on it. She requested help and support to move to a house, as the landlord had refused to help her and had put pressure on her to consider a privately rented property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the landlord’s service delivery had impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s rehousing policy states that where there is more than one applicant within a priority band that meets the matching standards for a property, it will allocate the property to the applicant with the earliest priority date (the priority date is the date it awarded the priority band to an applicant).
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will log a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. All requests for escalation to stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. That time limit would only be extended if more time was needed, and that would be communicated and agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for time, trouble, and inconvenience that caused minor disruption, it will award up to £200. For minor poor complaint handling, it will award between £1 and £50, and for moderate complaint handling, it will award between £51 and £150.

Rehousing request

The landlord allocates housing in order of the banding award date using a bidding system. The resident was awarded a Band B medical priority banding for a transfer on 8 March 2022; prior to that, she was Band D; a lower banding. As per the landlord’s policy, that meant the resident’s Band B priority date was 8 March 2022.
The resident in her complaint raised the lack of communication from the landlord in relation to the progress of her bid on this property. While the Ombudsman understands the frustrations of the resident, it would be unreasonable to expect a landlord to communicate with every applicant about the progress of their individual bids; However, it would be reasonable to confirm if the resident had been shortlisted. There is no evidence this was done in this case. However, providing an update, on the progress of each bid, on each property, outside of an automated system, would be an unreasonable expectation. The bidding process indicated a priority position once the bid was placed and at close of bidding. This did offer some insight into likelihood of securing the property advertised.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to have good communication with residents, particularly those who are vulnerable, and not doing so added to the distress of the resident. In her complaint, the resident raised that she had tried to contact the landlord via several different departments, including her Neighbourhood Manager. While it is appropriate for the Neighbourhood Manager to direct the resident to another department while on holiday, it was not appropriate for the landlord to ignore the calls made by the resident. The landlord should have contacted the resident to discuss her concerns and explain the current situation with the delay in the property availability to alleviate her concerns and manage her expectations. Its failure to do so, meant that the resident was left unsure of the outcome of her bid on the property and would have added to her frustrations and caused unnecessary distress.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the Neighbourhood Manager should have clarified the process and arranged for the rehousing team to contact the resident to manage her expectations. It accepted the failing and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble taken by the resident. It could have accepted this in its initial response, acknowledging that, and providing redress at stage 2 was a reasonable and appropriate action. While the lack of communication would have been frustrating for the resident, it did not change the outcome of the resident’s application.
The landlord confirmed that the property the resident had bid on had not had any viewings due to the extent of work required on it. It was reasonable for the landlord not to carry out viewings on the property until it was ready. The resident had an expectation, however, that she would be able to view the property. While, this may not have been a reasonable expectation, it highlights lack of clarity in the landlord’s communications that such an expectation was raised. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate why a viewing was not possible. However, the landlord apologised for the delay in communicating that information to the resident and advised that it was looking at ways to keep residents better informed about their bids. This is an appropriate response and shows the landlord recognised the need to improve communications with applicants.
In her complaint, the resident raised with the landlord that she had seen the same property subsequently advertised on the local authority website. The landlord advised that they do sometimes use the same images for adverts and apologised for any confusion. While this would have caused confusion for the resident, this action was taken by the local authority, and not the landlord., The landlord was not responsible for the local authority’s use of the same image and the landlord communicated appropriately to reassure the resident it was not the same property.
The resident stated that she had been treated with bias by the landlord. However, this Service has seen no evidence to suggest bias in the landlord’s process. Both its rehousing and transfer policy clearly set out the allocation and bidding process. The landlord gave the resident a clear explanation, in its complaint responses of her current position and advised her about the process, this was reasonable.
Overall, while the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations with the transfer process, the landlord’s actions and attempts to explain this process and how the resident’s priority applied to her bid were reasonable in the circumstances. While the landlord acknowledged it had not returned her calls, it apologised and offered compensation for its failings. Further, it accepted that it could have done better and advised that it was looking at how it could keep residents more informed about their bids.
After considering all the findings in this report, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

Although no evidence has been provided as to the date the resident first raised the complaint, the Ombudsman expects landlords to have clear processes to log a complaint at the first opportunity. The resident contacted this Service on 14 September 2022, she said she had raised a complaint the previous week with the landlord and not had a response. Internal emails evidence that a complaint letter was hand delivered by the resident to the landlord. There are numerous internal emails on 16 September 2022, which enquired if the complaint had been logged yet. Therefore, it is evidenced that the resident had raised her complaint prior to contacting this Service. The landlord should ensure complaints are logged at the earliest opportunity, not doing so caused the resident time and trouble in contacting this Service.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaints should be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord’s policy says it would log a complaint within 5 working days but does not mention whether an acknowledgement will be given. However, on its website, it does specify that an acknowledgement will be provided. In this case, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This is not in line with the Code, or the expectations set by its website. Acknowledging a complaint would have informed the resident that it was investigating her concerns and would have managed her expectations with regards to when she could expect a response. Failing to do so caused unnecessary distress to the resident and would have added to her frustrations.
The landlord’s complaint policy is clear that a complaint response should contain information on the steps a resident can take to escalate their complaint if they are dissatisfied. This is also highlighted in the Code. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not contain this information. This is unsatisfactory and is not an appropriate response. Further to this, an internal email highlighted that the landlord recognised this failing on 7 October 2022; after it had sent the stage 1 response. However, there is no evidence to suggest it then contacted the resident to put things right and inform her of her right to escalate her complaint. That was unreasonable as it delayed the resident’s opportunity to escalate her response to stage 2.
The resident advised on 25 October 2022 that she had sent an email, 4 weeks previously, asking for her complaint to escalated to stage 2. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this email from either party.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and that its stage 1 response did not contain the information on how to escalate her complaint. It offered £50 compensation for these failings and advised it had recommended a review of the complaints process. While this is appropriate, the compensation given does not accurately reflect the failings identified.
Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Considering the above, an order for compensation of £150 has been ordered. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer and is made up of the following:
1. £100 for the time and trouble taken in pursing the complaint.
2. £50 for the failure to provide information on how to escalate the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling.
The above total replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50, for the complaint handling. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.