Platform Housing Group Limited (202340813)

Background

1. The resident has lived in a 1-bedroomed bungalow since December 2013. She asked the landlord for a move in May 2023 as she said the property no longer met her health needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move to a suitable property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s request for a move to a suitable property.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary we found the landlord:
   1. acknowledged the service failures associated with the resident’s request to move.
   2. highlighted the errors in its complaint investigation and acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses.
   3. identified learning to address the service failures.
   4. provided redress which was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident for its handling of the request to move and its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident stated the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, she stated the delays in approving a management move impacted her health. It is not our role to assess either issue as they are matters best suited for a court to decide. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters she should seek legal advice.
8. The landlord’s managed move policy states a resident must give consent to the move, the landlord should discuss all housing options with the resident, and ensure all information and evidence required is provided. It should discuss property type, location and size and any other accessibility needs with the resident. The policy requires residents to register on the local authority waiting list to give the opportunity of securing accommodation with another provider or local authority. The policy highlights a move does not happen immediately as a suitable property must be identified with a potential termination period and repair works.
9. The landlord completed an application form with the resident on 16 May 2023, but there is no evidence it discussed the housing options, registering with the local authority or the timescale implications. This was not appropriate and not in line with the policy. Further, it did not set the resident’s expectations as to when a move may happen.
10. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the request was not submitted until 25 July 2023, 2 months later. The landlord did not explain the reasons for this delay to the resident. This was a communication failure and also meant it could not identify learning to prevent a recurrence.
11. The landlord confirmed the OT report from 24 August 2023 was not submitted with the application form. Furthermore, it said that there was no evidence it asked the resident to provide supporting documentation to accompany the OT report. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with policy and is likely to have delayed the resident’s application further. The landlord confirmed the resident was accepted on to the register on 30 January 2024 for a retirement bungalow, but there is no evidence it confirmed this to her, or that it explained or apologised for the delays. These service failures were acknowledged by the landlord in its final complaint response. This was reasonable.
12. The landlord said it was reasonable to expect a resident to be added to the register within a month of the OT report, in this case September 2023. It advised a resident should be considered for any property to meet the requirements stated in the OT report. The landlord acknowledged it had made an error when it added her for a retirement bungalow only. The landlord confirmed this had been amended so the resident could be considered for general need properties also. This was reasonable.
13. The resident told the landlord she had missed out on a 2-bedroomed bungalow due to its delays in processing the request. The landlord explained the property was advertised before she was approved in January 2024, and when her bedroom eligibility changed when her granddaughter moved out. The landlord was honest and transparent with the resident when it confirmed if her request had been registered in September 2023, it was possible she would have been considered for the bungalow.
14. The landlord identified multiple failures in its handling of the resident’s request to move. It confirmed the learning it had taken and listed several areas it was looking at improving. This was positive and demonstrated a commitment to improving the process and service delivery. The landlord recognised the impact of the errors made and the distress and inconvenience to the resident. It offered an apology and £750 compensation. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a medium to high level service failure causing moderate to high levels of distress and inconvenience. It was also in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was significant impact on the resident, but the redress to put things right was proportionate. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
15. The landlord has confirmed the resident has now moved to a bungalow in the area of her choice.

16. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 February 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 16 February 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its complaint policy which stated it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2024, 10 working days from the acknowledgement. This was appropriate and in line with its policy for a stage 1 complaint response.
17. The landlord stated the complaint was received on 9 February 2024. However, we have seen evidence the resident submitted it on 3 February 2024.  This was a failure by the landlord to recognise and log the complaint in a timely manner and impacted the overall response time from when the complaint was submitted.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 8 March 2024. This was appropriate and in line with policy. The landlord requested an extension of 10-working days on 4 April 2024. It said the extension was to allow a full review of the complaint and confirmed the response was due on 23 April 2024. This was appropriate and in line with policy. However, the landlord extended the deadline further before providing its final complaint response on 10 May 2024, 43 working days after it was received. This was not appropriate as this was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or our complaint handling code.
19. The landlord assessed the complaint handling as part of the stage 2 review. It highlighted service failures in its initial complaint investigation which it said led to the complaint not being upheld. The landlord acknowledged these in its final complaint response and addressed the extensions needed before providing its final complaint response. The landlord offered an apology and £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a low impact service failure.
20. In summary, the landlord’s acknowledgement, apology, and compensation were reasonable. The amount of £100 was proportionate for the time and trouble likely incurred and within the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. Therefore, the landlord’s actions in relation to its complaint handling amounts to reasonable redress.

Learning

21. The landlord acknowledged the need to improve its managed move process and identified several areas of improvement. This demonstrated a positive approach and a commitment to learning from its service failures so it could deliver a more robust service in future cases.