Sanctuary Housing Association (202012582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012582

Sanctuary Housing Association

20 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s request to move permanently to alternative accommodation rather than on a temporary basis.
2. Resident’s transfer application.
3. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 12 April 2018. The property is described as a four-bedroom house.
The resident’s son has a medical condition.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in proper working order the structure and exterior of the property and to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook explains the options available to residents who wish to move home such as undertaking an exchange or a transfer to another property.
The landlord’s tenant management housing policy advises that:
1. The approval for a decant is authorised by the housing manager.
2. Consideration can be given to the resident remaining at the property while repair works are being carried out.
3. The decant interview should ascertain the resident’s preferences and requirements and this should be taken into account when considering the most suitable course of action to be taken.
4. When considering a move on a permanent basis, it will look for properties within its existing housing stock, check with other providers and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
5. If it cannot accommodate a permanent move, it has the right to refuse one.
6. If the landlord approves a permanent move, this should be dealt with through its transfer procedure.
The landlord’s decant policy advises that following the completion of planned works, residents are expected to return to their properties. If a resident makes a request to remain in the property while works are being carried out, a risk assessment will be conducted and the outcome of the risk assessment will override the resident’s preference to remain in the property.
The landlord’s voids, allocation and lettings policy set out the landlord’s approach to lettings its properties efficiently to reduce the time that its properties are empty. It advises that staff must identify any support or medical needs and a medical assessment can be completed. There are three rehousing bands with Band B identified for those residents under occupying a social housing property by two to three more bedrooms. Furthermore, when the rehousing bands is confirmed, the resident will be informed in writing to confirm the status of their application and banding decision.
The landlord’s complaints, housing and support policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the second stage. It will carry out a review of its resident’s dissatisfaction that it receives and provide the resident with a final complaint response.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation payments. This provides guidance to staff on the payments to be made. For time and trouble and inconvenience payments, it advises that payments will include the impact of the service failure on the resident and gives three categories of awards up to a maximum of £400 for that type of service failure. It also has similar categories for poor complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

The resident made a disrepair claim on 24 September 2020 and the court issued a Tomlins order on 12 August 2021 regarding the structural works required to the property. The Court has ordered the landlord to decant the resident on a temporary basis while the works are being carried out. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to comment on the legal claim or any award arising from this.
However, the resident has complained about the landlord’s decision not to allocate them permanent housing as part of the decant process. This aspect of their complaint was not considered as part of the disrepair claim. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s decision not to provide permanent housing as part of the decant process and the events relating to the disrepair claim may be referred to for context only.

Summary of events

The resident made a disrepair claim to the courts on 24 September 2020 regarding the floorboards and windows in the property. The landlord’s records show that in December 2020, it discussed whether the resident should be considered for a temporary or permanent decant as works were required to the property. It assessed that the works required to the property would be completed within 12 weeks.
On 5 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord in response to its telephone call. The resident informed the landlord that a temporary decant was not suitable for her family as she had a disabled child with complex health needs. She advised that her family required a larger property to accommodate a room for a carer to stay overnight and that she had discussed her requirements with her solicitor.
The following day, 6 January 2021, the landlord discussed the specific needs requested by the resident and decided that it would be unlikely to find a property in the area to meet those needs. It agreed that the resident should complete a transfer form identifying the areas that she would like to move to.
The same day, 6 January 2021, the Housing Officer contacted the resident to advise that she would put a transfer application through her letter box regarding a permanent decant to a four-bedroom property.
On 7 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had not received the transfer form.
The same day, 7 January 2021, the landlord discussed the resident’s property and decided that the resident could not remain in occupation while the works to remedy the disrepair were carried out.
It is recorded on 11 January 2021 that:
1. The landlord checked whether it had a suitable four- or five-bedroom property available in the area that the resident lived in.
2. The landlord apologised to the resident for not sending the transfer form and agreed to post it to the resident.
3. The resident asked the landlord to confirm that it was considering a permanent decant for her family.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord posted the transfer and medical form to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 January 2021:
1. It discussed whether a suitable property had been identified for the resident to move to. Furthermore, due to the timescales it was working to, a temporary decant may be the most appropriate solution.
2. It identified a property that could be used as a temporary decant and it would contact the resident to organise a viewing of the property.
Following the resident’s contact with this Service, we wrote to the landlord on 16 January 2021, requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 17 January 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that it agreed that it had the following options available to remedy the disrepair in the resident’s property. It could identify a property for the resident to move into as a temporary decant and the programme of works could start in the spring. Alternatively, it could identify a property that would be suitable as a permanent decant and then the works would be programmed in without any urgency. It noted that as it could not identify a property for the resident to move to on a permanent basis, it would pursue identification of a property that could be used as a temporary decant.
The resident’s legal representative informed the landlord on 19 January 2021 that the resident would not move to a property as a temporary decant and that she would only consider moving as a permanent decant. In addition, the resident had asked to remain in the property while the works were being carried out. In response, the landlord agreed to inform the resident that due to health and safety concerns, it could not agree to her remaining in the property while the works were being carried out.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 26 January 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 4 February 2021, the landlord informed this Service that the resident had engaged a solicitor and the matters were being handled as a disrepair case.
On the same day 4 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to request that it clarify why she had been asked to complete the paperwork for the permanent decant status if that was being rescinded.
The landlord responded to the resident on 5 February 2021, apologising for the delay in responding to her earlier communication. The housing officer advised the resident that she was required to complete the transfer form even though she had permanent decant status. The housing officer also explained that the transfer form needed to be completed so that the resident could be placed on the transfer list and that the request for a move to a permanent four-bedroom property had been approved. In addition, the housing officer advised that a property had been identified and when it was available for viewing, either in person or by a virtual link, the resident would be notified.
The resident viewed the property on 15 February 2021 and provided the landlord with information regarding repairs that were required to the roof, to the flooring to reduce trip hazards and questioned whether the radiators were the correct size for the room. It is noted that the landlord collected the transfer form and medical form from the resident that day.
On the same day 15 February 2021, the landlord’s records show that its decant team informed the housing officer that the resident was not showing as having decant status.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2021 to notify it that she was happy to accept the decant property. However, she would need assistance with the costs of moving, relocation of the fridge freezer, reimbursement for the cost of flooring and the fencing. In addition, she requested a conversation regarding the redesign of the kitchen and that there were other pieces of furniture that she would not be able to take due to the layout of the new property.
The landlord’s records on 17 February 2021 and 23 February 2021 show that:
1. The resident had been assessed as being in Band B for rehousing
2. The Housing Officer advised the lettings team that an Occupational Therapy assessment was not necessary.
3. The resident had requested an extra room for a carer; therefore, proof was required of the son’s medical needs.
On 18 March 2021, it is noted that the Housing Officer requested that the banding letter was not sent to the resident.
On 24 March 2021, the resident’s solicitor requested that the landlord confirm whether it was pursuing a permanent or temporary decant for the resident and her family.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 25 March 2021, the area housing manager confirmed that permanent decant status had not been approved for the resident as that would be outside of the decant policy.
On 29 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had not received a response to her request for a second viewing of the decant property, neither had the landlord provided an answer to her questions. In addition, she asked the landlord whether it had any other properties that she could view, that she had experienced a relationship breakdown with her husband, therefore she required a larger property.
The landlord’s internal records of 30 March 2021, 31 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 show that:
1. The housing officer queried whether the decant property could still be offered to the resident as it was not as large as the tenancy address.
2. The landlord did not have a larger property to offer the resident. However, it considered that the resident’s tenancy met the resident’s needs and when repaired would be suitable for the resident to return to.
3. Permanent decant status had not been approved for the resident, therefore the decant property could only be offered on a temporary basis.
4. It would make reasonable adjustments to the decant property to enable the resident to occupy it on a temporary basis.
5. It was not prepared to carry out the works to the decant property that had been requested by the resident in her communication.
6. It had not been able to find a like for like property for the resident to move to on a permanent basis.
7. The property would be offered on a temporary basis and a second viewing would be offered to the resident on that basis.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 April 2021 to inform her that works were required to the decant property and that once complete the property would be offered to her as a temporary decant. Furthermore, the current property would meet the resident’s needs once the works were completed.
The resident responded on the same day 9 April 2021 to dispute the landlord’s version of events.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 requesting evidence that it was handling an active legal case with a court date, otherwise it was required to respond to the complaint within five working days.
On 19 April 2021, the resident’s husband contacted the landlord to ask whether it had another property that could be viewed as a possible permanent decant.
The landlord responded the same day 19 April 2021 to the resident’s husband, apologising for the miscommunication in the previous communications regarding the permanent decant. The resident’s husband was informed that a formal offer of the property had not been made to the resident and the transfer application would follow its allocations and lettings procedure. The assessment of the resident’s housing needs found that the resident was adequately housed, there was no overcrowding and that the property was suitable apart from the repair works that were required. Therefore, the resident had not been awarded a rehousing priority. Furthermore, the property would be repaired for the family to return to and it would find out if there was another property available for the family to view as a temporary decant.
On the same day, 19 April 2021, the disrepair claim was listed for trial on 2 August 2021.
The resident and the landlord communicated on the 20 April 2021 and 21 April 2021 with the resident advising that her legal representative had confirmed that the permanent decant was not part of the disrepair case and had signposted the resident to the landlord.
On 1 May 2021 and 2 May 2021, the resident contacted the area housing manager requesting to view another property as they were in receipt of emails that confirmed the landlord has approved their permanent decant status.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 11 May 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint about their transfer application.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and that it intended to respond by 26 May 2021.
The landlord issued its complaint response on 31 May 2021. The key findings were:
1. The landlord explained the majority of its properties are allocated to the Council’s through its housing register.
2. The landlord recognised that some residents would prefer to move on a permanent basis. However, it explained the circumstances in which it would consider to decant a resident on a permanent basis: where the property was considered permanently uninhabitable, could not be repaired or was identified for demolition
3. The landlord stated that requests for a permanent move should be dealt with as a transfer rather than under its decant policy.
4. The landlord stated that its decant policy and procedure had not been clearly explained to the resident. Consequently, the resident had believed that she could move on a permanent basis to the property that she had viewed.
5. The landlord noted that she had completed a transfer application form and she had been assessed as under occupying the current property by two bedrooms.
6. The landlord accepted that her expectations had not been properly managed regarding the possibility of being moved on a permanent basis and that she had been informed that she could move to the property on a temporary basis.
7. The landlord apologised for not meeting the resident’s expectations, not communicating clearly and confirmed whilst the work was being carried out, the landlord would provide temporary housing.
8. The landlord made a compensation award of £250. This was assessed as £150 for the time and trouble and inconvenience that had been experienced as a result of its communications and £100 for its complaint handling delays.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 June 2021 to the next stage of the complaint procedure. The resident provided a comprehensive response to the landlord outlining the impact of its decision not to agree to a permanent move in order for the repairs to be carried out. The resident provided a timeline of her contact with the Housing Officer from January 2021 regarding the need to decant and that it had been made clear that they could not move on a temporary basis due to her family circumstances. In addition, the resident quoted that she had access to internal emails from her legal team which evidenced that the landlord had agreed to a permanent decant for her and her family and correspondence from the housing officer which confirmed that the permanent decant had been approved.
Furthermore, the housing officer had confirmed to the resident that the transfer had been approved and they had agreed to view the property on that basis. The resident concluded that the landlord had approved the permanent transfer and explained the need to move on a permanent basis and that the landlord had not followed its own procedures.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that it made a banding decision on the resident’s transfer application on 12 March 2021. The property size was showing as a 4-bedroom property and the transfer assessment showed that the resident required a two-bedroom property. The resident was under occupying by two bedrooms as two children under 16 of the same sex can share a bedroom. It is noted that the housing officer had advised that there was no need for the medical assessment to be sent, though all household members have a right for their medical needs to be assessed.
The banding decision letter was sent to the resident on 27 July 2021.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of the complaint procedure on 28 July 2021. It advised that the transfer application had been assessed on 12 March 2021, placing the resident in Band B and it recognised that a hard copy of the banding decision had not been sent. It apologised for this and advised that the application had been dealt with appropriately.
With regard to the permanent decant status, the landlord recognised that a misunderstanding/ miscommunication had occurred as the resident had been advised that a permanent decant status had been approved and a property identified. It confirmed that it was offering a temporary move until the works were completed in her home. In addition, it apologised for its communication and stated that it had identified learning opportunities with its earlier complaint response.
Furthermore, following its review of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that its communication could be clearer, but it could not evidence that a permanent offer had been made or withdrawn and it was willing to reconsider any evidence that the resident had within the next ten working days. It reviewed the compensation it had offered at stage one and increased the offer by a further £125 for upset and disappointment with its communication including its failure to issue a copy of the banding letter. The compensation award totalled £375.
The resident remained dissatisfied and emailed the landlord on 28 July 2021 to ask what evidence the landlord had considered during its review of the complaint. The resident and landlord communicated further on 28 July 2021, 30 July 2021 and on 2 August 2021, with the landlord confirming that it had received all the further evidence that the resident wanted considered and that it would respond by 31 August 2021.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 August 2021. It confirmed that it had reviewed the information supplied by the resident and that it could not consider factors that related to the disrepair claim. It advised that it accepted that there had been communication issues that could have been handled better and that it considered the transfer to be handled appropriately. It increased the compensation award to £475. This was broken down as: £100 for service failures identified at stage one; upset/ poor communication £350 and £25 for not providing the banding decision.
On the same day, 20 August 2021 the resident requested that the landlord remove her from the transfer list. She explained that she was occupying a three-bedroom property and that she had a son with a disability who required his own bedroom.
That same day 20 August 2021, the landlord paid the compensation outlined in its final complaint response to the resident.
After the complaint process was exhausted the Chief Executive responded to the resident on 7 March 2022. He confirmed that the disrepair claim was being managed by the legal team and that the complaint process had identified confusion regarding the temporary/ permanent decant status. In addition, he confirmed that she did not meet the criteria to be allocated the property on a permanent basis and that would be outside its agreement with the local authority. Furthermore, it had families who had been waiting for a longer time for that size property and that if she refused to move out of the property for the works to take place, it may have to consider legal action.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it did not recognise the stress and inconvenience that she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. There has been large amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord regarding the complaint. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. The Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s handling of the matter.

resident request to move permanently to alternative accommodation rather than on a temporary basis.

The landlord’s decant policy explains how it will carry out repairs when residents can no longer remain in occupation of their property. It states that for it will consider a permanent move when a property is identified for demolition, or disposal or the property is permanently unfit for habitation.
In accordance with its decants policy, the landlord assessed that the repairs required to the property could not be carried out with the family remaining in occupation. The evidence shows that the landlord had informed the resident in February 2021 that she had been approved for a permanent move to a four-bedroom property and that it had identified a property to move the resident to. It is clear that the resident was left with this impression until 9 April 2021, when the landlord clarified its position that the property was being offered on a temporary basis until the repairs were completed to the tenancy. The landlord in its complaint responses has accepted that there were flaws in its communication as the resident was left with the belief that she would be moved on a permanent basis.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out the factors to be considered when considering whether a resident can move on a permanent basis. Therefore, whilst the housing officer had told the resident in February 2021 that it had been agreed that she had been awarded decant status, this was not correct as the area housing manager had not agreed to award that status to the resident neither had the decant team been made aware of the resident’s need for housing. Crucially, the resident did not meet the criteria outlined in the decant policy to be awarded permanent decant status as the landlord had agreed to repair the tenancy and it had been assessed as meeting her needs. The landlord has recognised that its communication to the resident had raised her expectations to deliver an outcome that it could not do.
The landlord in its complaint responses apologised to the resident for the error and confusion that she had experienced regarding the move to alternative accommodation for the works to the property to be progressed. It reasonably explained to the resident that it was able to offer the identified property on a temporary basis but that she did not qualify for the permanent tenancy as she had been assessed as requiring a two-bedroom property. The landlord also explained that it had estimated that the repairs required to the property would be concluded within 12 to 13 weeks.
The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses to the resident that it has formally acknowledged and accepted its service failures with regards to its communication with the resident. It has acted appropriately by apologising for the service failures and offered an award of compensation of £450.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Process is: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has acknowledged that the communication received by the resident caused confusion regarding the status awarded to her regarding her request to remove on a permanent basis. It confirmed that it had not made a formal offer of the property on a permanent basis and agreed to review its decision if further information was provided by the resident. The landlord’s l compensation award of £350 recognised the upset and disappointment resulting for its poor communication.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer in light of the facts of the case and the available evidence and takes the view that the landlord’s offer is reasonable and proportionate for the poor communication that the resident experienced as it reflects the distress and anxiety experienced by the resident.

resident’s transfer application

The landlord informed the resident that she should apply for a transfer in order to be considered for permanent alternative accommodation. The resident did so and the lettings team, in accordance with the voids, lettings and allocation policy assessed her housing needs.
However, the voids, lettings and allocation policy specify that household members with a medical condition should be referred for a medical assessment. The evidence shows that the housing officer informed the lettings team that in this particular case this was not required but it has not supplied reasons for doing so. This was not appropriate as the resident’s son has a medical condition and the resident had explicitly informed the housing officer of this and that his needs required her to have accommodation to accommodate an overnight carer which meant that she required larger accommodation.
The landlord in its complaint review recognised that the resident was not provided with her banding decision in accordance with the voids, lettings and allocation policy. The landlord arranged for the banding decision to be sent to the resident and awarded a compensation award of £25 for its delay in sending the letter.

the related complaint

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 10 working days at its first stage and 20 working days at the second stage. It allows for residents to request a review of its decision and then it will provide its final complaint response.
The resident contacted this Service to advise that she had made a complaint to the landlord in January 2021 and she had not received a response. The landlord initial response to this Service communication was that it was handling the resident’s concerns as a disrepair claim with her legal representatives.
Further communication continued between the landlord and this Service regarding the matters of the complaint that could be dealt with under the complaints procedure. Once it was confirmed that the offer of a permanent tenancy was not part of the disrepair claim, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 May 2021 and provided its initial complaint response on 31 May 2021. The landlord awarded the resident £100 for its delay in providing its complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on the 28 June 2021 and the landlord provided its complaint response on 28 July 2021 apologising for its complaint handling failures and reoffered its compensation award for its complaint handling failures.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the landlord the same day (28 July 2021) to ask whether it had considered the totality of the representations she had submitted. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 August 2021 apologising for the communication failures identified in its review.
The landlord’s award of compensation reflects its initial delay in assessing and progressing the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been redress to the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident request to move permanently to alternative accommodation whilst the repair works to the property were being carried out, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there had been redress to the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the related complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has recognised that its communication to the resident could have been clearer and caused confusion regarding the award of permanent decant status. It has apologised and awarded compensation for its service failures.
The landlord has not assessed the medical needs for the resident’s son in accordance with its voids, lettings and allocations policy to determine his housing needs.
There was an initial delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint about its decision not to award permanent decant status in accordance with its complaint policy.

Orders

The landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether she wants the landlord to reassess her transfer application, to take into account her son’s medical needs. If the resident agrees to the reassessment, the landlord to progress this in accordance with its voids, allocations and lettings policy.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report