Soho Housing Association Limited (202115216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115216

Soho Housing Association Limited

19 July 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s decision to close its community housing scheme.
2. The landlord’s response to the applicant’s complaint about its decision.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s decision to close its community housing scheme.
Under paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice. This means we are unable to look at the applicant’s concerns that the community scheme register was closed as this part of the complaint relates to the landlord’s policies and so falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, we will look at how the landlord responded to the complaint about this decision.

Background and summary of events

The applicant is not a resident of the landlord and is instead an applicant for housing. Under paragraph 25 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, applicants for housing with members of the Scheme can have complaints considered by our service.
This investigation understands that after the applicant applied for housing with her local authority, she was told she did not meet their criteria and referred to the landlord, which accepted her application and placed her on its waiting list.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord emailed the applicant to offer an intermediate rent property, and in the same email noted it was closing its community scheme for social housing properties. The landlord assured the applicant that it had not taken this decision lightly and firmly believed that doing so would allow it to maintain fairness and allocate properties more effectively. The landlord advised the applicant that if she believed that she met the criteria for social housing, she should speak to her local authority, The landlord asked the applicant to send an email to request an application form if she was interested in an intermediate rent tenancy.
The applicant responded to the landlord on 4 August 2021 and expressed disappointment about the scheme being closed. She expressed concerns regarding an intermediate rent property and said this was unaffordable on her salary, but she was happy to be offered property if it was at social rent. The applicant asked the landlord to reconsider the closure of the community letting scheme, especially to those that were currently on the waiting list.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord sent a circular to all residents to formally confirm the closure of the community scheme and to provide explanation about its decision.
Following this, the applicant emailed the landlord on 3 occasions on 1 September 2021, 8 September 2021 and 13 September 2021 asking the landlord to reconsider its decision to close the scheme, especially to those that were on the waiting list already.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord responded to the applicant and apologised for the delay. It offered alternative Intermediate Market Rent properties as and when they become available. It explained that the decision to close the scheme was not made lightly and was made in the interests of ensuring it fulfilled its obligations as a registered provider of social housing. It apologised for any distress that its decision had caused the applicant.
On 20 September 2021, the applicant complained and appealed the decision to remove her from the community scheme. She complained that she had had to chase the landlord about her application over the 8 years she had been on the register, and had not been provided warning about it closing down. She said that the Intermediate scheme was not financially feasible for her on her salary. She said that she had recently reapplied to the local authority, only to be rejected once again, and they were not willing to assist her. She said that the landlord’s 14 September 2021 response appeared to be a generic response without any real consideration of her circumstances. She said that she did not understand how the landlord could remove those already on its register.
The landlord responded to the applicant on 27 September 2021 and explained that when the community scheme was started, there were different rules and expectations of organisations like the landlord in how empty homes were allocated. The landlord explained that in recent years there had been a greater expectation to use local authority waiting lists and with the ever increasing housing crisis in the UK, ensuring that the households in most need are allocated social housing was more important than ever and the landlord was committed to contributing to this. The landlord reiterated that the decision to stop the scheme was not made lightly and was ultimately approved by its board. The landlord said that there was no right of appeal for the decision and it apologised for any stress and inconvenience caused.
There was contact between this Service and the landlord on 4 occasions from 5 October 2021, and it issued a complaint response to the applicant on 14 February 2022. The landlord confirmed that it would not be escalating the applicant’s complaint as this concerned a policy decision that was properly arrived at and approved by its board members, and it therefore did not fall under landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said that it sympathised with the applicant’s situation and detailed her options to move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord informed the applicant that the community scheme was closing and the applicant was aware that the scheme had been closed for new applicants for quite some time. The landlord explained, in its letter confirming the closure of the scheme, that this was to give the local authority housing register full access to its vacant properties. A landlord would not ordinarily have to consult applicants in advance of a change to such a policy and although it could have provided more advance notice, it did not have any obligation to do so. The applicant has made it clear that as a resolution, she wants the scheme to continue, however this Service sees no basis to obligate or require the landlord to do this. This Service understands the resident’s desire for a new home, and that she will have found the decision to close the scheme disappointing and distressing, particularly having been on the register for 8 years. Ultimately, the landlord is entitled to make such decisions, and in the Ombudsman’s view, its explanation of the reasons for the scheme closure and its apologies were a reasonable response to these aspects.
Section 3.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the complaints policy does not deal with a policy decision that has been properly arrived at. The landlord is entitled to rely on its complaints policy and the approach reflects that of the Ombudsman noted at paragraph 4 of this report. However, in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code, it ought to have confirmed its position in a formal complaint response and signposted the applicant to this Service. The landlord did not do this and provide a final response until after a protracted process in which the applicant had pursued the issue with the landlord and the Ombudsman had also sent 3 chaser letters.
This was not in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under paragraph 9 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and section 3.11 of the Complaint Handling Code, to provide responses in a timely manner and inform residents of their right to bring complaints to the Ombudsman. While the landlord subsequently provided a final response, in the Ombudsman’s view this did not go far enough to acknowledge that there were significant delays responding to the applicant and that it should not have required the Ombudsman’s intervention to provide a response. This leads this Service to make a finding of service failure in respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s decision to close its community housing scheme is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the applicant’s complaint about its decision.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within four weeks, pay the resident £100 in recognition of the time and trouble she went to obtain a formal response to her complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure that, in the case of applicants and issues it considers outside its jurisdiction, it still provides a complaint response which provides relevant explanation and signposts the applicant to this service.