Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202006626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006626

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

13 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since June 2019.

Summary of Events

3. On 1 July 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that its staff member had delayed being in contact in relation to assisting with a property transfer since her visit on 9 March 2020 and had only contacted her at the end of June following numerous emails from her. She noted that the property was overcrowded, and the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement as there were five people living at the property and the tenancy agreement only stipulated it being suitable for three people. She also advised that she had discovered that a child had been murdered (the incident) in the property 15 years ago and this was now impacting on her family’s wellbeing. She noted the staff member had advised her to seek medical help as it could not assist her, and this was not helpful. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, setting out it would investigate the matter and respond by 17 July 2020. The resident chased a response on 18 July 2020, reiterating her dissatisfaction.
4. On 20 July 2020, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised that it had not updated her following the March visit but noted that given the unexpected pandemic it was working with limited resources and the staff member concerned had been relocated due to this. It acknowledged the distress which would have been caused learning about the history of the property, but noted that it was not  the landlord at the time of the incident, had no knowledge of this and whilst upsetting, this was not a reason to grant rehousing. It noted the advice given to contact the GP, register on different home swap sites and the local authorities site in relation to an application due to overcrowding, was correct, but that the demand for properties was high, against the shortage of supply. It advised that privately renting was also an option. It stated it was not in breach of the tenancy agreement and was not responsible to keep rehousing residents where occupancy increased. It advised it only had three people listed on the tenancy agreement and for the resident to provide details so this could be updated and reiterated its apology.
5. On 21 July 2020, the landlord noted that the resident’s email had been received the day before it sent its response and believed its response had answered all queries. It noted the resident could escalate the complaint, but it was unlikely the decision would be changed based on her reasoning. It advised it could arrange a call to discuss further, but it could not rehouse her on the basis of the reasons she had outlined as this could be viewed as it being biased. It reiterated the demand for properties in the area and for the resident to consider private landlord’s and a home swap.
6. On 24 July 2020, the resident noted her dissatisfaction with the response setting out that the landlord was informed of her daughter’s birth when it attended her property in March 2020, and it was its error for not updating her records to accurately reflect the number of occupants in the property. She reiterated the landlord was in breach as at the time of sign up, she was pregnant and there were already four occupants, but the property clearly noted it was suitable for three. Therefore, she advised the landlord had not offered the most appropriate accommodation at the time of rehousing. The resident sought clarification on whether she could register with home swap sites, but noted she had done so and requested that the landlord review her registration so she could commence bidding.
7. On 17 August 2020, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It confirmed the stage 1 decision, noting it was not in breach and had adequately housed her. It explained that when the resident bid for, was offered and accepted the property, she had a two bedroom need as allocated by the local authority. It explained this had not changed, as up until the age of ten, children were required to share a bedroom regardless of their gender. It advised If she were to re-register for housing with the local authority, she would be categorised as having ‘no housing need’ as she was housed in a two-bedroom property and all children were under ten. It apologised for the oversight in adding her baby to the tenancy and that it would do so, now noting four occupants resided at the property. It noted her stepson could not be added on the tenancy unless it was his main residence and she received child benefit for him.
8. It apologised for the administrative error that the property was noted as having a maximum occupancy of three as this should have been four. It noted the correct designation of the property was, and always had been, maximum occupancy of four persons and it would only consider overcrowding if her family circumstances changed to exceed this number. It noted her options should that be the case in future.
9. On 19 August 2002, the resident responded querying why the landlord had taken 14 months and her making a complaint for it to realise it had made an administrative error. She reiterated that she had been given an incorrect tenancy due to the number of occupants.
10. On 24 August 2020, the landlord reiterated that the maximum occupancy stated on the tenancy being incorrect had no bearing on the fact the resident was correctly offered and accepted a two-bedroom flat, and that the property still meet her housing need. It noted the property was correctly advertised.
11. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has continued to seek rehousing on various grounds.

Assessment and findings

12. The resident has explained that she made the landlord aware of her requirement to be rehoused and it failed to respond to her. It is evident that the landlord had a conversation with the resident in which it advised it would provide further information. Unfortunately, shortly after, there was a national lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which impacted all landlords. As such there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident. This delay has been accepted and the landlord has apologised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion these were exceptional circumstances which the landlord had limited control over and given there were restrictions in place and other urgent matters which landlords had to contend with, the Ombudsman finds that the apology was sufficient.
13. In relation to matters concerning overcrowding, the landlord has correctly explained the process, which would be that the resident would need to re-register with the local authority. This is as it is the law that all local authorities (local councils) in England have a scheme for the allocation of housing, deciding how the local authority thinks social homes should be allocated to people who need them. In simple terms, it is the rules about who gets priority for social homes. As such, for matters relating to overcrowding the landlord would be limited in the action it could take as the decision on whether the resident was overcrowded would be one for the local authority to make. The landlord has also reasonably explained that there is a shortfall in properties and considering other housing options would help the resident if she wanted to move.
14. The Ombudsman understands the distress which would have been caused to the resident upon learning of the incident which occurred several years and how this could have impacted her son. However, the Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for this and this is not a factor that the landlord would be expected to consider in relation to rehousing an individual. As such, the landlord’s advice was reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, should the resident believe the situation has impacted hers and her family’s wellbeing to an extent where she needs to be rehoused, it would be reasonable for an occupational therapist assessment to take place, in order to identify whether there is in actual fact a medical need for a move. Only following this will the landlord then be able to assess the implications of the finding, on the resident’s requirement for a move.
15. In relation to the administrative error, the landlord has explained its position and  the legal position on children sharing bedrooms. The landlord has also reasonably explained the steps the resident needs to take in order to have her stepson listed on the tenancy agreement. Whilst the resident believes there was an error, it is clear that the property offered at the time was in line with her need as noted through the local authority. It is natural that residents will choose to grow their families, however this does not place an immediate burden on the landlord to rehouse individuals and processes need to be followed. This has been explained to the resident and an apology provided and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is sufficient.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s request to be transferred.

Reasons

17. The landlord has apologised for the initial delay in providing information to the resident and this delay was caused by matters outside of its control. It has provided reasonable explanation on why it is unable to rehouse the resident and has provided valid options available to the resident.