Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Sovereign Network Group (202315568)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315568

Sovereign Network Homes

24 February 2025

 

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 a property transfer offer.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident shared his property with his partner and children. The landlord had contact with both the resident and his partner in relation to the transfer offer. For ease of reference, the resident and his partner will both be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. On 6 October 2022, the landlord called the resident and advised that he had come 2nd in relation to a property he had placed a bid on, on the local authority’s choice-based lettings website. The landlord advised the resident, it would need to undertake financial checks and arrange a visit to his current property prior to formally offering him the new property.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 7 October 2022. It apologised and said that another applicant had come top in the bidding for the property, but due to an internal error, the landlord had missed their acceptance of the property. It said it could not proceed with offering the property to the resident, therefore.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 October 2022. He felt the landlord’s apology was insufficient. He said he wanted the landlord to offer him and his family a suitable property.
  5. On 11 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident for the upset and disappointment its error had caused him. It said it would let the resident know if the nominated applicant refused the property or if it was not able to offer it to them. It advised that the resident could make an application to its internal home transfer list as he had told it that he had supporting evidence that his children each needed their own room.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 13 February 2023. He said the landlord had not considered the upset or stress caused to him and his family. He felt the landlord should have stood by its offer of the property. He said he understood that the new property had now been let, however the landlord should have made efforts to find another suitable property for his family.
  7. On 15 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it accepted how upsetting and frustrating its error would have been for the resident and his family. It said it was not possible for it to offer the resident the next suitable home that became available as this would be unfair to families who had a higher housing priority. It recommended that the resident continue to check the mutual exchange website. It advised that he consider widening his search area as this could increase his opportunities of finding a new home. It said there were homes which were due to become available in other areas, that might be suitable for him.
  8. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 28 July 2023. He reiterated that the landlord had retracted the property transfer it had offered. He said the landlord had not considered the upset or stress its error had caused him and his family.

Assessment

  1. The landlord advertises its available properties via the local authority’s online choice-based lettings system. Applicants can search and bid for suitable properties of their choosing. Applicants are shortlisted according to their priority housing need which is set by the local authority. Before offering an applicant a property, the landlord requires them to complete a pre-tenancy assessment. The landlord will then formally offer the successful applicant the property.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising for the upset its error had caused the resident and his family. However, the landlord was right to advise the resident that despite its error, it was obliged to let its properties to those in most housing need, based on the banding set by the local authority. It acted reasonably in advising the resident that he could make an application to its internal housing register and to continue to consider properties via the local mutual exchange service. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to make an application to its internal housing register, as he had informed it there were reasons his children needed their own bedrooms.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to move the resident and his family into a larger property. This is because landlords have limited housing stock and long waiting lists and are required to allocate properties based on a priority housing need. In general, landlords are expected to give the highest priority to those who are homeless or who are fleeing domestic violence.
  4. The Ombudsman understands the disappointment the landlord’s error must have caused the resident and his family. However, the landlord contacted the resident as soon as it discovered its error and within 24 hours of informing him that he had been shortlisted for the property. It acted appropriately in recognising and apologising for the upset its error will have caused. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in this case and the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of a property transfer offer, satisfactorily.