Swan Housing Association Limited (202208879)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208879

Swan Housing Association Limited

24 February 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 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 property transfer application.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, of a two-bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities, which are recorded on the landlord’s system, and he also has band two priority on the internal choice-based lettings system that it uses to transfer its residents between its properties, which he has been registered on since 2018.
  2. The resident raised an informal complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2022, and he reported that it was blocking him from bidding for suitable properties. He reported that he was informed that all of its properties that became available in his district were being re-let by the local authority and not by the landlord, and that he was “bypassed” for the landlord’s properties in a neighbouring county, as he did not meet that county’s “local connection” criteria. The resident reported that he therefore felt “discriminated against”.
  3. The landlord’s informal complaint response of 24 June 2022 explained to the resident that, when it allocated properties, it followed its allocations policy. It further explained that he had mainly been bidding on houses and bungalows, for which he had not met the criteria because these were prioritised for families with a local connection or those downsizing. The landlord also clarified that he had previously been offered a one-bedroom flat in a district in the neighbouring county, but that he had declined this due to the property’s size. It therefore suggested that he bid on flats, as he was more likely to be accepted for these properties, and that he register for mutual exchange websites that it gave him details of, as these enabled residents to move more quickly, and explore renting privately.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage one of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 24 June 2022 because he remained dissatisfied with its approach to allocations, and he reported that he felt that this was unfair to residents living in his district. He clarified that the reason that he had only been bidding on houses was because those were the only properties that were available.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 5 July 2022 did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and this explained that its approach to allocations was supported by detailed procedures. It further explained that, due to its nomination agreements and local lettings plans with local authorities, three-quarters of its properties that became available were re-let by local authorities, and that the demand for these properties was much higher than the supply, so it reiterated its previous advice to him.
  6. The landlord added that the majority of its properties had local connection requirements, including those let via its internal choice-based lettings system, and that other residents had also been “bypassed” for properties for not meeting the local connection criteria, which were allocated by priority band and then waiting time. The resident therefore escalated his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 5 July 2022.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s final stage complaint on 27 July 2022, and it advised that it was unable to formally consider the complaint under its complaints procedure because this concerned a policy, apologising that this had not been made clear to him sooner. It did, however, respond to his concerns about its allocations policy by explaining how the policy was agreed, reviewed, and implemented, and it provided him with a copy of this.
  8. Following the landlord’s response to the resident’s final stage complaint, its internal communications showed that it considered that the complaint had been dealt with correctly, but that it also discussed listening to residents questioning its policies. It additionally discussed his options being limited in the circumstances, and that there should be the opportunity for residents to be heard through wider customer engagement. The landlord subsequently agreed to have a weekly reminder for it to check which properties were becoming available for the resident and to keep in contact with him about these, and it sought to understand why he had declined two properties that had been offered to him by discussing this with him, to better assist him in his future search.
  9. The resident then complained to this Service because he felt that the landlord’s approach to his transfer application had a “flaw”, and he sought for it to change this so that its residents in his district had the same opportunities to move as those in neighbouring districts. He explained that this was because all of its housing stock in his district was allocated by the local authority, and all of its available properties in a neighbouring county required a local connection. The resident was subsequently offered a two-bedroom property in a different district of the neighbouring county by the landlord, but he declined this because of the area that this was in, and he could not move at the time due to his personal circumstances.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s customer service policy outlines that disagreements with its formally agreed policies are not to be dealt with as complaints, but are instead to be dealt with by the manager responsible, who will provide a full explanation and a copy of the relevant policy. It therefore acted in line with this requirement when it explained that it would not consider the resident’s final stage complaint about its allocations policy under its complaints procedure, and it apologised that it had not explained this to him sooner, which was reasonable.
  2. The manager responsible from the landlord also appropriately explained how the allocations policy had been agreed, reviewed and implemented, and they provided a copy of the policy, which was in line with its customer service policy’s obligations. While it would have been frustrating for the resident that his final stage complaint was not considered under the complaints procedure, it acted reasonably and in line with its obligations, as this was about its allocations policy. The landlord’s actions additionally satisfied the requirements of this Service’s complaint handling code, as it set out why the final stage complaint was not suitable for its complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord could nevertheless have identified sooner that the resident’s complaint was not able to pass through its complaints procedure. This would have enabled it to have explained its allocations policy to him sooner, and it could have prevented him time and trouble in raising and escalating his complaint.
  4. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for this mistake, but it did not show how it would prevent this from occurring again in the future. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding its customer service policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code, to ensure that they identify complaints that are not suitable for the complaints procedure as soon as possible.
  5. It is also noted that the landlord identified that its residents should have the opportunity to be heard, suggesting that it arrange this through wider customer engagement. It therefore correctly identified a shortcoming in its service from the absence of this and suggested an appropriate solution to learn from the resident’s case. This showed that the landlord acted in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.
  6. It is unclear from the evidence provided, however, whether the landlord acted on this suggestion, and so it has been recommended below to consider performing a wider customer engagement review of its approach to allocations in light of the resident’s case. Although it did act appropriately by providing an informal complaint response to him on 24 June 2022, which addressed all of his concerns, and sought to provide him with both an explanation and advice on how to proceed with successfully seeking a move.
  7. The landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s property transfer application by assisting him with his property search. It did so by explaining that his bids were more likely to be successful for flats than for the houses and bungalows that he had been bidding on that had been prioritised for others. It also appropriately advised him to sign up for mutual exchange websites, informing him that these were often more successful, and provided him with details to enable him to do so as well as suggesting the option to rent privately, giving him quicker solutions to seek a move.
  8. Moreover, the landlord discussed the resident’s situation and the reasons why he had declined two properties that he had been offered with him, to better assist him with his future search, which was suitable to give him a higher chance of success. It was also appropriate that it had a weekly reminder to check for upcoming available properties and contact him about these, the success of which was demonstrated by its subsequent offer to him of a two-bedroom property in a neighbouring county.
  9. This showed that the landlord used its resources suitably to support the vulnerable resident, who had expressed concerns about its property transfer application procedure, to help him to obtain more offers of alternative accommodation. In doing so, it acted reasonably to assist him by supporting him through this process, for which it has therefore been recommended below to continue to support him in his property transfer application.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s property transfer application.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Continue to support the resident in his property transfer application, including by checking which properties become available for him and contacting him about these.
    2. Consider performing a wider customer engagement review of its approach to allocations in light of the resident’s case.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding its customer service policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, to ensure that they identify complaints that are not suitable for its complaints procedure as soon as possible.