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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202344792)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344792

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 October 2024

 

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 how the landlord has handled the resident’s management move.
  2. We have also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which the tenant lived in until 25 November 2022.
  2. The resident fled the property due to being at high risk of domestic violence. On 26 November 2022 the landlord placed her into temporary accommodation in a hotel. On 15 December 2022 it approved a management move to a new property for the resident at band A (the highest priority) due to her pregnancy and high domestic violence risk. The local authority (LA) moved her into a hotel on 6 December 2022, and then into a temporary flat on 10 March 2023.
  3. On 20 April 2023 one of the landlord’s flats became available but was on the 6th floor with no lift, which the resident’s disability criteria ruled out. On 25 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and explained she was concerned about how long it was taking to find a new property. She also explained that the dual housing benefit and council tax relief which the LA was paying for her was due to expire soon. The landlord replied the same day and asked her if she could extend the areas which she would be willing to move to. The resident explained she could not because the other areas in which the landlord had properties were all high-risk areas for her.
  4. She emailed the landlord on 1 November 2023 and explained that in order to have her children move back in with her from foster care she would need a 3-bed property in a specific area. The landlord created a 3-bed application for her on 10 November 2023.
  5. The LA then wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2023 and explained it would cease paying the rent and council tax on the resident’s property from 10 December 2023. The landlord asked the LA if it would consider a “reciprocal move” given how long the resident had been waiting, and her circumstances. However, the LA refused this. The LA then stopped paying the dual housing benefit and council tax reduction on 10 December 2023.
  6. On 4 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her management move. She complained that it had failed to find her a property since December 2022 and failed to evidence that it had been suitably looking. She says this meant the LA had stopped paying her rent and council tax in December 2023 and that she was accruing arrears. She also complained that it had handled her case unsympathetically by offering her a property next door to the property she had fled. She explained that this suggested the landlord did not understand domestic violence or the pressures on victims. The landlord then asked the LA again on 29 February 2024 to consider a reciprocal move for the resident, which it refused.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 6 March 2024 and explained that it had placed her on the highest priority possible for a management move, but that no suitable properties had become available since December 2022. It explained that extending her search areas would make this more likely. It also explained that it had no control over the LA’s decision to withdraw its financial support.
  8. The resident was unhappy with this and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 March 2024. She then referred it to the Ombudsman on 3 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2024 and reiterated its stage 1 position. It also explained that:
    1. It had suitably engaged with the resident’s independent domestic violence advisor(IDVA) from December 2022 onwards.
    2. It had held multi-agency meetings to discuss the resident’s situation and attempt to find a resolution.
    3. The LA had refused the resident’s homelessness application, and the landlord had suggested she challenge this with the help of Shelter as it could not assist her with this.
    4. It acknowledged that it had delayed in handling both her stage 1 and 2 complaints. It offered her £75 and £50 for each delay respectively.
  9. The resident remains unhappy with this response as she is still living in temporary accommodation and continues to accrue rent and council tax arrears. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to progress her management move, pay off her arrears, and pay her compensation for the amount of time she has waited for a property.

Assessment and finding

  1. Under paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider matters which are more appropriately considered by a different Ombudsman.
  2. The resident has complained that the LA has mismanaged her homelessness application. She explained it advised her that it will only seek to house her if she surrenders her tenancy, but also contradictorily suggested that it may not do so following this as she would be making herself voluntarily homeless. She also complains that the LA has delayed in fulfilling its obligations in assisting the management move process from December 2022 to present.
  3. While we recognise the resident’s view that the LA has failed to fulfil its obligations in supporting her housing situation, its actions fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). For this reason, we will not consider this aspect of her complaint. We note that the resident may wish to pursue a complaint with the LGSCO about the LA’s current position on her housing situation.

How the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that it will offer management moves when a resident needs to move urgently due to the threat of or actual violence or harm. This applies when there is an imminent risk to them or a member of their household if they remain at that property.
  2. It explains that they would normally remain on the ‘management move’ waiting list for 12 weeks. However, the landlord may extend this period if it agrees that a suitable property has not become available.
  3. The landlord’s lettings policy elaborates on this and explains that those who have been awarded a management move are permitted 1 reasonable offer of accommodation. This is an offer of accommodation which takes into account:
    1. The particular circumstances of the applicant and the household including any medical and physical needs.
    2. Any protected characteristic, such as pregnancy and maternity.
    3. Social considerations, i.e. the risk of racial harassment or domestic abuse, and stability of the household, i.e. access to school and work.
    4. The lettings area selected by the applicant.
    5. Availability of homes and housing demand in that area. It is not expected that a home will fulfil all the expectations of the applicant, but it should not work against the needs of the household. A tenant’s protected characteristics must be taken into account. For example, offering accommodation which would discriminate against the needs of a pregnant woman. The system can override the first offer made to support a second offer. This is to be done on a case-by-case basis.
  4. The landlord’s policy on supporting victims of domestic violence states that it will actively participate in relevant local partnerships and work with specialist support agencies such as Victim Support.
  5. The resident reported to the landlord that she had been a victim of domestic violence on 25 November 2022, and that she was unsafe remaining in the property.
  6. We can see the landlord advised her that her she could present to a women’s refuge or seek temporary accommodation via the LA. The resident advised she wanted temporary accommodation, and so the landlord contacted the LA and made an emergency application for this. The LA was unable to provide temporary accommodation, and so the landlord booked a hotel for the resident to stay in from 26 November 2022. The landlord acted quickly and appropriately by involving the LA and IDVA immediately after the resident reported the violence. We also consider the landlord acted sympathetically and proactively by providing temporary accommodation when the LA was unable to.
  7. On 30 November 2022 the landlord offered the resident a management move, which she accepted. The landlord then spent the next week contacting the LA to seek an update on whether it would provide the resident with more secure temporary accommodation, and it did so on 6 December 2022. On 14 December the landlord engaged with the IDVA to discuss which areas should be included in a management move. On 15 December 2022 the landlord approved a management move for the areas identified by the IDVA at band A. It also noted the resident required a property on the 1st floor or below due to her disability unless there was a suitable lift. We consider the landlord acted appropriately here by engaging with the IDVA about how to best process the management move, and by continuing to engage with the LA.
  8. On 18 January 2023 the landlord asked the LA for an update on the resident’s homelessness application and whether it was accepting responsibility for rehousing her. There is no evidence of a response from the LA, however, later records suggest it denied the application. Over the next 2 months the landlord spoke with the resident regularly and explained each time that a property had not yet become available. The LA then moved the resident temporarily into a 1-bed flat on 10 March 2023. One of the landlord’s properties then became available on 20 April 2023. However, it did not meet the resident’s disability requirements and so the landlord did not offer it to her. This was in line with its lettings policy.
  9. There was no progress over the next several months until another property became available on 25 September 2023, and the landlord contacted the resident to discuss its suitability. The resident refused this because it was only 150ft away from the property she fled. Given the distance between the properties, we recognise why the resident was so concerned by this suggestion. Clearly, moving to a property so close to where she had been victimised would do nothing to meaningfully mitigate the ongoing risk to her. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s decision to offer this property was not in line with its lettings policy, and it likely caused the resident some distress.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 5 October 2023 to discuss her concerns about the impending expiry of her dual housing benefit and council tax reduction. The landlord explained that the LA would stop providing these in December 2023. It also explained that she should consider extending the areas identified for her management move to increase the likelihood that a suitable property would become available sooner. The resident advised she would be willing to do so. The landlord’s records indicate that, within the areas she had selected at this stage for a management move, the landlord had a total of 158 suitable properties which were all occupied by tenants. Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that she expand the areas in her application.
  11. We can see the landlord contacted the LA on 16 October 2023 and applied for an extended council tax discount for the resident. We consider this was a proactive and supportive step to try and mitigate any further financial impacts on the resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2023 and added 2 further areas to her application. The landlord updated her on the same day that no properties had become available yet. It also explained that the likelihood of one becoming available would increase further if she added more areas to her application. We consider the landlord continued to keep the resident reasonably informed here. We also consider it was reasonable to suggest the possibility of adding further areas.
  12. The resident explained that she could not add any more areas as those listed by the landlord were all high-risk areas for her. The resident also explained that she was concerned about the cessation of her benefit by the local authority. She explained that she felt she could not surrender the tenancy as she would be making herself “intentionally homeless” and therefore not entitled to the same level of support from the LA. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 1 November 2023 and asked it to include 3-bed properties in her application because her daughter would be turning 16 in January 2024.
  13. We can see the landlord added 3-bed properties to her application, and that it engaged with the LA further about a possible extension to financial support. The LA refused this. On 27 November 2023 the LA refused to extend any council tax support. Internal records from 4 December 2023 indicate the landlord was concerned about the length of time it was taking to find a suitable property, but that the resident was refusing to extend the areas on her application. However, we note that the resident may not have been able to do so given her specific circumstances.
  14. We can see the landlord then asked the LA to consider a reciprocal move on 18 December 2023. A reciprocal move is an initiative set up to ensure that people fleeing domestic violence could retain their tenancy and not become homeless. The LA also refused this. We can see the landlord updated the resident about this on 10 January 2024. It also explained it would close her 2-bed application down (leaving the 3-bed active) on her daughter’s 16th birthday a few days later so that she did not miss out on any properties until then. We consider this demonstrates how the landlord attempted proactive and novel methods to try and find the resident a suitable property despite it not having any of its own. We also consider it kept the resident reasonably informed about its attempts to do so.
  15. On 23 January 2024 the landlord contacted the IDVA and updated them on the lack of progress. It explained it had asked the LA to extend its financial support but that it refused. It asked whether the IDVA would consider writing to the LA directly to see if this would change the outcome. We consider this was another instance in which the landlord acted appropriately by engaging other agencies to try and progress the situation. It also updated the resident and explained that the LA had refused to allow her access to its own pool of management transfer properties.
  16. We can see the landlord then contacted a domestic abuse charity on 31 January 2024 and asked it to compose a supporting letter to the LA explaining the situation and asking that it takes responsibility for rehousing the resident if she surrendered her tenancy. We consider this was an appropriate step towards trying to progress things, and it was positive that the landlord was involving other agencies to try and mitigate the difficulties posed by its own low level of suitable and available housing stock.
  17. Over the next month there was little progress in finding a suitable property. We can see the landlord contacted the LA again on 29 February 2024 to enquire about a reciprocal move, which it refused. The latest records we have seen in relation to the application are minutes from a meeting the landlord attended with the LA on 1 August 2024. The minutes note that:
    1. 2 of the resident’s children have to remain in the same borough the property is in.
    2. The landlord has very low stock of 3-bedroom properties in the 2 boroughs which the resident has selected for her management move.
    3. The IDVA agreed to discuss with the resident the possibility of including other areas in her management move to expediate it.
    4. The landlord could find a suitable property more quickly if the resident extended the areas she was open to moving to.
  18. Ultimately, these minutes reiterate many of the factors which have significantly restricted the pool of available properties from its already oversubscribed housing stock. We recognise that these factors are not the resident’s fault, and that her ongoing housing situation is incredibly traumatic for her. However, aside from its mistake in offering her an unsuitable property on 25 September 2023, we consider the landlord has acted in accordance with its allocations and lettings policies in how it has managed the residents application from December 2022 to present.
  19. Unfortunately, due to the resident’s specific circumstances, no suitable properties have become available for the landlord to offer her within her stated parameters. We have seen that the landlord has repeatedly attempted to engage with the LA to try and resolve this. Beyond this, there does not appear to be any more we can reasonably expect the landlord to do.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days from the date the complaint is acknowledged. It explains it may need to extend this by 10 working days but it will update the resident when it needs to do so and explain why. The policy obliges it to do the same with stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 compliant on 4 February 2024. The landlord did not provide a response until 6 March 2024 which was 13 working days later than the timescale above. It also failed to update her about the delay. The landlord was also late in providing a stage 2 response by 1 working day. However, in its stage 2 response it acknowledged both delays and offered £75 for the stage 1 delay and £50 for the stage 2 delay.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will offer discretionary payments up to £250 for issues which resulted in minor inconvenience, but were resolved within a reasonable time. While we recognise the stage 1 delay was likely frustrating, we consider £75 is sufficient to resolve this and in line with the landlord’s policy. The stage 2 delay was also very slight, and so we consider £50 is sufficient to put this right.
  4. However, we note that the resident explained in her stage 1 complaint that she had been distressed by the landlord’s offer for her to move to a property 150ft from the property she fled from. The landlord did not acknowledge this in either response. We consider this suggestion was unreasonable and did not take into account the resident’s circumstances. Ultimately, the landlord should have acknowledged this and apologised for it, and so we will order it to do so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s management move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Order

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident for offering her a property which was unsuitably close to her previous property.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £125 offered for complaint handling failures if it has not done so already.