Vivid Housing Limited (202016990)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016990

Vivid Housing Limited

8 November 2021

Amended 31 March 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 way the landlord considered the complainant’s application for housing and its handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The complainant was an applicant for a property owned by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s ‘Lettings Policy’, states the following two ‘grounds for refusal’ – an application may be refused where:

“The nominated applicant has a housing related debt i.e., rent arrears, recharges etc. either with us or another housing provider, including private landlords”.

“The behaviour of the applicant, other household members and visitors to the applicant’s current or previous home was unacceptable, and we would have considered tenancy enforcement action if they had been our tenants”.

  1. The landlord’s ‘Appeals Procedure’ states that it aims to respond to an appeal within 20 days from receipt.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond within 10 working days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome at stage one and requests escalation to stage two, will respond within 20 working days thereafter.

Summary of events

  1. The complainant made an application for housing with the landlord online on or around 5 June 2020 and in response, the landlord conditionally offered the property to him.
  2. In the days that followed, the landlord asked the complainant some further information about his previous tenancy, in light of the information provided in his application form.  The complainant responded, providing further detail regarding court action taken by his former landlord.
  3. Over the next five weeks, the complainant contacted the landlord for updates as to the start of his tenancy at the property and was advised by it that it was seeking further information and references and would be in touch.
  4. Information provided to this Service evidences the landlord making enquiries with the complainant’s former landlord as to reasons for its applications for injunctions, eviction and explanation of the money owed to it. The complainant’s former landlord took time to clarify all of this.
  5. After the landlord failed to respond to the complainant’s requests for an update, he raised concerns about its lack of transparency throughout the process. Following a further request for an update regarding the landlord’s decision, the complainant contacted a third party and asked for advice on how to proceed. He felt the landlord might have been discriminating against him, which would prevent his application from being successful. He then raised these concerns directly with the landlord in an email dated 11 July 2020. At this point, it had been 28 days since the complainant had registered interest in the property.
  6. Having received the information requested, the landlord decided to withdraw the conditional offer of the property and following a telephone call with the complainant to advise him of this, wrote to him on 17 July 2020. In its letter, the landlord explained that it had decided to withdraw the offer on the basis that the complainant owed money to his former landlord, that he failed to disclose injunctions and a possession order taken out by his former landlord against him on his application form and that he had provided “misleading information” about costs awarded.
  7. The landlord advised the complainant of the financial and behavioural grounds on which it was refusing him accommodation, in accordance with its policy; the ones set out earlier on in this report.
  8. The complainant was dissatisfied with the decision and on 21 July 2020 complained about this and appealed it. The action taken by the landlord was a number of years prior and he had disclosed this information in communications following on from his application form – he had not withheld it. The complainant felt discriminated against by the landlord in its decision and was of the view that he had been the victim of racism.
  9. On 5 August 2020, the landlord issued its response to the complainant’s appeal and complaint. The landlord acknowledged that following the conditional offer of the property, the process of referencing took longer than it would ordinarily expect, although it noted it had kept the resident informed of what it was doing. It recognised the anxiety this caused and the impact on the complainant’s family and apologised for this.
  10. The landlord explained that the reason for the delay had been partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact of this on workload but also accepted that it could have followed up its referencing request with the complainant’s former landlord more often than it did. To help prevent a future recurrence, the landlord explained it would be reviewing its processes.
  11. In terms of the reason for refusal of the property, the landlord explained the grounds on which it had done this, which it reiterated from its 17 July 2020 letter. It withdrew its previous assertion that the complainant had not informed it of injunctions against him, however, as it noted that although these were not on the application form, he had discussed these with the landlord separately.
  12. The landlord found that it followed procedure and found no evidence of racism in its handling of his application. It acknowledged that the action taken against him by his former landlord was some years ago but stated that his communication with it was indicative of his behaviour having not changed since that time.

Assessment and findings

  1. On receipt of application for housing at the property, the landlord was obliged to carry out referencing and checks in accordance with its policies and procedures. The landlord appropriately did this, in seeking to clarify the circumstances of the complainant’s former tenancy directly with him and contacting his former landlord for further information. The landlord was entitled to do this, to satisfy itself of the suitability of applicant tenant. It was not obliged to offer the property to the complainant at any point.
  2. The landlord took too long to carry out these checks and referencing, however, which it appropriately acknowledged in its response of 5 August 2020, explaining the reasons why and recognising some fault on its part in not chasing the complainant’s former landlord frequently enough. The landlord advised it would review its processes in light of this, which demonstrated that it took the matter seriously and would take steps to prevent a future occurrence.
  3. The grounds on which the landlord explained it was declining the application, were in accordance with its ‘Lettings Policy’. While it is understandable that the complainant was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, given the passage of time, the policy does not include a timeframe and the landlord was able to consider the complainant’s former conduct in assessing his application for housing with it, irrespective. In terms of the housing related debt specifically, this was ongoing at the time of the application, despite the length of time since the court action.
  4. The landlord’s assertion that the complainant did not disclose previous issues with his landlord was incorrect and it noted this and withdrew this, in its response of 5 August 2020. The landlord missed an opportunity to apologise for this error at this point, which would have been reasonable given the error, which was upsetting for the complainant.
  5. The complainant was particularly upset with the landlord’s reference to his current behaviour being indicative of no change since the incidents in question, as he felt this was a demand from the landlord to ‘change his personality’ in order to secure housing.
  6. The Ombudsman is not in a position to make a binding decision with regards to whether the complainants claims about racism are substantiated or not. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to it being brought to its attention. The Ombudsman would expect any landlord to investigate and respond to any concerns raised about racism and abuse.
  7. The landlord did not initially respond to the complainant’s concerns about racism in July 2020. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord would have needed to investigate such a serious accusation, and this would have usually been completed via its complaint’s procedure. However, the landlord chose to address this complaint in its response to the complainant’s appeal request issued in August 2020. Although this approach was not in line with procedure, it made no difference to the outcome as the landlord investigated and responded directly to the complainant’s concerns around discrimination. If the complainant wants this aspect of the complaint to be look at further, he should speak with the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding their concerns and how best to proceed with this matter.
  8. There is no evidence of the landlord declining the complainant’s application for housing due to his personality, but rather, its policy grounds and it additionally made reference to what it determined to be unacceptable behaviour. The landlord was not obliged to agree the application irrespective of the complainant’s current behaviour – acceptable or not – although it chose to make reference to what it saw as inappropriate behaviour in its 5 August 2020 letter. 
  9. It is clear from the correspondence provided to this Service that the complainant became angry and upset having received the landlord’s decision not to offer him the property, particularly as he felt it had been a protracted process and he felt the landlord’s reasoning behind its decision confirmed his assertions that discrimination had affected his application. The landlord did not explicitly address the complainant’s behaviour at the time that this started, only addressing it in its final correspondence at the end of the appeal process. This did not provide the complainant with the opportunity to put right any inappropriate behaviour or to have a right of reply, only being told this at the final point. Whilst the landlord was entitled to assert boundaries around acceptable behaviour, not doing this until its final contact with the complainant was not helpful, for the reasons described and served to aggravate the situation further.
  10. Finally, turning to the complaints response, this was conflated with the appeal response which was not helpful or in accordance with policy and procedure. The landlord has an appeal procedure, which it followed, but a separate two stage complaints procedure, which was not.
  11. The complaints process allows for an investigation of an issue to take place and for a formal complaints response to be issued thereafter which directly addresses the issues raised and any attempts to put things right (where applicable), with opportunity for an escalation thereafter.
  12. While separating out these two processes may not have changed the decision, the complaints process is there for a reason and provides a distinct procedure which should be followed as intended, with referral to the Ombudsman being a progression on from the conclusion of the complaints process, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was no maladministration insofar as, the landlord was not obliged to offer the property to the complainant and having carried out referencing and checks, made a decision not to.
  2. While the landlord conflated the appeals process with the complaints response, there is no evidence of the landlord doing this for any intention other than efficiency and pragmatism nor that it a different outcome would have resulted from it not merging the processes.

Recommendations

  1. Overall learning from this report should be taken forward by the landlord with respect to following its processes in handling the appeals process and ensuring that the complaints process is kept separate.