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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202225738)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225738

Wandle Housing Association Limited

24 July 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent housing move.
  2. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 2015. She lived in the property with her children until 2022. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord’s. The resident has been represented by a solicitor. For readability, this report refers to both the resident and solicitor as ‘the resident’ throughout.
  2. In September 2021, due to the resident experiencing serious domestic abuses he needed an urgent move to another property. From the evidence provided, a domestic abuse case was logged by the landlord on 23 September 2021 and an internal email shows staff were asked to contact the resident to discuss her situation. The Ombudsman has seen little information about the landlord’s actions after this point. The resident said the landlord told her to approach the local authority for emergency housing. She did this and the local authority provided her with a3-bed property on a short-term basis in September 2021.
  3. In considering the landlord’s response, this investigation has looked at two of the processes that were available to the resident to find a new permanent property.
  4. One of the processes was under the landlord’s policy to offer an internal management transfer in emergency circumstances, such as fleeing domestic abuse. An internal management transfer is when the landlord provides another ‘like for like’ property to the resident, from its housing stock. The landlord has said its properties were extremely limited and the speed of rehoming through this option would depend on what housing stock was available.
  5. The second process was through the local authority’s choice-based lettings (CBL) system. This is a system where an applicant is assessed for priority and based on that assessment, is given a banding number. The banding number will indicate the applicants’ circumstances and need for housing. For the resident to be awarded a higher banding to reflect her situation at the time of her request to be rehomed, the landlord was required to submit a ‘landlord transfer application form’. The landlord transfer application form is reviewed by the local authority’s social welfare panel. It is clear from the evidence the landlord had a key administrative role to play in both processes for the resident’s request for a permanent move.
  6. The landlord’s correspondence shows it sent the landlord transfer application form to the local authority on 4 February 2022, however, it was sent to the wrong mailbox. This error was not corrected until 16 March 2022.This was a delay of around 30 working days. The landlord informed the resident of this error when it became aware of it. On 14 April 2022, the landlord said the resident’s case had been heard by the local authority’s social welfare panel and they agreed to place her in a higher banding. The resident also requested an internal management transfer with the landlord, and it approved her request on 3 May 2022.
  7. On 5 May 2022 the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy it had delayed in sending the landlord transfer application to the local authority. She said it should have sent the application form sooner, as it was aware she had fled domestic abuse in September 2021. In respect to her approval for a management move, the resident said she was unhappy the landlord had assessed her as having a need for a 2-bedroom property, as her view was that she needed a 3-bedroom property.
  8. On 23 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint because it had not responded. The evidence shows the landlord did not register the resident’s complaint. Subsequently, on 13 June 2022, the landlord sent a response at stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised for the delayed response to her complaint, but it did not explain why the complaint was overlooked. It said the landlord transfer application for her case had been sent to the local authority and the social welfare panel had approved a higher banding. It also said its allocations and lettings policy meant the resident could only be offered a ‘like for like’ 2-bedroom property through an internal management transfer. It did not uphold her complaint.
  9. On 7 July 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy that both the internal management transfer application and the landlord transfer application had taken around 8 months to be completed. She said the landlord had not offered her any explanation for these delays.
  10. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 3 August 2022. It apologised for both the delay in processing the internal management transfer application and sending the landlord transfer application to the local authority. The landlord said the resident’s situation was considered low risk after she moved to emergency accommodation. It said the delays ‘did not impact’ the resident’s housing options on the basis that the resident would be offered permanent accommodation by the local authority when it became available. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that this information was agreed and corroborated by the local authority and resident.
  11. In July 2022 the resident successfully bid on a new property using the local authority’s CBL system. She moved out of emergency accommodation and into a new, permanent home. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She felt the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the delays had caused. The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 14 February 2023. She would like compensation for the distress she experienced.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has expressed concerns about the effect the situation has had on her health. She gave birth to another child whilst her family were housed in emergency accommodation. The resident said the delay in finding a new permanent home caused further distress to her at an already difficult time. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, the impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience which a situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent housing move

  1. The resident suffered domestic abused in September 2021. Her case was discussed at a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). A MARAC is a meeting where information is shared between relevant agencies on high-risk domestic abuse cases. The MARAC concluded the resident was at high risk and required alternative ‘priority housing accommodation’.
  2. Following the MARAC’s recommendations, the resident said the landlord told her to approach the local authority for emergency accommodation as it did not have any properties available. She was provided with a property on a temporary basis by the local authority.
  3. In respect to securing permanent accommodation, the case correspondence shows the resident was provided with two options. She was advised that she could bid on potential properties to let through the local authority’s CBL system and that she could apply for an alternative property with the landlord through an internal management transfer. To advance both options required the landlord to complete two separate application forms for the resident.
  4. The evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord was aware of the residents move to emergency accommodation in September, but it does not show what steps were taken to work with the resident or plan her next steps for new permanent accommodation until February 2022.
  5. On 2 February 2022 the landlord emailed the local authority with the landlord transfer application required for the social welfare panel to review the resident’s priority banding. The landlord said in the email the resident had ‘next to zero hopes of successfully bidding’ on a new permanent home on her current banding. The email which contained the application form was, however, not sent to the correct department at the local authority.
  6. On 10 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask if it had completed the internal management transfer application for her and if she had been put on its management transfer list. She asked what steps it was taking to source alternative permanent accommodation for her.
  7. The landlord replied on 16 March 2022 and said it had not completed the internal management transfer application and the resident was not on the management transfer list, however, she could request the application be completed by the landlord. It said the transfer list was ‘extremely over-prescribed’ and that her best chance of a move would be via the local authority.
  8. As part of its reply the landlord also said it had identified that the landlord transfer application had not been sent to the correct department within the local authority. It said it had now corrected this. The error of sending the application to the wrong email address resulted in a 30-day delay to the correct department, at the local authority, receiving the resident’s application.
  9. In an email on 6 April 2022 the landlord confirmed again to the resident that the internal management transfer application had not been processed and she had not been put on its management transfer list. It told the resident it could not offer her an internal move as the local authority allocates 100% of its properties to residents. This was conflicting advice as previously the landlord had said although the internal management transfer list was ‘over-prescribed’ it could fill out the internal management transfer application form.
  10. This response was also not in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states it provides 100% of its properties to the local authority. However, it can offer a management transfer to re-house residents in empty properties, when an urgent move is needed, such as when personal safety is at risk. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that it could not offer her an internal management transfer. This error by the landlord would have caused distress to the resident which was aggravated due to the vulnerable situation she was in at that time.
  11. The landlord further said that when the resident moved into temporary accommodation, this meant the risk to her was significantly reduced. Although the resident had temporary emergency accommodation, this was not a long-term solution, and she still held a tenancy with the landlord.
  12. On the 14 April 2022 the landlord said the resident’s case was heard by the local authority’s social welfare panel and they agreed to place her in a higher priority banding for the CBL system. The evidence does not show either way if the 30-day delay in sending the landlord transfer application to the correct department, at the local authority, caused a delay in the resident’s case being heard by the panel and a higher banding agreed.
  13. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on the 5 May 2022. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in submitting the landlord transfer application to the local authority. The resident said the landlord should have done this when it was first made aware of her situation after the MARAC was held.
  14. On 26 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked why the landlord had assessed her as having the need for a 2-bedroom house, when she had been accepted as in need of a 3-bedroom property by the local authority. The resident said she had had a baby since she left her property and asked the landlord if they have taken this change of circumstances into consideration.
  15. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 13 June 2022, around 26 working days after the resident raised her complaint. Regarding the resident’s request for a larger property, the landlord outlined in its response that it had accepted the resident for an internal management transfer. It stated it would offer her a 2-bedroom property on a ‘like for like’ basis, in line with her current property. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that accommodation offered through an internal management transfer will be the same size as the tenant’s current home, despite the required housing need, and it will be classed as a continuation of their tenancy.
  16. The landlord’s offer was made in accordance with its policy and it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer a property of the same size as part of a management transfer move.
  17. The stage 1 response confirmed the local authority’s panel had received the landlord transfer application and that the resident’s priority banding had been increased. However, it did not acknowledge the delay and its error in submitting the form. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to recognise and apologise for the delay in sending the landlord transfer application to the local authority and the distress this delay caused the resident. It’s failure to do so showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s circumstances and empathy with her in what was a stressful situation effecting her security and wellbeing.
  18. On 7 July 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy the landlord had not acted promptly and engaged with the local authority around her housing situation. The resident said this resulted in an 8 month wait to be on the correct priority banding.
  19. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process, around 20 working days later, on 3 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in completing the internal management transfer application. The landlord said the delay ‘did not impact’ her housing options as the local authority confirmed they would offer the resident permanent accommodation ‘once this becomes available’. The landlord also said it had not initially completed the form as it reviewed the risk to the resident had ‘significantly decreased’ since she moved to temporary accommodation.
  20. The landlord accepted the delay in communicating with the local authority and apologised to the resident for this, however, it assured the resident the delay ‘did not impact’ her housing options. This Service is unable to say if the delay in sending the landlord transfer application caused a delay in the panel hearing and decision, leading to a delay in the resident successfully bidding on a property using the CBL system. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to conclude the delay had not impacted her housing options without substantiating its rationale.
  21. The landlord offered a sincere apology to the resident, but it did not uphold her complaint. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it understood or recognised the impact of the delays on the resident given the vulnerable situation she was in.
  22. In summary, there was a service failure by the landlord regarding it sending the landlord transfer application to the wrong mailbox at the local authority. There was also a service failure with the landlord’s communication when it told the resident that it did not offer management transfers between its properties and that the local authority would offer her a new permanent property when one became available. The landlord did, however, act appropriately by recording any offer under a management move would be for a 2-bedroom property, as this adhered to its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint on 5 May 2022. The landlord failed to recognise this complaint until she asked the landlord to escalate it. The Ombudsman defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. The resident was clear in her communication with the landlord, to the extent she included the text ‘treat this email as a complaint’. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord not to start the complaints process when this email was received.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 13 June 2022. This was around 26 working days after the resident’s complaint. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy which states the landlord will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. If this cannot be met the landlord will inform the resident and the response will not go beyond a further 10 working days. The landlord did not communicate any reasons as to why the response was delayed.
  3. The delay in recognising the complaint and replying at stage 1 will have impacted the resident by denying her resolution at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to engage with all the resident’s concerns in her complaint. It also failed to understand the impact the delays had on the resident. This was a service failure by the landlord. To put things right for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures, an order will be made for compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to:
    1. the resident’s request for a permanent housing move and,
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This comprises of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the handling of the resident’s request for a permanent housing move,
    2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should offer staff refresher training on recognising a complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code published 1 April 2024.