Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202210636)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210636

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

22 August 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 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 housing application.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of a privately rented property. He lives with his wife, two daughters, one son, and his father-in-law, for whom his wife is the main carer.
3. The landlord is a housing association and is responsible for managing the resident’s housing application on the area choice-based lettings system. It operates its own allocations policy and waiting list. The landlord operates a priority banding system according to housing needs and circumstances.
4. The resident advised he first registered for housing on the choice-based lettings system in 2015, however, there are no records on file available.
5. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom house in January 2018, with the household as outlined above. Once he provided all supporting evidence to the landlord, he was awarded group 1, urgent need priority due to what the landlord’s policy at the time deemed to be severe overcrowding. His housing need at the time was deemed to be four bedrooms. The resident continued to bid for properties but was unsuccessful.
6. The resident and his household moved to a three-bed private rented property on 1 September 2020. He stated that he moved of his own accord as he was overcrowded and the previous property was dangerous and not suitable to live in due to electrical faults and other maintenance issues. The landlord’s allocations policy also changed shortly after this. The landlord’s policy on overcrowding priority changed to mirror the local authority’s allocations policy. After the policy change, the resident was placed in Band 3 priority banding and has remained in this banding.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2022 to request a face-to-face yearly housing review meeting. The landlord was not operating face-to-face meetings at the time so carried out a review by telephone on 25 February 2022.
8. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 March 2022 about the way the landlord had dealt with his housing application. He complained that his application from 2015 was missing, that a property he had previously applied for had been withdrawn due to a manager’s decision, and that the reviewer had been unprofessional during his yearly review. He stated that the reviewer had advised him it would have been better for him not to have moved from the previous two-bed property and reported the private landlord to Environmental Health. He also stated that the reviewer had sought to discourage his household from applying for social housing. He asked the landlord to upgrade his priority banding so he could have a 3-bed house in the local area and requested an apology letter to be written to his wife for the way the reviewer spoke to her.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint on 17 March 2022. In its Stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reviewed the resident’s application and advised him that his banding and priority date were correct, explaining that he was in Band 3 due to overcrowding with a priority date of 26 February 2021. It went on to inform the resident that he would be unlikely to be offered a property as 4-bed properties were in high demand and there was a lengthy waiting list. It further advised him that it was unable to locate an application from 2015. The resident was awarded a discretionary waiting time award of 12 months, as he worked and had a local connection. It apologised to the resident for any upset caused by the way the reviewer had spoken to his wife.
10. The resident escalated his complaint on 12 April 2022. He reiterated his concerns about the missing application from 2015 and questioned why he was awarded a discretionary connection award only after he mentioned this during his review. He stated he was also unable to find any information on the landlord’s policy change. He advised the landlord that the family was under financial pressure and their rent was up for renewal in September 2022.
11. In its final complaint response of 6 May 2022, the landlord explained the priority banding system and the scarcity of 4-bed properties. It advised the resident of changes to its allocation policy, which would have reduced the resident’s priority banding. It informed the resident that the original application from 2015 which he was referring to had been in his father-in-law’s name but was closed due to lack of activity on the account. It also advised the resident that this application had been managed by another provider. It further advised the resident that the property he had previously bid on, had been withdrawn as it was being considered for adaptations. When this was deemed not to be possible, it was re-advertised. It clarified that he had been correctly awarded the landlord’s connection award and also apologised to the resident for any upset caused by the member of staff during his telephone review appointment.
12. The resident subsequently brought his complaint to this Service on 18 August 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He stated that he had been in private rented accommodation for years and would like his banding changed to be able to bid for suitable properties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application

13. The landlord abides by the local authority’s bedroom standard, which is;
    1. one bedroom for a married or cohabiting couple,
    2. one bedroom for single adults over the age of 21,
    3. one bedroom for children under the age of 10, regardless of gender,
    4. one bedroom for children of the same gender from the ages of 0 to 21
    5. two bedrooms for children of different genders between the ages of 10 and 21.
14. According to the bedroom standard, the resident’s household is entitled to four bedrooms.
15. The landlord had two differing allocations policies, regarding overcrowding priority throughout the duration of the resident’s application. From 2018 to 2020, the landlord’s policy was;
    1. Group 1 – Urgent need (severe overcrowding by 2 bedrooms or more).
    2. Group 2 – priority need  (overcrowding by one bedroom or more).
    3. Group 3 – no housing priority.
16. At the time of his application in January 2018, the resident lived in a 2-bed property with his wife, 2 daughters, son, and father-in-law. He was, according to the bedroom standard and the landlord’s policy at the time, overcrowded by two bedrooms. As such, he was awarded Group 1 priority as per the landlord’s policy.
17. The landlord’s allocations policy changed in November 2020 in respect of priority given to overcrowding as outlined below:
    1. Group 1 – urgent housing need (severe overcrowding by 3 or more bedrooms).
    2. Group 2 – priority need (overcrowding by 2 bedrooms).
    3. Group 3 – low housing need (overcrowding by 1 bedroom).
18. The resident moved to a privately rented 3-bed property in September 2020. Following this, the landlord moved the resident to Group 3 priority banding as per their allocations policy and the local authority bedroom standard.
19. The landlord’s allocations policy awards discretionary additional merit in the form of 12 months of additional time on the waiting list to certain qualifying groups who have lived in the local area for a period of 3 years and who are working for a minimum of 16 hours per week. The landlord added this waiting time to the resident’s application.
20. The resident’s last known priority date and banding with the landlord (as of 15 March 2022)  is 26 February 2021 – Band 3. The landlord’s allocations policy (9.4) states that ‘once priority has been established, the applicant will be placed in one of three groups in date order of the application’. It goes on to say that ‘applicants will be placed into the group that reflects their current housing need and circumstances’.
21. Although the resident complained about how his housing application and review were conducted, the landlord followed its allocations policy and applied the banding correctly. It took appropriate action by checking its records, explaining that an earlier application (in the resident’s father-in-law’s name ) was managed by a different housing provider, and also offered the resident the opportunity to provide any other application reference numbers. As no evidence has been provided to show there was an earlier application, the landlord acted appropriately and applied the correct registration date and priority banding.
22. The records also show that during a telephone call in July 2019, when the resident was concerned about his rent increasing, the landlord correctly advised the resident to contact housing solutions at the local authority to discuss his options and also gave him the contact details for Shelter. This was an appropriate response as the local authority manages any emergency accommodation and also manages any homelessness prevention funds.
23. The records also show that during a telephone conversation between the resident and the landlord on 12 August 2020, the landlord advised the resident that his priority banding would shortly reduce due to upcoming policy changes, so encouraged the resident to bid whilst he still had a higher priority banding. The resident was therefore made aware of the changes, which was fair.
24. Furthermore, in its complaint responses, the landlord explained its allocations policy and changes therein and also detailed its banding system. It explained that reviews are carried out yearly to ascertain individual circumstances each time. It is appropriate that the landlord also apologised to the resident regarding its communication regarding changes to its allocations policy. It also acted correctly in advising the resident that it would speak to its communications team to make this easier for residents to access and sent the resident a link to its and the local authority’s allocations policy.
25. It is appropriate that the landlord further apologised for the confusion regarding the allocations policy change dates. It clarified that it had reviewed its policy in December 2019 but waited until November 2020 to implement it, in line with the local authority’s allocations policy. It advised that it was able to implement some changes from January 2020 to benefit local residents such as the discretionary connection award. The landlord correctly advised the resident that he had been awarded a discretionary connection award and this had been backdated by 12 months.
26. In response to the resident’s complaint regarding the housing reviewer’s comments, the landlord correctly advised the resident that the condition of his previous property did not amount to further priority on the Choice Based Lettings System but rather, was a matter for Environmental Health. While this Service appreciates that it would have been disappointing for the resident, it was also appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to the local authority to obtain emergency accommodation.
27. As the resident also expressed upset with how his wife had been dealt with by the reviewer, the landlord offered an apology and confirmed that this was not the intention of the staff member. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for any upset caused.
28. In its response to the resident’s concerns about the family’s financial difficulties and a possible rent increase, the landlord also advised the resident that no award was given for affordability in the allocations policy. It stated that if the resident thought that he should qualify for additional priority due to any adverse impacts on his family’s health, however, he could apply for additional medical priority. This was an appropriate response and also offered the resident other possible options to increase his priority banding.
29. Furthermore, the resident requested a face-to-face meeting in his Stage 2 complaint of 12 April 2022. The landlord agreed to this, but the resident refused to meet with the landlord until it had provided him with a Stage 2 response. At the resident’s request, the meeting was held with the landlord’s head of service on 12 May 2022. The landlord then carried out a further review of the resident’s housing application and reiterated its final complaint response. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
30. In light of the above, while the Ombudsman understands the frustration, disappointment, and dissatisfaction that the resident felt, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the resident’s housing application. It also provided the resident with some insight into how its banding system worked, and its availability of stock for Band 3 applicants. This was useful in managing the resident’s expectations. It also apologised for any upset caused by the reviewer’s comments and signposted him to the local authority in the event of any potential increase in banding.

Determination

31. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.