Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202338453)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338453

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

19 September 2025

 

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:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. A request for a higher housing priority.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy of a 1 bedroom first floor flat which started in August 2018.
  2. On 10 November 2023 the resident told the landlord he wanted rehousing. He felt he was in danger and there was a threat to his safety at his property. The resident submitted a housing application in November 2023 which the landlord said it made ‘live’ the same month. The landlord told the resident on 7 December 2023 that based on the evidence it was unable to increase his housing priority. The resident complained to the landlord on the same day about its decision and about not interviewing him. He also referred to the banding the local council had given him and that the wording on the local council’s central website suggested the landlord would interview him and assess the violence or threats of violence made. The resident told the landlord on 12 December 2023 he received a written death threat.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response under its complaint process on 19 December 2023 and said:
    1. The information on the local council’s central website that stated the landlord would offer the resident an interview was misleading as it did not conduct interviews of existing tenants
    2. It did not control the central website, and it agreed to raise the misleading content with the local council who had responsibility for this and apologised for this
    3. Instead of offering interviews it investigated cases for housing priorities, including checking with internal teams, the police, GPs, and any support workers
    4. It contacted its ASB team, and the police told it the resident was under no immediate threat
    5. It acknowledged a letter the resident said he received containing a death threat and recommended he provide this to the police
    6. He should send to it any supporting information he receives from the police
    7. It could not increase his priority to reflect a threat of violence without police support and their recommendation, but it agreed to keep in contact with the police and the resident
  4. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 21 December 2023. The landlord provided him with its stage 2 response under its complaint process on 10 January 2024 and said:
    1. It had placed the resident in the correct housing banding (group 3) in line with its policy and it reiterated its stage 1 complaint response findings
    2. For it to place the resident in group 1 there must be evidence from the police that he was in immediate danger and there were significant risks to him remaining in his property
    3. The police confirmed there was no evidence of any current risk, and the police did not have concerns over the resident remaining in his property
    4. The resident could explore privately renting or a mutual exchange and it proposed certain measures to help the resident feel safer, including CCTV, replacement of a gate and a fireproof letterbox
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said he wanted the landlord to follow the process on the central website by interviewing him. The resident told us on 30 January 2024 that his complaint was about the landlord’s housing allocation or banding decision. On 23 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of ASB. We understand that the resident reported further incidents since the landlord’s final response and that he quit his tenancy in February 2025. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the ASB and his request for a higher housing priority.

 

 Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42. of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” This is because we expect residents to raise complaints first with their landlord to allow them an opportunity to resolve them. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 April 2024 about its handling of ASB and he referred this issue to us on 18 October 2024.
  3. The handling of ASB was related to the resident’s complaint about his housing priority. However, the complaint the resident raised on 7 December 2023 was specifically and exclusively about his housing priority. We have not seen that his later complaint about ASB, which was raised over 4 months after the landlord’s final response about his housing priority, exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, we have not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB as it is outside jurisdiction. We have made a recommendation for the landlord in relation to this.

The scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained about his banding or housing priority with the local council and with the landlord. The landlord had no control over the banding or housing priority with the local council. We can only investigate acts or omissions of a landlord. Therefore, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s request for an increased housing priority under its own allocation policy.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a higher housing priority

  1. The landlord was responsible for managing the resident’s housing application on an area choice-based lettings scheme. The landlord, and other not-for-profit organisations, partner with the local council. The local council maintains the scheme and a central website. The landlord operates its own allocation policy and waiting list. It uses a priority banding system according to housing needs and circumstances, based on 3 groups with group 1 having the highest priority.
  2. The landlord placed the resident in group 3 on its own allocation policy. The local authority has its own allocation policy. The local council’s central website explains the landlord lets 50% of its properties using its own allocation policy.
  3. The landlord’s housing allocation policy states it operates a priority system for housing which consists of 3 groups as follows:
    1. Group W1- for those in urgent housing need
    2. Group W2- for those in priority housing need
    3. Group W3- for those with low housing need
  4. It further outlines the categories of person and circumstances that would merit a banding or placement in group W1. These include those with:
    1. An urgent exceptional need to move because of domestic abuse, violence, or harassment which means it is genuinely dangerous for them to remain living at their property
    2. Those who experience actual violence or a very real threat of violence that means it is genuinely dangerous to stay living in the area
  5. When the resident contacted the landlord to report his safety concerns it was reasonable of the landlord to ask him to contact the local council. This is because the landlord had no duty to offer alternative accommodation, but the local council could consider this. This is because the local council had a legal duty to assess anyone in the resident’s situation. This included considering whether there was a duty to offer emergency accommodation.
  6. It was also appropriate of the landlord to request details of the violence, or threats of violence and any incidents reported to the police on 27 November 2023. It follows it was also appropriate of the landlord to contact the police for information and to recommend to the resident other housing options, like a mutual exchange and privately renting.
  7. The landlord was clear in its communications with the resident on 6 December 2023 and 12 December 2023 that any decision to increase the resident’s priority needed to be based on evidence. It told the resident that so far, the evidence it had seen (a report of youths and a death threat) was not sufficient to increase his priority. While it told the resident on 18 December 2023 that its process involved interviewing applicants it clarified with the resident the next day that this was not the case.
  8. The landlord accepted the wording from the central website promised the resident an interview, but it explained that the local council maintains this website and it did not reflect the landlord’s process. It told the resident it did not offer interviews but investigated cases where a resident requested a housing priority. We note the landlord’s allocations policy does not state it offers interviews for housing priorities. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to clarify its process with the resident given the confusion. It was also reasonable of it to agree to raise the misleading wording on the central website with the local council. This is because the local council are responsible for this.
  9. The landlord also told the resident on 18 December 2023 it needed a recommendation from the police to consider offering a higher housing priority. It clarified on the same day that the recommendation specifically needed to be for a change in housing priority. We note the landlord’s allocation policy did not specifically state that it needed this recommendation from the police. The landlord’s policy states it needs to be satisfied that it would be “genuinely dangerous” for a resident to stay living in their property or area to consider a group W1 priority.
  10. It would be preferable for the landlord’s policy to reflect its specific requirements, to ensure full transparency and to enable residents to understand its process. Therefore, we have made a recommendation. However, the policy gives the landlord discretion over how it decides it would be “genuinely dangerous” for a resident to remain. This is acceptable because:
    1. As a social landlord, it has limited housing stock and must make difficult decisions on how best to allocate its properties and award priorities
    2. The landlord’s process is in line with the local council’s allocation policy. This specifically states that it needs strong police evidence to demonstrate a resident needs an immediate move to protect their life
    3. It is reasonable for the landlord to place reliance on the police to help it assess if a resident faces genuine danger. This is because the police are privy to intelligence regarding potential risks to life which is not available to other organisations
  11. Through its complaint responses and correspondence, the landlord informed the resident of its process and offered appropriate advice. We note from an email sent on 21 December 2023 the police recommended a move. However, we have not seen the police recommended a priority change or recommended a move on account of the property being “genuinely dangerous” for the resident to remain. Overall, while we acknowledge the resident’s frustration and difficult housing circumstances, this investigation has not identified any examples of service failure by the landlord. As we consider the landlord’s allocation policy could be clearer, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to review this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB is outside jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a higher housing priority.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination we recommend the landlord contact the resident to see if he wants to pursue his complaint about its handling of ASB.
  2. We recommend the landlord review its allocations policy to include details of what evidence it uses to assess risks in cases of violence, harassment, or threats of violence.