Your Housing Group Limited (202409121)

Decision
Case ID	202409121
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident has complex needs, affecting his daily living. The landlord was aware of this. The resident reported antisocial behaviour to the landlord. Neighbours also made counter allegations. The resident asked to be rehoused. He no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including counter allegations.
2. A request for rehousing.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. The resident’s complaint about reports of ASB, including counter allegations, is outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated it.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

A court has already made a judgement on the case. Also, the resident could have raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB during the court process. As a result, these elements of the resident’s complaint are outside of our jurisdiction (what we can and cannot consider).
The landlord agreed to move the resident through its management move process. There were delays in the process which were outside its control. It offered the resident a suitable property. It referred the resident to the local authority’s housing options service when he declined the offer.
There were delays in the complaints process. The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation. This was sufficient to recognise the errors in its handling of the case.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 to 14 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord and other agencies, saying: He had complex personal circumstances. He needed to move to a specific area, where he had family connections and could provide care to family members. The landlord had agreed to move him through its management move process, but it had not offered him any suitable properties. He had refused an offer of a property because it was not suitable. He had been told a former tenant had died in the property. He had been told the property was in a high crime area. Since he had refused the property, he had been removed from the management move list. The landlord had not replaced his flooring or repaired his kitchen units after there was a leak in his home. It had not repaired the lighting in his storage cupboard. He did not feel the landlord was providing him with support he needed.
26 July 2024	The landlord’s record show it sent a stage 1 response to the resident. It is not clear if it has a record of the response.
26 September 2024	After contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its complaints process.
15 October 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process, saying: In March 2024 a property became available in the resident’s desired area. It had a communal entrance, so it did not meet his needs. On 25 March 2024, it offered the resident a property which met his needs. The resident refused the offer. On its advice, the resident applied to the local authority for rehousing. He had been given a high priority to move.
22 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
15 January 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of the complaints process. It summarised all the actions it had taken. It said: It apologised for the delay in its complaint response. This was because it had to consider a lot of evidence. It offered the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the delay. It did not have any other properties in the resident’s desired area. This is why it removed him from the management move list. On 7 January 2025, the local authority told the landlord the resident would consider properties in other areas. The landlord spoke to his advocate and agreed to send weekly lists of available properties.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He felt the landlord was not supporting him.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of ASB and counter-allegations
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We do not have the power to investigate complaints if a court has already made a judgement on the issue. In this case, the landlord took legal action because of reported ASB by the resident. The court made a possession order on 14 April 2025. As such, we cannot investigate this element of the complaint.
The resident could reasonably have raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB as part of the court process. As such, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint	Request for rehousing
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident complained about the local authority’s response to his request to be rehoused. We cannot consider this in our investigations as the local authority was not the resident’s landlord. The resident may wish to refer his concerns about this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

What we have considered

A management move is when a landlord offers a resident a new home from its own housing stock. In its access to housing policy, the landlord says it will agree to a management move when:
1. There is threat of, or actual, violence and harm.
2. There are exceptional circumstances. There must be evidence of a significant and unsurmountable problem with the resident’s occupation of the home.
After the resident said he needed to move, the landlord agreed to consider a management move. It needed more information to show that the resident’s circumstances met the criteria for a management move under its policy. This caused a delay in it approving the resident’s application. While the delay will have been frustrating for the resident, it was outside of the landlord’s control.
After receiving supporting statements from 2 agencies, the landlord agreed that the resident’s circumstances were exceptional. It added him to its management move list.
The resident identified a vacant property, and the landlord agreed to offer the property to the resident. This was a positive step by the landlord to meet the resident’s needs and preferences.
After viewing the property, the resident refused the offer. While the resident’s reasons for refusing the offer were understandable, the landlord did not have any other properties that met the resident’s requirements in his chosen area.
As such, it removed him from the management move list. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to keep him on the list when it knew it could not offer him a property. This would have falsely raised his hopes.
However, it is not clear if the landlord had told the resident how few properties it had in his preferred area. It should have done this, so that he had a full understanding of the impact of refusing the property offer.
The landlord referred the resident to the local authority to assess his rehousing need. This was appropriate as it enabled the resident to bid on properties with other landlords, maximising his chance of a move.
We saw evidence that a support agency asked the landlord if the resident could consider moving through a mutual exchange (where 2 or more social housing residents swap homes). The landlord gave the agency details of the mutual exchange website.
However, as it had served the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) it should have explained that landlords can lawfully refuse a mutual exchange if a resident is subject to legal action. This would have helped the resident to make a balanced decision about whether he should consider mutual exchange.
In January 2025, the local authority told the landlord that the resident would consider properties in a wider area. The landlord agreed to send a list of its available properties to support agencies working with the resident every week. This was a positive step to make the resident aware of properties he could bid on.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (The Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The resident’s support needs affect his communication. He contacted the landlord frequently by email, text and phone. In some correspondence, he addressed multiple agencies and raised several issues at the same time.
The volume and complexity of the resident’s contact placed additional demand on the landlord’s service. This made it more challenging for the landlord to respond promptly and to maintain oversight of all issues.
The landlord introduced a single point of contact to help manage communication with the resident. This was an appropriate measure to support clear and effective communication.
The landlord’s records indicate that it responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 26 July 2024. However, due to an error when the landlord made changes to its computer systems, it did not have a copy of the complaint. This was a record keeping failure. Landlords should keep complete records of all letters they send so there is an audit trail of their actions.
We asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its complaints process by 10 October 2025. It sent its response 5 days after this timescale. This was frustrating for the resident. He took time and trouble to follow up on the landlord’s response.
There was a delay of around 3 months in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. It said due to the amount of information it needed to assess. This was far beyond its complaints policy timescale. The landlord accepted that the delay was a failing.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs in his home after a leak. It did not respond to his complaint about the broken light in his storage cupboard. Not addressing these issues may have led to the resident feeling his concerns were not being heard.
The Code says that landlords’ complaints responses should say whether a complaint has been upheld or not. The landlord did not do this. This was a further failure which may have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for complaints handling failures. We have seen evidence that the resident received this payment. In our opinion, this recognises the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident. The award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website).

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were positive examples of information sharing between the landlord and agencies working with the resident. This helped all parties to support the resident effectively.

Communication

Landlords should remember that partner agencies do not always have a full knowledge of the rehousing process. Where possible, landlords should proactively explain housing processes to partner agencies.
In this case, the landlord could have explained the limited amount of housing stock in the resident’s desired area from the outset. This would have better enabled agencies to support the resident to make a decision about the property he was offered, and give a clear explanation to the resident when he was removed from the landlord’s management move list.
The resident’s support agencies told the landlord that it would help the resident if it communicated clearly, in a structured way, and held clear boundaries. The landlord could have done more to follow this guidance. For example, it could have simplified its complaints responses, or included a table to make them more accessible.