A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202324629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324629

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an urgent transfer and the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing need.
The Ombudsman has also considered:

a. The landlord’s complaint handling.

b. The landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom 2nd floor flat, which is accessed via 2 flights of stairs. There is no lift.
It is understood that the resident had various physical and mental health conditions. According to the resident’s doctor, this included post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) “from living in her current accommodation, as a victim of domestic abuse at that address”. The resident also has fibromyalgia, which is a long-term health condition that causes muscle and joint pain. According to the resident’s doctor, the resident’s condition was severe, which affected her mobility, caused extreme pain when navigating the stairs, and in turn affected her mood.
It is unclear what date the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The resident explained that she was in desperate need to move to more suitable accommodation due to ill health and domestic abuse. She mentioned that she had spoken to the landlord’s housing needs manager in 2020 or 2021, but they no longer worked for the landlord. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not communicated with her, following receipt of a letter from her domestic abuse support specialist. She said that her health and mental wellbeing were at an all-time low and asked the landlord to contact her about an urgent move.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 28 July 2022. The landlord:

a. Noted that it had offered rehousing advice to the resident previously. It recommended that the resident complete a new housing application form, because it had been unable to locate a current or previous application.

b. Offered to arrange a medical assessment if the resident was able to provide detailed medical documentation. It clarified that it had been unable to progress a medical assessment before, as it did not have enough information about the resident’s housing circumstances or how a move would alleviate the issues she faced.

c. Explained the pressures on its housing stock and suggested several ways for the resident to improve her chances of moving.

d. Said it was sorry if the resident had received no communication following contact from her domestic abuse support specialist. It suggested that the resident may wish to make contact with its neighbourhood’s team, as they would normally consider applications for urgent moves.

The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 29 July 2022. The resident:

a. Said she was desperate to move to ground floor accommodation, as it had become increasingly difficult to cope with living in the property due to deteriorating health and domestic abuse.

b. Commented that she was on the landlord’s waiting list but had been unsuccessful in bidding for properties. The local authority rehousing team could not help her unless she presented herself as homeless. She had been unable to find a mutual exchange.

c. Said she had approached the landlord for help with moving several times and had provided supporting evidence from her doctor and her domestic abuse support worker. She recognised that the medical letters submitted had been “generalised reports” about her health issues and were not as detailed as the landlord was now requesting.

d. Expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had repeatedly passed her from one member of staff to another. She questioned why the landlord had an allocations team if all it could do was signpost residents elsewhere. The resident said she was at breaking point.

The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 1 May 2024, with intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord:

a. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests for a transfer. It maintained that it had followed its policies and procedures, had considered guidance from its independent medical assessors, and had given the resident advice on her housing options.

b. Accepted that its communications had been inadequate after its neighbourhood manager left its employment in June 2023. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience this may have caused. It provided the resident with details of its 24-hour tenancy support and wellbeing service. It said that its new neighbourhood manager would contact the resident within the next 7 working days.

The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman following issue of the stage 2 response, because she felt the landlord was not taking her application for rehousing seriously. The resident told the Ombudsman on 17 September 2024, that she wanted the landlord to move her to a 1-bedroom ground floor property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to establish if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s requests for an urgent move and her concerns about banding, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
While it is understood that the resident had been trying to secure alternative accommodation since 2014,this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between July 2021 and 1 May 2024. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme. However, this report may reference events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord had several allocation policies over the duration of the complaint. However, the landlord’s general approach to allocating properties and awarding priority is summarised as follows:

a. The landlord was obliged to allocate a percentage of its properties to residents on local authority housing waiting lists, in line with its nomination agreements.

b. The landlord operated its own choice-based lettings system, to allocate those properties that fell within its permitted allocation allowance. Properties would be allocated to applicants according to a banding criterion, from A to F. In relation to bands A to D:

Band A applicants have an emergency need to move. For example, where an applicant’s life would be in immediate danger if they continued to live in their current accommodation (proven or with evidence and approved). Or a resident is seriously affected by their current housing, creating an emergency medical need.
Band B applicants have an urgent need to move. For example, a property is no longer suitable for an applicant’s needs. Or a resident is seriously affected by their current housing, leading to an urgent medical need.
Band C applicants have an identified need to move.
Band D applicants have no housing need and do not fit into bands A to C.

c. The landlord used an independent medical advisory service, to ascertain how medical factors might affect an applicant’s housing. The landlord would pay regard to the outcome of any medical assessment when making decisions about an applicant’s banding. The landlord would only reconsider its banding decision where new supporting evidence was provided.

d. Existing tenants had the right to appeal against any decision made about their case if they believed that the landlord had not acted in accordance with its policies. Appeals would be considered by the landlord’s lettings panel.

According to the landlord’s allocation policy, the landlord had a standalone management transfer procedure. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an urgent transfer and the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing need

For context, the resident registered with the landlord for rehousing on 19 February 2016. It is understood that the landlord changed its choice-based lettings system in or around 2020. The landlord wrote to all applicants around this time, asking them to re-register for housing on the new system. It is understood that the resident did not re-register, which meant that she did not have an active housing application in place from this date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2021, in relation to rehousing. She explained that the block was no longer suitable for her and her partner due to their age and because they both struggled with the stairs. The resident attached a letter from her doctor as supporting evidence. The resident said that she was registered for rehousing on the landlord’s system and had previously spoken to her housing officer about moving.
The landlord responded on the same day, which shows that it was treating the resident’s communication with the attention it deserved. The landlord asked the resident to evidence how a move would alleviate her health issues. It clarified that it could not complete a medical assessment until she had provided more detailed information. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response was reasonable because it would have been difficult to have made an informed decision about the resident’s housing need or priority without this information. However, the landlord ought to have identified that the resident did not have an active housing application in place. It should have advised the resident to complete a new housing application, which would have enabled the resident to actively bid for alternative accommodation herself.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 March 2022, expressing concern that she had submitted more evidence to the landlord in January 2022, but she had received no response. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord received a communication from the resident around this time. Either the landlord did not receive the resident’s communication, or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. However, there is also no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 14 March 2022, which is troubling.
It is understood that the resident tried to complete a new housing application on 17 March 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 April 2022, to explain that her medical forms were incomplete, and she had not provided any supporting documentation. The landlord explained that the resident must complete the application within 19 days, or her application would be closed. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify if the resident completed the application process from the evidence seen.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2022, expressing frustration that its medical assessor had determined her current accommodation to be suitable for her needs. It is unclear to the Ombudsman when this medical assessment was carried out. It is possible that this was a historical assessment. The resident explained that her health was “dramatically affected” by having to climb 2 flights of stairs. She explained that her partner had moved out recently, after being arrested for domestic abuse towards her. She said she needed to move urgently to be free of him and asked the landlord to contact her about options.
A copy of the resident’s email was passed to the landlord’s neighbourhood’s team, 8 working days later. This was the appropriate team to investigate the resident’s reports about domestic abuse, consider any support, and approve urgent management transfers where necessary. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord’s lettings team to have had sight of the resident’s email as well, so consideration could be given to the resident’s evolving health issues and her dissatisfaction about past medical assessments.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 May 2022, confirming that she had written to the local authority rehousing team for support with moving. She offered to provide the landlord with evidence of the ongoing domestic abuse and reiterated that she needed to be moved urgently. It is unclear what action the landlord’s neighbourhood’s team took, if any, following the resident’s communications. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to offer support or assistance. This is troubling and ultimately led to the resident raising the stage 1 complaint.
The Ombudsman was encouraged by the landlord’s stage 1 response, which set out the steps that the resident could or ought to take to improve her chances of moving. Of particular note, the landlord identified there was no active rehousing application in place and encouraged the resident to complete a new housing application. It endeavoured to manage the resident’s expectations, by explaining the pressures on its housing stock. It suggested that the resident should provide detailed medical information, so her circumstances could be fully assessed by its independent medical assessor. It took responsibility for not communicating with the resident following an email sent to the landlord by her domestic abuse support worker. It suggested that the resident gain support for a move from the police, following which she might ask its neighbourhood’s team to consider agreeing an urgent management transfer.
However, in view of the resident’s evolving situation, the landlord might have considered offering the resident an appointment to discuss her options with staff from its neighbourhood and lettings teams. This may have helped the resident to feel more supported.
There is no evidence that the resident completed a new housing application, following the stage 1 response. However, the resident did request a statement from the police and her domestic abuse support worker. She also emailed the landlord’s neighbourhood’s team several times between 15 September 2022 and 23 September 2022, asking for an urgent move.
The landlord told the resident on 23 September 2022, that it had received her request for an urgent move. It said that it was working with its safeguarding team and had opened a management transfer application. The landlord’s response was both timely and appropriate.
The resident sent a follow up email to the landlord 2 days later, impressing upon the landlord her desperation to move. She said she was on the edge of a breakdown, was struggling with the stairs, and was in fear of her ex-partner stalking and harassing her. She explained that her ex-partner had been bailed until December 2022, after being arrested again on 6 September 2022. She said the police were looking to put a restraining order in place. The resident said that she was finding it difficult to continue living in the property as her health conditions were getting worse, the area was run down, there was littering and drugs, and children in the area had no respect. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this new information.
The landlord has not provided evidence of how it was investigating the resident’s case, so it could come to a decision about the management transfer. This has restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully assess whether the landlord’s investigation was fair, reasonable, and timely. Either the landlord did not provide this information to the Ombudsman, or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping and information management.
However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord received several emails between November 2022 and December 2022 from external agencies, supporting a management move. It has not been possible to verify how the landlord treated this information from the evidence seen.
It is also understood that the landlord’ safeguarding and neighbourhood teams sought advice from an occupational therapist (OT), concerning the resident’s mobility. This suggests that the landlord may have been exploring more than 1 option to support the resident, which was positive. The OT emailed the landlord on 17 January 2023, confirming that there were no suitable adaptations that could be provided for the resident. The OT recommended that the landlord help the resident to “secure suitable, ground floor accommodation”. The landlord’s safeguarding team responded the same day, by sending the OT recommendation to its lettings team to consider the next steps.
The landlord’s lettings team told its neighbourhoods team, that the resident had provided no medical evidence since 2021. It said the information provided by the resident at that time lacked sufficient detail to support a move. It suggested that the resident be asked to provide up to date medical information for further assessment, which was fair.
The landlord’s neighbourhood team acted promptly, by emailing the resident on 23 January 2023, explaining the outcome of the OT referral and the observations of its lettings team. The landlord encouraged the resident to provide more detailed medical documentation to support her request to move. It clarified that it was also working on her application for a management transfer. It said that her application would be passed to its regional manager for consideration once the police had provided an update. The landlord said that it aimed to confirm its decision about the management transfer within the next week. The Ombudsman notes that this was 4 months after the landlord opened the case. While the landlord has not confirmed its expected timescales for completing management transfers, the Ombudsman would have expected a decision to have been made about this in a timelier manner.
The resident replied on the same day, that the reason no new medical reports had been submitted since 2021, was because her application had been ongoing since then. She said that she had submitted 2 reports over the last 4 years, at a cost of £20 for each. She suggested that a new report would just show that her fibromyalgia had worsened and was managed with pain relief. She pointed out that she struggled everyday with her condition and the OT had agreed that the only option was to move. The resident said she was struggling with anxiety and depression as a result of coping with the stairs and aspects of communal living.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident’s response suggests that she did not fully understand the landlord’s reasons for requesting more medical evidence or the level of information that the landlord expected. Again, it may have helped with the resident’s understanding and led to earlier resolution, if the landlord had offered to meet the resident to go through the evidence she had provided and explain what additional evidence she might provide.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about its progress with the management transfer, within the timescale it committed to. This is a concern.
The landlord stated in the stage 2 response, that its head of service rejected the resident’s application for a management transfer in January 2023, due to insufficient information. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the evidence seen. It is noted that the resident chased the landlord for an update on 22 February 2023, which suggests that the landlord had not shared its decision with the resident by then. There is also no record of the landlord responding to the resident’s request for an update. This was unreasonable and left the resident uncertain as to the outcome of the management transfer request.
The resident’s domestic abuse support worker contacted the landlord on 5 April 2023, to explain that the resident’s ex-partner had pleaded guilty and was due for sentencing on 2 May 2023. The resident’s support worker said the resident needed to be considered for a move before then to ensure her safety. They asked the landlord to contact the resident because she had received no updates about moving. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show how the landlord responded to the new information provided by the resident’s domestic abuse support worker. As a minimum, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have contacted the resident itself, to verity the level of risk and to have given the resident appropriate advice and support. There is no evidence that this happened, which was unfair given the resident’s situation.
The resident emailed the local member of parliament (MP) on 19 April 2023, explaining her situation and asking for help getting the landlord to move her. This suggests that the resident had lost confidence in the landlord, which is troubling.
In a subsequent email to the MP, the resident mentioned that she did “not have the time or energy to bid on properties, as it is common knowledge that this system takes time”. This implies that the resident was not routinely bidding for properties as and when properties become available, which is a concern. It was in the resident’s best interests to make best use of all of the rehousing options available to her, to give her the best chance of moving. The Ombudsman is aware that some landlords operate an assisted bidding service if residents are unable to bid for themselves. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the resident needed such a service. Although, it remains unclear to the Ombudsman how the resident would have been in a position to bid for properties without being registered for rehousing on the landlord’s system.
The resident also suggested that it was unhelpful, not having a consistent member of staff dealing with her case. The resident expressed similar dissatisfaction about being “passed from person to person” at the stage 2 escalation. It is not possible to determine the extent to which staff turnover may have been a complicating factor in this case. However, the landlord should have had processes in place to track cases through to a conclusion, despite of any staff absence or changes.
The resident’s domestic abuse support worker emailed the landlord on 25 April 2023, with the latest domestic abuse stalking and harassment (DASH) form for the resident. The resident’s support worker suggested that the resident was likely to be at “high risk” upon release of her ex-partner. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s support worker after receiving this email, or of it contacting the resident directly. This is a concern given the nature of the communication. As a minimum, the landlord ought to have signposted the resident to the local authority homelessness team if the resident and her advisors believed the risk to the resident was so great.
The resident’s domestic abuse support worker emailed the landlord and the resident’s doctor on 18 May 2023, explaining the cumulative impact upon the resident arising from the domestic abuse. This included social isolation, anxiety, depression, and nightmares which often left the resident emotionally exhausted. The resident’s doctor wrote the landlord on 15 June 2023, asking the landlord to consider the resident’s request for rehousing sympathetically. The doctor did not go into any detail about the resident’s health conditions, or why her present accommodation was unsuitable, or how her health conditions might improve if she were to be moved. Again, the lack of detail would have made it more difficult for the landlord to fully assess the resident’s housing need and priority.
The landlord told the resident in the stage 2 response, that it had considered the resident for another management transfer in June 2023, which was rejected because the police had assessed her level of risk to be medium. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify this from the evidence seen. But the Ombudsman has seen communications from the police domestic abuse investigation unit around this time, which suggests that the resident could remain in her home with the right support.
The resident told the landlord on 20 June 2023, that she did not realise that her housing application had expired in 2020, or she would have submitted a new application. The resident said she did not understand why the landlord had not mentioned this to her before. However, as already referenced through this report, the landlord had explained this to the resident several times. It was positive that the landlord contacted the resident the following day to help the resident complete the registration process, as she expressed trouble completing the process electronically. The landlord again told the resident that she would need to provide more medical evidence before a medical assessment could be completed. The landlord’s response was fair and shows that it was willing to consider awarding medical priority, subject to there being sufficient evidence to support this.
The landlord’s lettings team emailed the resident on 26 June 2023, confirming the outcome of her recent housing application. The landlord confirmed that the resident had been placed into band D, with a 1-bedroom “like-for-like” housing need. The landlord said that it was sorry if the resident had not received its earlier communications about reapplying for housing when it changed its choice-based lettings system. It acted fairly by backdating the resident’s housing application to 2016, when she made her original application. This would have put the resident back in the position she would have been in, had the landlord not changed its system.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 July 2023, attaching several letters that had been previously sent to the landlord by her domestic abuse support worker and doctor, supporting a move. The landlord made a pragmatic decision to assess this information, despite the resident providing no new information. The landlord arranged for its medical assessor to complete a medical assessment on the same day. The landlord’s lettings team also asked its safeguarding team to consider if the resident would be eligible for a management transfer. This shows that the landlord was keen to explore wider options. However, it is unclear why the email was sent to the landlord’s safeguarding team, as management transfers were not the responsibility of that team. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord’s safeguarding team acted on this email, which is troubling.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 July 2023 with its decision following the medical assessment. The landlord said, based on the limited medical information seen, the resident’s current accommodation was suitable for her needs, and it had awarded no additional priority. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 July 2023, to appeal the landlord’s decision. The resident asked the landlord to help her move to ground floor accommodation.
The landlord responded by asking its independent medical advisor to review its previous advice. This was fair to the resident given her representations and was in line with its allocations policy. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 August 2023, confirming that its decision remained unchanged. The landlord said it was willing to reconsider its position if the resident was able to provide up to date documentation, or if she had any different information that she not already submitted. This was encouraging. The landlord impressed upon the resident that any new information must be fully detailed, should explain any health conditions, provide a diagnosis, explain why the current accommodation was unsuitable, and detail how a move would improve or alleviate any medical conditions.
The following day, the landlord’s lettings team suggested that the resident may wish to apply to its neighbourhood’s team for a management transfer, if she was still experiencing domestic abuse. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to progress this.
The resident sent the landlord another letter from her doctor on 21 August 2023. But again, this information was non-specific and lacked detail. Again, this would have restricted the landlord’s ability to fully assess the resident’s housing need and priority. The medical advisor determined that the resident’s case did not appear to meet the threshold for medical priority and again no medical priority was recommended.
The evidence suggests that the resident may have sent the landlord a further letter from her doctor on 30 August 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this letter. However, it is understood that the landlord’s medical assessor was asked to review the new documentation, which showed that the landlord was being fair. It is understood that the landlord’s medical advisor did not change their opinion.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 October 2023, to appeal the latest medical assessment. It is understood that the landlord consulted its medical advisor again. Once again, this shows that the landlord was being fair. The landlord’s medical advisor maintained the view that the current accommodation met the resident’s needs. It commented that the stairs were not “totally beyond the resident’s capabilities” as she was not taking any “potent pain killing medications” and did not rely on mobility aids. The landlord’s medical advisor said there was no evidence to suggest that any of the resident’s conditions warranted the input of specialist services.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2023, stating that while it sympathised with the resident’s situation, it was unable to change its decision based upon the evidence the resident had provided. The landlord demonstrated reasonableness by offering to reconsider its position if the resident was able to provide further evidence. The landlord clarified for a further time, the level of information that was required. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident sent the landlord any further medical information following this.
It is noted that the landlord arranged for its letting’s panel to meet on 24 April 2024, after the complaint was escalated to stage 2. This was in line with the landlord’s allocation’s policy. The role of the landlord’s lettings panel was to consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances in the resident’s case, which would merit waiving its usual priority and eligibility criteria. Ultimately, its panel decided to make no changes to the resident’s banding, “in the absence of medical priority recognition”. But offered to reconsider its position should the resident’s conditions worsen, and mobility aid and pain relief become necessary in the future. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that she has no wish to take potent pain killers, even though these may now be necessary.
The landlord’s response shows that its lettings panel paid due regard to the advice of its medical advisors when coming to its decision, in accordance with its allocation’s policy. However, the Ombudsman has not been able to verify what other evidence the landlord may have taken into account, or the weight it attached to such evidence. The landlord ought to have provided the Ombudsman with copies of the minutes from the panel meeting, showing how it arrived at its final decision and the evidence that informed it. Without this evidence, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine that the landlord’s process was fair.

Overall

The Ombudsman can understand that the resident was disappointed by the landlord’s decision to place her in band D, in accordance with its allocation’s policy. Its repeated offer to reassess the resident’s housing need if more specific and more detailed medical evidence could be provided, showed that the landlord was treating the resident fairly. Ultimately, the onus was on the resident to provide whatever information the landlord required, so her housing need could be fully assessed. It was unfortunate that the quality of the medical evidence provided continued to be an issue throughout the lifetime of the case, despite the landlord’s attempts to explain this to the resident.
The Ombudsman can understand that the resident was disappointed about the landlord’s decision not to approve the management transfer, after the resident’s domestic support worker recommended this. The Ombudsman has been unable to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the first management transfer application, from the evidence seen. But the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have made a decision in a timely manner. Ultimately, when the landlord considered the second management transfer, the police reassured the landlord that the resident could continue living at the property, with the appropriate support. Given that management transfers are usually reserved for cases where there is an immediate risk to a resident by their continued occupation of a property, the landlord’s decision to reject the second management transfer application was understandable.
The landlord may have been satisfied that it had followed its own policies and procedures in relation to the substantive matters of complaint. But the Ombudsman suggests that a timelier resolution may have been reached in this case, had the landlord being more proactive when the resident’s situation became more complex and her dissatisfaction grew. For example, the landlord might have considered offering to meet the resident, rather that repeating the same information time after time. Had it done so, it could have explored why the resident had not renewed her housing application, it could have discussed the resident’s health issues, it might have explained why the medical evidence provided was inadequate, and could have clarified what additional information the resident might provide to support her application for rehousing. It might also have offered to meet the resident with her domestic abuse support worker, to explain the threshold for agreeing a management transfer.
It was encouraging that the landlord acknowledged there was an issue with its communications after its neighbourhood manager left its employment and offered some redress through its internal complaint process. However, the Ombudsman found multiple incidences where the landlord’s communications fell short, as referenced throughout this report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of redress for poor communication was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and failed to take into account the likely detriment to the resident. The landlord did not always respond to the resident, and it did not keep the resident adequately updated. This was likely to have caused uncertainty for the resident, as well as loss of trust and inconvenience.
When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an urgent transfer and the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing need.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord would acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and would provide a full response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and would provide a full response within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman has been unable to verify that the landlord acknowledged the complaint within expected timescales from the evidence seen. However, the stage 1 response was issued within expected timescales under the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident expressly asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 29 July 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord logged the matter as a stage 2 complaint or of it sending a formal complaint acknowledgement. This was inappropriate and left the complaint unresolved.
The resident told the landlord on 27 December 2023, that she had an ongoing complaint with the landlord about its handling of a transfer request. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have investigated the status of the complaint and have responded to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. This was unfair and left the resident unclear on the landlord’s intentions. The landlord’s inaction created further dissatisfaction for the resident, who then escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord acted promptly upon intervention by the Ombudsman, which was encouraging. But ultimately, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 446 working days after the resident first escalated the complaint. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and was unduly long. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and to have considered providing some redress.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping and information management

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact, as well as evidence of its actions and decisions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate.
When considered cumulatively, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an urgent transfer and the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing need.
In In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £400 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £300 if the landlord has already paid the compensation, it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:

a. £300 compensation, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communications.

b. £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience caused to resident by failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord must endeavour to meet the resident at the property within 4 weeks of the date of this report, during which the landlord must:

a. Discuss the resident’s current housing need and options for rehousing.

b. Consider the merits of accepting a new medical form from the resident and whether there are grounds to progress a new management transfer application.

c. Consider whether there is any additional support that the landlord might offer the resident, which would assist her when completing medical forms or when providing medical evidence.

d. Record any actions that are agreed by the parties in a written action plan, setting out the expected timescales for action and how the landlord will keep the resident updated.

The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.