Hounslow Council (201911783)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911783

Hounslow Council

22 December 2020


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 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 regarding:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application under its mutual exchange process
    2. Its decision not to allow the mutual exchange to proceed, following the exchange partner of the other property passing away.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property owned by the landlord, which is a local authority. She applied for a mutual exchange of the property with another secure tenant of the landlord’s in a different area. This would mean that the resident would move into the three-bedroom property in exchange for her two–bedroom property in which she lived with her two children.
  2. The landlord wrote to advise the resident that the mutual exchange application had been approved, on 7 November 2019. It stated that the signing of the papers with the exchange partner would take place on Friday 15 November 2019. It further instructed that neither party could move into the exchange properties prior to the signing of the papers. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident called it on 13 November 2019 to state that the exchange partner will be unable to attend the appointment of 15 November 2019.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in an email of 7 December 2019 in which she stated that, following the exchange partner’s inability to attend the signing on 15 November 2019, she informed her Housing Officer (HO). She also contacted the exchange partner’s HO but received no response. Her HO was unable to advise whether she could be visited in order to be able to sign the papers and informed her that he was awaiting the exchange partner’s HO for further information. She stated that the exchange partner had returned home from hospital and had instructed a family member to contact her HO. The family member did so but the HO made no contact in return until the exchange partner died on 27 November 2019.  
  4. The resident stated that the exchange had not been completed due to delays by the HO for each property. She described her family circumstances, including the medical needs of her 11-year-old and the inconvenience to her four-year-old as the property was overcrowded.
  5. In its response of, 10 December 2019, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email as well as a telephone call with her of 9 December 2019. It also stated that her MP had made an inquiry on the issue and it would be responding to this by 12 December 2019. Furthermore, the Mayor had also written on the same issue and HO would be responding. The resident made a further complaint on 27 December 2019.
  6. On 9 January 2020, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the issue. it advised her that a formal complaint was being considered on the issues under its complaints procedure and it would investigate and provide her with a response by 30 January 2020.  It also stated that it would present her case to the Exceptional Needs Referral Panel (ENRP) who would consider the situation and then and make a decision on whether the exchange could proceed.
  7. In its stage one decision of, 30 January 2020, the landlord clarified that it had received the formal complaint by referral from this Service, on 2 January 2020. it stated that the mutual exchange papers had been received on 27 September 2019 and the sign-up date agreed for 15 November 2019. The statutory timescale was 42 days and it had not withheld consent. It had been timely in following the stages of its mutual exchange procedure but could not complete the process due to the passing of the exchange partner prior to her signing the agreement. Her HO continued to wait for confirmation that the exchange would proceed, further contact was agreed on 27 November 2019, but the exchange partner passed on 28 November 2019.
  8. With respect to the formal complaint the landlord stated that the resident had raised her complaint with several people, including counsellors and an MP, on 3, 13, 16, 19 and 23 December 2019. It had therefore addressed responses to these parties on receiving their inquiries on the matter. These multiple queries from the various sources resulted in difficulties in managing her inquiry. It also called the resident on 20 December 2019 to explain to her why the exchange could not proceed. The landlord informed the resident that having presented her case to the ENRP, it had been advised that this was a case which the panel could not consider. Furthermore, there was ‘no exceptional justification that the Council can make to grant a secure tenancy to the exchange tenant’s property.’
  9. The resident requested for the escalation of her complaint in an email to the landlord of 2 February 2020. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position regarding referring the matter to the ENRP. She stated that it should have been aware of the sort of cases which the panel would accept prior to promising to refer her case. She maintained that the fourth stage of the process was not completed due to the exchange partner’s HO’s inaction. she stated, with her HO and the exchange partner’s daughter, she had tried for 3 weeks to contact the exchange partner’s HO without success.  
  10. In its stage two decision, of 18 February 2020, the landlord acknowledged that it should not have informed the resident that the matter would be reviewed by its ENRP unless it had been certain about this. It apologised for this situation and stated that it had been discussed with the appropriate officer in order to ensure that there was no repeat of this event.
  11. The landlord clarified that the exchange partner had been hospitalised on 14 November 2019 and was, therefore, unable to sign the paperwork at the time. The landlord made further contact, on 27 November 2019, to advise that the resident was ready to move. However, the landlord was informed on 28 November 2019 that the exchange partner had passed away. Thus, although the exchange partner had not passed away by 15 November 2019, she was unable to sign the paperwork due to being in hospital.
  12. The landlord apologised that the resident had not been contacted by the exchange partners housing officer as a matter of courtesy. It explained however that this staff member was working with the exchange partner’s instructions and not the resident’s. It further clarified that any exchange of information with the resident without the exchange partner’s authorisation would be a breach of data protection requirements. In the absence of instructions by the exchange partner, her housing officer could not therefore provide any information to the resident or move the process along.  
  13. Whilst apologising for the poor communication with the resident the landlord maintained that it had followed the mutual exchange process. It acknowledged that she was overcrowded, however as she required one extra bedroom, she did not qualify for a priority transfer. It, therefore, suggested that she registered on Homeswapper and tried again to find an exchange partner.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that there was poor communication by the exchange partner’s HO whilst the resident was chasing information on progress with the exchange. However, no documentation has been provided to this Service in evidence that the exchange partner permitted her next of kin or any other person acting on her behalf to proceed with signing off the exchange documents on her behalf prior to her passing. This Service is therefore unable to conclude that lack of communication by the landlord’s staff member is the sole reason why the deed of assignment was not signed by the exchange partner.
  2. The resident states that the exchange partner and her daughter had every intention of completing the signing of the deed, but no documentary evidence has been provided regarding this intention. It was an unfortunate circumstance that the exchange partner became ill prior to signing the deed of assignment and did not complete the process. As the deed is a legal document it would have been inappropriate and unprofessional for the landlord to complete the process without documented evidence that the exchange partner had authorised another party to complete the contract on her behalf.
  3.  Paragraph 5.4.1 of the landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy provides that ‘the Housing Officer (HO) shall be responsible for processing mutual exchange applications in accordance with this procedure: attending completions, ensuring deeds, terminations and tenancy agreements are correctly signed, as applicable.’ Paragraph 11.7 point 2.5 of the policy also provides that ‘the Deeds of Assignment must be signed by all exchange partners in the presence of a HO, who will sign as witness.’ Taking the provisions together means that the HO could not assume that the process would have been completed, without being present at the signing of the requisite documents.
  4. The statutory guidance on social housing allocation, published in June 2012, indicates that applications on the basis of overcrowding will not be considered unless the situation is such that the applicant is overcrowded by at least 2 bedrooms. The landlord was therefore accurate in stating that the resident’s home situation and living conditions did not require it to prioritise facilitating her move to a bigger property on the basis that she was overcrowded.
  5. The resident did make a first formal complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2019. It is acknowledged that she also made reports to several external people in the ensuing days and weeks. It is acknowledged that the numerous communications from several people on the same issue would have resulted in some confusion on how and to whom to make a response. However, the landlord could have advised all the parties that as the resident had made a complaint within its procedure, it would be most appropriate for it to deal with the matter within its complaints process. It could, with her agreement, subsequently send copies of its decision to all those who had written to it on the issue. These noted shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint are, however, not to a degree as to warrant reparation to the resident.  
  6. The landlord has apologised for advising that it would refer the matter to the ENRP without first verifying that this was a viable option. This Service agrees that the landlord should have ensured that this was a possible measure of dealing with the matter prior to making the commitment. However, the Ombudsman concludes that the apology offered by the landlord was reasonable redress for its shortcomings in the circumstances.

 

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with respect to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange process
    2. Its decision not to allow the mutual exchange to proceed, following the exchange partner of the other property passing away.

Reasons

  1. The landlords Mutual Exchange Policy indicates that the process cannot be completed without the Deed of Assignment being signed by the parties in the presence of its staff member. The landlord could not have been aware that the exchange partner would become unable to complete the process at the time a date was agreed for the signing of the agreement. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord had instructions to have the agreement signed by an alternative means prior to the exchange partner passing.