The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Nottingham City Homes (202013041)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013041

Nottingham City Homes

2 August 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, who resides in a four-bedroomed house (the property). The landlord is the local authority, but the property is managed by an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO).
  2. On 31 January 2018 a firm recommendation for priority re-housing was made by the resident’s healthcare support provider. It recommended that the resident be relocated to a smaller property due to her health conditions and personal circumstances. It noted that the resident could no longer remain in the property due to the distress of living there caused.
  3. On 20 January 2021, in an email regarding a repair, the resident also informed the landlord that she was still residing in her four-bedroom property on her own and asked what it was going to do to help her downsize, as she had been trying to do so for a while but she said her situation was being ignored.
  4. In the landlord’s response of the same day, it reiterated that the resident had a live application on the housing register and advised her to check the list of available properties each week and bid on as many as she was prepared to live in. The landlord provided the details for support officers if she required further assistance.
  5. The landlord’s records note that, on 1 February 2021, it spoke with the resident and explained that she needed to bid on properties. The resident, however, wanted advanced notice of when new-build properties would be advertised; the landlord explained that it would see the properties advertised at the same time as the resident. The landlord informed the resident that new-build properties, in an area she desired, were available, though this was contested by the resident.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 3 February 2021 to complain about:
    1. the landlord’s handling of her request to be transferred from a four-bedroom property to a two-bedroom, new-build property;
    2. the length of time it was taking to be offered this; and
    3. the landlord not taking into consideration her health issues when dealing with her request.
  7. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 February 2021 and asked that it provided a response to the resident. The landlord’s response confirmed that this had been previously dealt with as a “member casework enquiry” and a response was given the previous year. It confirmed that this had now been logged as a formal complaint.
  8. The landlord’s correspondence of 4 February 2021 confirmed to the resident that it had logged a formal complaint and a response would be provided by 25 February 2021.
  9. On 6 February 2021, the resident explained to this Service the following:
    1. She said she had contacted the landlord on 17 July 2020, and it said it could not help her.
    2. She accused the landlord’s staff of giving conflicting information about the availability of new-build properties close to her current property. She contended that there had never been any two-bedroom, new-build properties available to bid for in that area, despite a staff member stating they were. This assertion, she said, was contradicted by another member of staff who had informed her she would not be eligible to bid for these properties.
    3. She added that the situation was now having an impact on her health conditions, as she had been trying to move for four years yet the landlord had ignored her.
    4. She also said the landlord had not been diligent with the accuracy of her application, as only one of her sons would be living with her in the new property, not two as the application had stated.
  10. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 26 February 2021, the landlord explained that it had spoken to three members of its staff who had said that they had all advised the resident about bidding for properties, although this was something the resident had not undertaken. The landlord asked if the resident needed support with this.
  11. Following contact from the resident on 4 March 2021, this Service requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process on the basis that:
    1. The landlord said it would find her a new-build property, but she was now being told she would not be eligible because she did not have a dependant under the age of 18.
  12. In further contact with this Service on 15 March 2021, the resident explained that she would like:
    1. An explanation as to why the landlord advised her to bid on two-bedroom, new-build properties when they were not available, especially when she did not have any dependants under the age of 18, which was part of the criteria to bid on these properties.
  13. She added that the landlord was aware of her health conditions, having been in receipt of letters from her medical practitioners who informed the landlord that the resident could not continue with her treatment whilst residing in her property, yet nothing had been done to facilitate her move.
  14. On 26 March 2021 the landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident and informed her that it would be looking at her application and would call her with an update in the next week.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 29 April 2021 to report that the landlord had not contacted her as agreed. This Service sent correspondence to the landlord that day to request a response within five working days.
  16. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 6 May 2021, the landlord:
    1. Clarified that its policy was to try and assist residents in situations like this and support them in downsizing.
    2. Explained that following the resident’s original request to downsize in 2018, it completed a management report on the resident’s behalf and asked that a direct offer be made, to facilitate a move more quickly. The resident was subsequently offered two properties in 2018 and 2019, but these were declined as the resident would only accept a new-build property. Concerns were raised by the landlord at the time regarding the resident’s narrow criteria.
    3. Understood that the resident had retained her priority banding and had been checking the housing register for suitable properties to bid for but without success.
  17. Moreover, it said that the stage one complaint response did not clearly lay out the options available and therefore advised the resident to update her housing application to reflect that her two son no longer resided at the property, and advised her to update her circumstances and explain why one of her sons should remain on her application. The landlord highlighted the importance of ensuring her application is accurate and up to date, so that she could see the properties she was eligible to bid on because, with both her sons on the application, she would only see three-bedroomed flats which were extremely limited.
  18. The landlord concluded by affirming that it wanted to support the resident in downsizing, but it could only offer properties that were in line with its allocations policy. The landlord further explained that due to high demand for family housing, only households with dependent children under the age of 18 would be eligible for a two-bedroom house. It said that assuming the resident required a property for her and her adult son, she would only be eligible for a two-bedroom, non-family type flats, and thus there would be no options for her to move to a two-bedroom, new-build house.
  19. However, the landlord said it could consider making her a direct offer for a one-bedroomed or two-bedroomed, non-family type flat, to support her with downsizing which would negate the need for her to place bids.  The landlord noted the resident’s health and wellbeing support needs and acknowledged the impact this situation was having. Nevertheless, it said that it also had to abide by its allocations policy in relation to matching suitable applicants to suitable properties. This concluded the landlord’s complaint process.
  20. On 12 May 2021, the resident emailed this Service to confirm that she remained dissatisfied with the following:
    1. She said that a flat would not be suitable due to her health conditions and was not satisfied with the landlord’s offer. She wanted the landlord to offer her a new-build, two-bedroom house with a garden.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
  2. “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
  3. The complaint that the resident has brought to the Ombudsman concerns the landlord’s decision regarding her application for a transfer. The landlord has specified that the reason for declining the application is that the resident does not meet the criteria for a transfer that she is seeking, explaining that she did not qualify for the two-bedroomed, new-build house she desired.
  4. This is not a complaint that this Service can investigate because this falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the LGSCO considers complaints about local authorities handling of decisions and complaints regarding a choice-based letting scheme. The complaints considered by the LGSCO include complaints about local authorities handling of housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. They consider a landlord’s handling of applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, considering complaints about the assessment of such applications, how points are awarded under the scheme, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
  5. As a result, this complaint is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It is open to the resident to submit her complaint to the LGSCO along with this report in support of the finding that the complaint is within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate.