One Vision Housing Limited (202015896)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015896

One Vision Housing Limited

21 June 2021


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 concerns:
    1. The advice given to the resident by the landlord about his suitability for a property.
    2. The impact the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application had on his health.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.

Health impact

  1. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of his property bid has caused his mental health to deteriorate. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident called it on 12 January 2021 to enquire about a property he had found on the local authority’s “property pool plus” lettings scheme. The advertisement said the property had full wheelchair access, low level kitchen units, and ramps.
  3. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that during this conversation, the resident advised that he did not use a wheelchair. The landlord’s notes state that its advisor told the resident that the advertisement did not specify that the applicant had to be a wheelchair user, but that the property did have adaptations. The resident asked whether he would be offered the property, even though he did not use a wheelchair. The landlord said that it did not make this decision, and could only advise what the advertisement said.
  4. On 14 January 2021 the resident bid for the property.
  5. On 19 January 2021 the resident’s bid was ‘bypassed’ for failing “to meet accommodation criteria”.
  6. The resident rang the landlord on 20 January 2021 to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s call notes show that he was dissatisfied that he had been bypassed. The resident said that he had previously been told by members of its staff that the property was suitable for his needs.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 3 February 2021. It explained that, in line with the property pool policy, an applicant may be bypassed if the property is adapted, and the applicant does not meet the specific adaptation. It acknowledged how “upsetting and frustrating these situations” could be, and encouraged him to continue bidding on other properties.
  8. On 4 February 2021 the resident’s advocate raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She relayed what the resident had told her. She said that the landlord “encouraged him twice to bid for the property”, and confirmed that it would be suitable even though it had been listed as an adapted property. When the resident then called the landlord’s call centre on two separate occasions, two members of staff also advised him that the property was suitable, and that he was eligible to bid for it. The advocate said that the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health problems, but had not taken them into consideration when dealing with him.
  9. On 5 February 2021 the landlord advised the advocate that it had already responded to the resident’s complaint.
  10. The advocate asked the landlord on 8 February 2021 to escalate the complaint.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 22 February 2021. It said that it had processed the allocation of the property in accordance with the property pool plus policy. It did not uphold his complaint. It acknowledged that the resident felt it had “intimated that [he] would be allocated this home”. It apologised for this. It said it should have instead explained that he “could” have been allocated it. It said that the allocation of a property was not completed until the bidding cycle had finished, and the details of the property and applicant were established. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s concerns relate to aspects of the operation of the letting scheme used by the landlord. However, the scheme is managed by the local authority, and in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this is outside the Ombudsman’s remit. Such complaints are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Advice given to the resident about his suitability for the property

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will learn from complaints to improve its customer service.
  2. In the resident’s complaint, he explained that the landlord had advised him on multiple occasions that he was suitable for the property, and then said that his bid had been unsuccessful due to him being unsuitable for the adaptations. The landlord’s stage one complaint response focused on why he was unsuitable, and did not address his concern that it had failed to manage his expectations. In its stage two response it acknowledged that the resident believed the landlord had suggested he would be allocated the property, and acknowledged it should have explained that he “could” have been allocated it instead. It apologised for that. 
  3. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns (made through his advocate) that it had not taken his mental health into consideration. It therefore missed an opportunity to reassure him that it had thoroughly considered his personal circumstances. That was not good practice, as the circumstances clearly called for a measure of empathy towards the resident’s situation, and there is no evidence of the landlord having an understanding that its actions may have had a greater impact than usual on him, even if they had been taken correctly.
  4. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to suggest that the landlord identified any learnings from the resident’s complaint. It was aware that there had been a misunderstanding—potentially influenced by the resident’s personal circumstances — and it acknowledged that it should have made things clearer. However it did not explain what steps it had taken to avoid similar instances of miscommunication in the future. This is particularly relevant to the way in which the landlord ensures it delivers services that take into account the diversity and circumstances of its individual customers and tenants. That was not in line with its complaint policy, as explained above in paragraph 17. Nor was it line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which encourages landlords to acknowledge when things have gone wrong, and explain what actions it will take, or what changes it will make to prevent the same issues from reoccurring for effective dispute resolution.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that it had mismanaged his expectations, and that it had not taken his mental health problems into consideration. It also failed to show that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the frustration and inconvenience that will have been caused to the resident as a result of the service failure identified in this investigation.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made. The resident should also update this Service if the payment has not been received by the due date.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to review the findings in this report, and consider how it can better provide customer services that take into account, and adapt to individual customer and resident needs.