Southern Housing Group Limited (202126196)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126196

Southern Housing Group Limited

10 October 2022


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 the landlord’s:
    1. decision to decline the resident’s request for a priority move.
    2. communication and complaint-handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident and landlord have been in communication since at least August 2016 discussing the resident’s request to be rehoused due to overcrowding. On 17 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint about how her transfer request had been handled, the landlord’s decision to decline a priority move, and the information the landlord had provided about rehousing. The resident said she had been given conflicting advice on whether it was the landlord or the local authority who managed the transfer list. Also that while she had been informed that her situation did not constitute statutory overcrowding or meet the criteria for a priority move, other tenants with less need had been offered larger properties.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Informed the resident that it had closed its internal transfer list in 2020 as it was unable to meet the demand for transfers from its residents, but does have enough vacancies to meet its commitments with local authorities.
    2. Confirmed that that the resident did not meet the criteria to be offered a property as a priority move for overcrowding.
    3. Explained that it was not able to discuss the reasons why other residents had been offered a property transfer.
    4. Recognised that its staff members should have been more supportive to the resident and provided more information. It explained that it would arrange an appointment with a housing manager to discuss alternative housing options and what advice and support it can offer.
    5. Noted that during a telephone call discussing the complaint before the stage two response was sent, the landlord apologised to the resident for its poor communication and the delay in escalating the complaint, then stated that it would like to offer her compensation for these service failures. However, the resident declined its offer as the only resolution she sought was to be rehoused in a property suitable for her households’ needs.
  4. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the confusion as to whether priority transfers are the responsibility of the landlord or the local authority, and whether her household met the landlord’s criteria for overcrowding. 

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The House of Commons briefing paper Overcrowded Housing (England) describes the room standard for statutory overcrowding as follows:
    1. “Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 provides that there is overcrowding wherever there are so many people in a house that any two or more of those persons, being ten or more years old, and of opposite sexes, not being persons living together as husband and wife, have to sleep in the same room.
    2. For these purposes, children under ten may be disregarded and a room means any room normally used as either a bedroom or a living room. A kitchen can be treated as a living room provided it is big enough to accommodate a bed.
    3. When applying this definition, a local authority looks at how sleeping arrangements within the dwelling could be organised, rather than how they are organised. Therefore, a couple, with two children of opposite sexes and aged ten years or more, with two living rooms (e.g. bedrooms), may not be statutorily overcrowded because the couple could occupy separate rooms, with one each of the children (of the appropriate sex).
    4. There is no limit on the number of people of the same sex who can live in the same room under section 325 although there may be a contravention of the space standard”.
  2. The briefing paper goes on to describe the space standard as either the minimum number of rooms required per person per dwelling (one room for two persons, two rooms for three persons, and three rooms for five persons) or the floor area of each room size (50 to less than 70 square feet for half a person, 70 to less than 90 square feet for one person, 90 to less that 110 square feet for one and a half persons, and 110 square feet or larger for two persons) where a child below the age of one is disregarded and a child between the age of one and ten counts as one half person.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement describes the property as a one-bedroom flat and states that the maximum number of people allowed to live in the property is two. Paragraph 4.7 of the tenancy agreement relates to overcrowding and states that the resident has a duty to “not to allow the property to become overcrowded (as defined in the Housing Act 1985) and to notify [the landlord] if more than the number of people stated at the front of this agreement are living in the property”.
  4. Section 9 of the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy relates to the size of accommodation that is offered. This states that it will offer a one-bedroom property to a household that comprises a “couple or single person with one child OR with two children of the same gender under 16 years of age OR with two children of different genders under 10 years of age”. It goes on to state that it will offer a two-bedroom property to a household that comprises a “couple or single person with three children OR with two children of the same gender where either is 16 years of age or older) OR with two children of different genders where either is 10 years of age or older”.
  5. The landlord’s priority moves policy describes a priority move as a property transfer to “help residents who are unable to remain living in their home and require urgent rehousing”. The policy states that the criteria to receive a priority move on medical grounds are that a household member is “unable to leave hospital as their current property is unsuitable for their needs; or where a resident is unable to enter and leave their property, due to a medical condition or disability; and it is not possible for the property to be adapted to meet their needs”. The policy states that the criteria to receive a priority move due to overcrowding is when “a tenant’s current property is statutorily overcrowded, based on the Housing Act 1985 standard, and where the overcrowding has not been caused deliberately or could not have been avoided”.

 

 

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a priority move.

  1. Once it had received the resident’s request to be rehoused on the grounds of overcrowding, the landlord had a duty to respond and assess the request in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published polices and procedures. The landlord would also be expected to follow the applicable Government legislation when making its decision.
  2. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s transfer request. When informed by the resident of changes in her household, the landlord explained that it uses the definition of statutory overcrowding from the Housing Act 1985 when it assesses whether a household is overcrowded; as detailed above in the tenancy agreement, its allocations and lettings policy and its priority moves policy.
  3. The resident has described the make-up of her household both to the landlord and this Service. The number of people and ages of the children in the household do not meet the definition of statutory overcrowding for either the room standard or space standard. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a priority move as the threshold for statutory overcrowding had not been met.
  4. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that other tenants have been moved who are no more overcrowded than her household. The Ombudsman does not know the circumstances of the other tenants who were moved and therefore we cannot determine whether there were legitimate reasons why they were moved although they were not statutorily overcrowded, for example medical reasons. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not share details of why other tenants were moved as this information is confidential.
  5. The resident has described her confusion as to whether it was the landlord or the local authority who were responsible for providing a priority move and the inconvenience that this caused when attempting to submit an application. The landlord’s priority move policy states that it handles the applications, which are considered by a panel made up of its senior managers. However, it acknowledged that the information given to the resident was inadequate, which resulted in the resident contacting the local authority to request a priority move. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience that this caused, and offered compensation (which is discussed in more detail below).
  6. Following the end of the complaints process, the resident made a second priority move application to the landlord based on medical grounds. This was declined as the evidence provided did not meet the criteria for a medical move detailed above. Internal landlord correspondence during this application noted that a review into the priority move policy was currently taking place and one of the changes being considered was lowering the threshold for a priority move on the grounds of overcrowding to below that of the legal definition of statutory overcrowding. The landlord noted that the review was expected to be completed by June 2022.
  7. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, write to the resident and inform her of any changes it has made to its priority move policy relating to overcrowding and whether this has had any impact on her request for a move. In the meantime, the landlord would not be expected to offer the resident a move in line with legislation and its current policy.

Communication and complaint-handling.

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that it had not provided enough information to the resident on how to progress a priority move application and that there was a delay in providing the stage two complaint response (21 working days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days). In its stage two response the landlord noted that during a telephone call discussing the complaint, it had apologised for these failures and offered compensation which the resident had declined. However, the landlord has not provided any notes or logs of this call to the Ombudsman and it has not stated what level of compensation it had offered, or was considering offering to the resident.
  2. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord for this element of the complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation to the resident, due to the lack of evidence it is not possible for this Service to determine whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. Therefore the landlord should offer compensation now in order to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £250 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident:
    1. £100 compensation for its poor communication that resulted in confusion as to who was responsible for progressing a priority move. This resulted in delays in progressing a priority move application as the resident first attempted to raise an application with the local authority.
    2. £75 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process. This resulted in further inconvenience to the resident, including the resident contacting her local MP office and asking them to contact the landlord on her behalf to request it to escalate the complaint.
  4. It should be noted that while the landlord is obliged to offer this compensation award to the resident, the resident is under no obligation to accept it and she is free to decline the compensation  if she wishes to.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request for a priority move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication and its complaint-handling.

Orders

  1. For the reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £175. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, write to the resident and inform her of any changes it has made to its priority move policy relating to overcrowding following the completion of its policy review, and whether this has had any impact of her request for a move.