Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202120180)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120180

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 August 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and made an application on 23 September 2021 for a mutual exchange, which the landlord acknowledged on 26 September 2021. The resident attended the landlord’s offices in person on 11 October 2021 as he had not received any further response. The landlord informed the resident on this date that his mutual exchange form had not been processed as it was partially illegible. It accepted completed forms from him that same day and started the mutual exchange process.
  2. The resident subsequently raised a complaint with the landlord about the handling of his application. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 28 October 2021 explained that its acknowledgement on 26 September 2021 was an acknowledgement of the resident’s email only and not the mutual exchange application form, as this had been emailed to the incorrect person and was not completely legible.
  3. After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord issued its final response on 1 December 2021 in which it upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that it should have advised the resident on 26 September 2021 that the application form could not be accepted, and said it was very sorry that due to its lack of communication, the matter was delayed. The landlord accepted that it did not fully meet the standards set for the service and recognised the resident’s frustration. It offered him £100 compensation for the failing.
  4. The mutual exchange was aborted on 15 November 2021 after one of the participants withdrew after reconsidering the suitability of the move for them. The resident contacted this Service on 13 December 2021 to voice his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, as he felt that it had not acknowledged the level of distress and inconvenience it had caused him.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman would expect that a landlord responds to communication from residents promptly. This is particularly the case when this involves an application for a mutual exchange which typically involves several parties. It was not disputed by the landlord, in its stage one and final complaint responses, that it had received the resident’s mutual exchange application form on 23 September 2021, which it acknowledged receipt of three days later.
  2. The landlord did not inform the resident that part of the mutual exchange application form was illegible until he made efforts to visit its office on 11 October 2021, when it told him that the page of the form asking for optional information about sexual orientation and religion could not be read. Anything provided by the resident in these sections would need to be recorded faithfully in its records. It was reasonable, therefore, that the landlord did not process the form due to this being illegible, as it had a duty to ensure that any information it processed relating to the resident was accurate and correct.
  3. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident to ask him to clarify the information submitted on the form. Further involvement was required of him in visiting its offices to resubmit the mutual exchange application. This was on 11 October 2021, 15 days after the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s original application form. The landlord therefore, delayed unnecessarily in dealing with the mutual exchange application, which it has itself acknowledged.
  4. When there has been a failing on the part of a landlord, the Ombudsman must consider the impact of this failing and whether the landlord has done enough to ‘put right’ the adverse affect the failing had on the resident. In this case, the period of delayed communication was relatively short at 15 days within which the landlord could have informed the resident that his application was illegible. Furthermore, the mutual exchange was aborted (though appears later to have been successfully completed) because of a participant withdrawing due to personal concerns; there is no evidence that the landlord’s delay directly affected the success of the mutual exchange.
  5. In terms of the amount of financial redress offered, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of compensation of between £50 and £250 where there has been a failure which had an impact on the resident but which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the matter. The landlord’s offer of £100 falls reasonably within this guidance.
  6. The resident has described how upset and disempowered he felt in relation to this matter, and that he believes he was made a scapegoat for the landlord’s mistake. The Ombudsman was very sorry to learn of the impact the situation had on him and the distress that he experienced. However, while recognising this, overall the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure, apologies for this, and the £100 compensation were a reasonable and proportionate remedy to the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of his mutual exchange application.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered him in its final response, as the finding of reasonable redress is based on this.
    2. Review its procedures for the handling of mutual exchange applications to ensure that these are checked promptly and that a timely response is provided to the applicant.