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

Midland Heart Limited (202113043)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113043

Midland Heart Limited

26 September 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:
    1. response to the resident’s request to be rehoused;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of local housing.
  2. In August 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that his property was no longer suitable for his needs due to a decline in mobility. The landlord provided him with relevant housing support advice and requested for the resident to provide an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report.
  3. The landlord received a report from the resident’s OT in January 2021. Based on the OT report, the landlord determined that rehousing would be more beneficial than making adaptions, as the resident was living on the third floor and any adaptions to the property would not have been sufficient to meet the resident’s needs.
  4. On 20 September 2021, the landlord informed the resident that he had been given a medical priority for the rehousing application process due to his health conditions.
  5. The resident formally complained in October 2021. The resident requested to be moved into a different property and complained that he was having difficulties using the landlord’s website to bid on properties.
  6. In November 2021, the resident advised that he had been given a carer allowance and therefore needed a two-bedroom property.
  7. On 2 March 2022, the landlord made a direct offer via email to the resident and requested for his response by 6 March 2022. However, the resident reported that he had never received it. Given the missed response, the landlord assigned the property to another applicant.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 April 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay to this response and offered £50 compensation. The landlord also explained that given that the resident did not respond to the direct offer made on 2 March 2022, in the future it would both email the resident and also call him to ensure he had received the email.
  9. The landlord referred his complaint to this service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord reported to this service that the resident issued a notice to quit on 26 July 2022 and has now moved out of his property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy states that properties can be advertised in a range of places, but principally on the landlord’s website. A list of ‘coming soon’ properties will be published to allow prospective applicants to prepare for bidding and seek additional support to do so should they require it. This will not include properties that have been previously advertised but not let. Property adverts can be placed any day of the week and at any time. Properties will be advertised for at least five working days until they have been given to a new tenant. The landlord’s policy further clarifies that the first applicant to submit an expression of interest that includes all required evidence will be given the first opportunity to accept the property.
  2. The landlord’s allocation policy in paragraph 5.4.4 states that applicants can seek support from the landlord if they need assistance to create an account to express an interest. Furthermore, the landlord may offer a property directly to an existing tenant without advertising the property. This may be done in the following circumstances:
    1. to a person living in a landlord-managed supported housing scheme who has been assessed as being ready for independent living and ready to move on.
    2. the tenant requires an adaptation to their existing home, which is not reasonable or possible.
  3. Appendix C of the landlord’s allocation policy states the bedroom eligibility criteria. The landlord may exercise some discretion in relation to the bedroom standard in some circumstances. For example, in cases where medical needs require an additional bedroom for equipment or an overnight carer.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused

  1. In August 2020, the resident informed the landlord that due to mobility issues his property was no longer suitable and therefore asked to be rehoused. The landlord appropriately advised the resident on the available housing support. It explained to the resident that in order to be considered for re-housing, needed to provide a letter from an OT.
  2. In January 2021, the resident provided an OT report to the landlord, which included a recommendation to rehouse the resident, as living on the third floor was not suitable for him anymore. Instead, a ground-floor property was required. Following receipt of the OT report, the landlord agreed to proceed with the resident’s rehousing. As noted above, the landlord’s allocation policy states that a rehouse would be more beneficial if adaptations are not sufficient for a resident. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy by following the advice of the OT report and agreeing to a transfer. It did so by initially increasing the resident’s medical priority for applications.
  3. In October 2021, the resident complained that he was having difficulties using the landlord’s website because he would feel drowsy due to his medication and could not bid in time on any properties. The landlord appropriately explained how the bidding process worked and that it was on a “first come, first served” basis to be fairer to applicants. The landlord later realised that the resident had been bidding on two bedroom properties prior to him advising the landlord of his carer approval. His applications had been subsequently rejected. It would have been helpful had the landlord investigated this issue more thoroughly at the time in order to give this advice sooner, however, given that it had explained the application system previously, it was reasonable for it to consider the resident understood the system. Following the resident’s advice that he had a carer, the landlord appropriately updated his application priority.
  4. Given the lack of availability for suitable properties, it was also appropriate that the landlord discussed with the resident the possibility of moving to other areas or with other landlords, in order to minimise the time spent in the current unsuitable property.
  5. As noted in the landlord’s policy, it may also offer direct transfers, outside of the application system. It is not evident why it did not do this prior to March 2022, however, the Ombudsman understands that suitable properties may not immediately be available. It would have been helpful, however, if the landlord had set out its position on a direct offer earlier.
  6. On 2 March 2022, the landlord made a direct offer to the resident for a two-bedroom property via email. The landlord asked the resident to respond to the offer by 6 March 2022. The resident has advised he did not receive this email. This service has been provided with a copy of the email and it is unclear why the resident did not receive it.
  7. While the request for an email response would not amount to service failure, the Ombudsman notes that given the very short response timeframe, it would have been best practice to have followed up with a telephone call to ensure the resident had received the offer. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord committed to doing so in its stage two response.
  8. Given that the property was subsequently given to another applicant, the landlord was unable to reoffer the property to the resident. Additionally, given the limited availability of suitable properties, it was also reasonable that the landlord was unable to make an immediate second offer.
  9. In summary, the landlord appropriately followed the advice of the OT report, increased the resident’s application priority and gave suitable advice, and also made an appropriate direct offer. While its service could have been improved, these areas for improvement did not amount to service failure.

Complaints handling

  1. The Ombudsman notes that after the landlord issued its stage one response, the resident requested an escalation on three occasions in October and November 2021. The landlord did not issue its stage two response until 14 April 2022. Nevertheless, in its stage two response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for poor communication and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay in responding.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that, despite the unreasonable delay, the landlord kept in contact with the resident throughout this period, and continued to provide assistance to the resident. For complaints of this nature, the Housing Ombudsman Remedy Guidance states that £50 compensation is appropriate in such circumstances. The Ombudsman therefore considers the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation to amount to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to the landlord’s complaints handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.