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

Victory Housing Trust (202205475)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205475

Victory Housing Trust

20 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the allocation process for the property, particularly staff conduct, room dimensions, and its advice on refusal of an offer of a property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold (starter) tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow.
  2. According to the landlord’s correspondence to this Service, the local authority undertook a housing duty (provide temporary accommodation until the duty ends) to the resident until permanent accommodation could be arranged for her. In January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident details of its vacant property including images of the rooms. The landlord provided the resident a video viewing of the property in late January 2022, as she was unable to attend an in–person viewing due to transport issues. The resident enquired about the room dimensions inside the property as she noted she was expected to provide carpets as a tenant.
  3. According to the landlord’s records, the resident raised a complaint in late January 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the conduct of the landlord’s staff during the housing allocation process. She said that she believed its staffs’ behaviour was “rude” and unprofessional toward her from an early stage. The resident raised concern regarding the landlord’s advice: that if a suitable property came up, she had no choice and would lose her right to apply for properties with the local authority if she did not accept it. She asked that its staff conduct be reviewed, that the landlord provide clarity around the housing allocation process, and asked that it provide the floor measurements for the property.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed it had spoken with its staff about the concerns raised and had reviewed all staff conduct issues. It advised that it was unable to disclose any further information relating to staff action as it was a breach of data protection. The landlord said it had enquired about the room dimensions but that the details were not available to pass on to the resident. It later explained that it did not provide floor measurements to tenants to assist with ordering flooring. The landlord advised that where feasible and safe to allow access to a property while it was empty, it would facilitate access for measurements to be taken by a future resident or their appointed flooring company. The landlord advised that the housing allocations process was shared between the local authority and registered providers such as housing associations. It explained the local authority’s duty and role for arranging housing, and noted that the ultimate decision on allocating a property rested with the local authority.
  5. The landlord explained that where the local authority held a main housing duty to a household, the duty could end if an applicant refused offers of suitable accommodation. It noted that refusal could impact the prospective tenant’s priority on the housing register and future offers of accommodation. The landlord said that it always made applicants aware of the potential impact of refusing an offer of housing, but that it would review how it explained this in light of the resident’s comments.
  6. The landlord’s complaints appeal panel reviewed the resident’s complaint in early June 2022 and apologised for the upset and stress she had experienced. The panel was satisfied that the issues raised had been appropriately investigated. However, it agreed that the landlord should have provided approximate room dimensions to the resident when she requested room measurements. The panel recommended that the landlord offer such information upon request moving forward, and that it ensured that empathy was shown to all residents.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to this Service and repeated her concerns about staff conduct and the transparency of the landlord’s allocation process.

Assessment and findings

  1. Generally, a landlord would be expected to provide the resident with property details as part of the allocations process. This should include a brief overview of the property (i.e. number of bedrooms/bathrooms), rent amount, and length of tenancy. The landlord has done so in this case.
  2. The resident initially requested that the landlord provide the room dimensions of the property on 1 February 2022. As the resident was unable to attend an in-person viewing, the landlord made reasonable adjustments by completing a video viewing with the resident on 1 February 2022, and paced out the steps in the rooms, while on the video call to give the resident an approximate idea of the size of the rooms. Despite not having the specific room dimensions, this was reasonable as it could potentially aid in giving the resident an estimate of the room sizes.
  3. The landlord advised that it did not provide exact floor measurements to assist with ordering flooring. This was reasonable because, in line with the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for decorating internal parts of the property, including providing floor coverings. Therefore, there was no express obligation on the landlord to provide the exact room dimensions for the purposes of ordering carpets. The landlord could potentially be held liable if it provided measurements which were not entirely accurate and this resulted in the carpets being the wrong size. The landlord said that, where feasible and safe to allow access to a void property, it would facilitate access for measurements to be taken by a future resident or flooring company. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it would allow the resident to obtain exact measurements for the carpet fitting before they moved in. (it is unclear from the evidence provided why this was not carried out in this case)
  4. However, given that the resident continued to chase for the room dimensions, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide approximate measurements and to explain in more detail why it would not provide exact measurements. Best practice would have been for the landlord to emphasise that any measures it gave would only be an estimate and to explain that if the resident wanted exact measurements, she or her appointed flooring supplier would need to visit the property to obtain these. In the landlord’s stage three complaint response, it acknowledged that approximate room dimensions should have been provided. It appropriately apologised for the upset the resident may have experienced, and recommended that such information is offered upon request moving forward. This landlord’s apology and recommendation was reasonable to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  5. The resident raised concern about the landlord’s advice and her right to refuse an accommodation offer. The housing allocation scheme lists examples where applicant preference may be reduced on the housing register. It states where an applicant in a priority band refuses a suitable property they would be demoted to a lower band. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to make the resident aware of the impacts of refusing a suitable offer of accommodation. Shelter (the national campaign for homelessness) states that where an applicant refuses a private rented sector offer, the main housing duty ends automatically. It states that the consequence of refusal did not have to be explained in detail, and it would be enough for the local authority to say that if the applicant refuses it would not make another offer. Therefore, it was important and appropriate for the landlord to explain the local authority’s duty, its allocation process and the implications of refusing an offer of accommodation. Nonetheless, it was also be appropriate for the landlord to advise it would review how it explains this information to residents going forward. It is important for landlords to show empathy to residents and whilst it can sometimes be necessary to give difficult news, this should be done in a clear, sensitive and neutral manner.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct by interviewing the members of staff concerned and review its processes to prevent similar issues occurring in future. The landlord advised that it was unable to disclose any further information relating to staff action.This was appropriate as any disciplinary action taken against individual staff members would be confidential and the landlord would not be expected to divulge confidential information about its staff. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not investigate any disciplinary action which a landlord may or may not take against its staff. However, as explained above we have considered the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and the Ombudsman considers that this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the allocation process for the property.