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

Citizen Housing (202202753)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202753

Citizen Housing

12 January 2023


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. In August 2021, the resident applied to be rehoused under a choice-based lettings scheme by the landlord acting on behalf of the local authority. The resident’s reasoning for being rehoused was due to the medical needs of herself and her family, which required the family to have a three-bedroom property rather than a two-bedroom property.
  2. The resident’s formal complaint (13 April 2022) explained that after reaching the top of the rehousing list, her application was bypassed by the landlord without explanation. After finding out that families with dependant children were given the priority in being granted the properties on offer, and that the resident’s medical needs did not warrant being offered the property under exceptional circumstances, the resident said that they were being discriminated against. The resident also felt that the landlord was acting in a ‘corrupt’ way. Additionally, the resident said that the landlord had not provided any policy that had been subject to an equality analysis.
  3. The landlord’s final response (19 July 2022) maintained that the resident’s bid had been skipped correctly, and in line with its policies. The landlord had also previously explained that it had made its decision based on the information given to it by the local authority. It reiterated how its process prioritised families with dependant children and acknowledged that whilst it had discretion over the prioritisation process for exceptional circumstances, it did not feel that the resident’s medical situation was exceptional. The landlord also explained that on 5 May 2022, the local authority advised it that the resident’s bedroom need should be for a two-bedroom property rather than a three-bedroom property.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing a response and offered £50 in recognition of this. It also advised that it had updated its lettings statement in order to give clearer guidance about the operation of discretion when allocating houses. It also explained that it had reminded its staff about the operation of this discretion, and to ensure that applicants are given clear advice about the reasons that bids are bypassed in the future.
  5. Following this, the local authority explained that since the resident had provided further evidence of the family’s medical needs, it had amended her application to a three-bedroom property with immediate effect. It also apologised for the fact that it had previously been changed to a two-bedroom application without appropriate communication, or without providing an opportunity to the resident to provide supporting evidence sooner.
  6. As a resolution, the resident advised this Service that she wanted the landlord to offer her and her family a three-bedroom property. The resident also confirmed that she had also taken the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to be investigated.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. In this case, the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This is because the resident’s request to be rehoused into a three-bedroom property, due to the medical needs of herself and her family, and her dissatisfaction with the allocation criteria concerns the operation, assessment and suitability of accommodation offered. This was under a choice-based letting scheme by a landlord acting on behalf of the local authority. This was dealt with both by the local authority and the housing association landlord acting on its behalf, complaints about which, fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.