Optivo (202108988)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108988

Optivo

20 January 2023

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:
   1. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident’s assured shorthold tenancy of her two-bedroomed property began in December 2013. The tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of occupants is three people and that the resident must not allow more than that number to reside at the property. At the beginning of the tenancy the resident had two children, a son and a daughter. She later had another daughter.
3. The resident had been on the landlord’s transfer list as she wanted a larger property. However, the landlord closed its transfer list in August 2017, when responsibility for allocations was taken over by the local authority.
4. In 2021 the resident complained about not being rehoused. All three of her children were sharing a bedroom which was impacting on their mental health, wellbeing and academic prospects. Her son was now 16 and her eldest daughter had reached puberty and so there was an issue with personal space and privacy. There had also been a safeguarding incident in 2017. Although the case had been closed by social services and the police, the resident felt that the underlying risk and concerns remained in place.
5. The landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns via a combination of its complaints’ procedure and its rehousing panel process. There was a stage one complaint investigation in July/August 2021, a review of the complaint in October 2021, a priority moves panel in November 2021 and a priority moves appeal panel in January 2022.
6. The landlord’s position was that it could not offer to rehouse the resident because it no longer operated a transfer list. It could undertake direct transfers in emergencies, however the resident’s situation did not meet the necessary criteria. It instead offered to support her to use the other methods of finding a bigger property.
7. The resident remains dissatisfied and thinks that the landlord’s criteria for urgent moves is too narrow and that it should therefore look at the harm being caused to her family by overcrowding. She would like the landlord to provide her with a larger property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the issue complained about arising. This investigation will therefore not consider the resident’s complaint about the closing of the landlord’s transfer list in 2017. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord declined to review this part of the resident’s complaint for the same reasons, which was reasonable given our own approach.
9. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that these have affected her and her family. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a tenant should be rehoused. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions, which this investigation will go on to do.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

10. The resident had a letter from 2017 from a social worker, in support of her request to move to a larger property. However, this dates to around the same time that the landlord was closing its transfer list. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the local authority asked the landlord to complete a tenancy report form in October 2017 as part of the process of the resident joining the local authority’s waiting list. The Ombudsman is unaware of whether the local authority’s housing team knew of the letter from social services at that time or of the local authority’s reasons for not rehousing the resident in the intervening period.
11. Part of the landlord’s rationale was that there was no evidence to support that the safeguarding incident would not have happened if the family had been in a larger home. This was insensitively put, given that the sharing of a bedroom and the children being together, unsupervised at bedtime, was a possible contributory factor, resulting in the social worker recommending that they did not share a bedroom. The resident provided an up–to–date letter from social services in December 2021 in which surprise was expressed that the family had not been moved back in 2017 following the end of social services involvement and the provision of the first supporting letter. However, the case had remained closed with the police and social services since that time. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that there was no evidence of current risk.
12. In practice, the landlord’s offer to support the family to find a larger property using alternative options was not particularly helpful as the resident was already making full use of the local authority’s transfer list and mutual exchange methods, so far to no avail. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this help in the absence of being able to provide any other practical support.
13. The landlord’s Housing Options and Lettings Policy explains that, for general need, an existing tenant can apply for a local authority transfer, mutual exchange or shared ownership. The landlord can consider direct management moves if a tenant is facing immediate violence or threats to personal safety. Examples of where this might be applicable include domestic violence, witness protection or severe harassment.
14. The priority moves panel turned down the resident’s request due to her circumstances not meeting the above criteria. The panel explained that it was only able to consider emergency accommodation for those suffering from hate crimes such as domestic violence and where there was a threat to life, supported by the police.
15. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and does not underestimate the difficulties the overcrowding is causing her and her children. However, her situation does not meet the criteria of an emergency as defined under the landlord’s lettings policy. On balance, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted correctly in assessing the resident’s circumstances, and while it did not result in the outcome she desired, cannot see that it acted unfairly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

16. At times the landlord seemed confused about how best to deal with the issues raised by the resident. There was internal discussion about how it should never have been raised as a complaint because there was an established appeals procedure in place to manage tenants’ dissatisfaction about being refused transfers.
17. The resident wrote to the CEO in April 2021 to complain about the closing of the transfer list. Although the landlord declined to respond to that issue on the basis that it was out of time, it did arrange for a housing officer to contact the resident to provide support with alternative rehousing options.
18. In May 2021 the resident told the housing officer that she wanted to escalate her complaint. This was ignored and the resident then completed an online complaint form in July 2021. The landlord’s response to the complaint form was to tell the resident that her queries had already been dealt with in April/May 2021 and that there was no change of outcome.
19. When the resident again made it clear that she wished to escalate her issues via the complaints process, she was provided with a stage 1 response in August 2021. Due to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, a complaint review then took place in October 2021. The outcome was that, as the resident had provided additional evidence, it was asking for the case to be reviewed by senior housing staff at a priority moves panel. The resident was asked if she would be able to provide a more up to date letter from Social Services and to do so by 17 November 2021.
20. However, the priority moves panel then sat on 9 November 2021, in advance of the deadline that the resident had been given to provide new evidence. Furthermore, the resident knew nothing about this panel having taken place and she was not informed of its conclusions. She chased the landlord for information on 29 November 2021 and explained that she was still awaiting a new supporting letter from Social Services. That contact by the resident prompted the landlord into action, with internal discussions taking place about how to let the resident know the outcome. The resident was eventually written to on 10 December 2021 to be told that the decision remained the same but that she could appeal.
21. It makes sense that the resident’s challenge to being refused a transfer should be dealt with via the landlord’s housing panel process, rather than through the complaints procedure. The landlord should have been clear about that from the start and appropriately signposted the resident along the most appropriate path. The hybrid way in which the resident’s issues were dealt with led to errors and delay. For example, initially dealing with the matter as a complaint was probably unnecessary. That is because, all that could be done was to recommend that the housing teams should review the resident’s circumstances.
22. In contrast, the housing staff seemed ill-equipped to recognise or deal with something being expressed as a complaint. The resident’s request to a housing officer to escalate her complaint was ignored. And the priority moves appeals panel failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint about the previous panel convening in advance of the deadline she had been given, and for the month’s delay in letting her know the outcome.
23. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it can make discretionary payments, which would usually be £50 but could be up to £250 in exceptional circumstances. Overall, the Ombudsman considers there were some complaint handling failings by the landlord that resulted in some delay at the beginning of the process, and the resident having to chase for updates, which will have caused her some frustration. Therefore it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide compensation for the delays and lack of communication.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

26. The landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation within four weeks of this decision, in recognition of the delays and lack of communication in dealing with the complaint.

Recommendation

27. The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure that it responds to similar complaints about rehousing in a more effective manner.