Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202121216)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121216

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

14 February 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a rehousing priority.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a former tenant of the landlord, a local authority. At the time of the complaint, she had resided at the property, a two-bedroom house, since 2018. She resided at the property with her two children. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident ended her tenancy in October 2022 and moved to a property they do not manage.
  2. The landlord’s Allocations Policy notes that a Band A priority is “normally awarded for six months” and that applicants will need to continue to bid for properties via the local choice-based lettings scheme during this period.
  3. There are 16 situations in which a Band A priority may be awarded. Category “A1” is for applicants where there exists “a serious risk of harm to a household, if they were to stay in their current accommodation” and who have received a management recommendation for urgent re-housing. Category “A2” is for applicants who “have a diagnosed medical condition and/or disability; and have an urgent need to move because they are living in accommodation that is unsuitable for them or a member of their household”.
  4. The policy also states that if an applicant is awarded “more than one Band A housing criteria, a time award of an extra 12 months can be added”.
  5. Under the landlord’s Allocations Policy, its Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel also considers referrals from senior staff seeking decisions on priority awards, including where residents need rehousing due to domestic violence. 

Summary of events

  1. On 2 August 2021, the resident made a rehousing application on medical grounds, citing “ill health” as her main reason for requesting a move. In correspondence with this Service, the resident advised this contained a ‘firm recommendation’ from a hospital consultant in support of a move, although this Service has not seen a copy of this letter.
  2. On 14 October 2021, the resident submitted evidence to the landlord in support of her rehousing application, namely a letter from her son’s consultant paediatrician, which intended to act as a “firm recommendation” that her son required his own bedroom due to his medical needs. She followed this up with a further email to the landlord four days later as she did not receive a response.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2021. She advised that she had previously received email confirmation from her Housing Patch Manager (“HPM”) that, if she obtained a “firm recommendation” that her family needed to be moved on medical grounds, they would “be able to take it to (the landlord’s allocations) panel and support a management move”. However, the resident advised that her HPM was now denying this and she therefore wanted the matter investigated. She requested a new HPM and stated that she had a “medically ill and disabled child and (she was) not receiving support from (the) landlord to eliminate the risk” posed to her child by her current home.
  4. Internal landlord correspondence shows that, as of 21 October 2021, the resident’s rehousing application remained “in a queue”. The landlord also noted the resident had made further contact with a senior staff member and referred to domestic violence. The landlord responded the following day and urged the resident to speak to their HPM regarding this. It also advised that, having reviewed the resident’s application, while she had submitted a rehousing application and supporting evidence, she did not appear to have completed a specific medical application form. It advised how to do this and also confirmed that, if medical priority was awarded, her priority date would be backdated. 
  5. On 3 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It began by clarifying its procedure for assessing priority housing applications and noted that it had discussed the “firm recommendation” with the resident on 21 October 2021 and advised what it was doing to “resolve the matter”. It apologized if there “has been any miscommunication or misunderstanding” relating to the application process and clarified that the external agencies who submit firm recommendations on behalf of applicants are “usually familiar with the process”.
  6. However, the landlord advised the resident’s complaint was “unjustified” as the landlord’s HPM had appropriately processed the formal firm recommendation, despite it not having been submitted in the correct format. It clarified that, should the firm recommendation be accepted, her HPM would submit the priority application to the landlord’s Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel. It also declined to allocated the resident a new HPM, stating they were the allocated officer for the resident’s area and an experienced member of staff.  
  7. On 9 November 2021, records show the resident submitted a further medical application form, citing the fact that her children required separate room’s due to her youngest son’s medical needs.
  8. Further records indicate that a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (“MARAC”) meeting had been called regarding concerns over the resident’s ex-partner and whether she was at risk at her current property. A letter provided by the local Police on 19 November 2021 advised that the resident had been referred to MARAC the previous day and a plan had been put in place to “increase (her) safety and protect her from risk of harm”. It did not contain any comments about her current housing situation. Around the same time, although the precise date is unclear, a submission was made to the landlord’s Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel for it to consider whether to award a direct offer to the resident on the grounds of the risk of domestic violence.
  9. On either 11 or 16 December 2021 the resident requested that her complaint he escalated (the resident stated she made the request earlier than the landlord’s records show) as she “did not feel (that) all issues were addressed” in the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord acknowledged the request on 17 December 2021 and advised it would respond within 20 working days.
  10. On 4 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that her rehousing priority had been increased on 30 December 2021. She had been awarded Band A status on medical grounds, with this being backdated to 9 November 2021, the day the landlord stated it received the resident’s medical application. It also clarified that she was eligible to bid for three-bedroom properties based on her son’s medical needs. Its letter noted that the “length of time you may be waiting (to make a successful bid) will largely depend on the availability of properties and the many other applicants on the waiting list”. Records show the resident appealed the banding award on 6 January 2022, requesting that she be allowed to also bid for three-bedroom “parlour” type properties as she felt she “should be eligible for a property with a dining room”. 
  11. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 21 January 2022 (although its letter stated 21 January 2021). Noting its use of the word “misunderstanding” in its stage one response, the landlord apologised if “the guidance and support” the resident had received from staff was unclear. It also acknowledged that the requirements regarding submitting a firm recommendation “could have been made more clear to ensure the required detail was provided” and that it could have “explained…more clearly” why the initial information received was not sufficient. The landlord noted the resident’s HPM had now left the organization but advised it would discuss the wording of its stage one response letter with the author when they returned to work to “make our expectations clear”.
  12. It noted that the resident’s new HPM had now submitted the necessary forms to the landlord’s Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel and it would inform her of the outcome “as soon as possible”. It also clarified that the resident’s banding had been amended on 4 January 2022 and she was now able to bid for three-bedroom properties.
  13. Around 25 January 2022, the landlord’s Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel met and deferred making a decision on whether to award the resident a direct offer. The panel noted it required “further information to assess if there is a serious risk of harm to a member of the household”.

 Post complaint

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2022 to advise on the outcome of her appeal against her banding. It confirmed that the resident retained Band A status and was entitled to bid for three-bedroom properties but that it determined she did not quality for “parlour style” properties as they were deemed to be four-bedroom properties and the resident only had need for three.
  2. On 11 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her of the outcome of its Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel meeting on 6 April. It clarified that the panel had decided not to approve “a priority move via a direct offer” as it had not identified a serious risk of harm to the resident or any member of her household at her current accommodation. It also advised that making her a direct offer this would “significantly disadvantage” other households who also had an urgent need to move and had been waiting for longer.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not disputed that the resident submitted a rehousing application with the landlord in August 2021 and a decision was not made on this until December 2021, around five months later. However, the information available shows the resident initially submitted a regular rehousing application, although she cited the reason for her wanting to move was due to medical issues within her household. While this Service can understand the resident’s frustration and desire for her application to be processed as quickly as possible, the evidence available does not indicate there were any avoidable delays during the landlord’s handling of the application. It advised her of the likely wait times and that these were currently impacted by staff shortages. This was reasonable, although there may have been some lack of clarity regarding its advice on timescales as there appeared to be some confusion on the resident’s part between the length of time taken to process the application and the length of time it would ultimately take to be rehoused when bidding for properties.
  2. Records show the resident initially submitted a standard rehousing form. In October 2021, the landlord appropriately identified that she needed instead to have submitted a specific medical rehousing form and provided advice on how to do this. While the resident advised she believed her HPM had misled her, particularly regarding the format a ‘firm recommendation’ should take, this Service has not seen the email evidence she referred to so is unable to determine whether this was the case or not.
  3. However, the landlord reasonably clarified the need to submit a specific medical rehousing form and it was appropriate that it acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it could have initially been clearer about what was required when applying for medical priority and provided more support. This indicated the landlord carried out a proper review of the case during the complaint procedure and it was appropriate that it showed learning from the case when it advised it would feedback to one of its managers regarding their response to the complaint at stage one.
  4. Once the resident had submitted a medical rehousing form in November 2021, the landlord processed this relatively promptly and awarded her Band A priority in December 2021. It appropriately backdated this to 9 November 2021, as it had advised her it would, which was the date it received the medical rehousing form.
  5. While the resident did refer to domestic violence when corresponding with a senior member of staff, the landlord appeared to appropriately signpost her to her Housing Patch Manager, and it subsequently considered a separate application for a priority move due to a risk of violence at its Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel. Although its records are not as comprehensive as they should be, it is not disputed that the landlord submitted a request for a priority move to the panel, which was held in January 2022, while in the meantime also appropriately supporting the resident to make a homeless application with another local authority. While its records should have been clearer regarding when the form were finally submitted, the evidence shows the panel first considered the application around three months after the matter was first raised. Considering the panel had to wait for evidence to be provided from other external agencies and for a MARAC meeting to take place, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an excessive delay.
  6. It is acknowledged that the resident has expressed dissatisfaction at the panel initially deferring on making a decision and ultimately, in April 2022, declining to award her a direct offer on the grounds of fleeing domestic violence. She also stated that she believed the landlord disregarded supporting evidence which showed she was at risk at her property, including a letter from the local Police. However, from the evidence seen by this investigation, the landlord did acknowledge and consider all the information submitted to the panel.
  7. It was reasonable that it initially deferred making a decision as it required further information, which showed it considered the application closely. It was entitled to ultimately decline to award a direct offer as, while it acknowledged the resident was a domestic violence survivor and there remained concerns regarding her ex-partner, the evidence it had been presented with did not explicitly state there was an urgent need for her to move to a new property. As a social landlord, the landlord has limited stock and has to make difficult decisions on how best to allocate its properties and award priority moves. While the resident’s disappointment is understandable, the landlord was entitled to decline to award a direct offer, and from the evidence seen it gave the submissions appropriate due consideration, acted in accordance with its procedures and explained its position and the reasons for making its decision clearly.
  8. In terms of being awarded a further priority for rehousing on the grounds of domestic violence, it is also noted that the resident at this stage had already been awarded Band A status (“A1”), which was backdated to November 2021, so aside from being made a direct offer, there was no further priority that could be awarded. There was therefore no detriment to the resident by the landlord’s further decision not to award a further Band A status (“A2”) on these grounds.
  9. From the information available, while there were some delays in processing the resident’s rehousing application and submitting a referral to its panel, these were not excessive. Through its complaint responses and further correspondence, the landlord kept the resident informed on the progress of these applications, while also acknowledging occasions where it could have offered further clarity of support and apologising for this. Overall, while the resident’s frustration and difficult housing circumstances are acknowledged, this investigation had not identified any examples of service failure by the landlord when it responded to her request for a housing priority.
  10. Finally, as noted above, while it was appropriate that the landlord’s stage two response noted its use of the term ‘misunderstanding’ had been unhelpful and that it would feed this back to the manager who wrote the stage one response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should also have commented on its use of the term ‘unjustified’ to describe the resident’s original complaint. While it was entitled to decide not to uphold the complaint, the landlord should have been more careful with the language it used. It was not unjustified for the resident to raise a complaint if she felt that her application had not been handled correctly. This kind of terminology is inappropriate and not aligned with an open approach to complaint handling and would have likely left the resident feeling that her complaint had been unwelcome. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to also feed this back to complaint handling staff, to remind them to consider the language they use when corresponding with complainants and that complaints should not be discouraged.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for a housing priority.

Reasons

  1. The resident initially submitted a standard rehousing application, before being advised further on the process for applying for a medical priority. Once this was submitted, the landlord processed it relatively promptly and awarded the resident its highest priority, Band A. It appropriately backdated this and, in its complaint responses, reasonably acknowledged where it could have initially offered more support or clarity regarding the application process and apologised for this.
  2. While her initial rehousing request centred on the medical needs of her household, when the resident referred to domestic violence the landlord acted appropriately when submitting a parallel rehousing application to its Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel which was then considered in a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its procedures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider arranging further training for staff who respond to complaints to ensure they use appropriate language when corresponding with residents and complainants and foster an open and inclusive approach to complaint handling.