LiveWest Homes Limited (202117485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117485

LiveWest Homes Limited

25 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a potential offer of accommodation to the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident had a periodic shorthold tenancy with a housing association which started on 15 January 2018, as part of a commissioned short-term support service. The accommodation is a supported housing scheme for people with severe and enduring mental health issues. The property is a second floor, one bedroom flat which offers fully supported housing. The landlord’s records noted that the resident has a mental health condition.
The resident made a rehousing application to a local authority on 14 November 2017. He was shortlisted for a property by the local authority on 15 September 2021, but was subsequently refused by the landlord as it said the resident did not provide relevant information to pass its verification process.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision and has raised the matter with this Service following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord has a two stage complaints handling process where it aims to answer:
1. Stage one complaints within five working days
2. Stage two complaint within seven working days of the stage two acknowledgment date (acknowledgement timeframe not specified).
Its compensation policy allows for payments where there has been a service failure, to rebuild customer confidence and put them in a position they would have been had this not taken place. It will offer £200 maximum if a resident has suffered a moderate level of inconvenience either directly through an immediate impact of the service failure or the length of time taken to resolve it.
Under its allocations and lettings policy applicants must show that they can afford the rent, taking account of their income, benefit entitlements and financial commitments.

Summary of events

In response to our request for information the landlord has informed this Service that no formal offer of accommodation was made, either in writing or verbally, to the resident. It said that it accessed the property shortlist and contacted the resident after 15 September 2021, by text to ask if he was still interested in the property. It said that the resident confirmed his interest in the property and an appointment was made for 20 October 2021, to go through the verification and assessment process required prior to any formal offer being made.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord’s internal communication noted that its lettings team were unable to make a fair assessment of the resident’s application as he refused to disclose his spent convictions. The lettings officer asked an area manager if further information could be obtained to assist with the assessment. The manager responded that since the resident had been at his current accommodation, there had been no issues about his behaviour or other concerns about him. It further noted that he was very independent and that his mental health worker would remain involved with him once he had moved and offer him transitional support.
On 21 October 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord indicating that he had attached his identity documents to the email.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord asked the resident if he had another bank account as it had not been able to see any card payments or purchases on his bank account statements. It noted that it was only able to see transactions of money being paid in and straight out again and asked how he paid for his day to day living expenses. The resident responded that it did not need details of his transactions and that it only needed to know if he was on benefits. He further said that he had been a tenant of the landlord’s for four years and managed fine. He said his personal finances and spent convictions were no issue to the landlord.
On 29 October 2021 the following events occurred:
1. The landlord’s lettings team informed the resident that it was unable to make an assessment on affordability without seeing his full bank statements which form part of the initial assessment. It said the offer of accommodation would unfortunately not progress without sight of these documents and asked him to confirm if he still wished to withhold the information. The resident responded that he would be approaching this Service as the landlord was being unfair.
2. A manager within the landlord’s housing team acknowledged that the resident was quite private and asked if there was an alternative way to resolve this, but concerns were raised by the lettings team that a soft credit check had flagged up outstanding loans and CCJs and quite a few undisclosed debts. The manager noted that they would contact him to try to encourage him to provide the relevant information.
3. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the lettings team leader notified the relevant team that the resident had requested that his case should be treated as a formal complaint. They noted that they had not been able to resolve the resident’s concerns that day and that he was complaining about the refusal due to failing the verification checks. They noted that he had been advised that bank statements were requested to ascertain that he could meet the financial responsibilities of taking up a general needs tenancy, but that the resident refused to provide the information.
4. The manager further noted that the resident was given the option of blanking out records of his non-essential transactions before sending his bank statements but that he also refused.
5. It was unable to evidence that the resident would be able to sustain a tenancy which would involve paying his council tax bill, electricity bills, water bills and other necessary bills including his rent.
6. It is also noted from the internal discussion that the resident had made a complaint against a member of staff regarding discrimination.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint and said it aimed to respond within five working days. It noted the following as the resident’s concerns from an earlier conversation it said it had had:
1. He was unhappy that he had been refused a property because he failed a verification check.
2. He felt he was being discriminated against and that the circumstances of his current accommodation being reclassified as fully supported had not being taken into account.
3. His current property would have been made available to someone with a greater need had he been successfully able to move into the new property.
4. He provided copies of his birth certificate and bank statements but he was queried about his bank transactions which he did not feel was relevant.
5. He was asked about his unspent criminal convictions and told the offer would be refused when he questioned this.
6. The landlord was pushing boundaries because he had already made a separate complaint that was being investigated by the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 2 November 2021 noted that it did not need any information about the resident’s convictions as these had all been spent. It also highlighted concerns that the resident may not be suitable for general needs housing and that he may still require support based on his behaviour since he was refused the property. The lettings team also liaised with the supported housing team to enquire about any assistance he may have been receiving and if this support would remain available to him.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 2 November 2021. It said that:
1. Its allocations policy stipulates that applicants must be willing to fulfil the obligations of their tenancy including payment of rent on time. It noted that the resident’s rent was covered fully by housing benefit paid in arrears, but the new tenancy would need to be paid in advance and it would also request four weeks rent in advance.
2. All applicants without exception (including existing tenants regardless of whether they have a clear record of rent payment) must show that they can afford the rent, taking account of their income, benefit entitlement and financial commitments, so it needed to see his expenditure as well as his income. This is so that its allocations policy is open and transparent without favouring existing tenants.
3. Although the resident provided bank statements, it was unable to see his expenditure as he had removed it which resulted in him not being allocated the property.
4. The decision to not offer him the property had nothing to do with his complaint with the Housing Ombudsman. This complaint was about his tenancy with the landlord at the time. The property was no longer available as it had been re-allocated but he is encouraged to keep bidding.
5. If successful he would be required to provide full bank statements in order to proceed with the application to ensure that the tenancy is sustainable.
6. His complaint had been partially upheld and it apologised for not explaining the allocations and lettings process in full and how this affects him as an applicant of one of its properties.
The landlord also noted its conversation with the resident on 2 November 2021 regarding the outcome of the stage one complaint and that the resident had asked that his complaint should be escalated to stage two. His reasons for the complaint were that:
1. He felt that he had been discriminated against and treated unfairly by the landlord because his existing tenancy had changed from general needs to supported.
2. He felt that in providing his bank statements he was giving up his personal information that was not relevant to renting a property from the landlord.
3. The landlord had this information already and he did not need to provide it again.
On 3 November 2021, the internal exchange between the supported housing and the lettings team noted that the resident had not been engaging with the support in place for him and that he wished to be discharged from the mental health team.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it had not started the stage two complaint. It also wrote to the resident and acknowledged his complaint. It said it aimed to respond early the following week but gave no specific dates. The points the landlord confirmed to the resident as the reasons for his stage two complaint were the same as stated in his stage one which differs from what was confirmed on 2 November 2021 from its conversation with the resident.
The landlord noted that it contacted the resident on 17 November 2021 about his complaint. It said it advised him that there would be a delay in issuing the response as it needed to interview the relevant staff involved in handling the case.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 23 November 2021, the letter being dated 22 November 2021. It noted that that it had had a telephone discussion with the resident and clarified the reason for his complaint. The points noted from the discussion are:
1. it was unreasonable for the landlord to ask for bank statements as he was an existing resident and that it should be enough that his rent was being paid which should satisfactorily demonstrate that he could maintain a tenancy.
2. He was being discriminated against and that the circumstances of his existing tenancy had not been taken into account.
3. The landlord had put up barriers because he already had a complaint being investigated by the Housing Ombudsman.
In response the landlord said that:
1. All existing and potential residents are treated fairly to ensure that future tenancies are sustainable. It completes a verification process to ascertain this, as rent and affordability are one of the common areas it sees residents struggle especially immediately following a move or transfer.
2. The resident is correct in stating that it could check its existing accounts to ensure that these are managed, as it would normally ask non-internal applicants for a tenant reference to confirm rent accounts are maintained. In both cases however, it would undertake an affordability assessment to ensure that rents and other priority bills can be maintained. This enables the resident and the lettings team to consider changes to benefits, increase in household utility bills, council tax and how other large debts would be managed, which are often overlooked. Checking his existing rent account would therefore not provide sufficient information to fully consider affordability as this forms part of the interview process.
3. He was refused the property as he felt it was unnecessary to provide his income and expenditure details. The case was reviewed by an independent lettings team leader through its appeals process and they explained the reason for why this information was needed.
4. Despite further explanations he still felt that it was unreasonable for the landlord to request this information so it could not progress the assessment. It found that its lettings team had acted in accordance with its allocations policy.
5. His current accommodation was a supported housing scheme under a commissioned support contract. It was decommissioned from a fully funded support scheme at the end of September 2019, to one for residents who have a personal budget allocated for support. It worked with him and his professional support team to secure his personal budget, so that he could remain in the accommodation but he had since said he no longer needed the support which may impact his personal budget in the future. He had not been asked to move on, but he had expressed that he no longer wished to remain at the accommodation and it had supported him with his application for rehousing. The priority needs assessment and housing award by the local authority had given regard to his circumstances and this would be taken into account at the shortlisting and assessment stage.
6. His complaint to the Housing Ombudsman had no impact on their decision for refusing the offer of accommodation.
7. The findings of its stage one complaint identified that it did not fully explain its allocations and lettings process and how this affects an applicant. It acknowledged that it should have looked more carefully at his circumstances and offered a fuller explanation for why it needed the information it had requested. Whilst it accepted this error, it had learned from this and offered a full explanation at a subsequent stage through conversations and provided ample opportunities but he failed to engage with its processes.
8. It did not accept that this had led to him missing out on a suitable alternative home as other opportunities were provided to him to engage which he refused.
9. It apologised for the delay in following up the telephone conversation regarding the complaint in writing and awarded £225 in compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the delay in providing a response to the stage two complaint.
  2. £25 for the partial service failure identified at stage one.
The resident responded the same day and accepted the offer of compensation.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised him that it had made arrangements for the compensation to be paid.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy outlines that:
1. It will assess an applicant’s eligibility and whether there is any risk that they will not be able to sustain their tenancy or pay rent. It’s assessment will include reviewing the applicant’s previous tenancy history and it would normally ask them to provide a reference to support their application.
2. Applicants will need to demonstrate that they can afford to make regular rent and service charge payments and they will be expected to provide information to support the assessment. If it is not satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable chance of sustaining the tenancy, or they do not complete its affordability assessment it will decline their application.
3. It will not offer a home where an applicant has been convicted of an offence that is not classed as spent or where they are under investigation for an offence.
Its lettings procedure effective December 2020, outlines the procedures which applies to allocations and lettings of its properties. This notes that:
1. A housing assessment form (HAF) should be completed with the applicant to ensure suitability for the property.
2. The allocation is sustainable and that the property and rent in advance is affordable and that the resident has relevant support in place.
3. It notes that every application should have relevant document including ID, evidence of current address, three months bank statements and other evidence deemed necessary.
4. It notes that the affordability questions in the HAF should be fully completed with accurate information as to current income and expenditure cross-referenced with the applicant’s bank statements.
The landlord noted that it had not been able to complete a fair assessment of the resident’s application as he had not answered its questions about his convictions. The landlord’s lettings team liaised with the housing team on 20 October 2021, who clarified that they had had no concerns about the resident in the two years that he had lived in his accommodation. This showed that the landlord sought other means of satisfying itself that the resident was suitable for the offer of accommodation as it said he had not been forthcoming in providing information about his convictions.
As part of the assessment completed by the landlord, the resident was asked to provide records of his bank statements. The property advertisement provided by the landlord noted that four weeks rent in advance would be required prior to sign up. The landlord noted that soft credit checks conducted on the resident, which were in line with its processes, had flagged up some undisclosed debts. It also pointed out that his existing rent was being paid four weeks in arrears.
Regardless of these issues, the landlord was entitled to follow the guidelines set out in its allocations policy to ascertain that an offer of accommodation was suitable for the resident and that he was able to afford and sustain the tenancy long term. This Service has seen copies of emails exchanged with the resident on 29 October 2021, where he was advised that an assessment on affordability could not be completed without seeing his full bank statements. The resident responded that it did not need his personal information so the matter was escalated to a senior member of staff who arranged further calls to the resident to explain the process. The landlord’s actions here demonstrate that it had followed its policy.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that it had initially failed to provide a full explanation for the reason why it required the resident’s bank statements. It however demonstrated that it had made other attempts to rectify this, by arranging for senior members of staff to contact the resident and explain its verification process to him. It expanded on this in its stage two response that although it acknowledged its initial error of not clearly explaining its offer verification process, it took steps to address this thereby giving him the opportunity to make an informed decision about the proposed offer of accommodation. It concluded that it was not the initial omission that had caused the resident to miss out on the offer of accommodation, as it had given him the chance to reconsider sending the required. The landlord’s actions here are deemed appropriate.
Whilst the landlord took extra steps in contacting the resident to explain its allocations process, this Service has not seen evidence that it had provided written information about the potential offer, explaining that it was subject to satisfactory verification checks and the mandatory steps required, to the resident ahead of the assessment. We have also not seen evidence that the landlord referred him to its website for a copy of the relevant policy or that it provided this information to him if it was not published online. This was unreasonable, as it may have provided some assurance to the resident that the landlord was following its policies and not being intrusive.
The landlord has since told this Service that it took this as a learning point from the case with its lettings team. It said its normal procedure involved verbal discussions of its verification process with applicants, but it would now issue written information where applicants require further clarification.
As noted above, the landlord requires prospective residents to provide relevant documentation including copies of their bank statements as outlined in its lettings procedure. It therefore acted in accordance with its internal allocations and lettings policy, in asking the resident to provide copies of his bank statements to enable it to complete an assessment on eligibility and affordability. Whilst the resident did not feel it was necessary to provide this information as he was an existing resident, the landlord explained in its complaint response that it administers a fair and transparent allocations process. This is to insure that all applicants show that they can afford the rent by completing the affordability assessment. The landlord was therefore unable to make an exception in omitting or waiving the affordability assessment process.
The landlord in recognition of its error in not initially offering a clear explanation offered £25 as redress in its stage two response and it offered £200 for the delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within 15 working days, which is within the expected timescales set out in this Service’s complaint handling code to landlords. It however acknowledged that it fell outside of its own agreed timescales in its internal complaints handling policy which is 7 working days.
Whilst there were minor failings by the landlord, these were acknowledged and apologised for and the resident offered £225 in compensation. This amount is in line with both the landlord’s own compensation policy and this services Remedies Guidance, for situations where there were failings by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but which did not have a permanent impact on them. This Service is therefore satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of a potential offer of accommodation to the resident.

Reasons

The landlord initially failed to provide a clear explanation of its allocations processes when it contacted the resident to complete the verification process. It acknowledged this error early in the process and provided further clarification to the resident.
It has since learned from its error and implemented a new process of providing written information regarding the verification documentation required to prospective residents who require it.

Recommendations

The landlord should now pay the resident the £225 previously offered, if it had not already done so.
In addition to issuing written information where applicants require further clarification, the landlord should consider reviewing its lettings process to ensure that its prospective residents are provided written information regarding its verification processes and any documentation required ahead of the assessment process.
It should consider reviewing its complaints policy, particularly the timescales around its stage one and stage two complaints to fall in line with this Service’s complaints handling code.