Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202012067)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012067

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

24 February 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord had handled the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Scope of this investigation

In raising the complaint with the landlord and in his correspondence with this Service, the resident has explained that he has had ongoing issues with repairs in the property since at least 2005 and that he had been waiting to be rehoused to allow the repairs to be completed since at least 2017.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to those that led to the formal complaint in January 2021.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s transfer policy describes how it prioritises its applicants. The landlord uses four bands based on housing need, with band one being for households who have the highest priority.
The policy goes on to state that “we tell residents in Band One they must actively bid on suitable homes, given their high need to move. And, if they’ve not made any bids within six months, and we have advertised properties suitable for them, we will reduce their band, unless there is a good reason for not doing so”.
The landlord’s decant policy defines a temporary decant as “when a resident is moved out of their home on a short-term basis, with the intention to return. The decant may be due to an emergency, such as a flood or fire or may be planned if we need to do major repairs to the property and the household can’t remain in the home during the works”. The policy notes that during the period of a temporary decant that the resident remains responsible for the rent and other charges on their original home, while the landlord will cover the costs of the temporary accommodation.
The policy defines a permanent decant as “when a resident is moved out of their property and there is no intention to return them to it. This may be due to us deciding to demolish, dispose or decommission the property, or extensive reconstruction work which will change the layout and design of the home”.
The policy then describes the payments a resident may be entitled to when they are permanently decanted from their home. A resident may qualify for a statutory home loss payment if the current property is due for demolition, improvement or redevelopment, if the resident has lived in the home for more than one year, is an assured tenant, and they will be moving permanently. For a two-bedroom property, under its disturbance allowance payments, the landlord will make a one-off payment to a resident of £2,000 to cover the costs of moving out of the property.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaints policy also states that in cases where the complaint is complex and/or contains numerous different elements, it may extend the stage one response time to 20 working days and the stage two response time to 30 working days.

Summary of events

The resident has experienced ongoing issues with repairs at the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2019 to explain that in order to complete the repairs, the resident would require to be rehoused. It confirmed that he had been placed on its priority list and that it had been informed by the resident that he required a three-bedroom house or ground floor flat.
In February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord as he was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking for him to be rehoused. The landlord gave the resident advice on how to bid on properties and also advised him to register with the local authority. The landlord also stated that due to the limited availability of three-bedroom properties within its stock, it was unable to provide the resident with a timeframe.
On 9 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to explain his dissatisfaction with how the matter had been progressed and the conduct of the staff members who had handled his request to be rehoused.
On 11 January 2021 a local councillor wrote to this Service on behalf of the resident. They described the issues the resident had faced in his attempts to complete repairs to the property and to be rehoused.
The landlord opened a complaint on 29 January 2021. On 16 February 2021 the landlord called the resident. The landlord’s notes of the call described the outstanding issues the resident had as:
1. He had experienced years of frustration from the landlord and surveyors to complete repairs at the property.
2. The landlord had suggested a temporary move while the repairs were undertaken.
3. He had been informed by the landlord that it would permanently rehouse him.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 24 February 2021. The landlord informed him that:
1. It had visited the resident in October 2019 to discuss what work was required at the property and rehousing options for the resident. During this meeting the resident explained what requirements he and his family would need for a new property.
2. During a further visit in March 2020, it had explained that it was unable to find a suitable property within a reasonable timeframe and was informed by the resident that he would consider a three-bedroom home from a wider area than he had initially requested.
3. It had attempted to source a property acceptable to the resident, but as yet had not been successful.
4. It enquired if the resident still required a three-bedroom property, or if a two-bedroom property would be acceptable. It also enquired if the resident was registered with the local authority.
5. It noted that it would like to visit the resident to discuss the matter further, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdown that it would not be possible due to the current restrictions it was operating under.
6. It recognised that there had been delays in the rehousing process and explained that it had very limited stock of three-bedroom properties that met the resident’s requirements.
The landlord concluded the response by asking the resident to confirm how many people lived in his current property, what size property his household required, whether he would only accept a ground floor property, and if he had registered with the local authority.
In March 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had not received a copy of the stage one response. The landlord resent the response on 14 April 2021.
On 20 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to escalate the complaint. He described the grounds for the request as:
1. He had raised this issue on several occasions over the previous years, but had been ignored.
2. Following surveys commissioned in 2018 and 2019, work was agreed to complete repairs to the property. The resident informed the landlord that he would only accept a permanent move and this was agreed to by the landlord in November 2019.
3. The current condition of the property had affected the health of his family.
4. The landlord had not registered the resident on its transfer portal.
5. He disputed that the landlord had no available properties that suited the resident’s requirements.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and informed him that it had located a potential property for him to move to.
The landlord called the resident on 29 April 2021 to discuss the property. It described the property and explained that it would not be available until May 2021.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord sent a pre-tenancy assessment form to the resident. It wrote again on 5 May 2021. It stated that it understood that the resident had declined the property due to its location and advised the resident to register with the local authorities in his preferred locations so that he was informed if another housing association had a property available that was suitable for him.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 May 2021 and recommended that he consider a temporary move to allow it to complete the repairs. The resident replied and informed it that he would not accept a temporary move as he did not want to put his family through the stress of multiple relocations. He noted that the property it had offered was in an area he had previously informed was not suitable and enquired if he had been added to the housing register.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 26 May 2021. The landlord explained to the resident that due to the lack of available properties to permanently rehouse the resident, it believed that a temporary move should be considered to allow it to complete the required repairs without any further delay.
The landlord then noted it that had not received a reply from the resident to its request to be given up-to-date information on who lived in the property and his requirements. It explained that it needed the information to ensure it was offering him the correct sized accommodation and that it would not be able to make any further offers until it had received the information.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 June 2021 providing the requested information. The landlord then sent a follow-up to its stage two response on 6 July 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s letter and informed him that based on the information he had provided, that he was eligible for a two-bedroom property and that it had updated its records on his preferred locations.
It then accepted that the resident had made clear that he would only accept a permanent move. It explained that his and his family’s safety was its first priority and that it was “keen to complete the works to your current property without any further delays”.
The landlord went on to explain that due to it not owning many properties in the resident’s preferred locations, that a temporary move would ensure that the outstanding work at the current property would be completed and that would not affect the resident’s status in seeking a permanent move.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
In two letters sent to this Service on 29 September 2021 and 19 October 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the length of time it was taking the matter to be resolved, and that the landlord was attempting to force him to agree to a temporary move rather than the already agreed to permanent move.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord agreed to cover the costs of the move and that he received substantial compensation in recognition of the years of stress and anxiety caused to him and his family.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord had handled the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused

It is not in dispute that there are outstanding repairs in the current property and as the work is invasive, the resident’s household would have to be rehoused until the work had been completed. The resident has repeatedly stated that he would only agree to be rehoused if the move was permanent and has declined the landlord’s requests to consider a temporary decant to allow the work at the property to go ahead.
The landlord has explained that due to its lack of properties in the resident’s preferred areas, a permanent move would take time and if he agreed to be temporarily decanted, this would allow it to complete the repairs. Furthermore, the landlord also agreed that the resident could continue to pursue a permanent move even after the works were then completed.
The landlord also advised the resident to register with the local authorities in the areas he would like to be rehoused to expand the number of properties available to him. The landlord repeatedly asked for confirmation whether the resident had done so however there is no correspondence on file to show that the resident had followed this advice.
Overall, the landlord has followed its policies in respect of the complaint. When it was determined that it would not be possible to complete the repairs while the resident was in the property, the landlord wrote on 15 November 2019 confirming that it had agreed to a permanent decant, that it would assist the resident in identifying an alternative property and that he would receive financial compensation under its disturbance allowance payments scheme. This position was in line with its decant policy for a permanent decant.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and request to be moved is reasonable. This is because the landlord has explained that its limited stock in the resident’s desired area is the reason why it has not been able to rehouse him, despite his need. The landlord was also resolution focused by offering alternative options, such as expanding the resident’s proposed area and contacting the local authority to increase the possibility of finding a suitable home. It was reasonable to offer information on how the resident could access further housing options, by recommending that it refer to the local authority to see if it could access other housing providers. This is appropriate as it is the local authority that has a duty to respond to requests for accommodation from residents with ‘reasonable preference’ to move on the basis of need.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to consider alternative measures to allow it to start work on repairs to the property while the resident was waiting for a permanent move. Temporary decants are used by the landlord to allow it to complete repairs while residents are rehoused on a short-term basis (often not longer than 6 months). It was therefore reasonable, and in line with its polices, for the landlord to suggest a temporary decant as a resolution to the complaint. The landlord also made clear in its complaint responses that a temporary move would have no effect on the resident’s status for a permanent move. This was a particularly helpful offer as the resident’s priority for a permanent move only came from the need for the works. Therefore if the landlord completed the works that need would no longer be there. Despite this the landlord offered to allow the resident to continue pursuing a property.
The landlord also repeatedly asked the landlord to confirm their family’s circumstances and to consider two-bedroom properties. When the resident did provide the requested information the landlord explained that they would normally qualify for a two-bedroom property. Despite this they allowed them to continue with their priority for a three-bedroom, and also opened their search to two-bedroom properties in the relevant areas. This was a reasonable approach given the landlord must balance the resident’s needs with other applicants and its limited housing availability.
The resident has described the effect that the ongoing situation has had on his and his household’s health. He requested that he receive compensation from the landlord in recognition of this issue.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused were handled. Though the resident remains dissatisfied with the length of time it is taking to be moved and is understandably inconvenienced by his circumstances, there is no evidence to show that it is the landlord’s service failures that have caused the search to take as long as it has.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.