GreenSquareAccord Limited (202119238)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119238

GreenSquareAccord Limited

13 September 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 the resident’s:
1. Request for a housing transfer on medical grounds.
2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two bedroom house, with her adult daughter. On 20 October 2021, she applied to be allocated a bungalow, on the basis of reasonable preference. The resident said that there was an emergency need to move on medical grounds.
The resident completed a Housing and Support Needs Assessment (the assessment) on 1 November 2021, with the assistance of a member of landlord staff. The assessment asked about previous housing arrangements and any health needs. Under a section entitled “support needs” the assessment asked the resident to disclose any information relating to a history of antisocial or criminal behaviour. The assessment asked specifically – “Have you, or any member of your household, ever had any history of any criminal convictions or are you the subject of any pending investigations or prosecutions”.
The answer on the assessment read – “criminal conviction, controlling behaviour relating to estranged daughter, September 2019, was on probation until September 6th 2021. No criminal record before this. Daughter got involved with suspected drug dealer and she was trying to protect daughter.” The assessment details that the member of staff had asked the resident to be “specific about the behaviour” and a series of responses were noted down.
The landlord made enquires with the resident’s probation officer, on 3 November 2021, about her conviction. A response was received the same day, which explained:
1. The resident was given a 24 month suspended sentence order on 6 September 2019 for the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour in a family relationship.
2. She was subject to supervision with probation for 12 months, with that ending in September 2020.
3. She completed that and fully engaged and complied.
4. The suspended sentence order successfully ended on 6 September 2021.
5. They said they believed the conviction would be spent four years from the order finishing, meaning it would show on something like a DBS check for example so would have to be declared. But in legal terms, the order had ended so there was no risk of it being activated.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord emailed the probation officer and explained that during its investigations it had come across an article from a local newspaper. It mentioned a five year restraining order, and it asked if they knew anything about it. The probation officer emailed the landlord the same day, and explained there was a restraining order in place until 2024, which meant the resident could not contact a particular person. The probation officer added that there had been no breaches of the suspended sentence and it appeared that the resident was complying with the restraining order.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was unable it offer her a tenancy at the property in question. It explained that the resident had failed to disclose that there was a restraining order in place preventing her from contacting her daughter. In accordance with its policy, it considered that the resident had withheld or provided false or misleading information. The landlord added that as the resident had withheld information “even after being given the opportunity to disclose”, she would not be considered for housing with it for at least another six months.
The resident responded several times the same day, and said she wished to appeal the decision, and said she was on a lot of tablets and found it confusing. She asked for her appeal to be sent to the Lettings Manager and said she had not been treated fairly. She said she did not grasp things quickly and had 40% hearing loss. She also asked for a copy transcript of her call she had with the landlord and said she did not believe she had been asked about a restraining order.
The landlord replied on 8 November, and reiterated its policy and its decision. It said, the resident had been given the opportunity to disclose that she was subject to a restraining order until 2024 on two separate occasions. The landlord added that it was difficult to say whether or not having this information would have affected the outcome of her application. However, it believed the information was withheld deliberately and warranted refusal on the grounds stated.
The landlord sent a further response on 9 November 2021, and explained, it had carried out a review of the case. It concluded the resident had withheld information that would be of “significant importance” to the application, and she had contravened its policy; that is why it had been rejected. It explained the decision not to uphold the appeal was based solely upon this. The landlord added that it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure she disclosed “all relevant information” regarding her conduct and any prosecutions. The landlord also explained that the phone calls made to the resident were conducted via mobile telephone, so were not recorded, but she could make a complaint if she wanted to.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2021, to appeal its decision. She set out why she was unhappy with its decision and amongst other things, said the landlord knew about the restraining order as the probation officer had passed that information on. The resident asked that it listen to phone recordings, in order to deal with her appeal. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed that the appeal had been refused, but the resident could raise a complaint, as it had previously advised.
On 9 and 10 November, the resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord to appeal on her behalf. The advocate noted that the landlord had advised that there was “no need” for the resident to appeal the decision. However, the resident wished to raise the following:
1. She had not withheld evidence of her criminal conviction.
2. She satisfied the criteria for the property regarding ongoing health concerns.
3. She had been given conflicting information from professionals at the landlord.
4. When completing the assessment, the member of staff had not asked her directly if she was subject to a restraining order when completing the assessment.
5. She had answered all questions honestly.
6. The member of staff had called her on 3 November and asked “what did you do?” A full explanation was provided, but she was not asked about a restraining order.
7. She had concerns about the appeal process as the member of staff informed her on 8 November that he had already “reviewed” the application. No formal appeal was acknowledged.
8. She disagreed that she had “willingly” withheld information and that her answers on the assessment showed that this was not the case.
On 12 November 2021, the landlord provided the outcome of its review, carried out by a head of department. It said:
1. at the start of the assessment phone call, the member of staff read out a declaration. This clearly explained that any checks would be carried out and that withholding information would lead to the disqualification of the application.
2. Under its Allocation Policy applicants could be suspended or removed from the waiting list in the event that information was withheld or false information was provided.
3. During the telephone call of 1 November 2021, the resident was asked if she had any criminal convictions or prosecutions. She declared a criminal conviction for controlling behaviour relating to her estranged daughter. However, at no time did the resident state she had a suspended sentence or there was a restraining order against her for five years.
4. After the call, it spoke with the probation officer and another call was made to the resident on 3 November. In that call, the landlord says the resident was asked to be specific about the outcome of the court case, and she did not mention a restraining order.
5. The resident had said that she was not asked specifically about a restraining order; however, that was not a reason to reconsider the application.
6. The restraining order came about as a result of a criminal court case; therefore, it felt it should have been declared. As such, it upheld the original decision, to refuse the resident the property.
The resident and advocate emailed the landlord on 12 November, and said:
1. While the landlord had said that the resident’s response was vague, they felt the question was vague.
2. The resident wanted to appeal the decision, and for the bungalow to be kept on hold during that process.
3. The resident also wished to make a complaint about the person who made the decision and for it to be noted it was affecting her mental health, being accused of withholding information.
4. The resident struggled to communicate with people due to her mental health and she was receiving support from a charity. She asked for confirmation of the appeal being logged and that a stage one complaint had also been made.
An internal email between landlord staff on 16 November 2021, referred to a call it had received from the resident’s advocate that day. It said she had made the following points:
1. The housing application process had not been followed, so she was appealing.
2. She had an email from the resident’s GP to confirm the resident had been suicidal and her mental health had deteriorated since the housing decision.
3. The resident had had an occupational health assessment to say a bungalow type property was needed and the bungalow in question was a direct match. She wanted the landlord to apologise and accept her housing application.
4. The resident said she had been given conflicting information and there had been errors, and she had been discouraged from sending additional information in.
5. She felt that she was discriminated against due to her mental health, as she felt that the questions asked were not clear or direct. The resident was a vulnerable disabled adult.
On 14 November 2021, the resident continued to contact the landlord in relation to her concerns over its decision. The landlord notified the resident and their advocate on 15 and 16 November 2021, that the bungalow was being advertised, as the appeals process had been exhausted.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, and confirmed it had received 16 emails from her, from 14 to 17 November 2021. It said that the bungalow that she had wanted, had been re-listed as the appeal process had been completed. It said this had been explained to her and her advocate on 13 November. It accepted she was unhappy with the decision and the appeal and it would be investigating her concerns as a complaint, and would send a response by 30 November 2021.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, confirming receipt of seven emails that had been received. It said it would consider the information provided, when dealing with the complaint.
The resident continued to email the landlord between 19 and 25 November. Within her correspondence the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how her application and appeal had been handled. She also expressed her opinion that the landlord had discriminated against her.
On 23 November 2021, the resident’s advocate chased the landlord for a response. She said the resident had sent in photographs having had a fall in her existing property. She also asked if the bungalow had been removed from being bid upon. The landlord replied and explained the Customer Case team was investigating the complaint.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord issued a response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It was satisfied that it had acted appropriately when making the decision not to offer the resident the property. This was on the basis that the resident did not disclose the restraining order. It was also satisfied that the questions asked were clear enough for the resident to understand that this information needed to be provided.
2. The resident was unhappy with the appeals process; however, it was satisfied that this had been carried out appropriately. It noted that the member of staff conducting the appeal used the word “review” in her correspondence, however this was “another word for appeal”. It added that the subject of the email used the word “appeal” and on that basis it felt it was sufficiently clear that the correspondence was the appeal decision.
3. It was satisfied that the appeal was carried out fairly in line with its policy, and that the resident was treated fairly.
On 26 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for her complaint to be reviewed. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 November and the resident was told she would get a response by 6 December 2021.
The resident’s advocate emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021. She said:
1. She had been told by the resident that she had tried twice to find out whether an executive review was underway.
2. The resident wanted certain points noting; that, due to her vulnerabilities including her mental health, learning disability, memory issues and hearing disability (40% hearing loss) she would have needed to be asked directly if she had a restraining order against her.
3. That a reasonable adjustment would have been made to directly ask the resident whether she had a restraining order on her record as the questions were not clear.
4. The resident had advised that she had answered honestly and gave the probation officer’s details, so information could be clarified.
5. The resident had also wanted five grievances about staff at the landlord, to be investigated.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 and 30 November, 1 and 2 December 2021, and reiterated she wanted her complaint reviewed. Within the emails, she said she had had legal advice from three sources, and the bungalow should not have been refused and put back out for bidding on. She felt she had been treated unfairly as the process the consider her application had not been carried out correctly. She also referred to possible discrimination and that a review had not been carried out correctly and that was separate from an appeal. That one-off ex-offenders should be able to be given the opportunity to rebuild their lives and the property should have been held during the application process.
On 1 December 2021, an advocacy service emailed the landlord and explained it was now representing the resident. It said:
1. The resident’s MP had been contacted, and the resident wanted it to reconsider its decision about her housing application.
2. “Evidence shown in the recording of phone calls made from [the landlord to the resident] which strongly supports how [the resident] was willing to cooperate and share any information required.”
3. The resident felt these recordings were enough evidence to argue why she should have been offered the bungalow; noting that the resident asked several times whether any other information was needed and no other questions were asked directly about whether she had a restraining order.
4. The resident had explained that the controlling behaviour incident was referred to and that she had openly talked about contacting probation.
5. It wanted to highlight the negative impact the situation had had on the resident’s wellbeing, to the point where she had been experiencing suicidal ideation as evidenced in a letter from her GP.
6. The resident was displeased with the housing application process and how her situation had been dealt with.
It is unclear whether the landlord responded directly to the advocacy service.
The landlord sent an email on 2 December 2021, and it said it was satisfied the complaint had been handled appropriately, and there was “no further action” for it to take. The landlord explained that the resident had reached the end of its internal complaints process.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 3 and 6 December 2021, questioning the information it had reviewed and expressing how unhappy she was with its investigation and process.
The landlord responded on 10 December 2021 and said the complaint was closed, so it did not expect to hear from her again. However, it also provided contact details for someone, if the resident needed to make contact. It went on to explain it had sent a response to her MP and she could now refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident continued to send the landlord correspondence, but also referred her complaint to this service. She said she was not asked about the restraining order directly, and she was unhappy with the way her appeal and complaint were dealt with.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Lettings and Allocations Policy (the policy) says when someone is nominated to one of its homes, it will consider the following:
1. Book the Housing and Support Needs Assessment (HSNA) call/ meeting within 24 hours of matching a nomination from the shortlist where possible.
2. If support is necessary; Lettings Officer (LO) will refer to the Tenancy Sustainment team/ Housing Officer to complete supplementary risk and support needs assessment. This should be completed by the TSO/HO within 48 hours of completing the HSNA.
3. LO to indicate on front of HSNA if tenancy is ‘suitable with support’ so HO is able to monitor any support.
4. For 55+ general needs, Extra Care Housing and supported sheltered properties; the Community Officer must complete the HSNA and return to the LO within 24 hours.
5. If an application is unsuccessful; provide clear reasons for refusal in a format that suits the applicant within 24 hours.
6. Any information received from an unsuccessful applicant will be stored for a maximum of six months or in line with [the landlord’s] Data Protection Policy, Data Retention Schedule, guidance and the lettings Data Retention guidance for unsuccessful applicants.
7. Consider an appeal from any applicant who may have been refused an allocation on grounds other than affordability.
8. Keep in touch with all applicants throughout the process to offer updates on progress.
The landlord’s policy says under section 7.8, Refusals and Suspensions, sets out grounds for refusal. It says:
1. Applicants can also be suspended or removed from the waiting list for the following reasons:-
  1. Providing false information – it is a criminal offence for a person to withhold information or provide false information in relation to any application to be housed.
2. The suspension period will be for no more than two years. Where the application is suspended, it will be reviewed periodically but the onus is on the individual to reapply.
3. Where we do not accept an application or where the applicant is suspended, we will inform them in writing setting out:
  1. Our reasons.
  2. Duration of any suspension.
  3. What needs to happen for them to be able to have a home from us.
  4. Provide customers with other agency and local authority information.
  5. Tell them they have the right to appeal.
4. Housing applicants have the right to appeal against decisions at every stage of the process. Appeals will be dealt with through the designated Service Manager.
The landlord’s Services to Vulnerable People Policy says, amongst other things:
1. “We will carry out a Housing and Support Needs Assessment (HSNA) for all new customers, using this to guide and improve our services to the customer due to their vulnerabilities.
2. When considering possible adjustments to our standard services due to customer’s individual circumstances and vulnerabilities, we will ensure that any changes we make are reasonable and appropriate. In all cases we will record our decision making.”
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says “Where a complaint can’t be resolved at the first point of contact, or may require further investigation by an area specialist, a surveyor or housing officer for example, a record of the information will be made on the housing management system. This will be transferred to the most appropriate staff member to respond to within 48 hours.”
If the complaint cannot be resolved, it can be sent to the Customer Care team, that should acknowledge it within 2 working days and usually respond within 10 working days.
The landlord’s Complaints Procedure said, “if a customer feels their complaint hasn’t been fully addressed we will consider whether it should be escalated for an Executive Review. At this stage the complaint and our response is reviewed by an executive director (or a designated person of their choice which could include a Head of Service) within five working days of the escalation.” It then says, “The review is carried out to ensure the investigation was handled fairly and reasonably. It should not be a repeat of the initial investigation. The outcome of an Executive Review is given in writing”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer on medical grounds.

In this case, the assessment, as completed by the resident did not mention that she had a restraining order against her, or that she had a suspended sentence. The landlord concluded that this information should reasonably have been disclosed; and on the basis that it was not, declined the resident’s application. It is acknowledged that the resident did disclose that she had a criminal conviction in relation to “controlling behaviour” and that she had been on probation. It is also noted that the resident provided the details of her probation officer so that the landlord could make further enquiries.
The evidence provided to this service shows that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy when reaching its decision. There was no obligation on the landlord to make specific enquiries as to whether the resident had a restraining order against her; and the evidence shows that it provided the resident with sufficient opportunity to disclose more detail and specific information about the restraining order and her conviction.
The landlord’s policy says if an application is unsuccessful, it will provide clear reasons for refusal in a format that suits the applicant within 24 hours. However, this is vague, as it is not clear whether that should be 24 hours from when the application was submitted, or from when a decision is made. This is something the landlord ought to review, in order to provide clarity. In addition, if it relates to the latter, then it needs to consider how someone would know when a decision is made, in order to then know when to expect a response.
The evidence provided to this service does demonstrate that the landlord did communicate the decision as soon as it was made. The landlord also decided that a six month suspension was appropriate in the circumstances, in line with its policy, and appropriately communicated this to the resident. The landlord was entitled to make a decision in line with its policy.
The resident’s advocate noted the landlord had advised that there was “no need” for her to appeal the decision. It is important to understand the resident had a right to do just that, and should not have been discouraged from doing so. The policy does not provide a step-by-step process for an appeal. However, on receipt of an appeal request, it would be reasonable for the landlord to take the time to consider the case and the arguments put forward by the resident and/or their representative, before finalising its view.
The resident appealed the decision on 8 November 2021, the same day as the decision was made. She said she had a difficulty with her hearing and in grasping things, and did not believe she had been asked about a restraining order. The landlord communicated its response to the resident’s appeal, the following day. It said following a review, it found she had withheld information of “significant importance” to the application, and its decision not to uphold the appeal was based solely upon this.
The fact the landlord initially responded to the appeal so quickly, is likely to have left the resident of the view that her reasons for appeal, had not been fully considered. The landlord’s 9 November 2021 response to the appeal, repeated the view that information was not disclosed, but did not address the points put forward by the resident. This was something brought to the landlord’s attention by the resident’s advocate. The failure to respond to the resident’s reasons understandably left her with the impression that her appeal had not been fully considered.
When the landlord responded to the request for an appeal again, on 12 November 2021, it did comment on the resident’s concern about not being asked specifically about a restraining order; but said it was not a reason for it to reconsider the application. While this was appropriate, the landlord still failed to address the resident’s points about struggling to deal with things, and this led to both the resident and their advocate responding the same day, asking for her health issues to be taken in to account by way of an appeal.
It is clear that the resident put forward a number of points that she wanted considering as part of her appeal. In particular, that, due to her vulnerabilities including her mental health, learning disability, memory issues and hearing disability (40% hearing loss) she would have needed to be asked directly if she had a restraining order against her. Rather than the landlord dealing with all the points made by way of an appeal, it said the appeals process had been exhausted and it sent the resident down the route of making a complaint.
The landlord’s Vulnerable People Policy says it should take into account the needs of those households who are vulnerable by reasons of age, disability or illness. It also says it would listen to its customers and make possible adjustments to its services due to customer’s individual circumstances and vulnerabilities, if needed. In this case, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s medical issues and her vulnerability, including how she had had a fall and had mental health issues, The evidence indicates the landlord did not fully consider the resident’s reasons for appeal and her explanation as to why the restraining order and suspended sentence had not been disclosed. The landlord could reasonably have done more, when communicating its decision, to show that it had taken in to account the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord could also have taken steps to explain why, notwithstanding the resident’s vulnerabilities, it believed that the correct decision had been made. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in its handling of the matter. It was also a missed opportunity to demonstrate understanding for the resident’s situation and that it had fully considered the reasons set out in her appeal before communicating its final decision.
Overall, it is clear the resident is disappointed with the landlord’s decision to refuse her application for the property. While the landlord was entitled to apply the terms of its Lettings and Allocation Policy, by not acknowledging some of the points the resident made in her appeal, it led the resident to believe her views and vulnerabilities, had not been taken in to account. Due to the time that has now passed, there would be little benefit to ordering the landlord to reconsider the resident’s appeal. However, it is clear that the landlord’s handling of matters did cause the resident some upset, so the Ombudsman has therefore made an order aimed at putting things right and to ensure that the landlord has learnt from the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s approach to the resident’s request for an appeal, has already been considered. However, rather than address the points she made, in the appeal response, the landlord instead, referred the resident to the Customer Care team on 9 November 2021, to make a complaint, if she was unhappy with how her application had been handled. While this was appropriate, the manner in which the resident had been signposted to the complaints process suggested that the decision regarding her application could be reconsidered through this avenue. This may not have been the landlord’s intention; however, its communication lacked clarity, and it would have been reasonable to ensure that it clearly explained that raising a complaint would not result in its decision regarding her application to be changed.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 November 2021. In addition to explaining why she was unhappy with the decision, she said she wanted to complain about the person who made the decision and the effect it was having on her health. She also asked for the landlord to confirm that a stage one complaint had been made.
The landlord told the resident on 17 November, that her concerns were going to be addressed as a complaint, and a response would be issued by 30 November. It issued its response to the complaint on 25 November 2021, within 10 working days, as per its Complaints Policy. It concluded:
1. It had acted appropriately when making the decision not to offer the resident the property, as she did not disclose the restraining order.
2. The questions asked were clear enough for the resident to understand that this information needed to be provided.
3. It was satisfied that the appeals process had been carried out appropriately. It noted that the member of staff conducting the appeal used the word “review” in her correspondence, however this was “another word for appeal”.
4. It was satisfied the appeal was carried out fairly in line with its policy, and that the resident was treated fairly.
While the landlord addressed some of the issues raised, the resident asked for a review of the complaint, the following day, on 26 November. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 November and the resident was told she would get a response by 6 December 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2021 and confirmed a director had reviewed the complaint and concluded it had been handled appropriately, and no further action would be taken.
While the landlord issued its executive review within 5 working days, as per its Complaints Procedure, it failed to address the resident’s concerns and explain its position in relation to each. As a result, some of the concerns that had been raised by the resident in her initial complaint went unanswered.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints procedure at the time said the review was to ensure the investigation was handled fairly and reasonably, rather than reviewing the initial investigation. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that a landlord should review the issues raised, that the resident remains unhappy about. It says when a landlord receives an escalation request, “landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties. the
The landlord’s current Complaints Procedure, which is published on its website, says after a complaint is initially investigated, “We will consider escalation to a director to review whether the case was handled fairly and reasonably. (Usually within 10 working days) Your original complaint will not be re-investigated.” The landlord should review this and consider amending this element of the policy so that it aligns with the Code.
The landlord’s executive review failed to investigate or address any of the points that had been raised by the resident/their advocate. This was a significant failing in the complaint handling, as well as a missed opportunity to address some of the concerns that had been raised on behalf of the resident. This clearly added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord, and the Ombudsman has therefore made an order to reflect that.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of a request for a housing transfer on medical grounds.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord complied with the terms of its Lettings and Allocations Policy when considering the resident’s application for housing but did not consider all the resident’s representations in the appeal.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint at its executive review stage was not Code compliant. As the landlord declined to carry out further investigation of the complaint, the resident’s concerns were left unanswered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £200 compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling if the housing transfer appeal.
  2. £300 compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord failing to investigate and address the resident’s escalated complaint.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its Complaints Procedure and ensure it is in line with the Code.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its Lettings and Allocations Policy to provide clarify over when it will make applicant aware that their application has been unsuccessful. Whether that is, within 24 hours from when the application was submitted, or from when a decision is made.
2. Review this case and how the resident’s appeal was handled; and provide staff with feedback about the lessons that may be learnt from this case.