Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202126368)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126368

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

9 January 2023

 

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom flat owned and managed by the landlord. The resident lives in the flat with her son and daughter, aged 12 and 10 years old at the time of the complaint.
  2. In October 2020, following a request from the resident, the landlord contacted the local authority (council) to request that it consider allowing the resident to register for a move on its housing list. In February 2021 the resident received a letter from the council confirming she had been placed on its housing register as her landlord had ‘entered into Reciprocal Agreement with the council’. In October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had placed a bid on a property advertised on the council’s homeseeker scheme. She requested the landlord contact the council on her behalf as she had been entered into a reciprocal agreement. The landlord advised the resident that she needed to contact the council directly regarding the bid as it was unaware of a reciprocal agreement and it had no influence over the council’s shortlisting.
  3. On 15 November 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated that a reciprocal agreement was made in 2020, which she understood meant that should the council offer her a property it would get her home to advertise for housing register applicants. She asked for explanation as to why the landlord could not contact the council on her behalf to secure a property. She stated she had sent various emails concerning the matter without any response from the lettings department.
  4. She further pursued her complaint later that month. She claimed that she had been misled by the landlord and her complaints had been disregarded. She included a copy of the letter sent to her by the council. She stated it was unacceptable that after almost a year and a half, she was being informed about circumstances that she should have been told about initially. She explained that she had received different information from various staff members. She stated that the situation was affecting the mental wellbeing of her and her children.
  5. The landlord sent its final response on 18 January 2022. It accepted that there had been a miscommunication between landlord and the council which meant that it was unaware that the resident and council thought that the landlord had entered into a reciprocal agreement. The landlord apologised for the upset and distress this had caused the resident and her family. It confirmed that although it was not the landlord’s intention to agree to a reciprocal agreement, that due to the miscommunication, it would honour the agreement and was awaiting a response from the council on the matter. It confirmed the resident would still need to make bids on the council’s scheme and that it had no influence over the shortlisting. The landlord also offered £100 compensation for the service falling below the standard it aims to achieve. It confirmed that it had checked the contacts from the resident on the matter and found that these had been responded to in a timely manner.
  6. In March 2022 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She subsequently confirmed to the Ombudsman that she wanted to be rehoused by her landlord and couldn’t understand why her landlord said the reciprocal agreement was an error when she had been placed on the housing register.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The complaint involves communications between the resident, landlord and council. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints relating to Local Authorities (in this instance the council) where they relate to the Local Authority’s provision or management of social housing. A council’s management of a housing register does not come within this definition and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. Such issues can be pursued by raising a complaint with the council and then if necessary through the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.  This investigation therefore does not adjudicate on the council’s management of its housing register. However, communications from the council are referred to as context where necessary.
  2. As well being on the council’s housing register the resident was also registered on the landlord’s own transfer waiting list. While the resident indicated to the Ombudsman that she wants to be rehoused by her landlord, the complaint did not raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of her application on its transfer list. The Ombudsman can only address issues that have been through a landlord’s complaint process and so this is also not covered in the investigation. OSJ
  3. The resident has stated that the issues raised in the complaint affected her and her family’s mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a person’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  4. It is noted in the evidence provided in this case that the resident had additional concerns following the completion of the complaints process. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate issues that have not progressed through a landlord’s complaints process and, as such, these issues have not been referenced in this investigation.

Landlord’s handling of initial communication with the council

  1. In its response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that it had contacted the council on 16 October 2020, following contact from the resident. It claimed it informed the council that should the resident be rehoused via the council’s housing register her property would then be available for the council to relet via its housing register. The landlord maintained that it believed this was in line with its nomination agreement to provide 75 per cent of its vacant homes for reletting via the council’s housing register. However, the landlord noted that the council’s letter to the resident in February 2021 referred to a ‘reciprocal agreement’. It explained that this suggested that the council understood that her property would be provided in addition to the 75 per cent nomination rights. The landlord stated that because of the demand for its homes, it only agreed to reciprocal arrangements for residents in band A on its own transfer scheme (the resident was in band C).
  2. The evidence indicates the landlord did not handle the communication with the council effectively. The council’s housing allocation policy states ‘Those who are assessed as lacking one bedroom will not normally be included on the Housing Register unless they are existing social housing tenants and their landlords have agreed to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the Council’. This applied to the resident’s situation and the landlord should have been aware of this policy. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a contemporaneous record of the communication that took place on 16 October 2020. However, in responding to the resident’s complaint it identified that the officer involved ‘did not fully understand what it was she was confirming/agreeing to’. It was therefore appropriate that in its final response the landlord acknowledged that an error had occurred.
  3. In addition, the landlord failed to properly confirm to the resident at the time what it had proposed to the council. The landlord’s communication with the council on 16 October 2020 was a significant intervention on behalf of its resident and therefore should have been explained in writing to the resident at the time. There is no evidence that this took place. Had this happened the miscommunication identified by the landlord may have been apparent to the resident when she received the letter from the council confirming a reciprocal agreement. It was positive and in line with this Service’s expectation that landlords learn from outcomes of complaints that in its stage one response the landlord confirmed it had recommended further staff training be carried out on record-keeping and that staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. It also apologised if the position was not made clear to the resident.
  4.  It should be noted that prior to the landlord denying the reciprocal agreement in an email to the resident on 21 October 2021, the errors by the landlord did not have an adverse effect on the resident. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s errors enabled the resident to be accepted onto the council’s housing register in the first instance and to bid for properties in line with the council’s allocation policy. Until the landlord’s communication on 21 October 2021 the resident was not aware that there were concerns about whether a reciprocal agreement was in place; however, this did not affect the resident’s priority for housing within the housing register.

Landlord’s responses to the resident identifying a ‘reciprocal agreement’

  1. On 13 October 2021 the resident communicated to the landlord that she understood that a reciprocal agreement was in place and asked the landlord to contact the council on her behalf regarding a bid she had made. The reply from the landlord on 21 October 2021 and its stage one complaint response on 22 November 2021, did not show appropriate consideration of the resident’s concerns. The landlord should have been aware that a communication with the council had taken place on the matter in October 2020 and should also have been aware of the council’s policy regarding allowing a social housing tenant in the resident’s situation to join the housing register. Bearing this in mind, together with the resident’s reference to a reciprocal agreement, the landlord should have contacted the council to clarify the position at that time. Instead, the landlord confirmed that it had no record of a reciprocal agreement being in place. It also added in the response of 22 November 2021 that if there was a reciprocal agreement it would not be necessary for the resident to make bids. This response would have been confusing and worrying for the resident who understood that a reciprocal agreement had been agreed.
  2. On 23 November 2021 the resident sent the landlord a copy of the letter from the council. This confirmed she was registered on its housing register on the basis of a reciprocal agreement with her landlord. She requested that her complaint be escalated to the next stage. The landlord replied to the resident on 26 November 2021 confirming it now recognised that there had been a miscommunication with the council and apologised for the confusion. It explained that it did not mean to agree a reciprocal arrangement and went on to explain what a reciprocal agreement meant. This included correcting its previous response by confirming that bids on the council’s scheme were still necessary with a reciprocal agreement. It confirmed that due to the inconvenience and confusion that had been caused to the resident, that it would honour the reciprocal agreement. Exercising its discretion to confirm the reciprocal agreement could proceed was a significant action by the landlord in addressing its failures and resolving the complaint to the resident’s benefit. Had the landlord decided to inform the council that a reciprocal agreement had been made in error and needed be cancelled this may have impacted on the resident’s eligibility to remain on the council’s housing register, and therefore reduced her housing options.
  3. The resident raised a concern that her landlord should have been contacting the council to support her bids for properties because of the reciprocal agreement. There is no evidence that the landlord had a responsibility to do this or that it could have influenced the shortlisting carried out by the council. Even though the resident was accepted onto the council’s housing register due to the reciprocal agreement, once this had a happened the process was one whereby she needed to make bids directly via the council’s homeseeker scheme. The council had responsibility for shortlisting and prioritising and explaining how its scheme worked. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to point this out in its response to the resident and in doing so it took steps to ensure that the resident was aware of the responsibilities of all parties.
  4. The resident confirmed on 1 December 2021 that she still wished to escalate the complaint to stage two as she felt that due to the confusion the landlord should liaise with council to arrange a transfer for her. The landlord’s response sent on 18 January 2022 confirmed its previous communication of 26 November 2021. In addition, it made a fuller apology stating ‘I can see that you are clearly going through a very upsetting and stressful situation and I apologise for any upset and distress these errors have caused you and your family. I do appreciate how frustrating it must be when waiting to find a more suitable home for you and your family and the miscommunication has exacerbated this.’ It did not specifically identify it should have carried a more comprehensive investigation at stage one of the complaint process but it was positive that the landlord made this fuller apology.An apology where a landlord acknowledges and accepts responsibility for a service failure and expresses sincere regret is an action considered by this Service when assessing the appropriateness of the redress provided to a resident.
  5. The landlord had previously explained to the resident that it did not have any influence over the council’s shortlisting. It was therefore not in a position to liaise   with the council to arrange a transfer as requested by the resident. In its final response the landlord confirmed that it was in the process of contacting the council to discuss the reciprocal agreement and would update the resident further following this. The evidence shows that the landlord made efforts to pursue the matter prior to its final response, confirming that it was happy to honour the reciprocal agreement. In March 2022 the council did email the resident, with a copy to the landlord regarding her housing situation and this did confirm the reciprocal arrangement. The landlord therefore made appropriate communications with council once it had acknowledged the problem that had occurred.
  6. The final response also looked at the issue of compensation. It identified that the landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to offer compensation payments where the service had fallen below the standards it aimed to achieve. It therefore made an offer of £100 which was within the scope provided by the policy. In view of the distress and inconvenience that would have been caused between 21 October 2021 and 26 November 2021 when the reciprocal agreement was not investigated and denied by the landlord, it was appropriate to make this offer of compensation. Alongside the full apology and the confirmation it would honour the reciprocal agreement, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this provides reasonable redress for the errors that occurred.

Timeliness of landlord’s responses to the resident’s enquiries

  1. The resident’s complaint included that she had ‘sent various emails concerning this matter without any response for the lettings department’. In its stage one complaint response on 22 November 2021 the landlord identified its records of contact from the resident and when it had responded, claiming that these had been timely responses. This covered contact in August 2021 when general housing options advice was provided and in October 2021 when the specific issue of a reciprocal agreement was first raised by the resident. These details match the information provided to the Ombudsman and show the landlord did respond in a timely manner. The landlord confirmed this view in its final response. The Ombudsman does not have evidence which challenges this assertion and therefore considers this was an appropriate response from the landlord.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord provided reasonable level of redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. The distress and inconvenience occurred primarily between 21 October 2021 and 26 November 2021 when due to its previous miscommunication with the council the landlord informed the resident there was no reciprocal agreement in place. Following recognition of the error the landlord responded that it would honour the reciprocal agreement, provided a full apology for the distress it caused and offered £100 compensation. The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s concern that it should be contacting the council on her behalf and that it had not dealt with her queries in a timely manner.

Determination

  1. Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:
    1. That the landlord re-offers the compensation of £100 to the resident if this has not already been paid.
    2. That the landlord carries out further staff training on record-keeping and remind staff of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records if it has not already done so.
    3. That the landlord carries out staff training on the housing allocations policy and procedure including the circumstances and process whereby reciprocal transfers with the local authority are agreed and communicated to the resident.