Abri Group Limited (202102258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102258

Abri Group Limited

18 August 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s banding and priority allocation in respect of the resident’s housing need and request for a three-bedroom property on overcrowding and medical grounds.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s contact as to her housing situation and request to move property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s transfer band and priority allocation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
It is acknowledged by the landlord that the resident is living in overcrowded conditions. As such, she applied to be moved to a larger property based on overcrowding and later provided supporting medical evidence. Both overcrowding and medical grounds are allocation scheme ‘reasonable preference’ categories.
The landlord stated that the resident is on the correct band for overcrowding and determined that the medical evidence provided does not increase her housing need or band allocation.
Responsibility for housing allocations sits with the Local Housing Authority under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, irrespective of whether the assessment of the application is undertaken by a partner landlord. In these circumstances the partner landlord is acting on behalf of the local housing authority.
This includes complaints about the actions of a Housing Association where it is the agent of the Local Housing Authority i.e. where it is a partner to an Allocation Scheme, run by, or on behalf of the Local Housing Authority.
The Local Government Ombudsman will consider complaints that concern the handling of an allocation under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, including applications for a transfer if this falls within one of the ‘reasonable preference’ categories.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
Consequently, the resident’s complaint about her transfer band is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and the resident is able to pursue the matter with the appropriate body, which is the Local Government Ombudsman, if she so wishes.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 30 June 2008.
The property is a one-bedroom property. The resident lives in the property with her partner and two children; one boy and one girl.
The landlord’s transfer procedural guidance states at paragraph 7.4, in respect of medical assessment of housing priority need, that “Customers will be notified of the decision reached by the independent medical assessor. They will also be advised of the right to appeal against the decision”.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to complaints at stage one within 10-20 working days.
The landlord’s customer relations procedure (also known as the landlord’s complaints procedure) states that there are circumstances in which it may not accept a complaint and provides some examples, although complaints about priority banding are not referred to. This is reiterated in its complaints policy.
Paragraph 6.5 of the same document states that “If we decide not to accept a complaint, or to deal with it differently, we will explain the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and/or outline how we are dealing with it and why”. This is also reiterated in its complaints policy.

Summary of events

In 2018, the resident’s property need increased from a two bed to a three-bedroom property when her daughter turned 10 years old.
The landlord’s records show that the resident bid on a number of properties during January 2019 and a further property in February 2019.
On 8 January 2019 the resident emailed the landlord about her housing situation and the impact of a family of four living in a one-bedroom property. The resident referred to her own mental health suffering as a result of overcrowding, referring to having a diagnosis of depression and taking antidepressants. The resident said she was experiencing panic attacks and had been referred for counselling.
The resident stressed the lack of privacy and concern for her children sharing a bedroom, with her daughter soon to reach puberty. She asked to discuss the situation with the landlord and also for her email to be passed on to anyone who could help.
On 11 January 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. The landlord asked the resident to advise how many bedrooms were in the property and how old her son was, in order for it to assess her housing situation. The landlord added that its general advice would be to register on the housing transfer list or to seek a mutual exchange.
On the same date the resident responded, providing the answers to the landlord’s questions and stated that she had already been on the mutual exchange register for seven years and was already on the housing transfer list.
On 16 January 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s email and suggested broadening her search area.
On the same date the resident responded expressing her frustration and despair about the situation. She said that the previous summer, the landlord had advised that nothing could be done because she did not have medical issues; now that she did have medical issues the landlord was stating it still could do nothing to help. The resident asked for the matter to be escalated.
On 22 January 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s email, stating that it had already advised of the options open to her and said that in accordance with process the matter would be escalated to the ‘Neighbourhood Officer’ who could “see if there is anything different to advise on” and that she should expect a response within 10 working days.
The following month, on 26 February 2019, the landlord requested evidence of the resident’s medical condition.
On 7 March 2019, the resident’s GP wrote her a supporting letter, stating her opinion that her housing situation had triggered panic attacks, palpitations, dizziness and face tingling. The GP added that he noted a worsening in the resident’s anxiety in an appointment with her on 23 November 2018 and confirmed that she was taking antidepressant medication and had been referred to talking therapies.
On 20 March 2019, having assessed the medical evidence provided, it was deemed that “overcrowding was not a medical matter”. On the same date, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise of this and included information on how to appeal the decision. There is no information as to any appeal submitted by the resident and she continued to bid on properties.
The landlord’s records show the resident bidding on a property on 21 March 2019.
On 13 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord in response to a letter received regarding noise in the block. The resident responded that this was “not surprising” given that four people were living in a one-bedroom property and explained the impact on the family; the children have to get dressed in the toilet, there is no room to study and there are constant arguments. She reiterated that she was taking antidepressants and was having counselling because of the issues and referred to her GP having written to the landlord about the impact of her housing situation on her health.
The resident asked about the landlord’s policy regarding children of the opposite sex over the age of ten due to concerns about her children sharing and said that the situation had been going on for seven years and she wanted to be contacted and a resolution provided.
On 15 August 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s email, stating that it had notified a particular member of staff about the situation. It advised the resident to continue to look for and bid on three-bedroom properties or could look to mutually exchange.
The resident recommenced bidding a year later in February and March 2020 and further properties later that year in September, October and November 2020.
In February 2021, the resident bid on properties again and on 19 Feb 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her request to move property, stating that the goalposts had continually moved as to meeting the threshold for a larger property.
The resident repeated the impact of the overcrowding on the mental health of her and her family, with them all sharing one bedroom, stating that the situation had now been going on for nine years and that the last 12 months had been particularly hard.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident its stage one response to the complaint, which was its final response. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not offer escalation of the complaint further as the issue of banding is dealt with under its transfer and waiting list procedure and not its complaint procedure. It added that the resident had been advised of her right to appeal the decision made, following assessment of medical evidence in March 2019.
In its response, the landlord explained that the resident’s options were to:
1. continue bidding on properties.
2. consider a mutual exchange.
3. register for housing with the council.
4. submit evidence of a change in medical needs by completing a medical questionnaire and providing a letter from a doctor or consultant supporting this, dated within the last three months.
The landlord noted that all of the options it set out had previously been exhausted and said that as such, its response was a courtesy response, which would enable the resident to take her case to the Ombudsman in accordance with process.
The resident continued to bid on properties in March, April, May and July 2021.

Assessment and findings

This Service is unable to comment on the landlord’s decision regarding priority banding, as discussed in the jurisdictional section of this report. The Ombudsman can, however, assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s contact and queries regarding her situation and request to move property. This Service can determine whether the landlord’s responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Having received the resident’s email on 8 January 2019, in respect of overcrowding at the property and mental health issues as a result of this, the landlord responded quickly, replying two days later, requesting further information as to the overcrowding. Had the landlord checked its records it would have been aware of the occupancy, however, its question was not unreasonable to ask to expediate a front line response to the query.
The landlord did not, however, offer to discuss the situation, as the resident requested. Nor did it address the resident’s mental health concerns that she had referred to in her email. In not doing so, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had heard and understood all of the resident’s concerns and the gravity with which it was affecting her and her family.
The advice the landlord gave in both its initial response and thereafter on 16 January 2019, regarding registering for a transfer and mutual exchange as well as widening her search criteria, while appropriate, lacked a demonstration of empathy and understanding of the impact. This lack, left the resident feeling frustrated and unheard, which is evident in her email back to the landlord, where she expressed the goal posts had kept changing and asked for the matter to be escalated.
The landlord again missed the issue raised by the resident, notably the perception of changed goalposts and essentially a lack of transparency and communication of the process.
Although the landlord agreed to escalate the matter, it did so on the basis of advice and what other advice might be able to be provided, again missing the complaint around communication and transparency.
While the landlord has said that it does not deal with dissatisfaction with priority banding as part of its complaints process, the complaint about the goal posts changing was distinct from that. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this stage as it should have done, in accordance with its complaints policy and procedure.
There is no information as to if and when an escalated advice response was received, however, the landlord did ask for medical evidence in accordance with its policy, on 26 February 2019.
Following its assessment of the medical evidence, the landlord advised the resident that she was entitled to appeal the decision which was appropriate as it was in accordance with its policy. There is no evidence of the resident taking up her right to appeal and in the absence of this there was no review of the decision the resident was dissatisfied with. Although understandably frustrated, the resident was afforded the correct time and opportunity to take up an appeal which she did not do.
Following the resident’s email of 13 August 2019, the landlord again missed a key aspect of the resident’s contact, which was her enquiry about the landlord’s policy and guidance around different sex children sharing a bedroom over a certain age.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to this and aggravated the original complaint around a lack of transparency and communication, which had remained unaddressed. The landlord’s repetition of standard advice did not demonstrate a tailored response to a specific problem and the resident’s concerns that she had taken time to write to the landlord and explain on a number of occasions. There was a continued lack of empathy and understanding from the landlord in its responses.
The landlord’s response to the complaint repeated standard advice and again did not demonstrate it had heard and understood the complaint or address the resident’s concerns. There was a lack of sensitivity and empathy in response to what has clearly been a stressful and upsetting situation that has been ongoing for a lengthy period of time.
Responding to a complaint requires investigation of the issues and there is no evidence of an attempt to investigate the changing goalposts the resident refers to or her previous contact with the landlord about medical evidence.
There is no evidence of the landlord discussing the complaint with the resident to seek to fully understand it or of it investigating how it handled her application to move property which is separate from a complaint about a banding decision and can and should be investigated in accordance with its complaints process.
The landlord has advised that it did not treat the complaint in accordance with its complaints process as it related to banding, however this was not the only issue. Moreover, its complaints procedure states that where it does decide not to investigate a complaint in accordance with its policy, it will explain this to the resident and its reasons why, which it did not do.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application to move property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application to move property insofar as it did not enquire with her about her mental health or advise her as to medical evidence she would need to obtain, when she contacted it and referred to her mental health being a factor impacted by overcrowding.
The landlord did not explain the process to the resident, nor provide her with the polices around different sex children sharing a bedroom (or explain them) when asked. The landlord did not communicate effectively and transparently.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling insofar as it did not raise a complaint when the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her application and it did not respond to her concerns about the goalposts being moved either before or after it raised a formal complaint.
The landlord failed distinguish the matter complained of as separate to a challenge of the priority banding awarded and failed to investigate the matter as a complaint, in accordance with its complaints procedure. Its responses lacked empathy and sensitivity, given the situation which was clearly expressed by the resident on different occasions.
The landlord did not explain why it had decided not to explain why it had not investigated the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy, as its procedural guidance states it should do.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation comprised of:

£125 for the service failures identified in its handling of the resident’s application to move property.
£125 for the service failures identified in its complaints handling.

The landlord to offer to meet with the resident to discuss her housing situation, with a view to explaining the process clearly and providing any relevant policies or information or guidance documents.
The resident to carry out complaints handling training, specifically focusing on distinguishing areas that can be investigated as a complaint from those that cannot and training around customer service, including effective communication.
The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.