Anchor Hanover Group (202006922)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006922

Anchor Hanover Group

15 October 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 applicant 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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s request to be rehoused.
2. The applicant’s concern that the landlord’s Allocations Policy discriminates against him.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The applicant is not a tenant of the landlord but has applied to it for rehousing. Landlord records show that the applicant has been on a waiting list for a retirement age property since 2007. Since his application, the Housing Association he originally applied to merged with another to form the landlord in its current iteration. Within this report, the landlord in its current iteration will be referred to as ‘the landlord’, while the Housing Association the applicant originally applied to will be referred to as ‘Housing Association A’. The organisation it merged with in 2018 will be referred to as ‘Housing Association B’.
The landlord has an Allocations Policy which states that it maintains a waiting list for ‘each estate and, where it is not a Local Authority nomination, all lettings are made from the waiting list’. It also advises that applicants can ‘normally’ apply for housing on no more than five different estates.
The landlord’s Allocations Policy also notes that it seeks to ‘maximise the occupancy of our properties’ and therefore considers single people first for its studio and ‘1 bed 1 person flats’, while prioritising ‘couples and 2-person adult households’ for ‘1 bed 2 person flats’. It advises that ‘single people may be considered’ but the household sizes mentioned above have priority and it ‘will only consider smaller households for these property types when there is no one satisfying our priority applicant criteria’.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure and advises that it aims to provide a response at Stage One within 14 calendar days of receiving the complaint, or it will provide an explanation as to why this is not possible. It notes that it will not take ‘more than 20 working days total without good reason’. It also aims to respond at Stage Two (if any appeal is received regarding its Stage One response) within 14 calendar days.

Scope of Investigation

Within his complaint, the applicant raised several queries regarding how the landlord has handled his waiting list application since he originally applied in 2007. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint with a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’.
From the information submitted to this Service, the applicant’s original complaint regarding how his waiting list application had been handled was submitted in December 2019. The significant length of time between the original application in 2007 and the applicant’s complaint means it is difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate some of the areas of concern raised, as in some cases they took place over a decade ago. For this reason, while the Ombudsman has reviewed all the information provided and will consider the history of the applicant’s case within the context of the landlord’s overall handling of his waiting list application and subsequent complaint, issues which occurred within the period of 6 months prior to December 2019 until the landlord’s final complaint response have been considered in this investigation.

Summary of Events

In January 2007, the applicant applied to Housing Association A’s waiting list for a retirement age property. Following his application, in 2018 Housing Association A merged with Housing Association B. Information provided by the landlord has confirmed that the applicant’s application and place on the waiting list was not affected by the merger. However, it is also noted that the respective Housing Associations’ waiting lists were not merged and continued to be kept separate.
On 12 December 2019, the applicant wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint. While he advised that he had written ‘several’ others which had been ignored, this Service has not seen evidence of those letters. In his complaint, the applicant stated that:
1. He had been ‘threatened’ with being removed from the waiting list in August 2018 due to not responding to an offer of a property, which the applicant stated he was unaware of.
2. A letter he had sent regarding ‘letters and phone calls going astray’ had not been responded to.
3. The landlord had moved him from 5th place on the waiting list to 15th, which he believed was ‘illegal’ as he had not received any offer as stated above.
The landlord acknowledged the applicant’s complaint by letter on 19 December 2019. It summarised that it considered his complaint to be regarding his concerns over ‘the time you have been on the waiting list’. However, the landlord wrote to the applicant again on 3 January 2020 to advise that, ‘due to further investigations being necessary’ it would not be able respond to his complaint within the 14-day target it had previously advised. It did not provide an updated target for when a response would be provided.
On 21 February 2020, the applicant wrote to the landlord to chase its complaint response. The landlord finally provided this on 2 March 2020. In its response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed that the applicant remained registered for estates at two locations, although it advised that ‘joint applicants will take priority over single applicants’ at both locations, meaning ‘it is likely that you will be on the list for some time’.
2. It was currently unable to provide his position on the waiting list, although it did not advise why it was not able to.
3. It noted that the applicant was only on the waiting list for Housing Association A. It advised that he could also be added to the waiting list for Housing Association B with his application date being backdated to the date the two organisations merged.
The applicant responded to the landlord on 27 March 2020. In his letter, he stated that he did not ‘believe that the (waiting) list is dealt with in a manner which is…fair or transparent’ and also:
1. Noted that the complaint response was sent from the offices of Housing Association B, who had ‘no involvement with my application of Jan 2007’.
2. Asked for an explanation as to why applicants are ‘not informed from the start how long your lists are’.
3. Asked that he be provided with any letter he had sent advising that he was only interested in housing in one location.
4. Stated that he believed ‘in the early years’ he had been taken off the list and ‘perhaps not put back on correctly’.
5. Stated that he had been on the waiting list for two other locations but had now been advised that only ‘applicants seeking 2 bed properties can apply’ and requested proof that he had ever applied for a 2 bed property.
6. Asked why it took ’12 years’ to advise him that there were only 5 top floor, 1-bed flats at his preferred location.
7. Repeated his concern regarding being historically ‘dropped’ down the waiting list and stated that he had a ‘legal right’ to know where he currently was on the list, despite the landlord advising on 2 March 2020 that it was ‘currently’ unable to advise him of this.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the applicant to acknowledge receipt of his letter and advise that its Customer Relations Team would respond in due course. However, there is no record of any further response being sent.
The applicant contacted this Service in October 2020, advising that he was doing so on the advice of the Regulator for Social Housing who was not able to assist with his enquiry. The applicant requested that this Service investigate how the landlord handled its housing waiting list and his application to it. This Service then wrote to the landlord to ascertain whether it had received any new complaint and, if so, what the current status of the complaint was.
Following subsequent further correspondence with this Service, the landlord issued a response to the applicant on 17 December 2020. The landlord advised this Service that it had escalated the complaint and responded at Stage Two rather than providing a response at Stage One. The landlord stated that it understood the applicant’s complaint to be about ‘moving you down the list due to not being able to contact you and that no one has contacted you regarding the complaints you have made’. It also advised that it believed the applicant was seeking resolution by way of an assurance that he had not, in fact, been moved down the waiting list and was still able to be offered a property at his chosen location. In its response, the landlord:
1. Advised it had reviewed the applicant’s application and confirmed that he had retained his original application date from January 2007.
2. Stated it was not able to provide a waiting list position for ‘Legacy’ properties but it advised the applicant he was in the top 10, although it could not provide his exact position ‘as this is subject to change if an applicant…granted priority comes on to the list’.
3. Clarified its shortlisting procedure and advised that it attempts to contact applicants twice in a 24-hour period if a property becomes available but that if they are uncontactable, it ‘steps over’ the applicant for that property and will subsequently write to enquire if the applicant wishes to remain on the list. It advised that according to its records, it had twice written to the applicant in this way and, as he had confirmed that he wanted to remain on the list both times, it had not made any changes to his application other than to update his contact details. It also stated it had now removed a further location from his application as he had advised he was not interested in that area.
The applicant responded to the landlord on 29 December 2020, via a letter sent to its Chief Executive’s office. In his letter, the applicant raised the following issues:
1. He stated it was unacceptable that the landlord’s Stage Two response had come from Housing Association B as his complaint regarded the waiting list operated by Housing Association A.
2. He reiterated that his complaint regarded how the landlord managed the waiting list.
3. He questioned how the landlord had not been able to contact him regarding shortlisting but had managed to do so when writing to him to establish if he wished to remain on its list.
4. He believed a member of the landlord’s staff had ‘fiddled’ the waiting list and he had been misled in 2007 by being allowed to join the list for two other estates which he had now been advised were only being allocated to people with a 2-bedroom need.
5. He stated it was ‘unlawful’ for the landlord to not provide him with his exact current position on the waiting list.
6. He advised he would refer the issue to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government if future complaint responses came from Housing Association B, rather than Housing Association B.
The applicant wrote again to the landlord on 2 January 2021 to reiterate his displeasure at Housing Association A apparently responding to his complaint on behalf of Housing Association B. He stated his belief that both organisations continued to be separate entities as the landlord’s previous response of 2 March 2020 advised he could join Housing Association B’s housing list. He also again stated he believed he was entitled to know his exact current position on the landlord’s waiting list and that he had been given this information previously, including on four occasions in 2018. The applicant also repeated his queries regarding the landlord’s inability to contact him when shortlisting and location choices made on his original application from 2007.
On 15 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the applicant. It acknowledged that it had written to him ‘recently’ to advised that it would consider his complaint further, although this Service has not seen a copy of this letter. However, the landlord now confirmed that it had nothing further to add to its responses and it considered that the applicant had now exhausted its complaint procedures. It provided details on how to escalate his case to this Service if he wished to do so.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s request to be rehoused

As noted above in the Scope of Investigation section, the applicant first made his application to Housing Association A’s waiting list 14 years ago. Due to the length of time that has passed and the fact that the Ombudsman will not ordinarily consider complaints that are not raised with the landlord within a reasonable period after any issues occurred, this investigation will focus on how the landlord handled the applicant’s application from six months prior to his original complaint in December 2019. The concerns the applicant raises regarding locations included on his original application and the landlord not being able to contact him during shortlisting therefore fall outside of the scope of this investigation.
The Ombudsman appreciates that social housing across the country is in short supply and applicants do, in many cases, face long waits to be rehoused. While a long wait for rehousing is not necessarily a sign of any fault or service failure on the part of a landlord, this Service acknowledges the significant length of time the applicant has been on the landlord’s waiting list and that this must be a genuine source of frustration for him. From the information available to this investigation, there is no evidence of any errors made by the landlord in how it has handled the applicant’s waiting list application. Although it is noted that the applicant is unhappy that some of the complaint responses have come from offices associated with Housing Association B, there is no evidence that any one side of the now merged organisation has ‘interfered’ with the waiting list of the other, pre-merger, Housing Association. There is no evidence that the landlord has artificially altered the applicant’s position on the waiting list at any point and, within its later complaint response, it has reasonably advised that it no longer provided exact waiting list positions as these are subject to change if other applicants with a higher priority subsequently join the list. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord treated the applicant fairly by trying to manage his expectations, although in its last complaint response, it used its discretion to advise him that he was now in the top 10 on the list for his preferred location. This was a reasonable and proactive step for it to take and shows it attempted to be transparent with the applicant as far as possible. While this Service acknowledges the applicant has advised he was previously given a waiting list position, the landlord’s explanation for why it no longer does so was reasonable.
The landlord also acted reasonably when advising the applicant that he could join Housing Association B’s waiting list and have his application backdated to the date of the merger if he wished to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, rather than prove the two Housing Associations continue to operate as separate organisations, it demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to treat the applicant fairly and advise him of further rehousing options that may be of benefit to him.
While this Service also acknowledges the applicant’s strongly held belief that he has been ‘bumped’ down the landlord’s waiting list and that this may have been due to his application being cancelled historically, there is no evidence that the landlord has done so. In its latest complaint response, the landlord has provided a clear explanation of its shortlisting process and its Allocations Policy and Procedures do not mention any scenario in which an applicant is moved down a list if they cannot be contacted. Rather, an applicant may be removed from the list altogether if they are uncontactable and do not respond to subsequent contact from the landlord. While this investigation is not covering events from prior to the summer of 2019, it is noted for context that landlord records show it was satisfied the applicant did respond and he was therefore kept on the waiting list. The landlord’s records do not contain any references to the applicant being removed from its waiting list at any time and this Service hopes that the applicant is reassured by the fact that there is no evidence within the information seen during this investigation that his application was cancelled at any point.

The applicant’s concern that the landlord’s Allocations Policy discriminates against him.

In correspondence with this Service in May 2021, the applicant queried whether the landlord’s Allocations Policy discriminates against him on the grounds of ‘sex discrimination against any male or female because they may be single’. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint response of 2 March 2020 advised the applicant that ‘joint applicants will take priority over single applicants’ at two of its estate locations that were the subject of correspondence. This, it advised, meant the applicant would be on the list ‘for some time’.
Paragraph 39(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are ‘made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’. It is noted that, within his complaints to the landlord, the applicant does not appear to have raised the issue of potential sex discrimination, meaning the landlord has not been given the opportunity to address this area of concern. Paragraph 39(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic service failure’.
However, whilst the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out what the Ombudsman can and cannot consider, as set out above, the Ombudsman has considered the applicant’s claim that he has been discriminated against, in the context of the landlord’s Allocations Policy and the explanations it has provided to him within its responses. It is noted that the landlord’s Allocations Policy is clear that it aims to maximise the occupancy of its properties and, for this reason, considers single people first for its studio and 1 bed, 1 person flats’, while it prioritises couples, or two-adult households for ‘1 bed, 2 person flats’. While it has advised the applicant that the properties in his preferred location fall into the latter category, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this does not amount to sex discrimination as the fact the applicant is male, or single, does not mean he is unfairly disadvantaged by the landlord’s policy. The landlord has a published Allocations Policy, which will have been signed off by its Board and the landlord is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, entitled to prioritise different household sizes for different types of properties as it sees fit. This Service fully appreciates that the applicant may be disappointed that couples or two-person households would be prioritised for properties in the location he has expressed a preference for. However, the landlord has been clear in correspondence with the applicant that he is still eligible for those properties, but that other larger households would be offered them first. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take and, as noted above, showed that it sought to manage his expectations accordingly regarding a potential lengthy wait time.
Although it is not for this Service to determine whether or not the landlord’s policies are discriminatory, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is no evidence that its policies treat the applicant unfairly. He remains eligible for housing via the landlord’s waiting list and, as a single person, would be prioritised for properties which the landlord has decided are suitable for single people. He remains eligible to apply for larger properties, such as the aforementioned 1-bed, 2 person flats, but the landlord has been transparent that larger households will be prioritised for these properties under its Allocations Policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its position is not unreasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Procedure outlines that it aims to provide a complaint response within 14 calendar days of receiving the complaint. It further states that, if this is not possible, it will provide customers with an explanation.
After receiving the initial complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging receipt on 19 December 2019. It then sent the applicant a holding letter on 3 January 2020 to advise him it would be unable to provide a response within the target time as further investigation was required. This was appropriate and showed the landlord attempted to keep the applicant abreast of how his complaint was progressing. However, the Ombudsman would also expect to see the landlord provide a new timeframe regarding how long it anticipated the further investigations to take and when the applicant may receive his response. That it did not do so was not appropriate and meant it missed an opportunity to provide further clarity to the applicant and to manage his expectations accordingly.
Having initially advised the applicant on 3 January 2020 that its response would be delayed, there is no evidence the landlord provided any further update until it issued its Stage One response until 2 March 2020, some two months later. This was not appropriate and caused the applicant to take the time and trouble to chase it for a response in late February 2020 as he had not heard further at that time. It is also noted that within its Stage One response, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay, nor did it offer an apology or any explanation as to why it was issued over a month outside of its stated target time. Although there is no evidence that the applicant was caused significant detriment by the delayed complaint response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord missed the opportunity to acknowledge the delay and to put things right, as per the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It is also noted that the landlord’s complaint response did not specify at which stage of the complaint process it was issued and did not provide any further information on how the applicant could escalate his complaint. This was not appropriate and, although the response pre-dated the publication of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman would nevertheless have expected the landlord to include this information as part of its standard complaint response.
It is also noted that, having received its Stage One response, the applicant requested his complaint be escalated. However, after it initially acknowledged the request in April 2020, there is no evidence the landlord provided any further response. This was not appropriate and meant that the landlord did not treat the applicant fairly, as it failed to proceed his complaint through its internal complaint procedure, which ultimately led him to contact this Service later in 2020.
Having been contacted by this Service regarding the applicant’s complaint in late 2020, the landlord responded to the applicant via a Stage Two complaint response in December 2020. It acknowledged there had been a delay in providing a further response and apologised for this which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was proportionate.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has advised that it responded to the applicant at Stage Two as it recognised the complaint was related to the one from earlier in year. However, while in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a proactive step for it to take, it is noted that the landlord’s response did not provide a similar explanation to the applicant, stating instead that it had simply ‘reviewed your complaint’. As it responded under a different complaint reference, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have provided further clarity to the applicant regarding how his complaints were being progressed.
After the applicant requested a further complaint escalation, the landlord initially acknowledged the request and advised it would carry out further investigations. However, it then wrote to him again in January 2021 and advised it would no longer provide any further response and considered it had responded to the complaint appropriately. While in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to advise the applicant it would not provide any response further to its Stage Two reply was not unreasonable and was in line with its complaints policy, for the sake of transparency, it would have been preferable for it to clarify why it had decided to no longer provide a further response.
Finally, it is also noted that the landlord has engaged well with this investigation and has provided this Service with a detailed summary regarding the applicant’s waiting list application. While many of the events are historic and fall outside the scope of this investigation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to demonstrate that its actions in terms of its handling of the applicant’s application have been appropriate and reasonable. It has also provided this Service with further information regarding its allocations procedures and certain changes in policy regarding why it no longer advises applicants of their position on the waiting list. Where comprehensive notes or records are not available due to the elapsing of time or because the events took place prior to its merger, it has provided reasonable explanations for this. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it is not clear why the landlord has not provided much of this information to the applicant himself within its complaint responses, which would have likely provided him with further clarity and reassurance. A more detailed response may have avoided some of the subsequent complaint escalation. Indeed, in correspondence with this Service as part of this investigation, the landlord notes that it had previously erred when advising the applicant of his waiting list position and that it understood ‘his frustrations in (us) being unable to answer his questions directly because of a lack of information from before the merger’ and that his ‘confidence in the authenticity of his positions’ may have been dented. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this demonstrates that the landlord has recognised the applicant’s feelings and that some past inconsistencies may have damaged his faith in the lettings process, which is to its credit. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it then missed an opportunity to convey this level of understanding to the applicant, whereby it may have been able to demonstrate earlier that it understood his concerns and also provide some further reassurance to him regarding how his waiting list application had been, and continued to be, handled.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s waiting list application.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to applicant’s concern that its Allocations Policy discriminates against him.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Reasons

There is no indication that the landlord has acted inappropriately in its handling of the applicant’s waiting list application. There is no evidence that it has ever cancelled his application or manipulated his position on the waiting list. However, it could have offered further explanation regarding its actions within its responses to the applicant so as to try and provide further reassurance to him.
There is no indication that the landlord’s allocations policy has discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of his sex or other protected characteristic or that the policy treats him unfairly. He remains eligible for housing via the landlord’s waiting list and the landlord is entitled to prioritise certain household sizes for particular properties as it sees fit as part of the management of its housing stock and in line with its agreed Allocations Policy.
The landlord delayed in issuing its Stage One response and did not initially acknowledge this within its complaint response. It then failed to progress the applicant’s complaint through its internal procedure after he requested that his complaint be escalated. It did not provide any further response for another nine months, only responding to the applicant again after he had had cause to contact this Service. It then caused further confusion by initially agreeing to carry out a further complaint review before it ultimately changed its position. It also should have provided the applicant with a more comprehensive explanation of its position within its complaint responses, as it did to this Service during this investigation.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation to the applicant within four weeks of the date of this report, consisting of:
1. £25 for the delay in issuing its Stage One response.
2. £25 for not providing the applicant with a comprehensive explanation of its position within its complaint response.
3. £50 for not progressing the applicant’s complaint escalation through its internal complaint procedure.

Recommendations

In order to help the applicant have a better understanding regarding the availability of properties in his choses area(s), the landlord should provide him with figures for the number of total lettings on these estates in the past two years and, of these lettings, how many were made to couples (or two person households) and how many were made to single people.