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

Bournville Village Trust (202125427)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125427

Bournville Village Trust

26 August 2022


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and its response to her concerns about its allocation process.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaint regarding the change in the landlord’s allocation process, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern policies which have been properly decided by the landlord in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic service failure.
  3. As such the focus of this investigation, is to determine whether or not the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies and procedures at the time of the resident’s complaint. Reference will be made to the relevant policies for background purposes.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association with charitable aims. The property is a second floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. In September 2018 the resident applied for a three-bedroom property for her and her partner. The landlord confirmed that she had been added to its waiting list for a three-bed accommodation as of 20 September 2018. The resident enquired about her position on the landlord’s waiting list in mid-March 2021, as she highlighted, she had not received an offer in over two years. She wrote to the landlord in late March 2021 detailing her preference in characteristics and location of the property, and again in early April 2021 querying how long she had to wait for a reply as she was yet to receive a response (there was no further correspondence between the resident and landlord from April to early September 2021).
  3. The landlord issued the resident a letter dated 22 September 2021 regarding her current wait to be allocated a property. It advised that following the review of its current waiting list and lettings and allocation policy, it had revisited its purpose to ensure its service to all residents met its aims of fairness and integrity. The landlord explained that previously over the years additional priority was given to residents with a Trust connection (applicants in continuous service, pensioner, or employed with the Trust) meaning they would be given preference for the home and as a result the need for social housing had been superseded by it.
  4. The landlord advised that it had a duty to ensure homes were allocated in a way that met increasing needs of the communities, and to ensure properties were allocated based on need as a priority, size and make up of those applying for housing. It detailed the criteria used to allocate properties including not exceeding a maximum of two people per bedroom. The landlord explained that after reviewing the resident’s application against its current criteria, her need was for a one-bedroom property. It explained that her application on the waiting list for a three-bedroom property had been removed as she did not need such a property and it did not retain one-bedroom properties. It advised that it could support the resident in applying through its webpage for an available property.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord’s letter on 26 September 2021 stating that she was dissatisfied and wished to appeal its decision to cancel her application, (this was treated as the resident’s formal complaint). The resident explained that at the time she applied for rehousing she had met its criteria. She said it had always been the policy to offer couples who met the allocation criteria, two or three-bedroom properties based on availability. She questioned why she was “penalised” because she had not been offered a property as yet. The resident suggested that new applicants should be subject to the change instead of applicants who had waited years for an offer under the previous criteria. The resident highlighted that she had seen several vacant properties including some of which had not been re-let. She noted that if the properties were allocated as soon as they became vacant, it would help with demand and she would have been rehoused, as she had been advised she was second on its waiting list.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2021 stating that the allocation of social rent homes was increasingly challenging, in particular the ability to find suitable-sized housing. The landlord advised that in line with its lettings and allocation policy, properties had to be let in accordance with the eligibility criteria for bedroom numbers. It noted that it did not allow under occupancy of social rented homes and had taken it into consideration when reviewing its allocations policy. The landlord advised that the resident’s 2018 application had been accepted based on how properties were allocated at that time; it noted that there would be a crossover period whereby any changes would directly affect residents waiting for rehousing. The landlord explained that the impact of Covid-19 resulted in delays in delivering some of its vacant properties, and that properties would be made available once they had gone through its empty property process. It further explained that it was unable to provide details of individual vacant properties, but assured that it was working to ensure all available properties were let in line with the appropriate allocation criteria. It noted it would honour the time on the waiting list on its choice-based lettings system for any current applicant who still wished to apply for housing but did not meet the bedroom criteria.
  7. The resident asked that the landlord further investigate her appeal against its decision to dismiss her housing application on 17 October 2021 (escalation request). She raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint in September 2021. She stated she did not understand its reason for its change in policy as she noted it had not been hugely influential in the housing need due to its limited allocation criteria. The resident noted that many applicants had been rehoused in properties larger than their needs due to the criterion. The resident questioned why the landlord cancelled existing applications rather than introducing the new criteria for new applicants. She noted that the impacts of Covid-19 and its inability to let the properties on time was not her fault. The resident said that she believed if vacant properties had been offered in a timelier manner, she would have been offered one before its policy review. The resident said that she believed she had been treated unfairly and that it had not addressed her concerns in full.
  8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 November 2021 and apologised to the resident for the disappointment and upset caused. The landlord agreed that it was not hugely influential in allocation of social housing, and that the significant demand was the reason it had returned to its original purpose. The landlord explained that the resident was accepted on the waiting list at the time the Trust connection was the overriding criteria for allocating properties. It advised that following the review of the waiting list and its intention, the resident had been removed from the list as her need for housing had no longer met the bedroom requirements. It asked that the resident consider a market rent property if she wished to rent a property with additional bedrooms, as it did not have the same bedroom allocation criteria nor was it considered a social housing property. The landlord explained that the provision of the social housing was allocated to those needing the appropriately sized property. The landlord noted the challenge in letting available properties during 2021 was not always met in a timely manner and this was impacted by staffing issues, a new allocation system and the ongoing impact of Covid-19. It explained that its delayed allocation of properties was unintentional and had affected residents across all of its empty homes. It explained that acceptance on to its waiting list did not guarantee an offer would be made.
  9. The resident passed her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint response and noted that she believed it had not addressed her complaint in full.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and its response to her concerns about its allocation process

  1. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy advises that it allocates properties through a housing need system used to prioritise applications.
  2. From the information provided, it is evident that at the time of the resident’s housing application, the landlord had a different approach including charitable aims which was the overriding criteria for allocating properties. However, that changed following its review in 2021 which gave rise to the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord explained that the provision of the social housing was allocated to those needing the appropriately sized property. The landlord’s application and lettings policy states that housing need would be assessed using its housing need system designed for applicants in the greatest of need for either a two or three-bedroom house. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise of its priority to consider those who met its criteria based on housing need. The landlord’s explanation for the change in its allocation criteria based on an increase in demand for properties, and the limited number of properties available, was appropriate and in line with its allocations and lettings policy. Given the general demand in the housing sector, this was reasonable.
  4. The lettings policy advises that it will allocate properties considering individual circumstances and requirements of the household. It sets out the degree of housing need which includes mutual transfers of existing residents to improve their housing conditions. In this case nothing in the evidence provided by the resident suggested that she was in immediate need of rehousing due to the condition of the property or any individual circumstances. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure all available properties were let in line with its appropriate allocation criteria.
  5. The landlord advised that the resident’s application for a three-bedroom property did not match her needs. The landlord’s lettings policy utilizes a size allocation criterion for offering accommodation. It states that a bedroom is necessary for each couple living together and would not exceed a maximum of two people per bedroom. Given that the resident’s need for a one-bedroom property did not match her application, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to advise that she no longer met its criteria. The landlord appropriately apologised and provided a clear written explanation behind the withdrawal of the resident’s housing application. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer support to honour the date of the resident’s application to the list on its system for a one-bed property.
  6. Whilst the resident has stated that if the properties were allocated as soon as they became vacant, she would have been rehoused, there is no way of confirming this as a certainty. The landlord advised that its delay in letting available properties during 2021 was impacted by staffing issues, a new allocation system, and the ongoing impact of Covid-19. These factors are often outside a landlord’s control, and therefore have had a clear impact on the time taken to let its available properties. In such cases a landlord would reasonably be expected to show evidence of managing a tenant’s expectations, and providing meaningful updates. Notwithstanding that, although the resident’s application was accepted prior, given the reasonable change in policy, her housing need had not matched her application request and would be considered under occupation.
  7. The landlord’s applications and lettings policy operate a housing need system of either a two or three-bedroom property and therefore the landlord’s decision to withdraw the resident’s application based on her need for a one-bedroom property was appropriate and in line with its policy. The resident suggested that new applicants should be subject to the change instead of applicants who had waited years for an offer under the previous criteria. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident especially given the time period on the waiting list. Nonetheless, despite the resident being at the top of the landlord’s waiting list, in accordance with its lettings policy, registration did not guarantee that an allocation would be made and therefore, ensuring all applications were treated fairly, was reasonable.
  8. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and queries by explaining the reasons behind its change in the allocation process, what her rehousing options were and how she could apply under market rent property. It addressed the questions the resident raised about her period on its waiting list and its decision to withdraw her application instead of it solely applying to new applicants. Having considered all of the above, there is no evidence which indicates there were shortcomings by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and its response to her concerns about its allocation process.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint regarding the change in the landlord’s allocation’s process, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.