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

Cotman Housing Association Limited (202016991)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016991

Cotman Housing Association Limited

13 November 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 application to be rehoused.

Background

  1. The resident is an applicant of the landlord.
  2. In December 2020, the resident requested to be added to the landlord’s internal list to be considered for a property. The resident was initially advised that the list was at full capacity due to long waiting times but was subsequently added on 8 December 2020. The landlord explained that its properties were owned by a third party scheme, which had 100% of the nomination rights to the property. It advised that it would only be able to offer a property to an applicant on its internal list, if the scheme was unable to nominate someone within the timeframe.
  3. Following correspondence with the resident, this Service asked the landlord to contact the resident about her complaint regarding it’s handling of her application to be rehoused. The resident was dissatisfied that she had not been offered a property, despite being advised that she was a priority.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it explained that the purpose of the scheme was to rehouse social housing tenants from London, and as the resident did not live in London she did not qualify. It confirmed that the resident was on the landlord’s internal waiting list, but she would only be successful if it did not receive a nomination from the scheme when there was an available property. It advised that although she was on its internal list, it could not guarantee that the resident would be offered a property.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as she had not been offered a property, despite the landlord advising she would be a priority.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident requested to be rehoused. In accordance with paragraph 42(p) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints which “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide”. The Ombudsman would not be able to order the landlord to offer the resident a property as we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord or details regarding other applicants. Instead, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused

  1. The landlord manages the properties but they are owned by a third party organisation, which is a scheme that offers social housing tenants in London over the age of 55 properties outside of London. When a property becomes available, the third party provides a maximum of ten nominations for potential applicants. If the third party exceeds the timeframe to offer a nomination, the landlord can offer the property to an applicant on its own internal list. As such, the landlord was obliged to act within the parameters of the scheme.
  2. The landlord handled the resident’s housing application appropriately as it acted in line with the scheme and clearly explained the process to the resident. Following the resident’s request to be placed onto the landlord’s internal list, the landlord clearly explained that applicants nominated by the scheme would be prioritised. It managed the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity regarding the likelihood of her being allocated a property as it stated that some applicants had been on the list for several years and the location she had requested was in high demand. As such, the landlord clearly communicated the procedure to the resident and outlined that it would not be quick process.
  3. Although it is understood that the resident was experiencing difficulties with her current property, which was the reason for requesting the move, the landlord would not be obliged to offer her a property. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s circumstances as it made her a priority on its internal list. However, as it was not her current landlord, it was limited in the actions it could take to support her. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to contact her current landlord about the issues she was experiencing as it would be in a position to provide support with issues such as anti-social behaviour. 
  4. The landlord exceeded its obligations, by contacting the scheme and requesting that an exception was made for the resident, in light of issues she was experiencing at her current property and her medical conditions. However, it was outside of the landlord’s control that its request was rejected. The landlord also took steps to signpost the resident to alternative ways to move properties, such as contacting her current landlord, considering mutual exchange and considering alternative locations which had lower demand.
  5. Ultimately, the landlord was limited in the actions it can take, as it was restricted to the parameters of the scheme. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take and that it expected long wait times before a property would become available to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused.