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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202102517)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102517

Guinness Housing Association Limited

23 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her property transfer.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident has explained that she has been trying to move homes since approximately 2005.
  3. According to the landlord’s records, the resident phoned it on 27 April 2021. She explained her home had two single bedrooms and four children (three teenage) were living there with her. She said the living situation was affecting her and her family mentally and physically. She said she had been looking for a bigger property for some time and asked for help in the process. The landlord arranged for someone to call the resident, but we have no information about what happened following that.
  4. On 7 May 2021 the landlord’s application advice team (AAT) wrote to the resident advising her that she now had a management move (a move for an existing tenant in exceptional or urgent circumstances and the highest priority for a transfer application). The team explained they were unable to keep the management move open indefinitely; they advised her to register with other housing providers, on mutual exchange websites, and to consider as many search areas as possible to increase her chances of being rehoused. The team advised they would offer one property that met the resident’s needs, and should the offer be refused, the management move status might be removed. They aimed to move her within 12 weeks; but if a property was not offered in the first ten weeks of the management move, they advised they would contact her to discuss widening her search area.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint by telephone on 13 May 2021. She said she had been dealing with the landlord through one specific staff member (‘the officer’) since 2016, who had been supposed to assist with her property transfer. However, she explained that the officer never met with her, called when requested, nor helped with her transfer, leaving her feeling ignored.
  6. On 14 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It contacted the resident by phone that same day to collate more specific details of her complaint. In a lengthy discussion, the resident explained she had been emailing the officer since 2016, and in this time felt the officer had been neglectful, obstructive and unhelpful. The resident said the officer had asked for proof of medical needs and was sarcastic and intimidating over the phone. She asked the landlord to listen to recent calls between them as evidence. She further complained that the officer did not do what was needed for the resident to be placed on a higher band(A), and she had heard that the officer was helping others more. The resident reiterated the length of time it was taking to move and the affect it had had on her and the family. The landlord explained that where medical needs had been cited as a reason for transfer, supporting documents were needed. It said it was unable to investigate rumours (about whether the officer was helping others more than the resident) but confirmed the officer had no control over whether a transfer proceeded or not, and a move depended on availability. The resident advised she wanted a ground floor flat, to be placed on a higher priority band, and for no further contact with the officer. The landlord suggested the resident contact its customer services for most matters, which would limit contact with the officer. It offered mediation between her and the officer, which the resident declined.
  7. The landlord’s records show internal correspondence between staff on 21 May 2021 stating that it was unable to find recordings of the conversations with the officer the resident referred to, as mobile calls were not recorded and, therefore, it was unable to investigate that aspect of the complaint. The staff concluded, after reviewing the last six months, that they could not find evidence of the officer being obstructive or unhelpful. It confirmed the officer had professionally advised of the need for medical documents to support the resident’s housing requests. The resident had advised she would send supporting medical documents.
  8. Other internal correspondence on 21 May 2021 shows the AAT advised that the resident had a transfer Band A; however, she was dissatisfied with the progress of her move. The team advised it had been in contact with the resident regularly, though it did not have many four-bedroom properties in the areas the resident requested and were not often available. Therefore, she would need to wait until one became available.
  9. On 7 July 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged the impact of the wait for a property on the resident and her family.
    2. Advised that the AAT handled the transfer requests, and the officer was not responsible for transfer banding or the period in which a property could be found. It confirmed the officer had requested supporting documents to provide to AAT to facilitate the resident’s move.
    3. Confirmed the AAT were actively seeking a four-bedroom, ground floor flat as requested, and would contact the resident when they had an update.
    4. Advised a suitable property had not yet been found and explained that four-bedroom, ground floor properties were not often available in the area she had hoped to move to.
    5. Said it was unable to listen to mobile calls between the resident and the officer, as they were not recorded; therefore, it could not investigate the complaint, but advised the staff member’s manager was made aware of it.
    6. Advised the officer would need to contact the resident in the future; however, it could limit the contact between them.
    7. Reiterated the resident was on a band A transfer, but a suitable property had not been found yet. It advised on how she could escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy.
  10. On 17 September 2021 the landlord’s records show the resident called and said she had requested a four-bedroom property but would accept a three bedroom if it made the transfer process faster.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021. She said she felt neglected, and it did not understand the severity of her and her family’s illnesses or conditions. She detailed the living situation and how the overcrowded property affected her children mentally, further explaining they were unable to sleep or go to school. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord and was not treated nicely and had been on the waiting list for 15 years.
  12. The resident phoned the landlord on 29 September 2021 for an update. The landlord advised there was no new information, and her move was a matter of waiting for a suitable property to become available; at which point, it would contact her.
  13. On 29 September 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord following receipt of the resident’s complaint. We advised the resident that her complaints regarding banding and housing register needed to be raised with the local authority. We asked the landlord to contact the resident regarding outstanding issues if she had not yet exhausted its complaint procedure.
  14. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 September 2021 following contact from this Service. It explained that its complaint response had been sent to her on 7 July 2021, and detailed how she could escalate it if she remained dissatisfied.
  15. On 4 October 2021 the landlord issued its final response. It apologised for the length of time it was taking to find a suitable property and that she was dissatisfied with the outcome at stage one. It confirmed the resident was in band A, a management move had been approved, and the AAT were actively seeking a property. The landlord advised it was unable to provide a moving date as it was reliant on a property becoming available. It gave details of options she could take if she remained dissatisfied with its final response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy lists different routes in its allocation arrangements (from low to high priority) including a management move used when the resident needs to move urgently. It applies where there is an imminent risk to the resident or a member of their household if they remain at the property or a need to move under exceptional circumstances and must be evidence of a significant and insurmountable problem associated with the resident’s occupation of their current home. A direct offer of suitable housing may be made to any applicant on the housing register at any time, ordinarily in accordance with priority and priority date order.
  2. The resident complained that she had been waiting for a transfer for 15 years. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme requires that a formal complaint be made to a landlord within a reasonable period of the events being complained about. A reasonable period would usually be considered to be six months. Because of that, this investigation centres on the events leading up to her complaint to the landlord in May 2021. Any reference to events prior to mid-2020 is for context and clarity only.
  3. The resident said she felt the landlord had not taken into consideration the overcrowding, and its actions, or lack thereof, had had an impact her and her children’s well-being. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her or her children’s health has been affected by the landlord’s actions. That is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nevertheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord had not acted in providing the correct banding. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to applications and banding for re-housing made under reasonable preference criteria (such as overcrowding). Complaints about the assessment of such applications, and the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  5. Upon receipt of requests to be transferred to another property, the landlord must first establish the cause for request to move and investigate the claims made. It should then provide allocation arrangements taking priority levels into consideration. In exceptional circumstances, such as in cases of overcrowding, current conditions having a major adverse effect on the medical conditions of the resident or member of the household, a landlord can consider a management move of a tenant to another one of its available properties. The landlord’s policies state that this management move is outside the usual choice based letting system, and because of that, is within the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate (complaints about choice based letting would usually be for the LGSCO to consider).
  6. The resident explained her request to move was due to the overcrowding of her two-bedroom flat and the overall impact it had on her family’s wellbeing. She complained about the length of time it was taking to offer a transfer. On 7 May 2021, the landlord arranged a management transfer in light of the resident’s circumstances. While it is the highest priority it could offer, the transfer depended upon the availability of a suitable property which met the resident’s needs. At that point the 12-week period had not expired and it advised her to continue to wait while it searched. That was an appropriate action for the landlord to take as it put the resident on the highest level of priority and allowed the landlord to specifically search for properties on the resident’s behalf. It demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s situation seriously.
  7. According to its tenancy agreement, the resident’s property is a two bed, three persons dwelling flat, therefore the resident and her four children’s dwelling would be classed as overcrowded. In this case the landlord took reasonable steps to aid in the process of finding a suitable property by providing a management move, and advising how she could increase her chances of finding a suitable property. While the resident’s home situation is clearly distressing and frustrating for her and her family, nothing in the evidence provided indicates that the ongoing wait for a suitable property was due to anything more than the lack of availability of such a property. The evidence shows the landlord has done all it could reasonably be expected to do, and gone beyond that by using its discretion to offer the resident a management move.
  8. The resident complained about the level and quality of service she had received from the officer. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns, explained why it could not listen to the phone calls as the resident had asked, reviewed correspondence between the two, and explained the action it had taken with the officer’s manager. It offered mediation, and suggested options for the resident to reduce contact with the officer. It explained why it had been necessary for the resident to provide evidence to support her housing transfer, and clarified the officer’s limited role in approving the resident’s application for properties. These were all reasonable and proportionate actions to take in light of the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaint regarding her transfer request. It took reasonable steps to assess her situation and agreed to facilitate a management move in light of the overcrowded property and overall issues of her family.