The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Housing 21 (201905687)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905687

Housing 21

23 February 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for housing in an extra care property in 2016.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the costs he incurred in preparing to move into the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In 2016 the resident made an application for an Extra Care property. In November 2016, the resident’s application was considered by a joint allocation panel, made up of the landlord and the local council. The panel refused the resident’s on the grounds of his care needs in relation to the balance of care needs across the whole scheme.
  2. On 8 March 2017, the landlord invited the resident to view another property. The landlord said that the resident turned the property down as it did not meet his needs. The resident said that he was interested in the property but was turned down.
  3. In early 2017, the resident moved into a new property with his existing landlord.
  4. On 30 June 2017, the Council’s Head of Strategic Commissioning and Integration, wrote to the resident’s MP regarding his application for the Extra Care Scheme in November 2016. They explained that the resident’s needs were such that he met the category for social care support which was a requirement for a tenancy in the scheme. However, the landlord also had an eligibility requirement and at that time, due to the mix of resident’s at the scheme he applied for, the landlord did not consider that they could also meet his needs.
  5. On 7 July 2017, the landlord also wrote to the resident’s MP to explain why the resident’s application for Extra Care Housing was declined by the panel meeting in November 2016. The landlord explained that it works in partnership with Adult Services and Housing Needs via the Extra Care Housing Panel and that the resident did not meet the criteria defined under the national eligibility criteria for care and support. The landlord said that it had been in communication with the resident on several occasions regarding this since January 2017.
  6. On 6 February 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP following contact from the MP about the resident’s dissatisfaction with the decision made by the allocations panel in November 2016. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to make a formal complaint.
  7. On 17 April 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord said that it had reviewed the panel meetings that were held in November and December 2016. The landlord said that the overview of the assessment presented at the panel regarding the resident’s application was that his case needs would be low, hence not meeting the criteria to be allocated a property.
  8. On 29 July 2019, the resident’s MP wrote to the Ombudsman. The MP said that the resident had concerns about the handling of a housing application he made to the landlord in 2016 for Extra Care housing. The MP said that the resident felt that the handling of his application had been inconsistent and that the landlord had not been sufficiently clear as to how its own eligibility criteria could override the Council’s criteria. The MP said that the resident was seeking compensation for the cost of preparing for the move into the property which then failed to materialise.
  9. The landlord issued its response on 17 September 2019. The landlord referred the resident back to its previous responses in February and April 2019 regarding its refusal of his application for Extra Care housing, following the panel meeting in November 2016. The landlord explained that allocations for the scheme the resident applied to in 2016 were assessed in conjunction with the local authority on the basis of the level of care needs. The landlord explained that the resident was not allocated and offered the property he applied for at the time as his care needs had been assessed as low and the panel were looking for applicants with medium and high care needs. The landlord said that as the resident was not allocated nor offered a property, or had an offer withdrawn, it would not look to offer any award of compensation relating to him preparing for a move.
  10. On 21 October 2019, the landlord issued it Directors Review of the resident’s complaint about his housing application. The landlord confirmed that the resident made an application for housing in the summer of 2016 and that his application was considered at a panel meeting in November 2016. The landlord said that the resident’s application was refused on the grounds of ‘‘care needs in relation to the balance of care needs across the whole scheme’’. The landlord said that it could see from the resident’s MP’s correspondence in June 2017 that the resident was unclear as to why he did not qualify for a property. The landlord apologised if it or the Council were unclear at the time. However, it was satisfied that the letters it had sent to the resident earlier in 2019 made clear the reasons for the refusal.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not bought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters rising.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence I confirm that, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of his application for housing in an extra care property in 2016 and the landlord’s response to his request for compensation for the costs he incurred in preparing to move into the property he applied for in 2016 are not within this Service’s jurisdiction to consider.
  3. This is because the resident made an application for Extra Care Housing in 2016, which was refused following a joint panel with the Council in November 2016. In 2017 the resident’s MP contacted both the landlord and the Council regarding the panel’s decision. However, a formal complaint was not made about this matter until 6 February 2019, more than two years after the panel hearing took place.
  4. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s response to his request for compensation for the costs he incurred preparing to move. We have been unable to establish whether the resident’s claim for costs relates to the property for which his application was refused in November 2016 or the property he was invited to view in March 2017. In any event, this must have occurred prior to his moving in early 2017 and he did not raise a formal complaint about this matter until 6 February 2019, almost two years later.