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

Midland Heart Limited (202216507)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216507

Midland Heart Limited

15 August 2023

 

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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about his address.
    2. Handling of direct offers of accommodation to the resident.
    3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  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, in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his address.
  3. Paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
  4. The Ombudsman issued a determination on 16 April 2021 on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for his address to be amended. This was because the building’s number was the same as the number assigned to his property, resulting in deliveries and visitors for other properties mistakenly being directed to him, reportedly affecting his ill-health. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord again in 2022 about issues including its response to these concerns about his address, and his further request to it for his address to be amended, which he then brought to the Ombudsman once more in the present complaint.
  5. Therefore, the resident’s latest complaint to the Ombudsman seeks to raise again matters which we already decided upon in our previous determination in respect of the landlord’s handling of his request for his address to be amended. There has also been no material change in the circumstances surrounding this complaint since the previous determination was issued and so, in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme above, this aspect of the complaint will not be considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat, and it was aware that he had restricted mobility and mental health vulnerabilities. He was represented by advocates in his communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord. In this report, both the resident and his advocates will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. Following the resident’s previous complaint about his request for his address to be amended, the landlord advised him on 10 May 2021 that it would make a direct offer of accommodation to him because of the disruption he experienced. He subsequently emailed it on 27 May 2021 to express interest in a possible housing scheme for people aged over 55, as he had just turned 55. The resident then declined a property there that he viewed with it on 1 June 2021, as he considered that this was too small and specialised for the over-55s. He subsequently accepted another property offered by it on 8 October 2021, but he then withdrew from this in the belief that moving there would involve changes to his benefits.
  3. Enquiries were then made with the landlord by his local MP’s office on the resident’s behalf in May and June 2022 about its handling of its direct offers of accommodation to him, which he was dissatisfied with, including because he could not bid on its website. The MP’s office forwarded details to it that this was because he has a learning disability, is incapable of using computers, struggles with reading comprehension and conversations, and needs someone to explain things to him.
  4. However, the landlord disputed that the resident would be impacted financially by moving, and it explained that he had declined 2 direct offers from it when it would normally only offer 1, so it had not made any further offers to him. It said that he instead “must” bid for properties himself in order to move to via its website, his support worker who it offered to assist, and the local authority.
  5. The resident subsequently raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 27 September 2022, seeking to be moved by it due to his concerns about his address and to know why it had not done so, which it declined to progress through its complaints procedure on 6 October 2022. This was because it said that the matter had already been considered in his previous complaint, which had exhausted its complaints procedure on 21 September 2020. After intervention from the Ombudsman at the resident’s request on 10 November 2022, thelandlord acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 November 2022.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident apologised for not acting on his complaint sooner or raising this, and for saying that the complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure, and it offered him £70 compensation for this. It clarified that it could not make any more direct offers of accommodation to him, however, because it had already made 2 direct offers to him that he had declined, and it instead offered to provide him support with accessing alternate housing options.
  7. The resident then escalated his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 25 November 2022, saying that the direct offers of accommodation that the landlord had made had been unsuitable for him. He said that the first property offered was unsuitable, as this was specialised with equipment for elderly residents and had a kitchen that was too small, and that the second property offered was too far from his mental health support network. The resident said that the landlord had not considered his circumstances in its decision.
  8. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 15 December 2022, which did not uphold his complaint. It maintained that it could make no more direct offers of accommodation to him under its allocations policy, as he had previously twice declined direct offers from it, and outlined his options for seeking a new property as bidding for a move on its website, and approaching both the local authority and other social landlords. The landlord also re-offered him the compensation that it offered him in its stage 1 complaint response.
  9. The resident then informed the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that, to resolve his complaint, he wanted it to make another direct offer of accommodation to him. This was because he considered its previous offers to him to be unsuitable, and his mental health and wellbeing were being impacted by remaining in his property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of direct offers of accommodation to the resident

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy provides for direct offers of accommodation to be made to residents, without the need to apply for a property. The policy states that usually only 1 offer will be made, in line with the resident’s preferences. These are made under specific circumstances where:
    1. A resident has been living in supported housing but is now ready for independent living.
    2. The resident’s property requires adaptation for their needs but this is not possible at the current property.
    3. The police have informed the landlord that it is not safe for the resident to continue living at their current property.
    4. The landlord wishes to sell or redevelop the property.
    5. A debt has been paid in full following an eviction.
  2. Under the allocations policy’s criteria listed above, there was no obligation for the landlord to make a direct offer of accommodation to the resident, as his circumstances did not meet these conditions. However, when exceptional circumstances are present it would be reasonable for a landlord to use its discretion in the application of its policies. This meant that it was appropriate for the landlord to do so to twice make direct offers of accommodation to the resident, as he was exceptionally having his ill-health affected by the disruption caused by his property’s address having the same number as his building.
  3. The resident’s final stage complaint escalation request on 25 November 2022 said that the landlord had not taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into account in making the direct offers to him. It nevertheless acted beyond its allocations policy’s normal practice of making 1 offer to make 2 direct offers of accommodation to him, in recognition of his vulnerabilities and the effect that the building address issue was having on him. This demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s circumstances into account, and that it was committed to resolving the situation for him, subsequently offering to assist him and his support worker with bidding to move elsewhere after it said that it could not make him any more direct offers.
  4. It is of concern that the resident reported that he was offered unsuitable properties, due to their size, elderly adaptations, and distance from his mental health support network. However, there was no other evidence provided to support that the properties offered by it to him were unsuitable. The resident stated that the first property offered by the landlord was unsuitable, as this was tailored for residents over the age of 55. However, this was offered in line with the resident’s email to the landlord on 27 May 2021, which expressed an interest in accommodation for the over 55s, and no evidence was provided to show that this would not be suitable for him.
  5. It is also noted that the second property that the landlord offered was initially accepted and then declined by the resident, originally on the basis that he would need to change benefit types, before he explained that this was too far from his mental health support network. While these are understandable concerns, the conditions under which benefits are paid are outside of the landlord’s control, and it disputed that he would have been financially impacted by the move to the second property. There was also no supporting evidence provided to show that this property was unsuitable for the resident either.
  6. Ultimately, there was no failure by the landlord in its handling of the direct offers of accommodation to the resident. It made offers of housing to him which it was not obliged to under its allocations policy, and it showed that it was committed to resolving his housing situation, in consideration of his particular vulnerabilities.
  7. It is nevertheless very concerning that the resident reports that his mental health and wellbeing are being impacted by remaining in his property, and that he cannot bid for properties on the landlord’s website when it has said that he “must” do so. This is particularly because he has explained that he has a learning disability, is incapable of using computers, struggles with reading comprehension and conversations, and needs someone to explain things to him. The landlord’s allocations policy also does not prevent it from either making further direct offers of accommodation to the resident, saying that usually only 1 offer will be made, or from offering him more assistance to bid for properties on its website, and to approach the local authority and other social landlords for accommodation.
  8. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended below to try and resolve the resident’s complaint by considering making him a further direct offer of accommodation, in light of his circumstances and vulnerabilities. It has also been recommended below to try and do so by contacting him and his support worker to discuss and arrange how best to assist him with bidding for properties on its website, and approaching the local authority and other social landlords for accommodation, including by confirming whether it or his support worker can do so on his behalf.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints, comments, compliments and reasonable adjustments policy states that it considers “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents” to be a complaint.
  2. This policy provides for a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 of this, the landlord is to provide its response to the resident within 10 working days, and at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, the policy states that it should explain why to the resident and provide an updated timeframe. These timeframes, and the above definition of a complaint, mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to follow.
  3. The Code also sets out that a landlord should accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. The landlord’s complaints, comments, compliments and reasonable adjustments policy states that it will not consider a complaint about closed complaints. In response to the resident’s original stage 1 complaint on 27 September 2022, it informed him within the policy’s 10-working-day stage 1 response timescale on 6 October 2022 that it would not be progressing this, as it considered that the matter had exhausted its complaints procedure on 21 September 2020 and was not a new issue.
  4. While it was the case that the resident’s complaint about the disruption that he had experienced as a result of the property’s address had been previously considered under and exhausted its complaints procedure, the landlord failed to acknowledge that this was also about new issues. His most recent complaint to it was additionally about its handling of its direct offers of alternative accommodation to him. This was therefore a new issue, which had not been considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure before, as the offers were made in 2021 after the resident’s previous complaint had exhausted the procedure in 2020.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response therefore apologised for not raising his complaint when the resident made his initial request for this, leading to a delay in the consideration of his complaint. It offered him £70 compensation for this, which was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation from £50 where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, with an impact including time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.
  6. The landlord, therefore, made a reasonable offer of redress to recognise the inconvenience experienced by the resident from this, which it has been recommended to pay him below, if it has not already done so.This is also because this was in line with its compensation matrix, which recommends goodwill payments of up to £70 for failures of service as a result of delays, quality or administrative errors.
  7. The landlord additionally followed its complaints, comments, compliments and reasonable adjustments policy’s response timescales. It did so by replying to the resident’s further stage 1 complaint via the Ombudsman of 10 November 2022 within 10 working days on 24 November 2022, and to his final stage complaint of 25 November 2022 within 20 working days on 15 December 2022.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of direct offers of accommodation to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £70 compensation that it previously offered him for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.
    2. Consider making another direct offer of accommodation to the resident, in light of his circumstances and vulnerabilities.
    3. Contact the resident and his support worker to discuss and arrange how best to assist him with bidding for properties on its website, and approaching the local authority and other social landlords for accommodation, including by confirming whether it or his support worker can do so on his behalf.