Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202219679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219679

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

20 April 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 handling of information provided to the resident about their tenancy agreement and tenancy status.

Background

2. The resident is a former assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bed first floor flat and the resident lived there with her three children. There were anumber of household vulnerabilities noted on file for both the resident and her children.
3. The resident had previously been placed in temporary accommodation, prior to moving into the property on 23 April 2019 under the landlord’s management transfer policy. The resident states that she was advised that the landlord placed her into this property as temporary accommodation, that she would remain on the waiting list for suitable permanent housing, and that she would be at the property no longer than 18 months.
4. There are conflicting tenancy agreements on file: One which stated that the tenancy was an assured shorthold tenancy, and one which had an addendum, stating the assured shorthold tenancy was temporary accommodation.
5. After bidding on properties unsuccessfully for an extended period of time, the resident sought clarification from both the landlord and the local authority on her priority banding. Following this, it was established that the resident’s tenancy was in fact an assured shorthold tenancy, the resident did not have temporary accommodation priority bidding status,and there had been an error in communicating tenure to the resident.
6. The resident complained to the landlord about the matter in February 2022, as she had been bidding for properties unsuccessfully and noted that she did not have homelessness priority banding. She raised concerns about the miscommunication and the fact that she had been living at the property for three years, with no assistance to find alternative suitable accommodation. She was equally concerned about the change to her priority status on the common housing register, due to no longer being deemed to be in temporary accommodation.
7. At the end of its complaint process, the landlord admitted failings, apologised to the resident and re-established the resident’s position on the common housing register, as well as offering to assist with a management transfer. The landlord advised it had learned lessons from the resident’s complaint and would ensure the situation did not recur. It stated that going forward, it would clearly document agreements with local authorities when nominations agreements were varied and would build better relationships with local authorities concerning these agreements. It also said that it would clearly outline in writing the conditions of any management move so that residents who are moved understand the tenure type they would be taking on.
8. The landlord subsequently offered the resident a property via its management transfer policy. This was a three bedroom property, which the resident declined explaining that she would feel isolated in a different local area and would need to find new schools for her children.
9. Since submitting the complaint, the resident has moved, via the local authority rather than the landlord’s management transfer policy.
10. As an outcome to the complaint, the resident would like financial compensation for significant distress to her family and to make sure these errors in communication regarding tenure do not happen to anyone else.

Assessment and findings

11. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
12. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
13. In its final complaint response, the landlord has fully acknowledged that there were service failures in its communication regarding tenure of the resident’s home, and that it had failed to check specific details when issuing the tenancy agreement.
14. As such, there is no dispute that there were failings on the part of the landlord in its handling of this matter. The resident has described a significant adverse affect from these failings in the form of distress and frustration due to the communication issues regarding the tenancy agreement. She says she would not have accepted the property had she been told at the time that the accommodation was permanent, explaining that it was too small for her family long term, especially in light of household vulnerabilities. The resident has said that this misinformation led to her sharing the two bed property with her three children on a long term basis, which had a particularly negative impact due to the particular needs of her child. The resident has said that the living situation was detrimental to the wellbeing of her and her children. Due to the misinformation about the tenancy, the resident lost the opportunity to make an informed decision about her and her family’s housing situation.
15. The resident also, unknowingly, lost priority bidding points by being placed in an assured shorthold tenancy, rather than temporary accommodation as she was led to believe. Her priority banding would have reduced as she would have lost the points for being in temporary/emergency accommodation. This would have impacted the resident’s chances of success when placing bids on alternative, more suitable properties.
16. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine with certainty how much sooner the resident may have been able to find suitable permanent accommodation, had she not accepted the property. However, it can be said that this would have been more likely to have happened sooner, had the resident retained her priority status.
17. The resident was also unaware that her priority banding had been reduced, which meant that she was less likely to be successful when bidding for properties, and more likely to wait significantly longer to be allocated a suitable offer of long term accommodation.
18. In light of the above, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord should have taken action to ‘put things right’ for the resident, and ‘learn from outcomes’. It did go some way towards this in its response to the formal complaint: It was appropriate that the landlord fully acknowledged that there were service failures in its communication regarding tenure of the resident’s home, and that it had failed to check specific details when issuing the tenancy agreement. It also offered to assist the resident with a management transfer, reinstated her bidding rights, and offered the resident a three bedroom property (which the resident declined). This shows that the landlord did attempt to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
19. The landlord also stated that it had learned lessons from the complaint and would in future clearly document when nominations agreements were varied, would build better relationships with local authorities concerning nominations agreements, and would clearly outline in writing the conditions of any management move so that residents understand the tenure type they were taking on. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken steps to ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case, to prevent a recurrence of the failings in the future.
20. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it ‘can offer a financial payment to make amends or to recognise inconvenience caused as a result of service failure, ‘depending on the level of inconvenience, distress and disruption caused and the length of time taken to resolve the failure’. The policy allows for compensation of over £500.
21. The resident has not been offered any financial compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and loss of opportunity that the landlord’s failing led to, despite this being provided for in its compensation policy. Overall, the landlord has not done enough to ‘put right’ the impact of its failing. The resident has stated that her family’s health and wellbeing  suffered a great deal due to living in unsuitable accommodation for a long period of time.
22. The Ombudsman’s own ‘remedies guidance’ sets out that in cases where a landlord’s failing has had a significant impact on a resident, amounts of over £600 may be suitable.

Determination

23. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme,there was maladministration on the part of the landlord, in its handling of information provided to the resident about their tenancy agreement and tenancy status.

Orders

24. The landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation within one month of this report. It should update this Service once it has done so.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should satisfy itself that it has taken the appropriate steps in relation to agreements with local authorities to avoid a recurrence of the failing in this case, and that it is now making clear and setting out in writing the conditions of any management move.