Network Homes Limited (201816050)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201816050

Network Homes Limited

19 April 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 handling of the resident’s housing transfer application and his reports of overcrowding.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property since 12 July 1993.
3. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat, occupied by the resident, his wife and his four children.

Legal and policy framework

Allocations and lettings policy

4. Under the landlord’s Allocation and Lettings Policy, residents wishing to transfer to another of the landlord’s properties will be subject to an assessment process. The resident’s circumstance and reasons for moving will be assessed against the landlord’s criteria, and banding will be awarded to reflect the level of priority (as detailed below). Of particular relevance the Ombudsman notes that residents considered to be in overcrowded homes – those that are short of two bedrooms – will qualify for a transfer and be given reasonable preference.
5. The landlord’s priority banding is categorised as follows:
   1. Band A (the highest priority) – Where an individual has life threatening medical needs; is homeless with no temporary accommodation; receives social services nomination; is subject to life threating violence; requires an urgent decant; requires an adapted property; or is under-occupied by one or more bedrooms.
   2. Band B – Where there is an urgent social or medical need; harassment or threat of violence; homelessness; a move on quota; a decant; or statutory overcrowding.
   3. Band C – Where there is a social or medical need; overcrowding; non–priority homelessness; or a social services nomination.
   4. Band D (the lowest priority) – Applicants that do not fit in the above bands.

Summary of events

6. On 19 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord with a formal complaint. He explained:
   1. He had been on the bidding system for 10 years and had been regularly bidding but had never heard anything back on these properties.
   2. He lived in a one-bedroom property with his with four children and this had taken its toll on his mental wellbeing and his family.
   3. Living in such cramped conditions during the pandemic had raised concerns about the safety of his family and with a lack of space, his children were unable to study.

The resident stated that he had reached out to the landlord in the past to discuss his situation, however had received no suitable response. He expressed discontent that the landlord had found it acceptable to keep six people in a one-bedroom property.

7. On 30 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one response. It recognised that the resident had been unhappy with the delays in being rehoused to larger accommodation but noted that the resident had been awarded Band B status on 7 March 2016. Acknowledging that the resident’s property was two bedrooms short of his housing requirement, the landlord explained:
   1. As the resident was registered with a transfer status, it was likely that he would be shortlisted for “transfer only”, and not as a “Home Seeker”. There was a shortage of family sized properties and it needed to act fairly to distribute these.
   2. The resident’s banding was upgraded upon learning of his youngest children in 2016. The resident was now in a good position.
   3. Due to the shortage in housing across the UK, the resident needed to bid and consider other housing options. The landlord attached further options for the resident to consider.
8. On 25 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he wished to submit an appeal. The resident said that the landlord’s response had failed to consider the impact that the overcrowding had had on his mental wellbeing and on his children. He additionally found it unbelievable that he had received so little support.
9. On 20 November 2020 the landlord offered its final response. The landlord explained that while the resident would be entitled to a three-bedroom property, via transfer, he needed to continue bidding, as there were other residents awaiting three-bedroom properties. The landlord highlighted that as of 12 November 2020, there were 204 Band A applicants, 243 Band B applicants, and 730 Band C applicants awaiting a three-bedroom property.
10. The landlord added that as there were no medical issues amongst the resident’s family, no additional priority could be offered. The landlord explained that it could not unfairly prioritise the resident’s application as there were many families in similar situations. The resident was encouraged to consider obtaining a move via a mutual exchange.
11. The resident subsequently brought his complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation. On 25 March 2021 the landlord informed this Service that its Voids and Lettings team had become aware of a 3 bed property in a nearby area which would be prepared and offered to the resident, as a one-off direct offer.

Assessment and findings

12. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s living situation and agrees that the resident’s property was overcrowded, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acted unfairly or in contradiction to its general procedure. As per the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy, where a resident is two bedrooms deficient, the property will be considered overcrowded, and the appropriate priority awarded. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did this.
13. Within the landlord’s stage one response, it explained to the resident that it had recognised his deficiency in bedrooms and had subsequently upgraded his banding upon learning of the resident’s youngest children. This was appropriate. 
14. The Ombudsman has considered the level of banding offered to the resident and can see that this was in line with the landlord’s policy. As noted in the Legal and policy framework section of this report, where statutory overcrowding exists, applicants will be awarded Band B priority status. The Ombudsman notes that this was awarded on 7 March 2016 upon review of the resident’s banding.
15. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s dissatisfaction that more had not been done to accommodate his family of six, who were living in a one-bedroom property. The Ombudsman accepts, however, that in order for the landlord to allocate its stock fairly, its process needed to be followed. As such, while the resident’s situation did qualify for increased priority banding, the landlord was unable to offer an immediate move. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered an explanation on how the resident’s new priority positioned him, context on the number of families awaiting similar properties, and transparency to alert the resident that given the number of applicants and availability of three-bedroom homes, the issue would not be resolved overnight. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman does acknowledge the resident’s comment that he had been bidding on properties for 10 years, however also recognises that some of these bids may have been made whilst on a lower priority band. It was subsequently appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to continue bidding, while also to pursue other viable options such as mutual exchange.
16. The Ombudsman sees that, along with the resident’s dissatisfaction with the delay in being rehoused, he was concerned that the landlord had not fully considered the impact on his (and his family’s) wellbeing. The Ombudsman has reviewed this and can see that within the landlord’s stage two response, it explained that while it noted the resident’s comments, it could not offer any further priority as the resident /resident’s family had no recorded medical issues. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord could have additionally encouraged the resident to obtain medical evidence, to support any assertions of an impact on health, however the Ombudsman has not considered the absence of this to be a failure.
17. The Ombudsman is pleased to learn that the landlord has since made (or is in the process of making) a direct offer of a suitably sized property.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application and his reports of overcrowding.

Reasons

19. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted in accordance with its allocations and lettings policy and offered the resident a fair response. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord took appropriate action where it learned of the resident’s housing circumstances and awarded the resident banding which was in line with its policy. The Ombudsman is satisfied that following the resident’s complaint about his ongoing situation, the landlord offered the resident a reasonable explanation to highlight both issues with housing stock and the number of residents in similar bandings waiting to be rehoused to three-bedroom properties.  Furthermore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord explained why it was unable to offer the resident additional priority, even though the resident felt that his situation was impacting his wellbeing. This was appropriate.