Newlon Housing Trust (202009177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009177

Newlon Housing Trust

16 August 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 decision to decant (move) the resident from her current property to an alternative property owned by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it has grounds for possession of the property if “suitable alternative accommodation is available to the tenant or will be available when the possession order takes effect”. In order to seek possession of the property under these grounds, the landlord must provide at least two months written notice of seeking possession.
3. The landlord’s decant policy and procedure states that it will offer a permanent decant (move) when the resident’s property is to be sold. In the case of a decant being required as part of a panel disposal programme (a programme where the landlord disposes of a number of properties at the same time).

Background

4. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s current property is leased by the landlord from the local authority. The local authority is the freeholder for the property.
5. On 29 May 2020, the landlord informed the resident that her property was one of a number of units which it was disposing of that year as part of its ongoing disposal programme. It explained that this was due to its viability assessment finding that its leased properties, of which the resident’s property was one, were within its “Risk Category” due to high service charges and a section 20 notice. (a notice that the freeholder would be carrying out works which would be chargeable to leaseholders through their service charges).  The landlord assured the resident that she would not be made homeless, it would be seeking to rehouse her from within its existing housing stock and that she would be eligible for a home loss payment when she moved.
6. On 15 June 2020, after discovering that some of the contact details it held for the resident were incorrect, the landlord wrote to her to clarify its earlier communication. It explained that, after an assessment, her property incurred high costs through either high repairing costs, high service charges or that the landlord did not own the freehold. The landlord had therefore recommended for the property to be disposed of. It repeated that she would not be made homeless and it would seek to rehouse her in a property within its housing stock. The landlord enclosed a questionnaire which it asked the resident to complete to assess her requirements for an alternative property.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 October 2020 to contend that its decision to dispose of her property was “completely wrong”. She expressed her reluctance to leave her property due to having lived there for “many years” and her concerns over the difficulty of moving home. The resident said that she had been paying the service charge to the landlord and was “happy” with the cost, and asserted that the property did not have a high repairing cost. She said that she was unaware of any other service charges or upcoming major maintenance work. The resident pointed out that the lease on the property was not due to be renewed soon and contended that it could be “easily extended” if needed.
8. The resident suggested transferring her tenancy to the local authority alongside the transfer of the property and highlighted that she would require a specific type of property to meet her medical needs. If the move was to go ahead she wanted the terms of her tenancy agreement to continue, including her right to buy. The resident requested an appointment to discuss the property viability review.
9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 November 2020 to assure her that it would work closely with her to identify suitable alternative accommodation that would meet her household’s needs. It confirmed that it had not yet approached the local authority to commence the buyback of her property and that this would only occur once the property was vacant. The landlord explained that all of its properties which it leased from the local authority were found to be financially unviable which was why it had chosen to dispose of them; it added that it was not a decision it had taken “lightly”. It advised that these properties were financially unviable due to it not having control over service charges or major works bills and that, as a social landlord, it was regulated to ensure that it provided a value for money service.
10. On 16 November 2020, the resident’s relative, as her advocate, raised a complaint on her behalf with the landlord; for clarity, both the resident and her relative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. The resident’s complaint was that she did not wish to move from the property and doubted that the landlord could offer her a decant property in the area with suitable parking.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 November 2020 when it explained that it may not be able to respond to complaints within its published timescales due to the impact of the corona virus pandemic on its staffing levels and working arrangements.
12. On 1 December 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident in which it apologised for the planned move causing her concern and for acknowledged the impact this would have on her. It repeated that the decision to dispose of the property was prompted by its need to comply with its regulators. This meant that the landlord needed to demonstrate that it was “operating a reliable business model”, therefore its board has decided that the resident’s property was one of a number in the area which was not financially viable for the landlord to keep.
13. The landlord noted the resident had informed it that she had not required repairs to her property; it explained that the decision was not based on her property alone and was based on the collective cost of maintaining all of the properties which it was currently disposing of. It requested that she cooperate with it over the move so that it could identify suitable housing for her which was within a two-mile radius of her current property and minimise the disruption to her. The landlord noted four contacts it had made with her to explain why it was handing the property back to the local authority and how it would assist in finding a suitable new property.
14. The landlord highlighted a clause in the tenancy agreement which allowed it to take possession of the property providing appropriate notice had been given and that the possession was for certain reasons listed in the tenancy agreement.
15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2020 in which she contended that there was not a high repairing cost to her property and highlighted that she had been paying her rent and service charges to the landlord, did not have any arrears, nor had committed any antisocial behaviour. She added that she suffered from a number of medical conditions that were likely to be impacted by the changes involved in decanting to a new property. The resident therefore asked to be exempted from the decant process. On 17 December 2020, the resident called the landlord to request that the complaint be escalated to the final stage of its complaints process.
16. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 December 2020, advising the resident that the complaint appeal review may not take place until March 2021. It noted her points about her health and explained that it would take her health into consideration when locating her an alternative property. In response to the points the resident made about her individual property and tenure, the landlord reiterated that its decision had been made based on the collective costs of its leasehold properties as opposed to the cost of her individual property. It clarified that the decision to decant to her would not be overturned at appeal but it could consider its handling of the matter.
17. The landlord informed the resident on 12 February 2021 that it was due to hold its panel review meeting on 19 February 2021. After this, it issued a final stage complaint response to her on 2 March 2021 in which it acknowledged her comments about her tenancy but reiterated that the decision to decant her had been made “from an operational and risk reduction approach” and was not a comment on her as an individual tenant. The landlord noted the medical concerns she had raised and explained that while this information would be used in allocating her a new property, it would not exempt her from being decanted.
18. The landlord recognised that the decision to rehouse her would have been a “surprise and naturally caused [her] concerns” but confirmed that it would support her in finding a suitable alternative home. It encouraged her to work with it to this end. The landlord confirmed that this concluded its internal consideration of her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to decant the resident from her current property

19. Landlords are entitled to manage the properties they own as they see fit, provided they follow the law, their internal policies and procedures and industry best practice. In line with its decant policy, the landlord was entitled to sell the lease for the resident’s property back to the freeholder as part of a wider transfer of a number of properties which the local authority is the freeholder for. This assessment is therefore focused on whether, once this decision was made the landlord acted reasonably in communicating this decision to the resident and providing appropriate support to assist her with moving to another property.
20. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s reasons for wanting to stay in her current property. It is acknowledged that the move will cause her disruption and that the landlord is not seeking possession of the property because of any misconduct by the resident. The landlord has explained that its decision to dispose of all its leasehold properties owned by the local authority was made for cost reasons based on the maintenance cost of this group of properties as a whole rather than the cost of the resident’s individual property. The landlord was entitled to make a decision based on the cost of maintaining this group of policies and it was not obliged to sell the other properties and keep the resident’s property on the basis that the maintenance charges affecting her property are not as high as some others.
21. In accordance with its decant policy and procedure, it advised the resident on 29 May, 15 June, 10 November, 1 December 2020 and 2 March 2021 that it would seek to rehouse her into suitable alternative accommodation and sought her cooperation to do so. There is evidence that it acknowledged her specific medical needs and that it informed her it would take these into account in finding her an alternative property.
22. In its communication with the resident on the above dates, it explained the reasons why a decant was necessary – because of the forthcoming sale of the property back to the freeholder – and made efforts, on 1 and 21 December 2020 to explain that its decision had not been based on her individual tenancy at the property. The landlord has also provided sufficient notice to the resident that it would seeking be seeking to take possession of the property, given that she was informed on 29 May 2020 that the property would be disposed of, and that a formal notice of seeking possession had not yet been issued at the time of this complaint being duly made with this Service on 27 April 2021.
23. In conclusion, the landlord acted in accordance with its decant policy and procedure, it communicated clearly with the resident, and it provided sufficient notice that it would be seeking to take possession of the property; therefore, there was no evidence of a failing on its part.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to decant the resident from her current property.

Reasons

25. The landlord acted in accordance with its decant procedure, communicated reasonably with the resident and made efforts to take her circumstances into account in arranging alternative accommodation.