Notting Hill Genesis (202002199)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002199

Notting Hill Housing Trust

24 June 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 response to the resident’s reports about: 

a)     Repairs to the bathroom and kitchen at the property;

b)     The suitability of the accommodation;

c)     Her request for a transfer;

d)     Discrimination.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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, or aspects of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaints relating to (a) the suitability of the accommodation and (b) discrimination are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident’s tenancy is detailed as temporary accommodation within the tenancy agreement. The evidence available to this investigation, including the landlord’s formal complaint response to the resident, has confirmed that she was nominated to the property by the Local Authority (LA) in respect of homelessness provisions, the LA conducted a suitability assessment prior to the tenancy start date and a further LA suitability review was carried out in response to the resident’s concerns that the property did not meet her disablement needs. On both occasions, the property was assessed as suitable.
  4. Complaints in relation to the suitability of temporary accommodation are within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In the event of an unresolved dispute, the LGSCO has the authority to investigate the process followed by the LA when arriving at a conclusion that the property met the resident’s needs. As such, this aspect of the complaint is considered outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as paragraph 39 m of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that, in his opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling-body’.
  5. It is noted that, following the completion of the complaints process, the LA has confirmed to the landlord that it no longer considers the resident to be in temporary accommodation, as she is now in ‘settled’ accommodation. This position differs from the landlord’s stance at the completion of the complaints procedure, which said that the LA retained a duty of care. It is not the Ombudsman’s role here to confirm whether or not the LA has discharged its duty, though it is recommended that, if the landlord has not already done so, this be clarified with the resident. This point does not change the jurisdictional decision outlined above as the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to a formal complaint and there is no evidence to doubt the landlord’s position outlined at the completion of the complaints process.
  6. The resident’s tenancy status is also relevant to the complaint relating to her request for a transfer as the landlord’s complaint response confirmed that it was restricted in the properties it could consider for a transfer due to her having taken up occupation following LA nomination under homelessness provisions. As there are elements of this complaint that are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the issue has been investigated, as detailed below. The question of whether this is temporary accommodation is also not relevant to the complaint about repairs as the resident’s assured shorthold tenancy established a landlord/tenant relationship that brings such a complaint within the Ombudsman’s remit; this aspect of the complaint has therefore also been investigated below.
  7. The resident also raised concerns about potential discrimination from the landlord in respect of her reports about the suitability and condition of the property. The landlord responded to this aspect of the complaint, confirming its view that there was no evidence of discrimination in its handling of her tenancy. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to consideration of whether a landlord has acted in a discriminatory manner as this is not an area upon which the Ombudsman is qualified to make an assessment. Paragraph 39 r of the Scheme confirms that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide’.  If the resident remains of the view that there is a potential discrimination or equality issue, then she might wish to consider approaching the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS), who would be able to advise her on where and how she might be able to progress her concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, with a tenancy start date of 21 October 2019. The tenancy agreement confirms that the property was, at least initially, provided on a temporary accommodation basis. The property is owned by a private landlord, who leases the property to the landlord on a fixed term basis. The Landlord has confirmed that its portfolio of such private sector lease (PSL) properties is used to house LA nominated tenants on a temporary accommodation basis and under the LA’s homelessness provisions.
  2. The tenancy terms and conditions are detailed in an accompanying document entitled the ‘Tenant Guide’. This document confirms that the tenancy is assured for a minimum of six months from the tenancy start date, at which point it becomes periodic. As a temporary accommodation resident, the guide confirms that the LA retains the responsibility for sourcing permanent housing for the resident and that the landlord does not have a responsibility for providing permanent housing or deciding ‘when you will move’.
  3. The guide confirms that the landlord is responsible for ‘some’ repairs, with the owner of the property responsible for ‘most’ repairs; though the distinction between these two sets of repair categories is not provided. The resident is also responsible for some ‘minor’ repairs. The implied covenant within section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to maintain/repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states that terms set out in the relevant tenancy agreement take precedent over those contained within the policy. The policy confirms that, for temporary accommodation residents, there ‘may be occasions where the repair responsibility lies with the property owner rather than the landlord or the resident’ and that it would work with both parties in such instances to ensure repair issues are resolved. Where the repair responsibility does not lie with the landlord, it commits to ‘pass on the details of said repair to the relevant party and liaise to ensure its satisfactory completion’.
  5. The repairs policy also confirms that the landlord will often need to inspect repair issues prior to completing repairs. Repair timescales are listed as Emergency repair (attend within 4 hours, major services restored within 24 hours) and Routine (resolved within 20 working days).
  6. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy confirms that assured shorthold tenants do not have the right to transfer. There is no reference within this policy to transfers between PSL properties for assured shorthold tenants.
  7. The evidence available to this investigation confirms that the resident has a disability (she is deaf), with the landlord aware of the resident’s disability throughout the tenancy and complaints process.

Summary of events

  1. On 18 June 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman regarding outstanding repair issues, which she said had been ongoing for seven months. There were holes in the kitchen, which was ‘not good enough’, repairs to both the kitchen and bathroom and she had concerns, from a health and safety perspective, about the stairs as her daughter had fallen down them resulting in an injury. On 22 June 2020, the resident emailed to the Ombudsman a further time, stating that she required assistance in transferring from the property to another in the local area.
  2. A complaint response was sent to the resident around this time (approximately 23 June 2020). The date that this was sent was not clear – it was sent as an attachment to the Ombudsman by the landlord on 19 August 2020, in which the landlord said that it was ‘inclined to treat the attached response as a holding reply rather than a full and final response at our first stage of investigation’. The landlord responded under several headings:

a) Water pressure – Works had been completed to change a cartridge on 19 January 2020, but the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further reports about low pressure. It had scheduled further works but had not been able to arrange a date with the resident. Works were then booked in for 31 March, however, the lockdown had occurred before the works could take place. Now that these measures were lifted, it would now look into the matter once more.

b) Holes in the kitchen – The landlord raised works to be completed, but had not received a quote until mid-March, as a result, it was not able to schedule works before the lockdown occurred. The landlord said that it had arranged for a contractor to inspect this issue by 30 June.

c) Flooring in the kitchen and bathroom and possible kitchen/bathroom renewal – the landlord noted that this had not been identified by the LA’s suitability review. The landlord also said that the kitchen units were all in fully functioning order, as confirmed in January 2020, and that it would be for the property owner to decide if a full refurbishment was required.

d)  Health and safety – the landlord confirmed that it had responded to this issue on 4 March (letter not available) and it did not believe it appropriate to add anything further to this response, other than to express its apologies and enquire about her daughter’s wellbeing.

e)  Suitability of the property – the landlord confirmed that the property had been inspected by the LA prior to occupancy and that she would need to approach them if she wanted to move.

  1. During July and August 2020, the resident sought the Ombudsman’s assistance in respect of her desire to move from the property, which she believed did not meet her needs. There is evidence of the landlord responding to the resident in relation to her reports about the property condition, this included a visit to the property on 20 July, following which it identified in a letter to the resident dated 23 July possible repair issues to the living room (skirting boards, window, curtain rail), kitchen (units, flooring), bathroom (bath panel, pipework, water pressure) and bedrooms (window locks, possible roof leak). Possible pest control issues were also identified. The landlord explained that it would need to get quotations for works and pass these on to the property owner; it also asked that the resident ensure that she provides access to the property in relation to any repair works.
  2. In text and email correspondence dated July 2020, the resident expressed frustration at the landlord’s position that it did not have an appropriate property for her to transfer to, she also confirmed that she had refused for repairs to take place as she wanted to move as a resolution.
  3. On 27 July 2020 the landlord confirmed that, as a temporary accommodation resident, it was limited to the PSL properties available for any transfer and that properties meeting her needs were rarely leased. It said that it was attempting to resolve repair issues within the home but noted that the resident was refusing any works. It also said that it was re-referring her to the LA for possible re-housing and a discussion around property suitability.
  4. The Ombudsman confirmed to the resident, on 30 July 2020 that she would need to make a formal complaint to the landlord in order for this Service to take further action.
  5. On 13 August 2020, the landlord responded to a letter from the resident’s medical practitioner. The landlord explained that it had visited the resident at the property on 21 July, during which the resident confirmed that both the outstanding repairs and the property layout were essential factors in her desire to move. Regarding repairs, the landlord said that it had taken note of all the issues that were of concern during the visit and that she had then been given the opportunity to approve this list of repairs, but had refused for works to take place on the basis that her desired outcome was to be moved from the property. The landlord had explained to the resident that the LA would need to be contacted regarding her desire to move but she had continued to make contact with the landlord in this respect.
  6. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 21 August 2020, in relation to a complaint about the resident’s request to move and her reports of potential discrimination. This reiterated comments it made in the above complaint response in relation to her request for a move, it explained that it did not have any properties available in the local area, that the resident was in temporary accommodation and that, in this respect it ‘partners with boroughs and local authorities who then nominate households’. It said that the majority of its temporary housing portfolio was leased from the private sector, and it thus could not say when suitable properties might become available. It also confirmed that existing rent arrears on the resident’s rent account would prevent a move taking place, even if a suitable property became available.
  7. The stage one response went on to say that the landlord had made further contact with the LA, who had confirmed that the property was considered suitable at the tenancy start date and that a further review it had undertaken had confirmed this assessment. The landlord included within the stage one response excerpts from the LA suitability review that had been carried out. The landlord also responded to the resident’s reports about potential discrimination, stating that there was no evidence of discrimination and that it was ‘trying to make your home as comfortable as possible’, including consideration of any aids/adaptations that might help.
  8. The landlord also stated that it was attempting to resolve repair issues at the property and referred to its correspondence to the resident dated 23 July (above). The landlord did not uphold the complaint, explaining that it had explained why a transfer was not possible, that it had approached the LA on her behalf but that they had deemed the property as suitable and that there was no evidence of any discrimination. It also asked the resident to work with them to resolve repair issues at the property.
  9. On 24 August 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord, stating that the arrears mentioned previously had now been cleared and, as such, could the landlord now accept the resident for a transfer. The landlord responded (date of response not known) to confirm that the rent account had been cleared, but that there remained no available properties to which it could transfer the resident.
  10. On 24 September 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had a contractor ready and available to complete outstanding repair works and requested she make contact in order to arrange a suitable date. This was in response to emails from the resident dated 21 and 23 September in which she said that the house was ‘worse’ and that the landlord had not taken any action for a year, she also referred to low water pressure and said she needed to ‘move out now’.
  11. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 October 2020. It confirmed that it was working to ‘try and get the repairs especially in the kitchen done for you’. It said that it had obtained a quote and a full schedule of works and was now in discussion with the property owner about getting the works done; it requested that the resident confirm her availability for appointments. The landlord also reiterated that the resident should contact the LA about her request to move; she was on the landlord’s internal transfer list but, as previously stated, there were no available properties at that time.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 October 2020 to say that she was available for works to be carried out on 8 October. On the same date, the landlord emailed to say that a drainage contractor would attend on 8 October to resolve a blockage in the kitchen; it also said that it was unlikely that all required works to the kitchen/bathroom would be completed on 8 October.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2020 to complain that only the unblocking of the kitchen took place that day; she said that she was ‘angry’ that the kitchen/bathroom works had not also been done. The landlord responded on the same day, it confirmed that it had previously advised that it was unlikely that works would complete on the day.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2020, seemingly in response to a landlord offer to move her to a hotel while works completed. She said that she was unhappy about moving to a hotel as she was wary about Covid-19; she also said that she felt that the situation was affecting her mental and physical health. The resident reiterated that she wanted to move.  On 15 October, the landlord confirmed that the case would be escalated in accordance with its complaints procedure.
  15. The landlord responded to further resident email correspondence on 19 October 2020, which it understood as meaning that she was not prepared to allow repairs to take place as she wanted to be moved. It said that it had a contractor awaiting acceptance of appointment dates to carry out the full works to the kitchen and bathroom. It also said that it had mentioned the possibility of the resident staying in a hotel for a few days whilst works progressed, but it had not received a response, which it now requested. The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 20 October in which it explained that the clearing of the arrears issue did not mean that a transfer would immediately take place, only that the resident would be placed on its internal transfer list.
  16. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to progress the case to the second stage of its complaint process. On 12 November 2020, the landlord provided its final response. It confirmed that:

a)     It did not own the property and that the LA retained a duty of care to the resident, having nominated her to the property, including consideration of any suitability needs.

b)     The LA had carried out suitability checks both before the tenancy start date and following the resident’s reports about the property condition. On both occasions this had led to a conclusion that the property met the resident’s needs.

c)     The resident was on its internal transfer list but that there were no available properties at that time. It also said that potential properties could only be sourced from the private sector and that a move out of the borough could not be considered as this would effectively end the LA’s duty under homelessness provisions.

d)     The landlord responded to the resident’s repair issues, including confirmation of significant access issues it had experienced in its attempts to complete works it had identified. It said that it had ‘tried on numerous occasions to have the property repairs carried out and continued with ongoing communications to try and ensure this occurs’.

e)     The landlord confirmed that it had also provided information on potential aids and adaptations, though it accepted that it could have done more to promote this. It said that it would review the situation and make suggestions.

  1. On 13 November 2020, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response – she said that the landlord had ignored a letter from her GP, reiterated her belief that she had been discriminated against and that she wanted to move. The landlord responded to this email on the same date. It said that the LA was responsible for the suitability aspect of her complaint and that it had no properties available for transfer; it also said that the LA ‘holds the duty of care for yourself and your family and pays your housing benefit, should you move borough benefits would be lost and the new borough would have no liability’.
  2. On 5 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to give her the opportunity to arrange contractors to attend and complete works. The resident responded the following day to agree for a visit.
  3. During December 2020, there is evidence that the landlord continued to seek alternative properties from its PSL portfolio, though this was not successful.
  4. On 28 December 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord. The complaint was summarised as relating to repairs to the bathroom/kitchen and the suitability of the property, with the resident’s desired outcomes listed as a written update, completed repairs and a transfer due to disability.
  5. During December 2020 to January 2021. There is evidence of the landlord responding to resident reports of a potential mice infestation issue, with the landlord referring to ‘poor housekeeping’ and its continued difficulty in accessing the property to complete kitchen/bathroom repairs as significant contributing factors. As these events post–date the landlord’s complaints process, they have not been investigated here.
  6. Following an Ombudsman enquiry into the tenancy status, the landlord confirmed (2 February 2021), that the resident was ‘not in permanent housing’, that she had originally been nominated by the LA but that the LA no longer accepted an ‘ongoing duty towards the tenant as they regard her as being in settled accommodation’. The landlord said that it leases the property from a private landlord, with the existing lease to end on 10 October 2021, at which point the private landlord could renew, or demand the property back, at which point it would obtain vacant possession. It also said that the private landlord could request the property back prior to the end of the lease agreement.
  7. Recent email correspondence obtained by the Ombudsman (dated 20 April 2021 to 1 May 2021) confirms that the landlord continues to work to resolve the repair issues at the property. The landlord agreed to fund temporary hotel accommodation for the resident whilst works progressed; refurbishment works to the kitchen and bathroom, as well as upgrade works to the front door, were scheduled for 4 to 12 May 2021. It is not known if the works completed during this period.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The landlord has confirmed that the property sits within its portfolio of PSL properties, into which it accepts nominations from the LA to meet their duties under homelessness provisions. Though the tenancy agreement does not explicitly clarify the landlord’s repair/maintenance responsibilities, these are found within the landlord’s Tenant Guide document and its repairs policy. In addition, irrespective of the nature of the contractual arrangement between the landlord and the property owner, the fact that there is an assured shorthold tenancy in place between the landlord and resident brings it within the legal framework of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As such, there is an implied responsibility on the landlord for ensuring that the structure and exterior of the property remain in a reasonable state of repair and that it resolves any repair issues within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The Tenant Guide confirms that both the property owner and the landlord have a responsibility towards repair works, with the property owner responsible for ‘most’ of these works. The repairs policy confirms that, in those instances where the property owner is deemed responsible, it (the landlord) will liaise with parties to ensure that repairs are completed. This procedure allows the landlord to monitor the progress of repairs, including taking steps to ensure that works complete within reasonable timeframes and thus ensure that it meets its repair obligations.
  3. There is a concern that the above procedure might, in some cases, make it difficult for the landlord to comply with its repair obligations. In this case, there is evidence of the landlord having to source quotations and contractors for outstanding works, it also had to wait for the property owner’s approval before progressing at points. Adding such additional steps to a repairs process makes it less likely that a landlord will be able to ensure a timely repair; there is also the potential for disagreement between the property owner and landlord as to the requirement to proceed, or the costs involved, thus further delaying progression. Tight service level agreements and management of these issues is crucial to ensuring that the overall repair process runs in a reasonable manner.
  4. The landlord’s informal complaint response detailed above (dated approximately 23 June 2020) confirmed that it had taken steps to identify and resolve repair issues (water pressure, holes in the kitchen) prior to the national lockdown at the end of March 2020 and that it intended to follow through with remedial works now that its service delivery could be re-commenced. This interruption of service delivery was a common factor in repair cases across the country during this time. The Ombudsman accepts that delays were inevitable, though there remained an expectation that the landlord would continue to communicate with affected parties and that it would look to continue works as soon as was reasonable once the lockdown ended, as was the case in this instance.
  5. There then followed a protracted period during which the landlord attempted to work with the resident to complete works, both those that it had already identified, and additional issues that the resident raised during a visit in July 2020. Having considered the evidence, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord took reasonable steps during this time. It responded to the resident’s enquiries, persuaded her to accept a visit, confirmed the visit findings with her, continued to source quotations/contractors for works and to liaise with the property owner. However, it is evident that the resident, by this time, had a fixed outcome in mind, transferring from the property. She made it clear at points that she was not willing to allow access for repairs as she did not believe the property was suitable and wanted a move.
  6. Despite the landlord continuing to state that the resident needed to seek assistance from the LA in her attempts to move, she continued to focus on the landlord arranging a transfer. This meant that the landlord’s attempts to access and carry out works did not prove successful. This was confirmed in the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident, and its various responses to those acting on behalf of the resident. Having taken reasonable steps to complete repairs and having been prevented from doing so on account of the resident’s refusal to grant access, the landlord’s repair responsibilities effectively ended, with no service failure attributable to the landlord.
  7. In such circumstances however, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to continue to take steps to ensure that the works are completed. The landlord remains responsible for ensuring that the property is in a reasonable state of repair and it is good practice in any case to continue to work with a tenant who places obstacles in the way of service delivery. It is commendable to note therefore, that there is evidence that the landlord has continued its attempts to resolve the repair issues at the property following the completion of the complaints process. It is not clear to what extent these repairs have now been resolved, however.
  8. The Ombudsman is also satisfied with the nature and extent of the communication sent to the resident throughout the repairs and complaints process. It is evident from the information available that the resident was very frustrated with her living situation and this often came through in the language she used in her dealings with the landlord. Landlord staff responses remained professional throughout, with a clear demonstration of empathy for the resident’s position.
  9. There is reference to a landlord response to a health and safety issue dated March 2020 in the evidence, though no copy of this letter was available to this investigation. The context of the reference to this letter related to the resident’s view that the fact that the property was on more than one level rendered it a health and safety risk due to her inability to hear her children. This issue relates to the suitability of the property, rather than a repair issue; as such, it is not something that requires further investigation here.

Transfer

  1. As detailed above, the resident’s desired outcome throughout the complaints process was for the landlord to arrange a transfer for her and her household to a property more suitable given her disablement needs and the repair issues outstanding at the property. The landlord informed her, on multiple occasions, that the LA remained responsible for the suitability of the property and for arranging a move; it also explained that it was limited in its consideration of any internal transfer to those properties within its PSL portfolio that happened to meet the resident’s needs.
  2. The landlord’s position regarding the LA was appropriate. The LA placed the resident in the property in discharging its duty to house her under homelessness legislation and it retained any responsibility to her in respect of sourcing permanent accommodation, as confirmed in the Tenant Guide (see paragraph 10). The landlord’s responsibility here, and the Ombudsman’s investigation, is limited to its consideration of her application for a transfer as a management, or internal transfer. It is noted however, that the landlord took steps throughout to keep in contact with the LA about the resident’s housing options; this was both reasonable and commendable in the circumstances, given the resident’s clear frustration and level of dissatisfaction whilst occupying the property.
  3. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy does not refer to the particular circumstances of this case. The policy is silent with respect to the landlord’s procedural responsibility for those tenants occupying temporary accommodation. However, the policy does explicitly state that assured shorthold tenants, such as the resident, are not permitted to transfer properties. As such, based upon the policy alone, there is no evidence that the landlord was required to consider the resident for an internal transfer.
  4. The landlord confirmed that it had accepted the resident on its internal transfer list. It explained that this would be limited to its PSL portfolio as these were the only properties into which she might be able to transfer; it also confirmed that it did not have a suitable property for her and that such properties did not become available often. Given that there is no evidence of a procedural or legislative requirement on the landlord to have considered the resident for a transfer, the Ombudsman considers it a reasonable exercise of discretion to have done so here. In the circumstances, given that the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the property, it was both fair and reasonable to consider if it might have a property better suited to her needs.
  5. It was also reasonable for the landlord to limit its search for a potential new property for the resident to its PSL portfolio. The resident was not a permanent resident with the landlord and thus did not have any entitlement to a move to any properties from its social housing portfolio. Doing so would have potentially meant that another household might have missed out on the opportunity to secure suitable and permanent housing.
  6. The landlord confirmed at stage one of the complaints process, that arrears on the resident’s rent account would prevent an internal transfer taking place. This was a reasonable position at that time as it is common practice for a social landlord to consider such financial factors in its decision–making process. Having subsequently established that the arrears had been cleared, the landlord took the reasonable step of confirming that it would now consider the resident for an internal transfer, albeit subject to the criteria outlined above. There appeared to be some confusion at this point as the resident’s MP then asked if the move would now take place. The landlord responded to confirm that the change to the rent account only meant that the resident could be considered for a transfer and reiterated that no suitable property was available. This was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s previous communication.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the resident’s request for a transfer from the property.

Reasons

  1. It is evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve repair issues at the property. It identified works, liaised with the property owner, sourced appropriate contractors to complete works and carried out site inspections to clarify the extent and responsibility of any required works. The resident however, was not satisfied with the landlord’s response as she desired a move from the property as she believed it to be unsuitable to her household needs. The landlord confirmed, appropriately, that any consideration of suitability was not within its remit and attempted to persuade the resident to allow access so that works could be carried out. There is evidence that the resident was unwilling to allow such access and, as a result, the identified works did not take place.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in placing the resident on its internal transfer list. It was also reasonable to limit its consideration of any prospective alternative accommodation to its PSL portfolio as the resident’s occupancy status was not permanent.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review its lettings and allocations policy to ensure that the circumstances described here are covered, i.e. the transfer rights of those it has accepted in temporary/PSL accommodation.