Octavia Housing (202006862)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006862

Octavia Housing

20 September 2021 (Amended on review)

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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. transfer application and property offer.
2. reports of mould and damp at the property.
3. request for compensation for damage to her personal items caused by the mould and damp.
4. formal complaint regarding these matters.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The 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 will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Issues relating to mould and damp, and the resident’s request for compensation

Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints where a complainant seeks to raise again matters which this Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.
The issues surrounding the resident’s complaints of mould and damp at the property and her subsequent request for compensation for damage to her personal items relate to events which occurred between 2014 and 2016.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord into these matters, receiving a stage one response on 28 August 2015 and a stage two response on 18 January 2016. The resident then brought her complaint to this Service. An investigation report was sent to both sides on 8 March 2017 and, following a request to review the decision, a review report was issued on 2 May 2017.
In summary, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s concerns about mould and damp or her request for compensation in respect of this because these matters have previously been considered by our service.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint the resident held an assured tenancy for a two bedroomed basement flat owned and managed by the landlord. She moved into the property on 3 June 2013 following a mutual exchange.
The resident has made the landlord aware that she has a number of medical conditions, and the landlord has confirmed that the information it holds identifies her needs as being vulnerable.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s transfer procedure identifies that if a transfer applicant is unhappy with the assessment of their application, they can ask for it to be reviewed. If the request is on the grounds of a medical assessment, then a second opinion from another medical advisor will be sought. There is no set timescale for requesting a review.
The landlord’s complaint policy identifies that at stage one the complaint response will be handled by the service manager. Following the stage one response the resident has ten working days to request an escalation to stage two. At stage two the complainant has the option of having a senior manager respond or attending a complaints panel.

Summary of events

The resident made a stage one complaint on 6 June 2019. She confirmed that she had been on the transfer list on medical grounds on band C since 2015. She identified her medical conditions and stated that her current property did not meet her needs as a disabled person. She confirmed that she had viewed and accepted a property offer in May 2019 and that on accepting the property she was informed that one week’s rent had to be paid in the next four days to secure the property. She explained that she informed the staff member that she was on benefits but the response from the finance department was ‘no money, no property’. She complained that ‘There was no understanding, compassion, support or discretion offered’.
In addition, the resident identified that as part of the sign-up process the landlord required a financial assessment which took place on 13 May 2019. She stated she found the form used too intrusive and that she was asked for two bank statements. She offered benefit letters and utility bills in place of bank statements, but these were refused. She states she also offered bank statements with some information redacted but was told that this was not acceptable. She confirmed that she was told she could not secure the property unless banks statements were provided so did not proceed with the process. She stated that she phoned the office later the same day to request copies of the landlord’s financial and transfer policy and was told that the offer of the property had been withdrawn. She complained that the attitude of staff was inappropriate and unprofessional and raised concern whether the same issues would happen each time.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 June 2019 and confirmed the officer who would be investigating the case. The resident responded on 15 June 2019 that she was unhappy with the officer assigned to respond as it was the officer who withdrew the property offer. The landlord responded (document not dated) that according to its policy, the manager responsible for the service was responsible for responding to complaints. It confirmed that if she remained unhappy with the stage one response, she would be able to escalate the complaint to stage two.
The landlord sent a stage one response on 26 June 2019. The complaint was not upheld. It stated that it would not be able to respond on medical requirements as the resident had previously submitted medical information which had been assessed. It confirmed that the financial assessment was required to assess affordability of the property being offered and could also identify any other financial concerns where it could offer assistance. It stated that the resident had previously viewed properties where the need to pay a week’s rent had been clearly stated on the advert and therefore, she was aware of this requirement. It identified that there are tight deadlines on letting properties which means that it could not afford a delay in the sign-up process by holding a property without a valid reason. It added that it was sorry if she found staff inappropriate and unprofessional but that it was unclear from the complaint why she felt this and there was no substantive evidence to support the claim.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two (document not dated, though the landlord identifies that this came via Shelter on 23 October 2019) and identified:

The complaint should not have been responded to by the officer concerned.
The behaviour of the officer had not been appropriate and professional, and she was treated unfairly:
- When she contacted the officer regarding appealing her medical assessment, she was informed that the landlord had to go by what the medical assessment said. Her disabilities had worsened but on two occasions following further medical assessments she had been place in a lower band D. She asked if she could be rebanded on discretionary grounds as discretion had been used to keep her on band C when the medical assessment had changed to band D. The officer responded by threatening to put her in band D and take her off the transfer list.
- The officer reallocated the property she had accepted without explanation less than three hours after the sign-up appointment.
She had asked several times for an explanation of the landlord’s policy of carrying out a ‘basic check’ for tenants on full housing benefit.
She had lost two properties due to the issue with bank statements.
She required an explanation of why the weeks rent due in advance would not be refunded as she is on full housing benefit.
She required an explanation of why her landlord was intending to sign her up as a new tenant.
She requested copies of audios files relating to phone calls and the financial assessment meeting.
She requested a management transfer and compensation (for stress and anxiety, impact on health, costs and inconvenience relating to move preparations).

The landlord sent its stage two response on 2 December 2019. This followed a complaint panel hearing on 19 November 2019 which the resident attended to raise her concerns. In response the landlord confirmed:

The resident’s medical assessment was downgraded to priority band D in September 2018, but it agreed that she would retain band C priority. That the landlord’s email of 13 March 2019 clearly conveyed “you are currently on a Band C “. The email did not refer to the case review/Stage 1 complaint procedures but did ask her to make contact if there was anything she wished to clarify. It did not therefore uphold this aspect of the complaint.
The financial assessment should have been managed better. Its policy was that transferring tenants should only require a basic affordability check and therefore this should have led to a more flexible response. This element of the complaint was upheld.
It was noted and accepted that the appointment letter headed “New Tenant Financial Assessment” might have had a clearer title, but it made sufficiently clear that a financial assessment would be required as part of the process.
There was discretion in exceptional circumstances to review the requirement of paying a week’s rent if this was likely to cause a significant problem for the household. This discretion was not exercised, and no specific consideration was given to this matter nor the £60 credit on the residents account. This element of the complaint was upheld.
Receipts totalling £145 were presented at the meeting covering various purchases the resident had made in anticipation of the transfer. The resident confirmed she had not returned the items to obtain a refund as she wished to keep them in anticipation of a future move. It recognised the inconvenience in making the purchases, though identified she had the opportunity to recover the financial loss.
A copy of its transfer policy was sent on 14 May, and then it provided a further copy later in May. It stated it was unfortunate that she did not receive a copy originally. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
As previously advised, it was not possible to grant management transfer status. Management transfers are only considered where potentially life-threatening problems are being faced by a household due to threatened or actual violence.
It accepted that it was unlikely that the property offer would have been withdrawn if the appropriate flexibility in approach had been shown. It noted however, that the property was not suited to the residents identified needs as it had more steps than her existing home and that moving would affect her future transfer status. The resident responded to this stating she also wanted to move due to cold and damp which affected her medical conditions and that she might be in a better position to achieve a mutual exchange.
In terms of allegations of unprofessional behaviour by staff, it noted a response to this had been provided at stage one and that as the stage two reviewer was not present at the events it was not in a position to judge this matter further. It was sorry that the resident felt this was her experience of the service.
It apologised and offered a goodwill gesture payment of £150 to resolve the complaint. It offered a further medical assessment should the resident want this.

Assessment and findings

Transfer application and property offer

It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of medical experts to assess the resident’s transfer application. When this resulted in a reduction in priority the landlord said it would allow the resident to retain the existing higher priority. The Ombudsman would not seek to assess the appropriateness of medical banding as it does not have medical expertise. However, it is noted that the landlord’s decision was to the benefit of the resident.
The landlord’s response on the issue of the ‘New Tenant Financial Assessment’ form, on providing a copy of the transfer policy and on the resident’s request for a Management Transfer were all appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s concerns regarding staff being unprofessional were considered at both stages the complaint process. The resident had asked for audio recordings of specific communications following the stage one response. It is not clear from the evidence if any recordings were available and the response following the complaint panel hearing did not identify this as being discussed. Without evidence of unprofessional behaviour, it is understandable that the landlord’s stage two review confirmed it was unable to make a judgement on this issue.
The landlord did recognise in it stage two response its failings in applying its financial assessment process and in respect of requesting a week’s rent in advance. It apologised for these failures and awarded compensation. While this was an appropriate response, the level of compensation awarded did not fully reflect the impact of the failures. In respect of the failure relating to flexibility on the advance rent payment the compensation awarded was reasonable. However, the failure in respect of the financial assessment had wider implications and a higher level of compensation should have been awarded.
In considering compensation it was reasonable that the landlord did not compensate directly for items purchased by the resident where a refund could have been obtained. However, in assessing the impact of the withdrawal of the offer it sought to consider the suitability of the property for the resident. A discussion about the suitability of the property and the implications for future transfer applications if accepted should have taken place as part of the bidding/offer process so the resident could have made a fully informed choice. This does not appear to have happened. The choice was then taken away because of the withdrawal of the offer. The resident stated that she had made a number of preparations for the move including boxing up her belongings. While it was identified that a financial assessment would take place it was not unreasonable for the resident to assume that as she was an existing tenant in receipt of full housing benefit that this would be a straightforward process.
The resident identified in her escalation request that she had lost two properties due to the issue with bank statements. The landlord did reply to a Shelter enquiry on this prior to the stage two hearing identifying that the resident had refused one offer and the second had been withdrawn. The matter of a second property does not appear to have been pursued at the complaint panel hearing. However, in its assessment of compensation the landlord should have considered that from the time of the withdrawal of the property offer until the issue of the stage two response the resident was in a position where she would not be accepted for move without providing bank statements which was not prepared to do.
Overall, there were service failures in the landlord’s financial assessment and pre-letting process. These were correctly recognised by the landlord when it issued its stage two response. However, the level of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about who should be handling her complaint at stage one was in line with its complaint policy. There was a gap between the stage one response and the stage two hearing. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy though it appears from the evidence that the landlord used its discretion to allow an escalation outside of normal timescales.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and property offer.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following issues are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to deliver:
1. reports of mould and damp at the property.
2. request for compensation for damage to her personal items caused by the mould and damp.

Reasons

There were service failures in the landlord’s approach to its pre-letting financial assessment and in its request for rent in advance to secure a property offer. These were recognised by the landlord at stage two of its complaint process, but the level of compensation awarded did not reflect the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused.
The landlord followed its policy on who should deal with the complaint and used discretion on timescales to enable a complaint panel hearing to take place.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s concerns about mould and damp or her request for compensation in respect of this because these matters have previously been considered by our service.

Order

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250. This includes £150 already offered by the landlord which can be deducted if already paid. The landlord should confirm compliance with the order within four weeks of the determination.