One Vision Housing Limited (202112487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112487

One Vision Housing Limited

3 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. application for housing;
2. concerns that he had been discriminated against during the housing application process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in August 2018. His current property, “Property X”, is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has mental health issues which are known to the landlord. Throughout his complaint to the landlord and his correspondence with this Service, he has been represented by his advocate. For the purposes of this report, both are referred to as “the resident”.
The landlord’s allocations policy states that it recognises the need to allocate its vacant properties in a fair, consistent and transparent manner that meets housing need and makes the best use of available resources.
Vacant properties belonging to the landlord and other social landlords are advertised via a sub-regional choice based lettings allocation scheme (“the CBL scheme”). The common allocation scheme is owned by the local authority. In the resident’s area, the landlord has been appointed by the local authority to manage the CBL scheme on its behalf.
The CBL scheme states that some properties are adapted to meet the needs of physically disabled applicants, with adaptations such as a stairlift or level access shower. Preference for adapted vacancies is given to those applicants whose needs best match the particular adaptations of a property. In such circumstances, ‘bypassing’ may take place. Bypassing occurs when a property is not offered to the highest ranked applicant who has expressed a preference for it. Shortlisted applicants may be bypassed for a number of reasons, including “if the property is adapted and the applicant does not need those specific adaptations”.
The landlord’s allocation policy states that, in some circumstances, it may allocate properties directly to applicants outside the CBL scheme. Such allocations are known as direct lets or, as referred to in this report, ‘management lets’. The policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which management lets would be considered, which concludes with “any other reason as supported by [the landlord’s] policies and procedures”.
Both the landlord and the CBL scheme state in their policies that they are committed to promoting equality of opportunity within the housing allocation process and to eliminating discrimination, with positive regard for the “core strands of equality” including disability and race.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge complaints within two working days and respond within ten working days. Where a payment is offered as part of a complaint response, either in compensation or as a gesture of goodwill, this will be “commensurate with the level of inconvenience, stress, disturbance or annoyance suffered by the customer and the level to which [the landlord] has been directly responsible”.

Summary of events

In June 2021, the resident was seeking a move to a bungalow and was actively bidding on properties. He had been awarded Band A priority (the highest level) under the category of ‘urgent due to health and welfare’. His housing application stated that his reasons for moving were ‘health reasons’ and ‘need a different area’. It also stated that he did not require an adapted property. He felt that living in a bungalow in a quieter area, without neighbour noise from above or below, would benefit his mental health.
During the week of 13 June 2021, the resident placed a bid on a bungalow in his preferred area (“Property Y”). The property was not listed as an adapted property, but the resident was bypassed for the property on the basis that it was adapted.

On 18 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that:
1. He wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of his bid for Property Y, the fact that he was ‘skipped’ for the property by the landlord, and the inaccurate listing of the property on the CBL scheme.
2. He had previously contacted the CBL scheme regarding other listings and had been told that it was the responsibility of the landlord to provide information and ensure the accuracy of each listing.
3. Property Y was inaccurately listed as a one-bedroom general needs property that was suitable for all household types and priority bands. No restrictions or adaptations were listed.
4. Many of the landlord’s adapted property listings had a caveat that priority would be given to tenants requiring adaptations, but there was no such caveat in this instance.
5. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy required that it gave prior approval and carried out any adaptations to properties, so it would have known prior to Property Y being listed that it was adapted.
6. He had taken the time to visit the road that Property Y was on and the surrounding neighbourhood.
7. His disappointment in being skipped had resulted in a deterioration of his mental health and caused him to access mental health services on an urgent basis.
8. Being skipped had also caused him to believe that the landlord was discriminating against him by intentionally blocking him from properties in the “quiet and sought-after” areas he had chosen to bid, where he felt his mental health would be protected and he would be free from racial harassment.
9. By way of resolution, he requested: a written apology from the landlord; a full list of the adaptations made to Property Y; and for the landlord to “actively seek” a suitable bungalow for him in one of his chosen areas.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 June 2021 and said it would respond within ten working days.
On 1 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to consider the following additional information in its stage one response:
1. The resident was skipped for Property Y (and a number of previous properties) on the basis that it was an adapted property. However, the landlord had the ability to use discretion when allocating properties, especially in exceptional circumstances. The resident believed that his mental health issues amounted to exceptional circumstances in which the landlord should use its discretion.
2. Property X had a fully adapted bathroom, so the landlord had used its discretion to waive the policy when the resident was given his current flat. This also meant that, if he were to be given an adapted bungalow, the landlord’s stock of available adapted properties would not be depleted as Property X would become available.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 July 2021, stating that:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint that Property Y was not accurately listed on the CBL scheme as an adapted property. This was an administrative error.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that being skipped for properties had caused him to believe that the landlord was intentionally blocking him from areas where he had chosen to bid. The landlord said that it had not blocked the resident from obtaining properties. He was previously offered a one-bedroom bungalow (“Property Z”) in his chosen area; he initially accepted the offer but later chose to reject it. The resident had held four tenancies with the landlord including his tenancy at Property X, and the landlord was not aware of any racial harassment being experienced by the resident.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint that being skipped for another property had caused him severe distress, anxiety and deterioration of his mental health. The landlord accepted that the resident may have suffered stress and anxiety in relation to its incorrect advert.
4. Based on its investigation, its overall response was that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld.
5. It sincerely apologised for any inconvenience, stress, anxiety or deterioration in mental health that the situation may have caused the resident.
6. In response to the resident’s request for a list of adaptations to Property Y, the property had grab rails to the front door and a fully adapted walk-in bathroom/wet room.
7. In response to the resident’s request for a suitable bungalow, it noted that the resident had a live Band A housing application with the CBL scheme, and advised him to continue to place bids on suitable properties when they became available.
8. As a result of the resident’s complaint, it would ensure that all properties were advertised accurately on the CBL scheme in future.
The resident replied to the landlord on 10 July 2021. He said he was pleased that some parts of his complaint had been upheld, but he wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage two. This was because he felt the landlord had not fully considered his claim that it was blocking him from properties in his preferred areas. The landlord had addressed whether it was directly discriminating against the resident and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint; however, the resident felt it should also consider whether it was indirectly discriminating against him by skipping him for “so many properties”. He said his belief that he was being discriminated against had been brought about or exacerbated by the actions of the landlord in mishandling his bids for properties. He also asked for the landlord to reconsider his request for a management let, and to address the points made in his email of 1 July 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 13 July 2021 and issued its stage two response on 20 July 2021. This stated that:
1. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that he was being discriminated against as a result of being skipped for so many properties. The resident had been skipped for two properties in the past six months. The first of these was a fully adapted bungalow that was not suitable for his housing needs.
2. Property Y was advertised incorrectly as the advert did not include what adaptations the property had. That part of the resident’s complaint was upheld, and the landlord apologised again for its administrative error. The reason for the resident being skipped was because the property had adaptations he did not require, and he was not skipped intentionally in order to cause him distress.
3. The resident continued to be eligible to bid on bungalows, but he may be skipped if he did not fulfil the criteria for individual properties.
4. The CBL scheme policy outlined why an applicant may be bypassed for an offer.
5. It did not agree to the resident’s request for it to reconsider a management let as a way to resolve his complaint and housing situation in general. The resident was offered and signed up for a tenancy at Property Z, which was in his chosen area, through a previously arranged management let. He chose to reject the offer after accepting the tenancy. Although the landlord understood that being skipped for properties twice recently had caused the resident frustration and upset, and had exacerbated his mental health, he did not meet the criteria for a management let and it would not authorise a second one. It again advised him to continue to bid on suitable properties, although there was no guarantee he would be successful.
6. Based on its investigation, the resident’s complaint was partially upheld.
7. As a result of the resident’s complaint, as previously stated, the landlord would ensure that all properties were advertised accurately on the CBL scheme in order to avoid any disappointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2021 and said that he had asked for points made in his emails of 1 and 10 July 2021 to be considered in the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord replied to the resident on 27 July 2021 and apologised for the fact that not all of the resident’s points had been covered in its response. It told him the relevant officer was on leave, but that it would respond to him by 3 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. Among other matters not included in this investigation, it said that it followed guidance set out in the CBL scheme policy, which was quoted in its stage two response. This guidance gave the landlord discretion to bypass applicants if they did not need the relevant adaptations. For the two properties the resident had bid for in the past six months, there had been another applicant who matched the criteria, which is why the resident was bypassed. The landlord said it appreciated that the resident was currently in an adapted property, but that did not mean he would again be matched with an adapted property. The landlord’s policy ensured that each property was best matched with someone who fit the criteria for that property. It said it was sorry if the property listing – which led the resident to bid and subsequently be skipped – caused frustration, but he was correctly skipped.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service, stating that he still believed the landlord was discriminating against him “based on past history” and that it had not given due consideration to his mental health issues in its dealings with him. He also said he would like confirmation that the landlord had revised its process in order to ensure that properties were advertised accurately.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for housing

The resident’s housing application was reflective of his needs and circumstances. It correctly identified that he did not require any physical property adaptations, although he had been awarded the top priority banding for reasons relating to his mental health. This made the resident less likely to be offered Property Y and a previous adapted property in circumstances where a more closely matched applicant existed. The landlord was therefore entitled to bypass the resident for these properties in accordance with its policies and those of the CBL scheme.
Issues arose because the advert for Property Y, for which the landlord supplied information, did not state that the property was adapted or that preference would be given to applicants whose needs meant that they required the relevant adaptations. This understandably caused the resident to believe that he would be offered the property, as he was positioned in first place on the allocation list. He subsequently spent time visiting the road the property was on and the local area, as well as evidently developing a high level of emotional investment.
The resident’s investment was short-lived, however, as he learned quickly that he had been bypassed and complained to the landlord the following week. This meant that the maximum amount of time he had falsely believed that he would be offered Property Y was 12 days. While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress and disappointment caused to the resident, this period of time was objectively short and so the disadvantage caused to him was limited. The landlord was right to apologise for the inaccurate advert, to confirm it had identified the cause, and to reassure the resident that it had put measures in place to ensure the error would not recur in future. To evidence the landlord’s commitment to quality, it would have been good practice for it to tell the resident what those measures were.
The resident stated in his complaint that he had been bypassed for a number of properties he had bid on, and had previously complained to the landlord about mishandling of his bids. This investigation will focus on recent bids which the landlord had the opportunity to address through its current complaints process. The landlord said in its stage two response that the resident had been bypassed for two properties in the preceding six months, both of which were adapted. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s decision to bypass the resident on both occasions was acceptable and supportive of its aim to “allocate its vacant properties in a manner that meets housing need and makes the best use of available resources”.
It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to use its discretion by waiving its policy and offering Property Y to the resident. It was also reasonable for it to refuse to offer the resident a management let. The landlord clearly explained its decision making on both points. The fact that Property X was an adapted property did not obligate the landlord to offer the resident another adapted property on a ‘like for like’ basis; although the resident pointed out that doing so would not deplete the landlord’s stock of available adapted properties, following its policy would mean that the number of available adapted properties would increase. The resident may have been offered Property X as no more closely matched applicant existed at the time, or the offer may have been made under a different version of the landlord’s policy.
Likewise, the landlord had previously offered the resident a management let for Property Z, which he accepted but later rejected. The landlord had shown flexibility at this time by not charging the resident for the four-week notice period, and obviously wished to avoid incurring further unnecessary costs. The resident also did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a management let at the time of the landlord’s complaint response. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to follow its current policies with regard to preference for adapted properties and criteria for management lets.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that he had been discriminated against during the housing application process

The landlord has an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to consider how its policies and procedures affect people with characteristics that are protected under the Act, including race and disability. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord has been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident, as that is a matter for the courts; the resident should consider obtaining independent advice if he wishes to further pursue this aspect of his complaint. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately and sensitively to the resident’s concerns about discrimination, and whether it followed good practice.
The resident stated in his complaint that he sought a move to a bungalow, like Property Y, in certain geographical areas where he felt he would be “free of racial harassment”. The landlord said in its stage one response that it was not aware of any racial harassment experienced by the resident, although it noted that the resident had alleged racist behaviour by a member of the landlord’s staff in connection with a separate matter. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord treated the resident unfairly or differently due to his race in relation to his application for housing, or that the resident raised racial harassment concerns with the landlord other than in connection with a recent neighbour issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concern in its complaint response, with reference to unrelated but recent events that could have contributed to his perception. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communication on this topic was clear, sensitive and not dismissive of the resident’s views.
The resident also felt that the landlord had not given sufficient consideration to his mental health when dealing with him, and that when the landlord addressed his concerns about discrimination in its complaint response, it addressed only direct discrimination and not indirect discrimination. He said he believed the landlord had indirectly discriminated against him by bypassing him for multiple properties and mishandling his bids. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of direct or indirect discrimination by the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord gave a clear and legitimate explanation for why the resident was bypassed for both Property Y and a previous property. In both cases, the bypass was due to the resident not requiring the physical adaptations that had been made to the property and the existence of a qualifying applicant on the allocations list. This was in accordance with policy and unrelated to the resident’s race or disability. The landlord explained how the error on its advert had come about and acknowledged and apologised for the impact on the resident’s mental health, which was appropriate. It also demonstrated openness by promptly providing a list of the adaptations made to Property Y at the resident’s specific request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application for housing;
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns that he had been discriminated against during the housing application process.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its administrative error which led to the advert for Property Y being inaccurate. It reassured the resident that it had put measures in place to prevent the error from recurring. Despite the error, the landlord’s decision to bypass the resident for Property Y was appropriate and in accordance with policy. Its decision to bypass him for a previous adapted property was also compliant. The landlord acted reasonably in refusing to waive its allocations policy or offer the resident a second management let, for which he did not meet its criteria.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about direct and indirect discrimination. It considered the reasons for the resident’s concerns, denied that it had been discriminatory, and provided clear explanations for its decisions. It also demonstrated understanding and flexibility in view of the resident’s mental health issues, of which it was aware.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provides details to the resident of any procedural changes or other arrangements it has made in order to ensure that future property listings are accurate.