The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202222168)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222168

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

24 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for an urgent management move.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two bedroom property owned by the landlord. The resident is the sole tenant, however he lives in the property with his partner. For clarity, both the resident and his partner are referred to throughout this report as ‘the resident’.
  2. On 10 July 2019, the landlord declined a request from the resident to be offered an urgent management move. The resident requested a review of this decision. The review was heard on 28 November 2019 and the decision to decline the resident’s request was upheld. The resident made a further request for an urgent management move on 18 January 2021. The request was heard at a panel meeting on 28 January 2021 and a unanimous decision was made to decline it. A later request was heard at a panel meeting on 19 October 2021 and was also declined.
  3. On 25 July 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He stated that his current home is too small and does not meet his medical needs, but the landlord had refused the resident’s requests for an urgent management move to a three-bedroom property. He felt that the landlord had ignored care plans, its duties under relevant legislation and the antisocial behaviour (ASB) the resident had experienced. The resident complained about behaviour from an individual staff member that he felt was rude and unprofessional. The resident wanted the landlord to apologise and offer an urgent management move to a three-bedroom property. He also wanted the landlord to admit it had discriminated against the resident and treated him unfairly. He requested that the landlord make various changes to its policies and practices with regard to management transfers.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 1 September 2022, following an extension to the response deadline. It confirmed it had investigated the issues the resident had raised, but it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that the resident’s case for an urgent management move had been heard on several occasions but that it did not meet the landlord’s criteria as set out in the relevant policy. It had therefore been unable to approve the requests. The resident was unhappy with the complaint response and requested on 7 October 2022 that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
  5. The landlord’s complaint review panel met on 28 November 2022. Following this, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 December 2022. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and stated it would not be offering financial compensation. It apologised for the resident’s disappointment with the decisions made on his management move requests. However, it stated that it had followed its relevant policies and decided that the resident’s circumstances had not met the necessary criteria for a move of this type. It stated that the review panel did not agree that the resident had experienced unfair treatment or discrimination from the landlord. It confirmed that the relevant policy was currently under review and this was likely to result in the addition of health needs criteria for a management move. The landlord invited the resident to submit a new request for an urgent management move once the new policy was live.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman to investigate. He has told this Service that he feels the landlord’s housing options and lettings policy discriminates against people as it makes no specific mention of health needs. He would like to be compensated financially for the distress he has experienced and for the landlord to reconsider his request to be offered an urgent management move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an urgent management move. The resident has stated his belief that the landlord has discriminated against him on the basis of protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010, including sexual orientation and disability. While this Service is unable to make a finding on whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, it can assess the landlord’s actions and communications for evidence of unfavourable treatment of the resident compared to other residents in the same situation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for an urgent management move

  1. The landlord has a nomination agreement with the local authority (LA). The landlord’s allocations procedure states that the landlord must advertise “the majority” of its available properties through the LA’s choice-based lettings scheme. The LA will then send the landlord a list of suitable households, in order of priority, to be assessed for each advertised property. This allows all eligible rehousing applicants to place bids for the landlord’s available properties regardless of whether they are an existing tenant of the landlord. Therefore, residents of the landlord who wish to be rehoused in the local area will normally be encouraged to make a rehousing application with the LA and have their level of priority assessed in line with the LA’s allocations scheme.
  2. In its allocations procedure, the landlord also draws a distinction between an ‘urgent’ move and an ‘emergency’ move. People who need to be moved from their homes on an ‘emergency’ basis are also advised to approach the LA to make a homelessness application and be considered for emergency accommodation. The landlord states that its process for urgent management moves can take a significant amount of time, and therefore is not suitable for those households who need an immediate housing intervention. Therefore, most rehousing applicants in most circumstances will need to approach the LA for their rehousing needs to be assessed and met. In the interests of fairness to all rehousing applicants with a need to move home, the landlord will only depart from this agreement where specific criteria is met as outlined in its housing options and lettings policy.
  3. The term ‘management move’ refers to a landlord internally moving an existing resident from one property to another property within its own housing stock. In the landlord’s housing options and lettings policy, it states that there are “limited circumstances” in which it could offer one of these types of moves. The landlord has to act fairly when offering some residents an urgent management move, which would bypass the need for these residents to place bids through the LA for available properties alongside other applicants. It should ensure it applies the criteria as set out in its housing options and lettings policy consistently. The criteria that applied at the time of the resident’s urgent management move requests was as follows:
    1. residents who are experiencing domestic violence;
    2. residents on a witness protection scheme;
    3. residents experiencing severe harassment;
    4. residents whose property has sustained severe damage;
    5. residents who have experienced a significant personal tragedy where it is unreasonable for the household to remain in the home.
  4. The landlord’s allocations procedure sets out the process for how it handles urgent management move requests from residents, including that decisions are made by a panel made up of multiple members of staff. The process sets out how residents can ask for a review of the panel’s decision if they do not agree with a decision to decline their request. It will be necessary for the landlord to issue its decisions, and the reasons for them, in writing to residents. This allows for residents to request a review of its decisions within ten working days as set out in the procedure.
  5. In 2019, the resident made a request for an urgent management move. The request was declined, and the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 July 2019 explaining the reasons for its decision. It stated that it did not have any properties within its stock that would meet the resident’s needs, and therefore the resident would be better served by making a rehousing application with the LA. Once assessed, the resident would be able to seek rehousing via a number of different social landlords and there would therefore be more chance of finding a suitable property. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as it was entitled to consider whether it would be able to meet the resident’s housing needs from its property portfolio. If it would be unable to do so, then signposting the resident to the appropriate channels for help was the appropriate response. The resident requested a review of the landlord’s decision and on 29 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it was upholding its original decision. It also stated that the basis of the resident’s request was a medical need, and so it would be the LA’s responsibility to assess this need and prioritise accordingly. The landlord’s housing options and lettings policy at the time did not allow for management moves based on medical need.
  6. On 18 January 2021, the resident made a further request for an urgent management move based on new information from his occupational therapist. The panel considered his request on 28 January 2021 and decided to decline it. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 February 2021 explaining the reasons for its decision. It stated that the resident’s application for an urgent management move did not meet the landlord’s criteria. It advised the resident to work with the LA and offered to assist the resident with this. It explained it needed to ensure its allocations are “fair, open and transparent” and said that the resident would benefit from wider housing options with the LA, as the landlord had limited available stock. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. The landlord signposted the resident to the LA and offered assistance. The landlord had handled the resident’s request appropriately.
  7. The landlord’s panel considered a further request from the resident for an urgent management move on 19 October 2021. The landlord declined the request for a third time. The landlord has not provided evidence to this Service to show that it explained its reasons for this decision in writing to the resident. It explained to this Service that this was due to the member of staff chairing the panel no longer working for the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest that the basis of the resident’s request was significantly different to previous requests, or that the basis of the landlord’s decision would likely be different to the decisions previously communicated. However, the landlord should ensure that decision letters are issued in response to each move request and that evidence of this is recorded appropriately and remains accessible. Decision letters help to ensure that residents understand the landlord’s decision and the reasoning for it. They enable residents to make an informed decision about how to effectively challenge the landlord’s decision, should they wish to do so.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord handled the resident’s requests for an urgent management move within its policies and procedures. There is evidence that the landlord considered the evidence, such as care plans, provided by the resident or professionals advocating on his behalf. The landlord has a duty to apply its policies consistently, and there is no evidence to suggest that it failed to do so in this case.
  9. The resident complained about the behaviour of an individual member of staff of the landlord at a panel hearing. He said that the member of staff had suggested the resident is not “liked” in the region and that they had appeared amused by this. The stage one complaint response shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s report by speaking with available witnesses. It had been unable to confirm the resident’s report, but it did state that the staff member in question had not been involved in the decision making on the resident’s management move request. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to provide reassurance to the resident that the decision-making at the panel hearing was fair despite this experience. The landlord has shown that it has carried out an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and responded accordingly.
  10. The resident stated in his complaint correspondence and to this Service that he felt the landlord’s housing options and lettings policy had “gaps” in it, as it did not specifically refer to medical need, and he felt this was discriminatory. The landlord demonstrated that it took the resident’s concern about this seriously. It has reviewed and updated its housing options and lettings policy to make specific reference to an urgent medical need as a potential reason for a management move. The landlord has provided a copy of the updated housing options and lettings policy to this Service. The criteria now includes “medical needs which make the home inaccessible and unusable”. As explained above, this Service cannot make a finding on whether the previous version of the policy without a medical need criterion would constitute discrimination as this would be a legal dispute, better suited to a court to decide. However, the inclusion of this criterion is a positive move and shows that the landlord is responsive to feedback from its residents. As the resident still hopes to be accepted for an urgent management move, the landlord should work with him to assess any future request in accordance with the updated version of its policy.
  11. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to assess the resident’s transfer request against these new criteria before the landlord has assessed it. If the resident makes a new transfer request to the landlord and is dissatisfied with its response to this request, he can raise this as a new complaint and he could bring that new complaint to the Ombudsman if he wished to once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  12. In his complaint, the resident mentioned ASB issues he had experienced. While the basis for the resident’s management move requests and his complaint focused on his medical needs, the landlord addressed the resident’s high score on the ASB risk matrix in its stage one complaint response of 1 September 2022. It stated that a senior member of staff had called the resident on 17 September 2021 following the resident’s query about it. It stated that the risk matrix had been reviewed by an appropriate officer, but it had assessed that there was no ‘risk to life’ and so no urgent management move would be approved as a result of ASB. There is no evidence of mishandling by the landlord in this regard. Its policy makes clear that urgent management moves can only be approved in very limited circumstances where there is an immediate risk to safety from ASB and this Service has not seen any evidence that suggests this was an unreasonable decision for the landlord to make.
  13. There is no evidence in any of the landlord’s actions or communications that it was treating the resident less favourably than others in the same situation. Internal emails show the landlord considered all options that may have been potentially available to assist the resident with a move. The resident moved into his current home as a result of a management move, therefore there is evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s needs at that time.
  14. The resident has stated that he feels the landlord should pay him financial compensation to remedy the lost opportunities, distress, aggravation, and inconvenience he has experienced as a result of its decision not to agree a management move. In its complaint responses, the landlord disagreed that it owed compensation to the resident, as it had not found any evidence of service failure. This Service acknowledges that it would have been disappointing and frustrating for the resident to have his management move requests declined. However, as the landlord acted within its relevant policies, an award of financial compensation would not be appropriate in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for an urgent management move.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should reconsider the resident’s request for a management move in accordance with the current version of its housing options and lettings policy. It should consider all available evidence of the resident’s current circumstances and explain its decision to the resident in writing.
  2. The landlord should ensure that the reasoning for any negative decisions on urgent management move requests are communicated to residents in writing and in a timely manner. The landlord should explain to residents why their request does not meet the criteria for an urgent management move in a way that is clear and understandable. Records of these communications should be accessible to all appropriate staff members.