Origin Housing Limited (202231047)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231047

Origin Housing Limited

22 March 2024

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 a request for a management transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. He has vulnerabilities with his mobility and requires level access accommodation. He lives with his son, who was a teenager during the timeline.
In March 2021 (the dates are unclear from the records available) the resident’s son was attacked near the property. The resident has said the incident was related to a local gang and was not the first time this type of violence was directed at his son. He asked the police to contact the landlord and support his request for rehousing.
On 7 June 2021, a social worker acting on behalf of the resident wrote to the landlord supporting his request for rehousing. The social worker said the resident’s son (who was 16 at the time) was at risk from gang affiliated violence and criminal exploitation. The resident’s GP had made a referral to social services following an alleged acid attack on his son by other youths near the property. This was the second incident that year where the son had been attacked near to the property.
The social worker asked the landlord to prioritise the resident’s application to move as urgently as possible. It also asked the landlord to work with other agencies to help manage the risk of harm.
In July 2021, the resident spoke to the landlord. He shared contact and crime reference numbers for the most recent assault that took place against his son. The landlord contacted the police and asked for further supporting information 3 times between July and August 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 29 October 2021. He said:
1. He had been waiting for several weeks since he raised concerns about a lack of progress in what was an urgent management transfer request.
2. He had shared a list of preferred areas.
3. He had been given conflicting advice by the landlord as to whether a report from his son’s mentor was sufficient evidence to support his application to move.
4. The landlord had been sent reports highlighting the concerns for his son’s safety. The resident had been told that despite these reports, the landlord needed more evidence to support his request for rehousing.
5. He was asked to get a report from the police. He had shared details of the crime reference and the investigating officer with the landlord and he expected it to contact the police for more information. He was concerned that he was being asked to get unobtainable information.
6. He felt the landlord was not fulfilling its duty of care to safeguard his son, who was no longer attending school and rarely left the property. He was scared that his son would be subjected to further acts of violence.
7. He asked for copies of the landlord’s management transfer criteria and the procedures it followed in these cases.
The landlord completed a management transfer request form on 23 November 2021. It assessed the application based on the report made by social services. The landlord noted that it was unable to gain further information from the police. The resident’s areas of preference were included on the form.
The landlord called the resident on 7 December 2021. It discussed his complaint and said it needed further supporting evidence to process the management transfer request. It said that it had only received part of the supporting statement from social services. It asked the resident to send the details again and that it would seek the information itself. It apologised for the delay and explained that the investigating officer was away on leave.
The landlord called the resident on 14 December 2021 to confirm that the required evidence from professionals had been received. It had approved the management transfer request. It would respond to the complaint within a week.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 December 2021. This was around 32 working days after the complaint was made. It said that after speaking to the resident on 14 December 2021, it understood he wanted the landlord to process his management transfer request. It said:
1. The resident requested a management transfer following a serious incident affecting his son. It was sorry that the resident had to wait some time for the management transfer request to be processed.
2. It required supporting evidence to assess his application and this could sometimes delay the process. It understood the situation was stressful for the resident and his family. It sought to assure him that it took his concerns seriously.
3. When it spoke to the resident on 7 December 2021 some of the documentation was missing and that was why the resident had been asked for additional information. It was able to obtain the relevant information and the application had since been approved.
4. It would contact the resident once a suitable property became available. It could take some time before a property became available and it would collaborate with the resident to look at other options for a move. It suggested that the resident extend his areas of choice for a move, as this would help reduce the waiting time for a suitable property.
5. It outlined some details of its management transfer policy which stated:
  1. There needs to be relevant supporting documentation along with the Management Transfer Request Form e.g. police statements, medical records, letters from social services, birth certificates.
On 16 February 2022, there was a further incident involving threats made to the resident and his son. The resident reported that a group had been kicking at his door. He reported the incident on the same day to the landlord. He later said that this was the 7th incident near his home. He chased the landlord on 18 February 2022 as he said there had been no response from the landlord.
On 14 June 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident regarding his request for rehousing. It said that there were limited properties in his area of choice and advised him to consider a mutual exchange.
On 30 June 2022, the resident called the landlord. He said that since it closed his complaint he had no update about his circumstances. He asked for his case to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord made internal enquiries and it said that there had been updates given to the resident every 2-3 months. The last contact was on 14 June 2022. It was concerned that the resident required a property within a small area and had been encouraging him to widen his areas of choice and seek a mutual exchange.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident to clarify the details of his stage 2 complaint. This was around 15 working days after he asked to escalate his complaint. The resident said the complaint was about the landlord’s communication and handling of his application for a move. The landlord agreed to collate the information in its stage 2 response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 August 2022. This was around 25 working days after the request to escalate the complaint and around 10 working days after the request had been acknowledged. It said:
1. The resident asked for escalation on 21 July 2022.
2. The complaint was about:
  1. The time taken to process a management transfer request (from March to December 2021).
  2. Dissatisfaction with the overall handling of the management transfer case, including the times the landlord asked the resident to provide supporting evidence and preferred areas.
  3. Lack of contact from the landlord regarding the application to move, including not being advised who the manager was.
  4. The resident wanted to move and be reassured that his case was being dealt with properly. This meant regular communication and updates.
3. Time taken to process a management transfer request:
  1. It summarised the outcome of the stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay to progress the application and upheld this part of the complaint.
  2. The resident was not disadvantaged because of the delay. In the time March to December 2021 there were 2 properties that became available that matched his requirements. One was let to someone nominated by the local authority, the other was someone who had been on the management transfer list since 2019.
4. Dissatisfaction with the overall handling of the management transfer case, including the times the landlord asked the resident to provide supporting evidence and preferred areas.
  1. Without supporting information, it was unable to progress a management transfer request. Typically, GP surgeries would not communicate with the landlord. Ordinarily supporting information/documents are given to the patient/resident and shared by them. It felt it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to gather this evidence.
  2. It had sought supporting information from the police and chased them when no response was received.
  3. It apologised that the resident was asked to provide information on preferred areas 4 times. It should have checked its records better before asking him to provide information it already had.
5. Lack of contact from the landlord regarding the application to move, including not being advised who the manager was.
  1. Its records showed that although it was in communication with the resident relating to the management transfer, it had not provided updates as regularly as it should have. It apologised for this.
  2. It confirmed the contact details for the appropriate manager.
6. The resident wanted to move and be reassured that his case was being dealt with properly. This meant regular communication and updates.
  1. The speed in which it could provide alternative accommodation was dependent on stock availability. It could only facilitate a move once a property became vacant in the areas of his choice. While it was supportive of helping the resident and his family to find a new home, it could not provide a property that was not available. It had no control over other organisation’s vacant properties.
  2. The resident had been advised to register for a mutual exchange and apply to the local authority housing register to secure accommodation more quickly. The local authority had a larger supply of properties in the areas of his choice. It noted that the resident said he would not register for mutual exchange or seek assistance from the local authority because he felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to find suitable accommodation.
  3. The resident had selected limited areas of choice for the move, where it rarely had vacant properties. It had suggested widening the areas of preference to help increase his chances of a move. The resident said this was not possible.
  4. It would provide monthly updates regarding his application and retain oversight of his case until he secured alternative accommodation.
7. The landlord reviewed its records and found no emails from the resident that had not been responded to. It found a message from 30 June 2022 where the resident said he had not received contact from the landlord regarding the case. Its records showed that it called him on 12 July 2022, but it was unsuccessful. It said that the resident had to spoken to other officers whilst his case handler was on leave. It apologised that he did not receive a call from a named officer and this was not the service level it expected to provide.
8. The landlord upheld the complaint and made an offer of £250 compensation. This was for the delays in its handling of the management transfer request and lack of regular contact.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and made a complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 June 2023. He said:
1. He is still at the same property and has not received regular updates from the landlord.
2. His son has been further impacted by the assaults and threats of violence. He is scared to leave the property, rarely left his room and left education early.
3. He believes that if the landlord had acted sooner, he could have been moved out of the area and his son could have completed his education and had a life without fear.
4. He felt the landlord kept referring him to different departments, did not answer calls and regularly ignored his requests for a move.
5. He felt the landlord treated him and his son with “distain” and a lack of compassion.
The landlord wrote in its internal correspondence on 27 February 2024 that there was no risk assessment conducted at any time. There were no safeguarding referrals made for the resident or his son.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy said that it allows residents to register to move on its internal transfer list. It will work with residents to support them to explore other housing options and work with local authorities to support applications to their registers. It can support residents to obtain a priority rating for urgent moves.
The landlord has a priority banding system. It awards priority in bands A to C, with A being the highest. Grounds that the landlord considers requiring band A priority include:
1. Residents who need to move because of prolonged/target abuse that is having a significant impact on their quality of life, or;
2. Instances where there are safeguarding issues that require the household to move.
The landlord introduced its safeguarding adults and children policy in March 2023. This set out how it would work together with lead agencies, and other statutory and voluntary agencies to protect the wellbeing of adults at risk, children and young people. It will contribute to assessments, multi-agency meetings, case conferences, adult or child protection plans and Safeguarding Adult Reviews, or serious case reviews, when requested to do so.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Each response can be extended by 10 working days with the consent of the complainant.

Request for rehousing by management transfer.

In the allocation of accommodation, the landlord was obliged to manage limited resources in a fair and transparent way. There are many restrictions on how it can manage its housing register. The landlord allocates most of its properties through local authority housing registers. There are very few properties that it retains for allocation on its own internal transfer list.
The landlord should be clear with residents how it manages its offers of accommodation. In this case, once the resident was approved for a management transfer the landlord gave reasonable advice. It set out in its stage 2 response that it had limited housing stock available in the resident’s preferred areas. It suggested that he register with the local authority in his preferred areas and to seek a mutual exchange. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has limited control over the availability of properties, which is broadly based on the rate at which current occupants vacate them for various reasons. There was a small number of specified safe areas in the resident’s list. It is reasonable to conclude the limited number of safe areas restricted the number of properties the landlord could potentially offer the resident.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy does not specify any timescales for management transfers. It does state that the decisions are made based on evidence available to it. The dates that the resident initially made the request for a management transfer are unclear from the landlord’s records. Overall, the duration of the resident’s wait time for rehousing does not, in itself, evidence a failure by the landlord.
It was clear that the resident reported a serious incident to the landlord. It should have conducted some investigation into reports from the outset and engaged with other professionals to safeguard the resident and his son. Instead, it took between 6-9 months to process the application for a management transfer. The landlord’s website says that when a resident is seeking an emergency transfer it will try and find new temporary or permanent accommodation as quickly as possible. The time taken to complete the assessment in this case was unreasonable in the circumstances and caused undue distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There are records that show the landlord sought advice from the police in July 2021, but did not receive a response. After 3 attempts to gather this information the landlord did not make further enquiries with the police. The resident’s son’s social worker provided a detailed request for assistance to the landlord on 7 June 2021. There was an emphasis on the resident to gather evidence to support his application. It was reasonable for the landlord to look to substantiate the reports being made. However, there was some failure to fully consider the evidence it already had. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to safeguarding in this case. It should have contacted the social worker directly to request this evidence shortly after receiving the report in June 2021.
The social worker told the landlord that it would need assistance from them as part of a multi-agency response in its letter in June 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to attend any professionals meetings involving the social worker. There are no records showing that it conducted any risk assessments of the resident’s circumstances or contacted the local authority to report its safeguarding concerns. The landlord states that it participated in local strategic partnerships and community safety initiatives. It should have been in contact with the community safety partnership and raised this case for additional support. It should have ensured the resident had the appropriate help and support available to him.
The landlord recorded on 2 August 2022 that there were conversations between the parties between July and December 2021. These relate primarily to the resident’s request for a management transfer and the landlord seeking supporting evidence. The landlord did not keep clear records of these conversations.
The resident described providing a list of his preferred areas to the landlord around 4 times. This was acknowledged in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, however it was evident that the landlord had not kept clear or accurate records.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of contact with the resident. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that could have been shared with the resident.
The landlord sought to address the delays in assessing the application in its complaint handling. It recognised that there had been an unreasonable delay and upheld the complaint at both stage 1 and 2. It determined that the resident was not disadvantaged by the delays to award priority. The few properties that became vacant in his areas of preference were matched to applicants who had been on its waiting list for longer. It recognised that there had been an error. At stage 2, the landlord made an offer of £250 compensation.
There were several large gaps in the timeline that show there was a failure to effectively communicate with the resident. Initially, there was no correspondence recorded between 3 July 2021 and his complaint on 29 October 2021. There were no records of contact after the complaint was made until the landlord completed a management transfer request form on 23 November 2021. The resident then later reported having to chase the landlord for updates on his application. The landlord recognised that it had not provided regular updates in its stage 2 response to the resident. It committed to providing monthly updates regarding his application following the complaints procedure. It was fair and reasonable to make this offer, however the resident later disputed that the landlord has kept to this commitment.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for rehousing by management transfer. The landlord recognised the delays to register the application and issues with communication. However, its offer of £250 did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord did not maintain its complaint handling commitments to provide regular communication with the resident. There was no evidence that showed it maintained monthly contact with the resident. There was no clear assessment of the risks posed to the resident and his son. There was no evidence to show the landlord worked in partnership with the local authority or police to safeguard the resident and his son. These caused an unreasonable delay to assess the resident’s application. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman recognised that the landlord has since introduced a safeguarding and vulnerable persons policy. This will assist in its assessment of risk and recognition of its safeguarding duties.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were outside those timeframes.
The landlord took around 25 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was around 15 working days above the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge the delay or the additional inconvenience the situation had on the resident.
There was a delay of around 5 working days to issue a stage 2 response. Although this delay was not substantial, the landlord did not acknowledge the delays in its complaint handling. It should put the resident at heart of its complaint handling. It should manage the expectations of a resident with clear, timely communication.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and demonstrated its intent to resolve the substantive issue. It broadly responded to the resident’s concerns. However, it did not recognise its delays in responding to the complaints. It did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord should pay the resident £100 in compensation for the impact the delays to respond to, or acknowledge, the resident’s complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for rehousing by management transfer.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Provide an update to the resident on his request for rehousing.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £500. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer within its stage 2 response. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the request for rehousing by management transfer.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
4. Conduct a review of this case and feedback key findings to its rehousing staff for learning/improvements. It should ensure that its caseworkers are proactive when considering the level of risk to residents.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it has a process to escalate serious incidents of community safety to the local authorities in the areas that it holds property.
When adding residents to the permanent offers list, the landlord should ensure that this decision is made in writing within a reasonable period.