Peabody Trust (202335463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335463

Peabody Trust

28 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about her application to transfer to a larger property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy started on 4 September 2000. The property is a 2 bedroom house, the resident lives in the property with her 5 children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has detailed, in communications to the landlord that she herself and all her children receive some form of mental health support. The resident has specified 4 of her girls share 1 bedroom and 1 boy has his own room, the resident sleeps in the living room.
Records show that the resident had raised her overcrowding situation and the impact it was having on her and her household since July 2020. Evidence has been seen of numerous letters of support for a move from external agencies from this date.
The resident complained on 21 September 2023 about her overcrowding situation. Within her complaint she said she had an ongoing case with the landlord to rehouse her family to a larger property, she also:
1. Said she had been “let down time after time” with offers of alternative accommodation being withdrawn at the last minute. This had a “devastating” impact on her family.
2. Advised all her children receive support from mental health services.
3. Requested help, although said she felt she had been misled in the past.
4. Said she would like to be moved to a property more appropriate for her family’s needs.
The landlord (Allocations Manager) issued its stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. Within this response the landlord:
1. Confirmed an offer was withdrawn from the resident as the person above her changed their mind on the same day and as they were living in temporary accommodation, they came above the resident.
2. Said it knew it was an “awful time” for the resident and apologised at the time.
3. Confirmed it had been discussing a mutual exchange option with the resident for “some while” and believed this to be the fastest option to move.
4. Clarified the resident considered a property outside the area but changed her mind and wished to remain in the current area.
5. Said, as it had previously made the resident aware, it had to comply with nomination agreements and therefore only had a small amount of stock to offer its residents.
6. Advised it had around 600 high priority and medical cases on its waiting list.
7. Said it was clear that the standard of customer service and customer care on this occasion fell below that which it would expect. It apologised for this and for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 11 October 2023. She said, she was “surprised” the manager involved with her case had responded to her complaint as she expected it to be dealt with “independently”. She strongly felt her complaint should be dealt with through an independent and transparent process where her housing application could be “assessed professionally with the help of supporting agencies”. The resident later confirmed in an email on 6 November 2023 that she felt a “conflict of interest” had arisen between her and the manager that responded at stage 1. In this email she said on 3 occasions she had been offered properties which had been withdrawn at the last minute.
The landlord issued its final response on 23 November 2023. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Said it was sorry to hear about the health issues and difficulties the resident was experiencing.
2. Advised it understood it could be “frustrating and upsetting” for offers to be made and then withdrawn, but it could happen for a number of reasons.
3. It accepted that it could have managed the resident’s expectations “better at times”.
4. Clarified that stage 1 complaints were dealt with by the service area as a local resolution could be sought. It advised however, it was in the process of centralising stage 1 complaint staff.
5. Confirmed medical information for housing applications was assessed independently with the right of appeal.
6. Stated, “there simply are not enough large properties that become available”.
7. Apologised for its shortcomings in managing the resident’s expectations and the delay in its stage 2 response.
8. Offered the resident £300 compensation for:
  1. £200 for the “delays, time, trouble, inconvenience, stress and poor communication/expectation management”.
  2. £50 for poor record keeping.
  3. £50 for the delay at stage 2.
On bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident is looking for her housing application to be recatagorised so her family to be awarded an appropriate home for their needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Evidence has been seen that shows the resident has said she considers that the situation has directly impacted the households wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her application to transfer to a larger property.

Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The landlord’s lettings policy states it maintains its own internal transfer list to help rehouse existing residents in need of priority housing. The landlord has confirmed 25% of its empty homes are allocated this way, with 75% being used to meet its obligation under its nomination agreement with the local authority. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the residents transfer application referenced in this complaint is outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) and therefore within its jurisdiction.
It is important to note, it is for the landlord, not the Ombudsman, to determine a resident’s priority banding for a move. It does so through the application of its allocations policy, in consideration of the available medical evidence, and on the opinion of its medical advisors. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and her subsequent complaint the landlord acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, namely its allocations, and complaints policies and procedures, and that its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
There is no dispute that the resident is living in an overcrowded situation. The evidence shows the landlord had allowed her to bid on properties with less bedrooms that she requires due to the limited number of large homes that become available and this would improve the residents living situation. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take and is in line with its lettings and rehousing policies which both state it will consider offering a smaller property that is needed where the level of overcrowding will be reduced and the households living conditions improved.
Having reviewed the available evidence, the central issue and the one which clearly caused the resident the most obvious and understandable upset was that in relation to the landlord’s approach to offering properties and subsequently withdrawing them. In such cases a landlord would reasonably be expected to show evidence of managing a resident’s expectations and providing meaningful updates. The landlord has been unable to provide records to show the offers made to the resident and its communications around such offers. It has therefore been unable to demonstrate that it communicated in a reasonable manner with the resident and managed expectations accordingly.
Overall, the landlord’s explanation for the reason why the resident had yet to be rehoused, due to the limited number of properties available, was reasonable given the general demand in the housing sector. It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to look into a mutual exchange as this was an additional way she could seek to move and it deemed this to be the probable quickest route. Although the landlord has advised it gave the resident information about mutual exchanges in the past and it reiterated through its complaint responses that it carried out “hundreds every year”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide additional information about how mutual exchanges work to the resident throughout its complaint process.
The lack of records and correspondence available between the resident and landlord indicates poor record keeping. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to keep accurate and up to date records sufficient enough to enable oversight of its responses to enquiries and to provide an audit trail of its actions and decisions. Its failure to do so in this case resulted in the resident’s expectations to not be managed, which in turn led to significant, developing distress.
As it is such a fundamental aspect of good administration for a landlord to maintain a clear audit trail of advice given and decisions made, to have no record of communications between itself and the resident was poor administrative practice and results in a service failure.
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 complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord apologised and offered £300 in total to the resident, £200 was for its handling of the substantive issue and £50 for its identified failures in its record keeping. The landlords compensation guidance says it will award up to £400 where a service failure occurred and there had been a high impact on a resident but the complaint was low effort to resolve. The resident suffered a significant amount of distress leading up to making a complaint. Following this further time and trouble was caused through the complaint process and the resident escalating her complaint to seek a resolution. Its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident and failed to take in to consideration the full detriment she had experienced.
Overall, the landlords poor records in this case alongside its failure to manage the residents expectations and put things right through its complaint process caused considerable distress, time and trouble to the resident. Taking the above into consideration results in a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The complaint handling code at the time of the resident’s complaint encouraged compliant handlers to “act independently” when handling complaints. The landlord failed to do this at stage 1 of its complaints process and began its response with the statement “as you know, I have been working with you for a long time”. It was not unreasonable for the service manager to respond at stage 1, despite being heavily involved in the residents housing case. However, the response given indicates the complaint was not investigated separate to the history between the service manager and resident, which was unreasonable. Its stage 1 response lacked empathy for the impact and distress its actions had caused to the resident, which resulted in the resident escalating her complaint.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the standard of customer service and customer care fell below what it would expect, which was appropriate. It failed to however, explain in its response what went wrong and how far it would go to ensure it would not happen again. The Ombudsman expects landlords to acknowledge service failings and make improvements where necessary. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord identified learning from the complaint but took no action to ensure against any similar failure in the future.
Generally, the landlord handled the resident’s stage 2 complaint well, it acknowledged the impact the situation was having and sympathised with the resident. It gave a reasonable explanation as to the issue with supply versus demand in the local area and signposted to other housing options. It again, acknowledged it could have managed the resident’s expectations better at times and found issues with its own record keeping. Although the landlord accepted its failings in how it communicated with the resident, advised in its stage 2 response it had “fed back” and the stage 1 handler had noted this also, it did not say how it would manage expectations in the future if an offer of accommodation was made. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate its commitment to learning from the resident’s complaint.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account 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. The Ombudsman will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
While the resident’s frustration with some of the landlord’s findings is acknowledged, particularly that her housing application had been assessed independently, it was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take. The landlord offered £300 compensation to the resident in total, £50 of this was for its delay at stage 2 of its process. As it failed to demonstrate its commitment to learning form the resident’s complaint a finding of service failure and a further order of compensation has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about her application to transfer to a larger property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident.
2. Pay her an additional £100 for its failures identified in its handling of her concerns about her application to transfer.
3. Pay her an additional £100 for its failure to demonstrate its commitment to learning from her complaint.
Within 12 weeks of the date of determination, the landlord is ordered to review its practise of letting properties and develop an improvement plan, including timescales, which is to be shared with the Ombudsman. The review must include:
1. How an offer of accommodation should be made.
2. What information is given when an offer of accommodation is made.
3. How it will record the above and any advice/decision given to ensure it can demonstrate it manages expectations throughout the process.
4. A procedure which staff are able to follow, to ensure they are able to manage resident’s expectations in the future.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord review whether the residents situation meets its threshold for a management transfer under its “exceptional needs” criteria in its rehousing policy.