Southern Housing Group Limited (202100501)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100501

Southern Housing Group Limited

23 February 2021

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 concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. housing application
   2. formal complaint into this matter.
   3. allegations of discrimination by its staff members.

Jurisdiction

2. 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 aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord responded to the complainant’s allegations of discrimination by its staff members

3. In an email sent to the landlord on 8 April 2021 and in an email sent to this Service on 14 April 2021, the resident has stated that he believes the reason the landlord refused to arrange a second appointment to view the property he applied for was due to discrimination by several landlord staff members and that he wanted this element of his complaint to be properly investigated,
4. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. The complainant did not raise this issue during the complaint process. It was not part of his original complaint made on 26 March 2021 or the escalation request on 6 April 2021.
5. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint before it can be considered by this Service. If he wishes to pursue this issue, the resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding this matter. The resident may able to bring the separate complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation if he remains dissatisfied once this issue has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident applied to rent a property owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building
7. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to send an acknowledgement within one working day and provide a full complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response they can, within 20 working days of receiving the stage one response, request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
8. The complaint policy also states that in some cases the landlord will deny the complainant’s escalation request. When this occurs, the landlord will write to the complainant and explain the reasons why the request was denied.

Summary of events

9. On 11 February 2021 the local authority wrote to the landlord and put forward the resident as a candidate for a property owned by the landlord, noting that he met the required criteria to apply for this property.
10. On 23 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the local authority to advise that it had been unable to contact the complainant and that if it was unable to get in touch by the end of the next day that it would offer the property to another applicant.
11. An internal landlord note stated that the local authority was able to contact the resident on 23 February 2021 and that on 26 February 2021 the resident informed the landlord that he would contact it the following week to arrange an interview and viewing of the property.
12. On 4 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had arranged a viewing of the property at 4:30pm on 10 March 2021. The letter advised the resident what information he would need to bring with him. The letter also provided the telephone number of the lettings team and asked the resident to call if he was unable to make the appointment.
13. The resident did not attend the viewing. He then wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2021 and apologised. He explained that he had entered the wrong postcode into his sat nav and was unable to call the staff member waiting for him at the property as when they had called him earlier that day, their telephone number was marked as private. The resident confirmed he would like to arrange a new appointment to view the property.
14. The landlord wrote to the local authority on 11 March 2021 and informed it that the resident had not attended the viewing. It explained it had called him at the time but he did not respond.
15. The local authority replied and asked the landlord to either rebook the viewing or confirm that it would no longer consider the resident as an applicant for the property, and the local authority would then provide the details of a new applicant.
16. On 17 March 2021 the decision was made to move on to another applicant. An internal email sent on 17 March 2021 stated that the reasons for this were due the difficulty the landlord previously had in contacting the resident and that he had not attended the viewing.
17. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2021 and enquired if it was still possible to rearrange the viewing of the property. The landlord replied on 26 March 2021 and explained that it was no longer considering him for the property.
18. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 March 2021. He described the elements of his complaint as:
    1. He had written an email on 11 March 2021 explaining why he had missed the viewing. This was never responded to by the landlord.
    2. The staff member undertaking the viewing and interview had a private telephone number, therefore the resident was unable to call them back to explain the that he would be late for the viewing.
    3. The landlord had not properly explained the reasons why the application process was halted.
19. The landlord replied on 29 March 2021. It confirmed that a formal complaint had been opened and that it aimed to provide a response within ten working days.
20. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 6 April 2021. The landlord stated that it could not offer another viewing of the property to the resident as the property had been passed on to the next nominated applicants.
21. The landlord explained that the reason for moving on was that their staff member waited at the property until 5pm, which was the end of the working day, for the resident to arrive. As the resident did not attend, it was unable to rebook the appointment and he was informed that there would be no further viewings of the property. The landlord then advised the resident to contact the local authority to be put forward for another property.
22. On 6 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that his complaint had not been properly investigated.
23. The landlord wrote to the local authority on 7 April 2021 to inform it that another property in the same building as the previous property had become available and that it would be willing to consider the resident for this property. The local authority replied and explained that the resident had been offered another property and therefore could not be considered for the landlord’s property.
24. The landlord wrote to the complainant on 7 April 2021 and informed him that it had declined his request to escalate the complaint. It explained that his desired outcome to the complaint, to be given a new appointment to the view the property, was not something it could achieve.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the complainant’s housing application

25. The landlord’s empty homes and lettings procedure document describes how it organises viewings of properties and interviews applicants. The document explains how the viewing will be set-up, how the viewing and interview will progress, and the criteria it will use to either accept or reject the applicant.
26. The document does not describe any specific procedure that should be used if the applicant does not attend the viewing.
27. It its stage one complaint response, the landlord explained that it had moved on to the next applicant for the property and could not offer another viewing. When the resident requested an escalation of the complaint, the landlord declined this on the grounds that as the property was no longer available it could not offer the resident’s his desired outcome to his complaint.
28. This Service has been provided with the landlord’s internal correspondence and notes during the time of the property viewing and during the complaint process. This shows internal correspondence on the day after the viewing, as well as the landlord’s conversations with the local authority. It also included a note from a member of the landlord’s staff explaining the reasons for not arranging a second viewing as well as the landlord informing the local authority that it would consider offering the resident a viewing of a different property in the same building.
29. It was reasonable in the circumstance for the landlord not to agree to arrange a second viewing and interview with the complainant. The landlord had experienced issues when attempting to contacting the complainant prior to arranging the viewing. Moreover, the letter sent by the landlord on 4 March 2021 confirming the viewing date provided the resident with a telephone number to call if he was unable to make the appointment. This Service has not seen any evidence that shows the resident called this number on the day of the viewing. It is acknowledged that the resident has said he attempted to call the member of staff responsible for arranging the viewing but did not have their number. However, he could have used the telephone number he was given in the letter.
30. In areas where there is a high demand for social housing, landlords and local authorities will have to manage a large number of people seeking rehousing. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider other applicants on the nomination list when the resident did not attend the viewing. Although the landlord’s empty homes and lettings procedure does not explicitly state this will happen if an applicant does not attend a viewing, the landlord was entitled to use its discretion when deciding not to agree to a further viewing in this case.
31. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident may be disappointed that he was unable to proceed with the landlord’s property, he has not been significantly disadvantaged by this because he has been offered an alternative property by the local authority. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

32. The level of detail that has been provided by the landlord in its evidence to this Service was not provided to the resident during its internal complaint process.
33. In response to the local authority’s email on 11 March 2021, the landlord advised that it would make the decision whether or not to offer a second viewing to the resident on 16 March 2021 when the member of staff responsible for this decision returned from annual leave. However, it did not provide the same information to the resident when he also emailed it on 11 March 2021, requesting an update.
34. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord did briefly explain the reasons why it had declined the resident’s request for another viewing appointment by confirming the outcome that had been requested by the resident could not be achieved. It also missed a second opportunity to provide this information when it declined the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
35. The landlord was entitled to decline to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure on the basis that it would not be possible to give the resident the outcome which he wanted. However, it should have explained its position more clearly, as set out above.
36. In this case, while the landlord did not properly address the elements of the complaint in its internal complaints process, it was under no obligation to agree to a further viewing appointment for the property and the reasons why it made the decision to decline a further appointment, although not properly explained to the resident, were reasonable in the circumstances. This service failure in how the complaint was handled had no impact on the decision reached by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s housing application.
38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

39. The landlord properly followed its policies and procedures in arranging a viewing of the property. When the resident did not attend the viewing, the landlord was under no obligation to arrange a new appointment. The landlord could have addressed the elements of the complaint raised by the resident in its complaint responses through more constructive communication however this would not equate to service failure.