Southern Housing Group Limited (202116184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116184

Southern Housing Group Limited

6 June 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:
1. the resident’s transfer request; and
2. the associated complaint.

Background

This complaint centres on the resident’s request to be rehoused in a bigger property once she became the legal guardian of her two nieces.
The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a Housing Association. The property is a three-bedroom, five-person capacity house. The resident lives there with her husband and two adult children, one male and one female.
On 2 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that there was a change in her circumstances. She explained that she was about to become the legal guardian for her nieces (aged 4 and 7). The resident’s social worker advised the landlord that the property would not be suitable as the nieces needed their own bedroom.
At that time, the landlord advised that it could not include the nieces on the rehousing application until the resident had ‘legal guardianship’. It advised the resident to inform the landlord once she was the legal guardian of her nieces.
On 1 July 2021, the resident became the legal guardian of her nieces and applied back to the landlord to move to a larger property. The landlord arranged for a ‘priority move eligibility form’ to be completed with the resident. The resident advised she was looking to move to a four+ bedroom property in the same borough as she currently resided. She advised the landlord that she was sleeping in her daughter’s room, and her husband was sleeping downstairs. It is assumed by the Ombudsman that this was so the nieces could share their own room. She was seeking a move on the grounds of overcrowding. By this time, the resident’s nieces were 6 and 8 years old.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord advised that it did not have an internal transfer waiting list. The completed transfer form was accepted by the landlord on 6 August 2021. On the same date, the landlord advised the resident it did not hold a waiting list and referred her to the local authority. On 9 August 2021, the resident’s social worker (based in the Midlands) explained to the landlord that the nieces were ‘looked after’ children and that the home was currently too small. The landlord in response explained that the property would only be overcrowded based on the Housing Act 1985. It went on to explain the room standard but not the space standard.
The resident logged a complaint on 5 November 2021 that she was unable to move home via an internal transfer or waiting list. The resident’s complaint was that the landlord was unable to move her to a four-bedroom property. She stated that there are four adults and two children in the property, and it was overcrowded. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date and stated:

“(…) the [landlord] will not be investigating your complaint this is because the outcomes you are seeking are not achievable via the complaints process. We do not have 4-bedroom properties on our priority moves form and as per our policy I urge you to contact the council”.

“I can confirm that you have now exhausted our procedures because we are refusing a Stage 1 Complaint and the case number is now closed.”

The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 24 November 2021. The resident was not happy that the landlord was unable to move them to a larger property. The resident said they needed a bigger home in certain areas, due to extended support. The outcome the resident was seeking, was for this Service to help her move to a larger property, so that she could get back some normality.
On 23 March 2022, the resident called the landlord and advised that she was prepared to consider a four-bedroom home anywhere in London and not just her home borough.
On 3 May 2022, the resident requested to add medical evidence to support her rehousing request. The landlord was reviewing the case following contact from this Service and discovered it had not taken account of the resident’s contact on 23 March 2022, that she would consider homes anywhere across London. It offered £50 for this oversight.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

This complaint centres on the resident’s request to be rehoused in a bigger property once she became the legal guardian of her two nieces. The key questions for the Ombudsman are whether:
1. the landlord decided it was entitled to, in line with its policies and procedures; and
2. the landlord communicated its decision to the resident in a timely way; and
3. the complaint handling was appropriate.
It is important to set out here, that whilst the landlord declined to consider the complaint in November 2021, the Ombudsman has concluded the complaint procedure was exhausted on 16 May 2022. This is because that response identified a failure and offered compensation and was, ultimately, the landlord’s final word on the matter.
The landlord’s Transfer List Application states that the landlord had all property sizes available for the resident’s home borough. The application form completed by the resident in July 2021 also stated she could request up to four bedrooms in her home borough.

The landlord’s handling of the rehousing application

The landlord’s obligations

There is a shortage of social housing across England and a chronic shortage in London. Landlords are therefore required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The Regulator’s Tenancy Standard states:

“2.1.2 Registered providers shall develop and deliver services to address under-occupation and overcrowding in their homes, within the resources available to them. These services should be focused on the needs of their tenants and will offer choices to them.”

“2.1.3 Registered providers’ published policies shall include how they have made use of common housing registers, common allocations policies and local letting policies. Registered providers shall clearly set out, and be able to give reasons for, the criteria they use for excluding actual and potential tenants from consideration for allocations, mobility, or mutual exchange schemes.”

The landlord’s ‘priority moves policy’ applies where a resident is unable to remain living in their home and require urgent rehousing. To qualify under the policy, a resident or one of their household must meet one or more of ten criteria. The relevant provisions in this case are:
1. Statutory overcrowding

Where a tenant’s current property is statutorily overcrowded, based on the Housing Act 1985 standard, and where the overcrowding has not been caused deliberately or could not have been avoided.

Medical

Unable to leave hospital as their current property is unsuitable for their needs; or where a resident is unable to enter and leave their property, due to a medical condition or disability; and it is not possible for the property to be adapted to meet their needs.

Section 9 of the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy relates to the size of accommodation that is offered. It states how it will allocate the number of bedrooms to the make-up of the household. It also states that one additional bedroom will be offered to foster carers, with a foster child living with them.
The policy also states that if a resident wishes to challenge a decision, they can do so in writing.
The procedure states that once an application is received, the landlord must assess whether a resident is ‘eligible’ under the policy.

Did the landlord comply with these obligations?

When the landlord received the resident’s application form, it appears to have immediately rejected it on the basis that it did not have four-bedroom homes in the resident’s home borough. In support of this, the landlord has produced a nomination agreement with the resident’s home borough. However, this does not state that the landlord had to offer every property to the council in the resident’s home borough. Moreover, the application form confirms a resident could apply for four-bedroom properties in the resident’s home borough. Therefore, this initial decision appears to be entirely incorrect based on the evidence presented.
The landlord further implied that the property was not statutory overcrowded. However, in its correspondence it misdirected itself and only referred to the room standard and not the space standard. There is no evidence it inspected the property or contacted the council to arrange an inspection to determine if the property failed to meet the room or space standard as set out in the Housing Act 1985.
The resident was clearly dissatisfied with the decision and complained. Whilst the landlord rejected the complaint from the complaint procedure, there is no evidence she was directed to appealing the decision or the policy and procedure that had been applied. Under the procedure, the landlord could have conducted a home visit before referring to the panel. This could have resolved the issue at that time.
When the resident explained they would accept any borough this was missed by the landlord. It acknowledged this in May 2021 and offered compensation. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord exhibited good practice here by acknowledging its mistake. However, the landlord failed to appreciate the other mistakes it had made, as set out above. That was not appropriate.
It is on this basis, the Ombudsman concludes that the landlord did not correctly follow its policy and procedure to determine if the resident’s home was overcrowded and if it was, whether it had four-bedroom homes in the resident’s home borough. That amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies sets out when the Ombudsman should award compensation and the factors to be considered based on the impact to the resident. In this case, the original decision appears to have been incorrect and there is no evidence the resident is currently being considered for a four-bed home in her own borough or otherwise. The landlord missed opportunities to correct itself. The Ombudsman considers that £550 compensation is appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This will be in addition to an Order to reconsider the application.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy is a two-stage process. It states when it receives a stage one complaint:
1. The case will be allocated to a Customer Relations Advisor (CSA) who would contact the resident within one working day and clarify the aspects of the complaint.
2. The landlord is responsible to provide a response within ten working days.
3. It states it will close the complaint once it has provided a solution, or a response to the issue.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states:
1. (1.5) A complaint policy shall clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents.
2. (1.6) If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process.
The resident logged a complaint on 5 November 2021 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s decision and handling of her rehousing application. The landlord refused to accept the complaint on the same date.
Neither the landlord’s policy nor the Code state that the landlord will not consider a complaint where the resolution is not achievable via the complaints process.
Once the landlord received the complaint, it should have investigated the details of the complaint to determine if any aspect of it should be considered. Where it decided it would not accept the complaint, it should have done a detailed explanation to the resident explaining its reasons for this, it failed to do so, and is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in view of the error in its complaint handling. This is in line with the remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman order the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident £700 as follows:
  1. £550 to recognise the stress experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the rehousing application.
  2. £150 for the poor complaint handling
2. Reconsider the application afresh and provide a full decision letter to the resident. In doing so, the landlord must:
  1. Arrange a visit to the resident’s home and determine if the home is overcrowded in line with the Housing Act 1985
  2. Assess whether any of the occupants have a medical need to move.
  3. If the resident does not agree, the landlord must allow the resident to appeal the decision to its panel.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider that as part of its procedure, issuing decision letters to residents where it considers they do not meet the eligibility criteria. Those decision letters should set out the full details why the criteria are not met, together with information about the resident’s right to appeal.