Sovereign Network Homes (202126818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126818

Network Homes Limited

21 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:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move home; and
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. On 12 March 2021, he requested a management transfer as he felt unsafe due to anti-social behaviour on account of his sexuality. The landlord informed him that his request would be considered at the next panel meeting in April 2021. It encouraged him to report any incidents to the police and signposted him to his support worker.
3. On 21 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s advice worker to explain that the panel had refused the request as there was no evidence of an imminent risk or threat to the resident’s life. The landlord noted a lack of police involvement and indicated that there was a high threshold to justify a management move. The landlord explained that usually, it would require a police report saying the resident was at risk as supporting evidence. The resident also requested a move on medical grounds as an alternative on 11 May 2021, as his housing situation affected his mental well-being.
4. The landlord stated in response that its antisocial behaviour team had not received any alerts from the resident or the police. It also mentioned that the neighborhood officer had been working closely with the council’s antisocial behaviour team, but this team had not uncovered anything. It agreed to review the medical side of the resident’s application. The resident had refused to contact the police for fear of reprisals.
5. The landlord responded to the resident explaining that it considered his medical records as part of a management transfer. It stated that he did not meet the threshold due to there being no evidence that he was in imminent danger. His landlord indicated it would work with his local council to see how he may be assisted.
6. On 13 May 2021 the resident attempted to escalate his complaint. His landlord explained that this was not possible, as no formal complaint had been raised. The landlord asked for the grounds of complaint. The resident said the landlord had not considered his medical information or the impact on his well-being. He also explained he was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord. The resident complained that his mental health support worker had tried to contact the landlord but could not get a response.
7. The landlord agreed to look for other properties for the resident on a discretionary basis, outside of the management transfer process.
8. On 31 August 2021 the landlord responded to the resident stating:
   1. It emailed his support worker on 12 July 2021 and told them that a new property would be offered but a specific move-in date could not be offered. It told the resident he would be contacted once a home became available.
   2. It received another email from the support worker on 30 July 2021 that was responded to on 5 August 2021. This confirmed that it would update them when a suitable home had been offered. The landlord explained that it was unable to give precise dates for a move as this was dependent on property availability.
   3. It said provided information within timescale. It stated it could not discuss cases with mental health workers for data protection reasons.
9. On 8 September 2021, the resident told his landlord that he would prefer to be contacted by telephone as he is dyslexic and found written communication difficult. In October 2021, the resident expressed concerns that he was given conflicting information about the areas he could move to, as well as not getting updates by phone when he struggled to read. He also expressed confusion that he had not been awarded a medical priority when his landlord had said it was prioritising a move.
10. The resident made a request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 in September and October 2021. On 22 November 2021, the landlord issued its final response, and stated:
    1. It acknowledged the resident had been misinformed about the areas that were available to move to.
    2. It accepted that it was confusing to have told the resident his medical and management moves had been rejected, but that he was still a priority.
    3. The landlord explained it was dealing with the resident’s request internally which is why he was not awarded any priority.
    4. It was going above and beyond what its obligations were by allowing him first refusal on available properties. It acknowledged that the resident felt some properties offered had not been suitable. It said it wanted to let the resident make that decision rather than the landlord make it.
    5. It accepted that its communication had not been clear which had caused confusion. The landlord referred to two other possible properties that may have been suitable. It said it was actively informing him of new properties each time one became available.
    6. It offered £102 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
11. The resident referred his complaint to this service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt it was not offering him suitable properties or updating him. The resident also complained of discriminatory comments made by the landlord. The resident was offered a direct let in September 2022, after the internal complaints process ended but before this investigation started.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy outlines who qualifies for a management transfer and states that a management or safeguarding panel will decide on each request. It also explains if the landlord refuses a management transfer request, then reasons must be given.
13. The landlord’s policy states the landlord will assess all management transfer requests it receives. The only reasons for agreeing transfers are:
    1. due to overcrowding;
    2. where the applicant suffers a ‘serious illness’ which is considerably worsened by the current conditions; or
    3. management transfers where there was a serious risk to life and the landlord or police cannot mitigate that risk.
14. The policy further states its management panel/safeguarding panel will decide who is accepted for a transfer and will give reasons for any refusal.
15. The evidence shows that a panel made the decision that it could not accept the resident for a management transfer because there was no evidence of a threat to life, that could not be managed by the landlord or the police. The landlord explained it had involved the council’s antisocial behaviour team and it had not been alerted to any incidents. The decision was sent to the resident’s advice worker on 21 April 2021. The landlord explained the move on medical grounds would be considered by the landlord.
16. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assume that the resident’s advice worker would explain this to the resident. Based on the information available, this was a decision open to the landlord to make.
17. On 11 May 2021, the landlord also emailed the resident to explain that it had refused his request for medical priority after considering his medical evidence. This was again in accordance with its policies, and it was a decision it had discretion to make. However, the landlord’s communication on the issue was confusing. This is because it indicated his medical evidence had been considered as part of the earlier management transfer request when there were two separate processes. However, by 13 May 2021, the landlord appeared to clarify the position.
18. It told the resident that it had provided him with evidence that it followed its procedure by sending his medical evidence to its medical expert who advised there was no medical priority. The landlord explained this decision and it provided a copy of its findings. The resident requested that he be provided with reasons why his request for medical priority had been declined in writing. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to provide its response in writing.
19. At some point the landlord is alleged to have refused to make any more discretionary offers because the resident refused a suitable home. It is unclear when this was. However, the resident’s floating support worker contacted the landlord and requested a review. The review request stated that out of the six properties offered to the resident, five were unsuitable and one was never offered. This service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the decision to refuse to make any more offers was made in accordance with policy or was reasonable. However, the landlord did make further offers after the challenge, so the resident did not suffer.
20. The evidence indicates that the landlord failed to respond to the resident in an appropriate way. The evidence shows that the resident requested on 8 and 9 September 2021 that the landlord communicate by phone as he struggled with written communication. Despite this, the landlord sent email updates to the resident on 14 September 2021, 22 September 2021, and 29 September 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord made any adjustments to the way it communicated with the resident which was unreasonable. Making reasonable adjustments is an important way for landlords to show compliance with equality legislation. The landlord’s failure to consistently offer call backs was a service failure having regard to its legal duties to offer an accessible service.
21. The landlord accepts that it misinformed the resident and that its communication was confusing at times. The evidence shows the landlord had failed to communicate clearly about the areas the landlord had available properties. Additionally, it had not explained that although it had refused management and medical transfers, it was still looking to move him on a discretionary basis. This is likely to have caused the resident avoidable distress.
22. This Service has also seen an email the landlord sent on 8 March 2022 indicating that it had not offered one property as it was on the fourth floor. This is despite the resident being prepared to accept a property up to the fourth floor.
23. The resident made allegations of being treated in a discriminatory manner by the landlord. There is evidence that the landlord asked the resident not to email it daily on 6 September 2021. It was understandable the resident was eager for information following a series of upsetting and homophobic experiences. However, there is no evidence that this response was discriminatory or unreasonable.
24. The Ombudsman understands the chronic shortage of social housing. This makes it difficult for available homes to match the exact needs of every resident. However, this service expects landlords to be able to demonstrate that it has recorded and carefully considered the needs of each resident. It is also important for landlords to demonstrate what steps it is taking to help residents in housing need. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it had noted the needs of the resident, made suitable offers, or communicated effectively.
25. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted the failures in communication, explained its approach, and offered some compensation for time and trouble. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of redress was not commensurate with the level of service failure and the likely distress, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. Having regard to the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website), the Ombudsman is of the opinion, that a sum of £350 would be a fairer sum. This is because the landlord failed to have consistent regard for the resident’s preferred method of contact and provided insufficient and unclear information.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord aims to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot, the landlord should explain why and provide a new timeframe.
27. It is unclear exactly when the resident made a complaint, but the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 May 2021. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to the complaint until 31 August 2021 which was around three months after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This delay was unreasonable.
28. There resident escalated his complaint on 9 September 2021 but there is no evidence the landlord responded appropriately until October 2021. The resident requested an escalation again on 22 October 2021 and he received a response on 22 November 2021. The delay in dealing with the resident’s request to escalate from 9 September 2021 to 22 November 2021 was unreasonable.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move home. This is primarily because the communication was unclear.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

31. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £350 for the failures in handling the resident’s request to move home and the impact on the resident, including the failure to make adjustments.
    2. £150 for the failures in complaint handling.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should consider having a reasonable adjustments policy which is accessible on its website and offer complaints staff training on equalities compliance.