The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Walsall Housing Group Limited (202216614)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216614

Walsall Housing Group Limited

14 February 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 

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property, a 1-bed flat owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident applied to the landlord for a mutual exchange on 26 August 2022. She applied as a single tenant and the exchange property was a 3-bed house. Her reason for applying was to help her become a foster carer and she needed a bigger home to aid this. It refused the mutual exchange application on 28 September 2022 because neither party was eligible.
  3. Following the application refusal, the resident complained to the landlord on 5 October 2022. She was unhappy that it rejected her application and said it had given her inaccurate and contradictory information. She said it had previously advised her to apply for a mutual exchange so she could apply to become a foster carer.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2022. It said that its decision to refuse the mutual exchange was correct and in accordance with its mutual exchange policy. It apologised to her for any confusion and misunderstanding caused by its communication.
  5. After a series of emails and phone calls, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 November 2022. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s rejection of her application and submitted further evidence to support her complaint and application. It provided its stage 2 response on 19 December 2022 and maintained that its decision to reject the application was correct. It said its attempts to facilitate the exchange had given her a raised expectation that it would go ahead and apologised for any misunderstanding caused by its actions. It said it would offer its staff members additional training regarding communication and offered her compensation of £100, £50 for failures in communication and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to refuse her application and brought her complaint to this Service, seeking a management transfer in place of the rejected mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Policies and legislation

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy sets out its approach to giving or withholding consent for mutual exchanges, along with its approach towards promoting and supporting mutual exchange. It will actively promote mutual exchange during housing options conversations with its general needs customers. It will not refuse an exchange for any reason other than those allowed in law.
  2. Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985 sets the grounds on which a landlord may withhold consent to assignment by way of exchange under section 92:
    1. Ground 3 of the schedule states that an exchange may be refused because the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is substantially more extensive than is reasonably required by the proposed assignee.
  3. Section 92 of the Housing Act 1985 states that a landlord may not rely on any of the grounds set out in Schedule 3 unless it has, within 42 days of the tenant’s application for the consent, served on the tenant a notice specifying the ground and giving particulars of it.
  4. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states receipt of application forms for a mutual exchange will be acknowledged within 5 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange

  1. The landlord received the resident’s mutual exchange application on 26 August 2022. It confirmed receipt of the application on 14 September 2022, 12 working days later.
  2. The landlord denied the mutual exchange on 28 September 2022. This was within the stipulated timeframe of 42 days set out in Section 92 of the Housing Act 1985 and was in accordance with its mutual exchange policy.
  3. While the resident was hoping for an exchange to support her application to become a foster carer, she was not a foster carer at the time of the application. Therefore, based on the facts, she was applying for a bigger home that she was entitled to at the time. It would not have been reasonable for the landlord to agree the exchange as it would have been contrary to its policy. This was supported by the grounds for refusal outlined in Ground 3 of Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985 stated above. The landlord’s decision to refuse the mutual exchange based on the resident’s application for a 3-bed house as a sole tenant was, therefore, reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to review her evidence on 28 September 2022 after its refusal of her application. It made enquiries about the status of her fostering application with the local authority responsible for foster care on 29 September 2022 and came to the same conclusion that, based on her circumstances, she was not eligible for a larger property at the time. It clearly understood the importance of the matter to her and made efforts to ensure its decision was correct.
  5. As part of her complaint on 5 October 2022, the resident stated that the landlord encouraged her to pursue a mutual exchange so she could become a foster carer. This Service is unable to make a conclusion on this point as neither party has provided evidence documenting this. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy does state that it will actively promote mutual exchange as an option for its residents. This is a reasonable course of action in helping residents to understand their housing options, however it must ensure residents understand the requirements for an exchange.
  6. In a phone call with the resident on the 6 October 2022, the landlord told her that it would address its staff to ensure the right advice is given in the future. This was a reasonable response as it could not be sure what advice she was given when it encouraged her to pursue a mutual exchange, but it still demonstrated a willingness to learn from the situation.
  7. Prior to making a complaint on 5 October 2022, on the same day, the resident asked the landlord if it would consider a family member as part of her household as he had been staying with her for 12 months. She disputed this as she said it had previously told her that the family member could be included. It told her it would need proof of residency for her family member to consider whether they could be included as part of her household, but she could not provide this. It advised her to look for a 2-bed property or register as a foster carer so it could consider a higher banding for housing allocations. This was a fair response as there was no official documentation showing the family member was living with her and it showed it was willing to continue to consider her needs in suggesting a more appropriate alternative.
  8. In a phone call with the resident on 6 October 2022, the landlord said there had been a miscommunication as it believed her intention was for the family member to move in with her, not that they were already living with her. It called her on the same day and apologised for the communication during the mutual exchange process. It told her it could review the situation if her family member was officially listed at her address. No evidence has been provided to this Service to demonstrate how the miscommunication took place. Considering this, the landlord’s apology was fair, and it gave the correct advice in line with its policy on 5 and 6 October 2022.
  9. The landlord did not include any specific reference to the resident’s family member as part of its stage 1 complaint response but did apologise for general confusion and misunderstanding caused by its communication. The documents provided to this Service by the parties do not provide sufficient evidence on the basis of which we may determine whether there was any miscommunication. As such, the Ombudsman is not able to ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for providing incorrect information to the resident.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding that arose from its conversations with her. It acknowledged that there was scope for further staff training relating to communication and would address this. As outlined above, no evidence was provided to this Service demonstrating poor or confusing communication by the landlord. It made efforts to understand her situation, ensure it was acting correctly and provide her with the right advice. It tried to put things right with the resident by offering compensation of £50 for failures in its communication but maintained that its decision to refuse the mutual exchange was correct and in accordance with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange.