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

Waterloo Housing Group Limited (202006058)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006058

Waterloo Housing Group Limited

1 March 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 is about the landlord’s:
    1. offers of alternative properties made to the resident;
    2. handling of the associated formal complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident previously lived in a block (which she now wishes to move back to) until December 2017. In 2016, the landlord offered her three different properties within the block under a managed move, but the resident declined them on the basis that living there was affecting her mental health. She complained that she had not been offered a suitable property and the landlord issued its final response in April 2017. The Ombudsman investigated the complaint in October 2017 (under case ref. 201615216) and found that there had been no maladministration by the landlord.
  2. A managed move did then take place on the grounds that the resident was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) and she moved to her current address in December 2017. This was the resident’s second transfer under the managed move scheme.
  3. A further complaint was made in August 2018 when the resident wanted to move as she felt the ceilings in her property were too low and because the flat was on a main road. The landlord declined the request as it did not consider the resident’s situation to be an exceptional case. The landlord issued its final response in November 2018 and the Ombudsman investigated the complaint in August 2019 (under case ref. 201814549), finding that there had been no maladministration by the landlord.
  4. The Ombudsman currently has another active case (ref. 202014189) regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours. That is a separate matter and is not considered further in this report. Instead, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s offers of alternative properties made in response to a managed move request submitted in May 2019, and its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 31 May 2019, the resident signed the managed move request in accordance with the landlord’s Letting Policy, stating that she was suffering from depression due to the small size of the flat and the noise nuisance from the nearby road. The form confirmed that the resident would be offered up to two reasonable offers of accommodation within three months, and if these were made and rejected by the resident, the move request would be terminated. The form also specified that the resident wanted to move to the development she had moved from in 2017, but only the blocks with the white window frames as they were larger than those with brown frames. She was advised that this could not be guaranteed and if she declined an offer in the preferred development due to size, this would be considered a refusal.
  2. A property in the desired development was offered on 22 January 2020 but was refused by the resident due to it being on the ground floor and because she believed that somebody had died there. On 4 March 2020 a second property was refused due to the size of the living room and that the resident said the doors needed to be replaced, despite a property surveyor confirming that the property was in good condition and met the landlord’s ‘ready to let’ standard.
  3. The tenant was unhappy with the interaction she and her sister had with the housing officer. The tenant was also unhappy with termination of the management move which  she was informed of by the operations manager, and going forward she refused to deal with both officers. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 May 2020.
  4. The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 18 May 2020 supporting a housing move on the basis that: the resident had increased mental health problems; the flat was smaller than her previous property; and there had been issues with neighbours. The landlord then wrote to the resident to arrange a visit to discuss the managed move.  
  5. In the landlord’s complaint response of 28 May 2020, it noted that its policy had been updated following a recommendation by the Ombudsman in respect of the complaint made in 2018. It quoted section 4.11 of the Lettings Policy which specified the exceptional circumstances that a ‘management move’ would be considered to urgently rehouse an existing customer, i.e. ‘domestic abuse, racial abuse, threat to life or serious risk of harm’. It explained that two offers would be given in a period of up to three months, whereas it had previously been one offer without a three-monthly review. It stated that the reasons given for the resident’s property causing her anxiety and depression would not ordinarily reach the threshold for a management move, but it had given her priority despite this and the move had been reviewed and extended on three occasions at three monthly intervals. It confirmed that the first two offers were reasonable as they would have allowed her to move away from her property. It was aware that a third offer had been made in error, but it would honour it as a final offer, and it would be inspected before viewing to comply with the ‘ready to let’ condition. The letter did not specify any appeal rights or given details of how to escalate the complaint.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 26 June 2020. On 16 July 2020 the landlord advised that it needed more time to respond, and it then issued its final complaint response on 24 July 2020, as follows:
    1. There had been an error with one of the offered properties as the resident was told it was in a block with white windows when, in fact, they were brown. It apologised for this but confirmed that the offer would stand as it would still be a move from the resident’s current property. Under the terms of the managed move request, the size of property or colour of windows would not be accepted as reasonable grounds for refusal;
    2. The resident had declined the first property due to the former resident dying there and said the previous Head of Service had agreed that she would not be offered this property as she had declined it previously (in 2016). However, there was no record of this advice being given and, in any event, the transfer would still have moved the resident away from the anxiety and ASB she was experiencing at her current property;
    3. The current property was reportedly affecting the resident’s mental health due to its size and the ASB she was experiencing. Three properties had been offered to move her away but, in the meantime, her current property was a one bed two-person occupancy flat which was appropriate for her;
    4. The resident had asked that particular members of staff not be involved with her case, but the landlord found that these individuals had acted professionally and in accordance with its policies and procedures;
    5. The resident was unhappy about a conversation between the neighbourhood officer and her sister. The landlord explained that the reason for the welfare call was the national lockdown and it noted that it had liaised with her sister in previous occasions, at the resident’s request;
    6. The resident had asked about a complaint made by telephone and why mistakes were always made by lettings, but the landlord required more details about this before responding.
  7. On 7 August 2020 the resident was offered a further property in the desired development which she rejected unseen as she believed it was too small and was in the block with brown windows. The landlord acknowledged that she did not favour this block but reiterated that the terms of the managed move stated that it could not guarantee that offers in this block would not be considered.
  8. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had made three offers to the resident which had all been refused. It advised that it could not agree to the resident’s terms and did not have a suitable vacant property. However, if a vacant property became available it would advise this Service.

Assessment and findings

Offers of alternative properties

  1. It was previously highlighted to the parties, in the report issued under case ref. 201615216, that a managed transfer is intended to be used in emergency situations, where there is an immediate risk to the applicant. It is not intended to give a tenant priority for a transfer combined with the opportunity to wait for their ideal property to become available. The Lettings Policy details the exceptional circumstances which may give rise to a managed move and no evidence has been provided to this investigation to indicate that any of those circumstances applied to the resident at the time of the complaint.
  2. As a result, the landlord was under no obligation to offer her a managed move. Despite this, it exercised its discretion to accept the resident’s request in an effort to resolve her longstanding dissatisfaction with the various accommodation she had been given. The landlord has demonstrated that it absorbed the Ombudsman’s previous Recommendations by amending its Policy to allow for two offers to be made for a managed move, rather than one. In this case, the landlord went a step further and surpassed the Policy requirements, by offering three properties to the resident.
  3. This demonstrates its willingness to assist the resident, taking into account her mental health and wellbeing. The landlord did explain in the managed move request form that the tenant signed on 31 May 2019, that a decline of a property offer due to size would be considered a refusal. It should be noted that the landlord is only able to offer properties available to it at the time.
  4. The landlord has clearly and consistently explained the number of offers which would be made to the resident and set out why the offers which were made and rejected were considered suitable. It could not be expected to do more than this in the circumstances.  
  5. The landlord has confirmed that there were no other suitable one-bed properties available in the resident’s desired area and it was therefore physically unable to make any further offers to her. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s strong desire to move, it must be noted that the landlord simply does not have the resources to meet the specific preferences of all of its residents, particularly when it has no formal obligation to do so. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has acted in line with its responsibilities under the Lettings Policy, in the interests of improving the resident’s situation, and has then followed the provisions of that Policy in exercising that discretion. As a result, there is no evidence of a failure in service. 
  6. During the Ombudsman’s intervention, the resident advised that there was another available flat within her desired development, but she herself confirmed that it would not be suitable as she was aware of ongoing ASB issues and it had a wet room. Therefore, there is no suggestion that, had this property been offered by the landlord, it would have resolved the complaint. It is also noted that, in 2016, the resident expressly requested to leave the development she was now applying for in favour of her current one, and the landlord expended considerable time and resources on fulfilling that request. Whilst the resident’s needs may have changed in the intervening period, it should be recognised that the landlord, as a provider of social housing, does not have infinite resources with which to meet such changeable demands. This is particular the case where the resident does not meet the threshold for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which should be met before a managed move is even considered.
  7. This Service appreciates the resident’s frustration at being offered a property in 2020 which she had already rejected in 2016. However, given that she was requesting to return to the development that she had previously been keen to leave, it would be fair to say that her circumstances had changed. Therefore, this property may now have been deemed suitable in a way that it was not considered previously, so it was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer a second time. In any event, the resident was offered two other properties (in accordance with the Policy) so the perceived unsuitability of an additional property would not constitute a failure in service. Indeed, during the Ombudsman’s intervention in November 2020, the landlord indicated that it was willing to offer a fourth property should one become available, which further exceeds its obligations.

 

 

 

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints, Comments and Compliments Policy does not specify timeframes for it to process complaints but the ‘Customer Feedback’ booklet states that it aims to acknowledge complaints within three working days and investigate them within fifteen working days. In this case, the resident submitted her complaint on 24 and 29 April 2020 and the landlord acknowledged it on 4 May 2020. Whilst this was marginally outside the target timescales, it should be considered that this was at the start of the national lockdown due to the covid-19 pandemic and the landlord may not have been working at full capacity.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was then issued on 28 May 2020, one week outside of the target 15-working day timeframe. However, in the interim there was a large amount of correspondence from the resident and regular telephone contact between her and the landlord. As a result, she was kept informed of progress and the minor delay in the formal process did not have any material detrimental impact on her. As staffing arrangements were likely still affected by the government regulations, the slight deviation from the landlord’s service standards was acceptable in the circumstances. 
  3. In the interests of clarity, the stage 1 response of 28 May 2020 should have included details of how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. The Complaints Handling Code, against which the landlord has published a self-assessment checklist on its website, confirms that landlords should advise residents how to escalate complaints at the end of each stage. Although this self-assessment was undertaken after the landlord’s final response, good practice would be to signpost residents to the next stage of the formal complaints process, and this is confirmed in a Recommendation below.
  4. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord maintained contact with the resident, and explained the need for an extension to issue its full response. Therefore, whilst it did not strictly meet the target timeframes set out in its policy, it managed the resident’s expectations and kept her informed of progress. As a result, there is no evidence of a failure in service in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its:             
    1. offers of alternative properties made to the resident;
    2. handling of the associated formal complaint. 

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should remind all staff involved in the handling of complaints to include escalation rights where appropriate to ensure residents are not denied access to this Service and to adhere to the Housing Ombudsman Code.