Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202116794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116794

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

20 May 2022

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 transfer request.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord has not stated if it has any recorded vulnerabilities of the resident. The resident applied for a transfer in May 2014 as part of the landlord’s transfer scheme, which allowed tenants to transfer property based on the priority of the resident.
3. In December 2020, the resident was offered the opportunity to view a property as part of the transfer scheme. The resident accepted the property but was informed that a tenant with a higher priority had shown interest and the landlord was awaiting a response. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the other tenant had not responded and therefore the property would be hers and she could pick up the keys in the coming days. However, the landlord had received a voicemail from the higher–priority tenant, who had also accepted the property and therefore the property went to her instead of the resident.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 August 2021; she expressed dissatisfaction that her transfer did not go ahead due to an administration error and a miscommunication. The landlord gave its formal response on 18 August 2021. It offered £25 compensation and apologised for the service failure. It should be noted that the resident included a pest control issue in her complaint. This was dealt with by the landlord through the internal complaints procedure but the resident did not bring this part of the complaint to this Service and therefore this aspect of the complaint has not been referenced further.
5. The resident was unhappy with the response and requested to escalate her complaint on 15 September 2021. The landlord’s final response was sent on 20 October 2021. It apologised again for the service failure and acknowledged the resident’s concerns. It also increased the compensation amount to £150 as the landlord agreed that the original offer was not adequate.
6. The resident was unhappy with the response and requested that her complaint went to a panel hearing, but this was denied as, in the landlord’s view, the complaint had already exhausted the complaints procedure. The resident requested £2000 compensation and to be given management transfer status. This would ensure that the resident would be given top priority when being offered a property. On 10 November 2021 the resident was awarded management transfer status and on 15 November the resident accepted the landlord’s £150 compensation offer. The resident moved into another property in which she was given priority. However, it is unclear what date the resident moved into the new property.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 3.3 of the landlord’s tenancy management policy states that ‘[the landlord commits] to upholding [its] responsibilities and tenants right outlined in this tenancy management policy including:…[providing] options to transfer or exchange’.
8. Section 4.3 of the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy outlines how residents are prioritised for transfers.
9. Section 5.4 of the landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will seek to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. It also states that if further investigation is needed, it may be extended, and the landlord will let the resident know.
10. Section 5.6 of the complaints policy states that if a request to escalate is made, the Chief Executive (or delegate) ‘will decide whether the issues involved warrant a stage two panel. If not, then the relevant director will be asked to review their stage one response and issue a final decision. This will then complete [the resident’s] internal process’.
11. Section 7.2 of the complaints policy states that when putting things right, the decision made will ‘ensure that the outcome reflects the extent of any service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result’. For example, acknowledging where thigs have gone wrong, apologising and providing a financial remedy.
12. Section 5.1 of the compensation policy states that ‘Compensation may be payable for specific, avoidable inconvenience and distress. This will usually be around £25’.
13. Section 5.1 of the compensation policy also states that managers will have discretion to award a higher amount if appropriate’.

Scope of investigation

14. The resident referenced how the transfer issue had impacted her physical and mental health. She informed the landlord that the issue had caused detrimental effects on her wellbeing, stating that her mental health had suffered and that she had suffered weight and hair loss as a result. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
15. The resident has also accused the landlord of being discriminatory. This Service does not have the expertise, nor the authority to investigate claims of discrimination. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as such a decision would be better suited for a court to decide. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord responded to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff in a reasonable manner.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

16. The landlord offering the property to the resident when in fact a tenant with higher priority had already accepted it amounts to an acknowledged service failure. Having identified this failure, the landlord was required to give the property to the tenant who was higher on the priority list, even though it had already confirmed to the resident that she was successful in her application and that it had not heard from any other tenants.
17. The resident’s stage one complaint was submitted on 4 August 2021. During the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged in an internal email (16 August 2021) that there was a miscommunication on its own end. It also said that it was ‘fairly conclusive that something went wrong’. The tenant who had accepted the property had delivered a voicemail to the landlord confirming that she would like the property. The service failure here is that the landlord failed to check and confirm that the other tenant had not accepted the property.
18. It is important that a landlord maintains clear lines of communication internally when dealing with multiple tenants applying for a property. All members of staff involved in the process should communicate any developments to one another, to ensure that any miscommunication which may lead to a resident being misinformed is avoided. In circumstances like this, great emotional distress can be caused to a resident as a result of being wrongly informed.
19. Because of this, this Service has made a recommendation that the landlord implements a sufficiently robust process that will prevent similar issues occurring. Due to the distress this type of failure can cause to a resident, the landlord should take a proactive stance in ensuring that it has a clear and definitive view of decisions and outcomes, before notifying the resident.
20. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued on 18 August 2021. It acknowledged the service failure and that it had caused a ‘great deal of distress’ to the resident. It admitted in the response that it had been a miscommunication that had led to the resident being misinformed. The landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed that she was still on the transfer list. This was appropriate as it assured the resident that her circumstances had not been affected by the service failure, and that she was still able to apply for properties. The landlord also offered £25 compensation in recognition of the service failure. This was in line with section 5.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy in which it states that, ‘Compensation may be payable for specific, avoidable inconvenience and distress. This will usually be around £25’.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2021. She said that it had caused detrimental effects to her wellbeing, including that her mental and physical health had suffered. She also expressed that she felt she had been discriminated against. She requested £2000 compensation and also to be accepted for ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a one-bedroom flat of her choice.
22. The landlord notified the resident that further investigation was required and advised that it would respond by 26 October 2021. The landlord was right to manage the resident’s expectations for a response and to give an explanation for the delay. The final response was eventually submitted within this timeframe on 20 October 2021.
23. The landlord acknowledged that the issue had a significant effect on the resident, including the effect on her physical health. The landlord said that it was ‘clear the impact this has had on [the resident]’, and ‘sincerely’ apologised. It also acknowledged the resident’s requests for further compensation and to be offered the next available property. The landlord explained that ‘[it did] not believe £25 compensation sufficiently [represented] the distress [the resident had] experienced’. It raised the compensation offer to £150. This was in line with section 5.1 of the compensation policy which advises that a higher amount of compensation can be offered if believed necessary. This level of compensation was reasonable and more accurately reflected the distress caused. It also acknowledged the physical and mental effects the stress had caused to the resident’s wellbeing.
24. Regarding the resident’s request to be accepted for ‘exceptional circumstances’ in order to be offered a property of her choice, the landlord explained that it was not able to guarantee that she would be top of the priority list for the next property as it would ‘contravene [its] policy which includes a prioritization criteria [it had] agreed with the board’. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this as it cannot be expected to act against its policy, especially if by doing so it may affect other tenants who may be in a more vulnerable position.
25. After further communication with the resident, she expressed further dissatisfaction and requested that the complaint was escalated further to a panel hearing, but the landlord explained that the complaint procedure had been exhausted. On 10 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had decided to award the resident ‘management transfer status’. This would ensure that the resident was at the top of the priority list and would be offered first choice when viewing properties.
26. The landlord went above and beyond to use its discretionary powers to award the resident ‘management transfer status’ as it was not obliged to do this. The award of this status, the increased offer of compensation and a sincere apology provides reasonable redress to the service failure of offering an unavailable property to the resident. The landlord also showed in its communications with the resident and its complaint responses that it had clearly listened to the resident’s concerns and responded to each aspect of her complaint. Its action of placing her higher on the priority list and increasing the compensation showed a proactive effort to improve the situation of the resident by using its discretionary powers following its service failure.
27. Furthermore, the resident accepted the compensation offer and an invoice shows that £175 was transferred to the resident’s account on 19 November 2021. The resident also accepted a property on 20 December 2021 after being given priority. It is unclear when the resident moved into the property, but due to the fact that from this point there was no further communication from the resident to this Service, and emails sent by the landlord regarding the keys of the new property, it appears as though the landlord has found a long-term property solution for the resident.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

29. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal communications processes in order to ensure all relevant agents are informed of important developments in order to avoid miscommunication.