Great Places Housing Association (202329756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329756

Great Places Housing Association

28 March 2025

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 managing agent 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 managing agent 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:
1. The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s initial enquiry about subletting the property.
2. The resident’s report that the council discouraged him from applying for the right to buy the property.
3. The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for his reports of financial losses and other consequences associated with the agent’s actions regarding his subletting enquiry.
4. The managing agent’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority landlord and the tenancy began on 8 June 2015.
The managing agent’s notes state that the resident has a disability relating to his breathing capacity, which at times can be strained.
The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the seventh floor. Although the property is owned by a local authority, the housing management functions were contracted to a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) company that was set up on 30 November 2011 by the council. The housing management contractor for the resident’s property and others in the area is a housing association. The housing association is responsible for providing housing management services and is referred to in this report as the managing agent.
The managing agent is the subject of the resident’s complaint and is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The resident advised this Service that he handed back the keys to the property around May 2024.
Following conversations with the managing agent’s housing officer, the resident wrote to the managing agent on 17 February 2021 setting out his intention to either take in a lodger or to sublet his property in order to help with the rent payments. The resident subsequently sublet his property and moved in with his wife who had another property elsewhere.
The managing agent has advised this Service that in August 2023 it became aware of a tenancy management concern regarding the resident subletting his property. The managing agent met with the resident on 17 August 2023 and logged a stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2023 so that it could formally investigate the subletting concerns. The managing agent sent its stage 1 reply on 5 October 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The managing agent had discussed the complaint with the resident and he had explained his intention had been to eventually apply to buy the property under the right to buy. However, as an interim position, he had spoken to the managing agent’s housing officer in 2020-2021 about his options for subletting or taking in a lodger.
2. The managing agent confirmed it had not found any evidence of phone calls to indicate the resident had been given advice about subletting. The agent accepted there was a lack of records relating to the matter apart from the resident’s original email dated 17 February 2021.
3. The agent also accepted there had been a delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint due to the complexity of the subject.
4. The agent offered the resident compensation of £100 for the delay in replying to the complaint and £250 for the lack of acknowledgement or advice following his subletting request and poor communication for not keeping him informed.
5. The agent said that as agreed at the meeting with the resident on 3 October 2023, the issues around the subletting of the property would continue to be addressed outside of the complaints process.
6. The managing agent said that the resident had the right to return to the property to use as his principal home, subject to ending the sub-tenancy with the current occupant.
The resident requested the agent to escalate the complaint on 29 October 2023 because:
1. He believed he was denied the opportunity to have an advocate present at a meeting with the agent on 17 August 2023.
2. He believed the agent’s investigation had not considered the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on him seeking permission to sublet the property.
3. He believed the amount of compensation offered by the agent was insufficient because he said:
  1. He had been discouraged from pursuing the right to buy, given incorrect information about the cost floor rule and had been given unclear information about the right to buy.
  2. He had been given misleading information about subletting by the managing agent.
  3. He had incurred financial losses as he had purchased another property until he could buy his main property and he said his right to buy discount for 2015 to 2023 had been jeopardised.
  4. He had concerns about the conversations the agent was having with the council as the council’s staff had advised the resident they could not get involved in his complaint.
  5. He felt that his character and reputation had been unfairly tainted because of the advice he had been given by the agent.
The managing agent sent its stage 2 reply on 23 November 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had advised that the outcome he wanted was either for the agent to agree he could buy his property under the right to buy, which would involve the council buying back an ex-council property he owned, or for him to be fully compensated for the loss of the right to buy discount if he could not buy the property.
2. The agent confirmed that the housing officer who had discussed the option of subletting the property with the resident in 2021 no longer worked for the organisation.
3. The managing agent confirmed that under the tenancy agreement, the resident had the right to sublet part of his property but had to obtain written permission from the agent first.
4. The agent said it had no reason to disbelieve the resident’s assertion that he had discussed the right to buy and subletting with the housing officer.
5. The agent said it had not found any evidence that it had acknowledged or responded in writing to the resident’s email dated 17 February 2021. The agent added that it was aware of the resident’s intention to sublet his property and therefore should have provided him with clarity about his tenancy rights. The agent therefore upheld the resident’s complaint.
6. The agent said that as set out in statute the resident had now lost his security of tenure by subletting the whole property and that the security of tenure could not legally be reinstated. Therefore, this prevented the council from granting the right to buy.
7. The agent said it had not seen any evidence that the resident subsequently requested permission to sublet the property or chased the agent for a response.
8. The agent had spoken to the council regarding the resident’s concerns about the advice given to him by one of the council officers about the right to buy. The council had confirmed that as it was the owner of the property, the council had a responsibility to engage with any prospective buyers through the right to buy.
9. The agent said that the resident’s experience had highlighted the need for it to review its home ownership protocols for council-owned properties in the PFI area.
10. The agent said it had raised the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a council officer who had advised the resident about the right to buy. However, as the officer was not employed by the agent, it could not investigate the matter. The agent said the resident could make a separate complaint to the council if he wished to do so.
11. The agent said it did not believe the resident had been trying to hide his intentions to sublet the property and accepted that it should have explained the implications of subletting the property at an earlier stage.
12. The agent reported that the council would not allow the resident to apply for the right to buy and the council would not buy back the ex-council property he owned in the PFI area.
13. The agent said that as the resident did not obtain written permission to sublet his property, it did not consider it should compensate him for the £30,000 he was requesting for not being able to pursue the right to buy.
14. The agent said it would clarify the resident’s position regarding his tenancy outside of the complaint process.
15. The agent offered compensation of £100 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and £1,000 for its failure to respond with advice following the resident’s proposal to sublet the property.
16. The agent outlined various learning it had taken from investigating the resident’s complaint, including reviewing its home ownership protocols, providing training/guidance to staff and producing frequently asked questions for residents regarding home ownership.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 24 November 2023 and said he was dissatisfied with the agent’s stage 2 reply. He believed the agent had not taken into account the challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also said that the agent should have addressed the matter much earlier if it had concerns about the resident subletting his property. The resident said he was unhappy he had now received a Notice to Quit and that the agent was using its solicitors to apply pressure on him.
The resident also wrote to this Service on 8 July 2024 and said he was seeking compensation from the agent for:
1. Damage to his reputation.
2. Loss of the opportunity to exercise the right to buy.
3. The council and the agent placing obstacles in not providing him with advice about subletting.
4. Loss of opportunities in community development roles and community leadership.
5. The emotional and psychological impact of the events.
6. Social isolation and the negative perception of him within the community.
7. Erosion of influence and the impact on his family, including possible discrimination.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 42.j. the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which… fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. Local authority right to buy schemes fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This includes decisions or actions taken by the local authority in relation to the right to buy. In this case, the resident indicated in his stage 2 complaint dated 29 October 2023 that he was unhappy he had been discouraged from applying for the right to buy by a council officer.
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s report that the council discouraged him from applying for the right to buy the property.
The resident will need to seek advice from the LGSCO if he wishes to complain about the information given to him about the right to buy by the council.

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to this Service on 8 July 2024 and stated that he was seeking compensation for significant financial losses he said he had incurred and for the associated impact. He said that the impact included damage to his reputation, loss of opportunities in terms of community leadership roles, social isolation and emotional/psychological impacts.
The Ombudsman does not have the power to issue binding decisions about liability, nor does this Service have the necessary expertise to quantify financial loss in relation to the matters outlined by the resident. The courts have the power to issue binding decisions about liability and have the necessary expertise to quantify financial loss in these circumstances. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the managing agent considered matters appropriately within the timeframe of the complaint, and whether it responded reasonably, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
The resident advised the landlord at a meeting on 17 August 2023 that he had discussed the possibility of subletting the property and moving into his wife’s house prior to February 2021. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s actions from when the resident sent his email dated 17 February 2021 advising of his intention to sublet or take in a lodger.
The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the managing agent sent its final complaint response on 23 November 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the managing agent’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the managing agent has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the managing agent’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s initial enquiry about subletting the property

The agent accepted in its stage 1 reply that it did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s email dated 17 February 2021 advising of his intention to take in a lodger or sublet the property. The agent also accepted there had been poor communication as it had not kept him informed. The agent therefore upheld the complaint at stage 1.
It was inappropriate for the agent not to have responded to the resident’s initial email about subletting the property. The agent’s lack of response meant that the resident had not received a written decision about whether he could proceed with his plans to sublet the property. Information provided to this Service by the resident showed that he exchanged text messages with the agent’s housing officer in 2020 and 2021 and stated that he needed to speak to the housing officer urgently. The texts show that the resident had experienced frustration and difficulty in arranging conversations with the agent’s housing officer. The evidence indicates that the resident was not properly advised about the tenancy implications of subletting until the managing agent met with him on 17 August 2023 and wrote to him on 23 August 2023 when the resident was advised that he had breached the terms of his tenancy by subletting the property.
When there are failings by a landlord or managing agent, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The managing agent acted fairly by using its stage 1 and 2 replies to acknowledge its failings in not responding to the resident’s email dated 17 February 2021 and not providing him with advice about subletting. The agent sought to put things right by offering compensation of £250 at stage 1 of the complaints process and then by increasing this to £1,000 at stage 2 for failing to respond to the email. The agent also apologised in its stage 2 letter that it had not met its own standards.
Given that the lack of timely communication by the agent caused the resident inconvenience, distress and frustration, in the Ombudsman’s view it was appropriate for the agent to offer the resident substantial compensation. The offer of £1,000 was in line with the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the offer was proportionate to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the agent’s failure to respond to his email dated 17 February 2021.
Based on the agent’s stage 2 reply, the Ombudsman understands that the offer of £1,000 was not intended to compensate the resident for the financial losses which he outlined in his stage 2 complaint dated 29 October 2023. However, as previously stated, this Service is unable to issue binding decisions about liability in relation to the financial losses and other impacts reported by the resident. Such matters would have to be considered by the courts.
The agent demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by outlining in its stage 2 reply various improvements it intended to make, including reviewing its home ownership protocols for council managed properties in the PFI area to improve its knowledge of the process.
Therefore, having carefully considered the agent’s responses during the complaints process, the Ombudsman has found that the agent made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s initial enquiry about subletting the property.

The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for his reports of financial losses and other consequences associated with the agent’s actions regarding his subletting enquiry

The tenancy agreement defines subletting as “giving another person the right to live in part of the property” and it states: “You have the right to sublet your home, but you must get our written permission first”.
The tenancy agreement reflects the legal position outlined in Section 93 of the 1985 Housing Act (as amended), which states:
1. It is a term of every secure tenancy that the tenant:
  1. may allow any persons to reside as lodgers in the dwelling-house, but
  2. will not, without the written consent of the landlord, sublet or part with possession of part of the dwelling-house.
2. If the tenant under a secure tenancy parts with the possession of the dwelling-house or sublets the whole of it (or sublets first part of it and then the remainder), the tenancy ceases to be a secure tenancy and cannot subsequently become a secure tenancy.
3. “Where the tenant has applied in writing for consent, then…if the landlord neither gives nor refuses to give consent within a reasonable time, consent shall be taken to have been withheld”.
The resident wrote to the agent on 29 October 2023 and said that the compensation offered in the agent’s stage 1 reply did not reflect the financial losses he had incurred. He said he had lost the potential right to buy discount on the property and he had incurred financial losses as he had purchased another property until he could exercise the right to buy on his main property. The agent then met with the resident on 21 November 2023 to discuss his complaint and clarify the outcomes he wanted. The outcomes were:
1. Either for the agent to agree the resident could exercise the right to buy the property, with the agent purchasing another ex-council property he owned; or
2. Compensate the resident fully for the financial loss of not being able to purchase his property at a discounted price under the right to buy.
The agent advised the resident in its stage 2 reply that under the tenancy agreement, tenants may sublet part of their home but must first obtain written permission from the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to point out these provisions contained within the tenancy agreement as both the landlord and the tenant are legally bound by the terms of the agreement. The terms of the agreement also reflect the provisions contained in the 1985 Housing Act (as amended).
The resident stated in his stage 2 complaint that he had been given misleading information by the agent’s housing officer that he could sublet the whole property due to the type of tenancy he held. However, the Ombudsman has checked the tenancy agreement and can confirm that the agreement did not give the tenant the right to sublet the whole of the property. The tenancy agreement defined ‘subletting’ as giving another person the right to live in part of the property. It was therefore appropriate for the agent to reiterate in its stage 2 reply that the tenancy agreement allowed tenants to sublet part of their home as long as the tenant first obtained written permission from the landlord/agent.
The resident had advised the agent that he was seeking compensation of about £30,000 based on the discount he said he would have obtained had he been permitted to exercise the right to buy the property. The agent stated in its stage 2 reply that it did not consider it reasonable to compensate the resident for not being able to pursue the right to buy as he had not obtained written permission to sublet the property. The agent explained that the resident had lost his security of tenure by subletting the whole of the property and therefore had lost the right to buy the property.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the agent had clearly set out in the stage 2 reply why the resident had lost his security of tenure and why he was no longer eligible for the right to buy. The reasons given by the agent were consistent with the tenancy agreement and the 1985 Housing Act. Therefore, the agent had appropriately advised the resident of the reasons for its decision not to compensate him for the loss of the right to buy.
One of the potential outcomes requested by the resident was for the council to buy back another property in the PFI area that he owned. In response, the agent said in its stage 2 reply that it had discussed this option with the council and the council had advised that this was not something it was able to pursue. It added that whilst the property in question was in the boundary of the PFI area, the property was not in council ownership at the time the PFI bid was made to central government for funding permission to improve a portfolio of council–owned properties. The agent said the council had to comply with funding rules from that time which allow for the ongoing costs of refurbishment, management and maintenance of homes covered by the PFI contract. It was reasonable that the agent had discussed the resident’s proposal with the council and had clearly articulated the council’s response, including the reasons it was unable to pursue the buy-back option.
In his stage 2 complaint dated 29 October 2023, the resident said he believed his character and reputation and been unfairly tainted due to the advice given by the agent’s housing officer in 2021. The agent stated in its stage 2 reply that it had found the resident to be open and informative during the complaint investigation and had found no evidence from its staff that they believed his actions were wilful or that he had tried to deliberately hide his intentions. Given that the resident had expressed concerns that his character and reputation had been affected by the subletting, it was reasonable for the agent to provide reassurance to him that its staff did not consider he had deliberately tried to hide his intentions.
This Service understands that the resident had wider concerns about his reputation within the community. However, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the agent could not reasonably control the views of others within the community and therefore it was right for it to focus on giving the resident reassurances that its own staff did not believe the resident had intentionally tried to mislead the agent.
The agent stated in its stage 2 reply that although the resident had been responsible for obtaining written permission before subletting, the agent had found no evidence that the resident had followed up his initial enquiry or chased the agent for written permission. The resident advised the agent in an email dated 24 November 2023 that he had experienced challenging circumstances in relation to the COVID pandemic and this had made it difficult for him to pursue the matter further with the agent.
The Ombudsman understands the difficulties that were experienced by residents during the pandemic, particularly during the 2 national lockdowns that were in place during 2020 and the third lockdown which started on 6 January 2021. However, during this period the government had issued guidance requiring landlords (and managing agents) to continue providing essential services. Most non-essential services then resumed from April 2021.
Information seen by the Ombudsman shows that the resident exchanged text messages with the agent’s housing officer in October 2021 and left a voicemail message asking to speak with the housing officer. This indicates that the resident had some contact with the agent at that time. Therefore, although this Service recognises there were challenges faced by residents during the pandemic, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was reasonable for the agent to point out in its stage 2 reply that it had not found any evidence the resident had adequately pursued obtaining written permission to sublet the property.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the agent responded reasonably to the resident’s request for compensation for his reported financial losses and other impacts on him. The agent provided clear decisions regarding his request for compensation and gave clear reasons for its decisions. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no maladministration in the managing agent’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for his reported financial losses and other impacts on him.

The managing agent’s handling of the associated complaints

The managing agent operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the complaint. These timescales may be extended by a further 10 working days where necessary, in which case the managing agent will contact the resident to explain the reason for the extension and provide a date by which the response will be sent.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which was in operation during 2023, stated that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and then responded to within 10 working days. The code stated that stage 2 complaints should also be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The agent wrote to the resident on 23 August 2023 to advise him he had breached the terms of his tenancy by subletting the property without obtaining written permission from the agent or landlord. The resident replied to the agent on 24 August 2023 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the agent’s email and its conclusion that he had breached his tenancy agreement. The resident then wrote to the agent on 25 August 2023 and confirmed that he wanted the matter dealt with as a formal complaint.
The agent acknowledged the complaint on 6 September 2023 and sent its stage 1 reply on 5 October 2023. The agent had therefore taken 8 working days to acknowledge the complaint and a further 21 working days to respond. The agent therefore took longer than the prescribed timescales in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code to acknowledge the complaint and respond. This was inappropriate as this Service has not seen any evidence that the agent contacted the resident to agree an extension of time.
The agent acknowledged that the stage 1 response had been delayed and offered £100 compensation in its stage 1 reply. The amount offered was within the range of sums shown in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures that have caused inconvenience, time, trouble and delays. The view of this Service is that the agent made a proportionate offer of compensation to acknowledge the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
The resident contacted the agent on 19 October 2023 to say he was unhappy with the agent’s stage 1 reply. The agent spoke to the resident on 20 October 2023 to obtain further information about his complaint and wrote to him on 25 October 2023 summarising its understanding of the reasons he was unhappy with the stage 1 reply. It was reasonable for the agent to speak to the resident on 20 October 2023 to clarify the issues he was unhappy about and for the agent to then write to him on 25 October 2023 to confirm the outcome of the call.
The resident wrote to the agent on 29 October 2023 and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He provided detailed reasons why he was requesting the escalation. The agent acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 3 November 2023 and sent its stage 2 reply on 23 November 2023. The agent therefore took 7 working days to acknowledge the complaint from 25 October 2023 and 14 working days from this date to its response on 23 November 2023. Therefore, although the agent was late with its acknowledgement, it then sent its response within its 20-working day timescale following the acknowledgement, which was appropriate.
In his email dated 25 August 2023, the resident had expressed concerns to the agent about its proposal for the stage 1 investigating officer to be the head of neighbourhoods. The resident believed there to be a conflict of interest and therefore asked for “a neutral person from the council” to investigate the complaint. The resident wrote to this Service on 8 July 2024 and again expressed his concerns that the officer in question had a conflict of interest due to his previous involvement.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the agent’s complaints policy and can confirm the policy does not stipulate that the investigating officer should not have had previous involvement in the matter being investigated. Similarly, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code does not state that the investigating officer should not have had any previous involvement. The exception would be in a case where the complaint was about the conduct of the officer in question. In which case, it would not be appropriate for an officer to investigate their own conduct.
The main requirement in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code regarding investigating officers is that “the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1”. In this case, the same officer did not deal with both complaints. Therefore, the Ombudsman has concluded that the agent’s choice of investigating officers at stage 1 and 2 was reasonable.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found that there was a delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. However, the agent offered compensation of £100, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was a reasonable offer of redress to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the agent in relation to its handling of the resident’s initial enquiry about subletting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report that the council discouraged him from applying for the right to buy the property is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the agent in its handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for his reports of financial losses and other consequences associated with the agent’s actions regarding his subletting enquiry.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £100 offered in its stage 1 reply and the £1,000 offered at stage 2 if these sums have not already been paid.