Vico Homes Limited (202334745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334745

Vico Homes Limited

29 May 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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s report of a data breach.
2. response to the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
3. handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom, semi-detached house and the resident lives with her child. She moved to the property through a mutual exchange in November 2023. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
On 27 November 2023 the resident submitted a new request for a mutual exchange in person at the landlord’s office alongside the proposed exchange partner. On 4 December 2023 the landlord refused the resident’s application on the basis that, if it were approved, one of the properties would be under occupied.
On 5 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said:
1. she wanted to appeal the mutual exchange rejection.
2. the landlord’s local lettings strategy was vague and states that couples with medical needs can be housed in a 2 bedroom home.
3. the landlord had breached General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by informing her of the reasons for the application rejection.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. a mutual exchange would not be approved if either of the proposed properties would be under occupied. It said 2-bedroom houses require households to have 1 to 2 children. The couple wanting to exchange with the resident did not have children. It did not matter that both households were already living 2-bedroom properties.
2. in making its decision it had considered its own mutual exchange process, the local lettings strategy and ground 3 of schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985.
3. it had communicated to the resident the reason for the refusal during a telephone call before she received the decision in writing. During a second telephone call with a different employee, the landlord’s employee told the resident it would not provide reasons for the refusal with the resident for data protection purposes.
4. it was sorry for the contradiction and confusion. However, it found there was no data breach because the resident already knew the information provided about the proposed exchange partner and the policies relied upon in making the decision were public.
5. the landlord’s employee had told the resident a mutual exchange could only be approved once every 12 months. It said this was not correct. It said the employee then checked and phoned the resident back to confirm there was no limit on mutual exchange requests. The landlord said the employee acted appropriately by seeking advice and updating the resident.
On 23 December 2023 the resident escalated her request. She said her queries had not been answered.
On 5 January 2024 the landlord issued its final response. It said:
1. it was refusing to escalate the complaint to stage 2 because the resolution that the resident wanted could not be provided. It referred to its complaint policy in making the decision to refuse to accept the escalation request.
2. the decision to refuse the mutual exchange request was in line with legislation and the local lettings strategy. It reiterated its reasoning.
3. it understood the resident’s disappointment and confusion, but the stage 1 complaint response remained unchanged.
4. if the resident had any additional information or evidence she wanted to submit, she could do so by contacting the landlord.
5. it advised the resident to approach the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this Service in January 2024. She said the landlord’s decision had made her disappointed and anxious. She wanted the landlord to approve the mutual exchange. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states

“the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

j. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”

During the complaint, the resident expressed concern that the landlord had shared data about another resident and that she wished for the situation to be treated as a data breach. The matter was considered through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, during which the landlord stated in its complaint response that it did not consider that it had breached any data regulations.
This is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right.
If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns about its data breach, and the actions that it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly. While we have not investigated the matters relating to the data breach, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

The scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. Whilst we can assess the complaint the resident has referred to this Service and the response the landlord has provided, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to permit a mutual exchange to go ahead. What we will consider is how the landlord handled the mutual exchange application and communicated their decision to refuse the mutual exchange.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange toolkit makes clear the circumstances in which permission for an exchange will be refused and what a resident can expect when they contact the landlord to request a mutual exchange. It says it will provide the resident with initial advice and mutual exchange application forms. It says it will then complete a thorough assessment of the mutual exchange application and notify the customer within 42 days of the outcome of their mutual exchange application.
Ground 3 of schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985 says that a landlord can withhold consent to assignment by way of exchange if “the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is substantially more extensive than is reasonably required by the proposed assignee.”
This is simplified in the landlord’s mutual exchange toolkit which states that a ground for refusing permission is when the property is bigger than the applicant reasonably requires (the property would be under occupied).
The landlord’s choice-based lettings policy outlines how it assesses under occupation. It says no offers of accommodation will be made where the family size exceeds the bedroom standard. The bedroom standard is based on the ages and composition of a household. It says it uses the government’s bedroom standard. This allows a separate bedroom for each of the following:
1. a married or cohabiting couple.
2. any other adult aged 21 years or more.
3. a pair of adolescents aged 10 to 20 years of the same sex.
4. a pair of children aged under 10 years regardless of sex.
The resident submitted her request for a mutual exchange on 27 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident its rejection letter 38 days later. This was appropriate and in keeping with the timeframe for decision making outlined in the mutual exchange toolkit.
The landlord’s records show that it considered the resident’s request for a mutual exchange according to the guidance in the mutual exchange toolkit. It was reasonable that the landlord explained its decision to refuse the request for a mutual exchange. The landlord explained to the resident why it had refused the request on the basis of the exclusions outlined in the mutual exchange request form, the mutual exchange toolkit, the bedroom standard and the Housing Act 1985.
The landlord clarified its position at stage 1 with reference to the relevant guidance. The landlord’s telephone call records also show that between 27 November 2023 and the final response on 5 January 2024, it discussed the mutual exchange on at least 8 occasions with the resident in response to her queries. The records show that the landlord was contactable and responsive. This was reasonable and in line with the mutual exchange toolkit.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for providing her with misinformation about how many times she could apply for a mutual exchange. However, there are no specific details of the call in which the landlord told the resident she could only apply for a mutual exchange once a year. While the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate, it clarified its position in its complaint responses.
The landlord communicated the reason for the mutual exchange refusal within the timescales agreed. It also did not prevent the resident from making a mutual exchange application and it clearly explained its position several times throughout the complaint.
We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a mutual exchange. Although the resident was briefly misinformed about the mutual exchange application process, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this error and there was minor detriment to resident due to this failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. These timescales are compliant with those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
The complaints policy states that a resident can request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, it says that the landlord may choose not to escalate to stage 2 if the resolution requested by the resident cannot be provided, due to it being disproportionate, or outside of the landlords control to influence or change.
Section 5.11 of the Code states that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Landlords must clearly set out these reasons, and they must comply with the provisions set out in section 2 of the Code. Acceptable exclusions include:
1. the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
2. legal proceedings have started.
3. the complaint concerns matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
The resident made a complaint on 5 December 2023. The landlord telephoned the resident on 6 December and 12 December 2023 to discuss the details of the complaint. Though it was positive that the landlord responded to the complaint in a timely manner, it would have been appropriate and in line with the Code for the landlord to have sent the resident a formal complaint acknowledgement letter with timescales for when she would receive a response. That it did not do this was a failing.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 December 2023. This was within the timescales set out in the complaints policy, which was appropriate.
After the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, the landlord provided a final response within 20 working days. However, in the response it said it refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was not compliant with the Code. That it did not escalate the complaint is evidence that the landlord operated an obstructive complaints process.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s position on the substantive issue may have remained unchanged had it issued the resident with a formal stage 2 complaint response. However, it would have provided the resident with the reassurance that the issue had exhausted the complaints procedure and that she had been treated fairly. This may have resolved the complaint earlier and potentially without referral to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s complaints policy has been updated and is now compliant with the Code, which reduces the risk of a similar failing happening again. Additionally, the impact of the refusal to issue a formal stage 2 complaint, although a failing, has limited impact on the outcome of the overall complaint.
The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint because the landlord did not formally acknowledge or escalate the complaint. It did not apologise for these failings. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £50 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a data breach. This is because it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide an apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.