Central and Cecil Housing Trust (201909418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909418

Central and Cecil Housing Trust

29 July 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s internal transfer request and communication about this.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a dishwasher and washing machine in her current property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident asked for an internal transfer in 2009 in view of her medical conditions, which were exacerbated by the location of her property within the building. The landlord added the resident to its internal transfer list at this time based on her medical evidence.
The complaint has been raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2019 regarding a vacant flat within the building. She explained that the poor conditions of her current property were affecting her mental and physical health and the noise and light from the carpark outside kept her awake at night. She had been asking for an internal transfer for ten years but her situation was now becoming more serious and asked to be transferred to a quieter flat on the other side of the building, away from the carpark.
The landlord responded on 2 July 2019 and explained that it was currently reviewing its waiting list and properties that would become void (empty). It noted that the resident was offered an alternative flat in 2018 but had declined as she needed a bath rather than a shower. It acknowledged that the resident was currently housed in a one-bedroom flat with a bath which suited her needs but the request to move was for noise reduction purposes. It explained that it had applicants on its waiting list who had a higher priority for a transfer. It acknowledged that this might be frustrating for the resident and offered to visit the property to see if anything could be done to reduce the noise levels in the meantime.
On 27 August 2019, the resident asked for an update on her current housing situation. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that following a meeting, it would be removing the resident from its internal transfer list as she was already housed in property suited to her needs. It noted that the resident’s flat was currently on the side of the building overlooking car park, which was less noisy than the properties at the front of the building.
Following this correspondence, the resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2019. She explained that since August 2019, she had been trying to gain clarification as to why she had been removed from the transfer list after ten years of waiting. She said that this had caused a great deal of stress and felt that the letter she had sent from her GP had been ignored. She added that her request to install a washing machine and dishwasher in her property had been declined by the landlord and did not feel this was fair as other tenants in the building had these facilities within their properties. The resident attached a supporting letter from her GP dated 27 August 2019.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2019 and asked it to address the resident’s complaint within 21 working days.
The resident had not received a response from the landlord and asked for further support from this Service. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 7 January 2020 and asked it to provide a response within ten working days. The landlord responded to this Service on 8 January 2020 and explained that it had received no complaint from, of on behalf of, the resident. It confirmed that it would contact her directly to discuss this.
The landlord responded to the resident in January 2020 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that it had kept in regular communication with the resident to keep her updated. It repeated its previous offer to try and improve the noise situation and make the resident’s current property more comfortable. It confirmed that it could arrange for a surveyor to attend her property and specify any repair or restoration works needed which could be carried out to reduce the light and sound she experienced from outside.
2. It would not permit the resident to install her own washing machine or dishwasher in her property because it had provided a communal laundry room for all tenants of the building and there was a risk of overloading the communal water supply as well as unnecessary leaks if the washing machine was not plumbed in correctly. It explained that the resident could raise a formal complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2020 and explained the following:
1. She wanted to raise a formal complaint as she did not feel she had been treated fairly by the landlord and did not feel she was given adequate reasons for her removal from the transfer list. She expressed concern that the landlord’s response suggested that she had been removed from the transfer list in 2018 rather than 2019. She repeated her concerns about the washing machine and dishwasher.
2. She did not feel that she had been given the opportunity to fully explain her complaint in the brief telephone call she had with the landlord and said that there were inaccuracies in its previous response. In 2009, she had asked to be moved from her current flat overlooking the carpark to one overlooking the gardens. Due to her medical conditions she needed to leave her bedroom window open at night to stay cool but the noise and light from the carpark made it difficult for her to sleep. She explained that the landlord had only advised her to keep the window shut to prevent any noise from outside.
3. She advised that she had been told to wait until a suitable flat was available but had not been shown a suitable flat in ten years, despite flats in the building becoming available. She explained that she had refused a flat in 2018 because it did not have a bath and it was on a lower floor than she had requested. She had compromised as she had been waiting nine years for a suitable property and asked the landlord to remove the shower so that she could pay to have a bath installed. This was refused by the landlord and would have come at an additional cost to the resident, so she declined the flat for this reason.
4. She expressed concern that other tenants had been transferred outside of the landlord’s point system and she had been told that she was first on the transfer list on more than one occasion. She also expressed concern about the landlord’s communication in that it had ignored her initial complaint and communication from this Service in November 2019. She detailed her medical conditions and stated that her current living conditions were affecting her health.
5. She added that other tenants in the building had their own washing machines which had been installed by the landlord. She expressed concern at the landlord’s response as any washing machine could cause leaks if it was not plumbed properly and believed that the landlord had one rule for some tenants and other rules for her.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2020 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident’s reason for submitting a transfer request was based around her medical conditions which were aided by keeping her bedroom window open. As an initial measure, it had offered to carry out reasonable adjustments to the property to see if the issues could be resolved without the need of a transfer, but this was declined by the resident.
2. It added that all internal transfers were discretionary and the decision to remove the resident from this list in 2019 was made as it determined that, with reasonable adjustments, the resident was housed in accommodation suitable for her needs
3. It had decided to honour the resident’s housing transfer application and said she would be added back to the transfer list with immediate effect. It advised that that priority was given to people with a greater need to be housed. As such she would not automatically be considered for any property that became available. It apologised for the distress this had caused the resident. It also advised that in the meantime, it could arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and make a referral for any reasonable adjustments which may be necessary.
4. It explained that it was not able to discuss other residents’ matters due to data protection regulations. It explained that all tenants were expected to use the communal facilities that were provided. No washing machines could be installed in individual flats without its express permission. In the resident’s case, it had reviewed her request and had not granted its permission. It explained that the resident would need to use the communal facilities and this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two of its process if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated on 12 March 2020 for the following reasons:
1. She felt that the landlord had disregarded her medical evidence and the impact the property had on her health. She added that there was no transparency about how the landlord made decisions regarding transfers. She said that she was removed from the transfer list and it was only after she had contacted the Ombudsman, that the landlord had decided to reinstate her place.
2. She did not feel the decision to remove her from the list initially had been fully explained and said she had been given contradicting reasons for this. She felt that the reason for not moving her was because the landlord would need to carry out repairs to her flat before letting it which would come at an additional cost. She added that there was currently a suitable flat within the building and asked the landlord to transfer her.
3. She said that the landlord had lied to her in saying that no other tenants had washing machines or dishwasher as she had seen others using theirs. She said that she had needed to do her washing by hand which aggravated her skin condition. She said that when she had tried to use the communal washing machines, other tenants had spoken about her skin condition and told her not to use the machines. She said that she could no longer use the communal areas due to this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated on 6 May 2020. It confirmed that it had received her request on 12 March 2020 but had been unable to open the attachment and asked for this to be resent. It had received a follow-up email from the resident on 16 April 2020 and explained that the correspondence would need to be posted. it clarified that the Ombudsman did not order the landlord to reinstate the resident’s position on the transfer waiting list and this was done following its investigation of her complaint. It also confirmed that it would prioritise new applicants for housing within its properties. It was unable to offer the resident the flat she had requested as there was currently another occupant residing in it. It added that it had not authorised any resident of the building to install a washing machine, therefore any tenant who currently had one had done so without permission. It confirmed that it would now form a panel hearing to review her complaint and aimed to hold this hearing within 20 working days. It added that the panel hearings were currently postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and there might be delay to the date on which the hearing would be held.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 13 May 2020 and asked it to provide a stage two response within ten working days. We added that if Covid-19 was likely to cause a further delay in replying, the landlord should contact the resident and update her on when the complaint would be resolved.
The Ombudsman sent the landlord a further email on 13 July 2020 following the resident’s concern that she had not received a response. We asked the landlord to contact the resident regarding the issues to ascertain why she remained dissatisfied and explain what stage the complaint was at. We asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident within ten working days. The landlord responded to this Service the following day and explained that its stage two panel hearings had been suspended because of Covid-19, it was now looking to reinstate these where possible. It confirmed that it would write to the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 August 2020 and explained that all stage two complaints were delayed because of Covid-19. It asked the resident whether she would be interested in carrying this out via video conference. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 14 August 2020 and explained that the resident did not have access to the internet and therefore could not take part in the panel hearing over video call. We asked the landlord to agree a mutually acceptable means of progressing the complaint by 28 August 2020.
The landlord sent a further letter to the resident on 18 August 2020 and explained that it had been made aware that the resident did not have access to the internet and she was concerned about how it would proceed with its stage two complaint hearing. It apologised for any misunderstanding and confirmed that it would be her choice how she wished to proceed and it would try to find a way that fitted with the resident’s request.
On 27 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for an update on her complaint. She asked the landlord to provide a date for the panel hearing as she had delayed her medical appointments so that they did not occur on the same day.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 23 December 2020 as the resident had not received a response to her complaint. We asked the landlord to provide its stage two response within five working days.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 12 January 2021 and explained that the resident now understood that the review panel could go ahead without her being present. We asked the landlord to provide its stage two response within five working days.
On 13 January 2021, the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order to the landlord, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as the landlord had failed to respond to the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 January 2021 and explained the following:
1. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its refusal to give permission to install a washing machine and dishwasher. It explained that when the property was built, there was no provision for individual washing machines to be installed. Communal washing machines were provided and tenants were expected to use these. If it allowed individual washing machines to be installed in each property, a greater amount of pressure would be added to the communal stack than it was able to take and there were increased risks of leaks. It confirmed that only one other property owned by the landlord was granted permission to have a washing machine but this was not within the resident’s building.
2. It explained that it had explored the possibility of installing a bath in the flat that had been offered to the resident in 2018. The conversion was quoted at £3000 which the resident could not afford at that time. It added that when a shower or bath was in good condition, the landlord would not usually replace it. In some cases, a shower or bath could be funded by a local authority in response to a medical need, but the landlord would need to repay the local authority if it reversed this provision. It confirmed that this aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
3. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the length of time it had taken to respond to her transfer application and its communication about this. It confirmed that it currently had 150-200 people on the internal transfer list, this did not include its general waiting list for housing. The landlord was required to consider the needs of each resident rather than their preferences. Based on its assessment of the resident’s case, she was offered a property in 2018 but this was declined.
4. It added that the resident had signed a disclaimer where she refused the service it had available to check on the general wellbeing of tenants. It felt this may have contributed to the minimal verbal contact she had received during the handling of her transfer. However, it had reviewed information provided by the resident’s GP and support worker who both made it clear that the resident had serious medical conditions and was adversely affected by living in a ground floor property facing the car park.
5. It acknowledged that the resident had been asking for an internal transfer for ten years and said that it must have been shocking to the resident when she was removed in August 2019. It noted that this had been done without consulting the resident’s medical professionals. it acknowledged that it had failed to adequately inform and consult the resident about her relative ranking on the housing list and considered this lack of communication to be a failure in service.
6. In view of this, the landlord said that it would write to the resident to apologise for its failures in communication. It also offered £150 compensation in view of the time and distress caused during this period. It also confirmed that the landlord would contact the resident to discuss and review her needs, to explain its points system and visit any available flats with the resident to see whether they would suit her needs. It said that this would give the resident a greater understanding of its limitations given the limited availability of housing stock available.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s internal transfer request and communication about this.

The landlord’s allocations policy states that existing tenants of the landlord can apply for an internal transfer. If a tenant is eligible, they would be placed on an internal transfer list which is separate from the general waiting list for housing. Any transfers would be at the discretion of the landlord and subject to the suitability of available properties and its ranking system. The resident’s position on the list may change and the landlord is not able to provide a timescale for how long it will take for a suitable property to be offered as this would depend on the availability of suitable properties and whether there are other applicants with a higher priority. Even if a resident is at the top of the list at one point, their position may change at any time if other applicants are added to the list who have a higher priority. Where the landlord has concerns that a property may not be suitably adapted to meet an applicant’s immediate needs, it would seek an occupational therapist assessment and carry out any recommended adaptations as required.
The resident initially applied to be placed on the landlord’s internal transfer list in 2009 and provided supporting evidence from her doctor. She was placed on this list due to her medical grounds which made it clear that the resident had serious medical conditions and was adversely affected by living in a ground floor property facing the car park. In her complaint, she expressed concern that she had been waiting over ten years to be transferred despite being told that she was first on the list on different occasions and had not been shown any suitable properties. She was also dissatisfied that she was removed from the list in August 2019 without an adequate reason.
The landlord added the resident back to the transfer list on 3 March 2020 and has acknowledged that its decision to remove her from its list after ten years must have caused frustration and inconvenience. This was reasonable as the landlord acknowledged that it had not consulted the resident’s medical professionals before doing so and confirmed that the resident had medical grounds for a transfer.
It is noted that the resident has waited for a considerable length of time for a transfer and it is understandable that she may be frustrated by this. A transfer is subject to the availability of suitable properties within a limited stock and is partly determined by other people’s circumstances. The landlord would need to consider whether there is anyone above the resident on its transfer list. Neither the Ombudsman nor the landlord can speed this process up as this is largely beyond the landlord’s control. It is not disputed that the resident has medical grounds for a transfer, however, there may be others on the transfer list with an even more urgent need, such as those facing homelessness or fleeing domestic abuse.
This does not discount the resident’s need for an alternative property, and the landlord has acted reasonably by offering to inspect the current property so that reasonable adjustments can be made to make it more comfortable in the meantime. It may be helpful for the resident to contact the local authority’s Occupational Health department (Occupational Health) or her GP to be referred to Occupational Health. An occupational therapist can inspect the property and carry out an assessment based on the resident’s needs; they can then make recommendations to the landlord for any reasonable adjustments to be made within her current property. This may be beneficial to see if there are any recommended adjustments which may make her current property more comfortable before an alternative is found.
The landlord has accepted that the resident was not given clear advice regarding her transfer and there had been minimal verbal contact during this time. it attributed this to a failure in its communication and offered £150 compensation. The Ombudsman considers this amount of compensation to be proportionate to the landlord’s service failings in communication and briefly removing the resident from its transfer list. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance and is suitable where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. In this case the overall outcome does not appear to have been affected as there is no evidence to suggest the resident would have been offered an alternative property during the time when she was removed from the transfer list.
It is noted that following the landlord’s final response, the resident had indicated that she did not want compensation. However, the Ombudsman recognises financial compensation to be appropriate in recognition of a landlord’s service failures and the effect this had on the resident. It is entirely up to the resident to decide whether she wishes to accept any compensation or not.
In summary, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its handling of her internal transfer and its communication. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident in this case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a dishwasher and washing machine in her property.

The tenancy agreement states that the resident should not make any alterations or additions to the property without obtaining the landlord’s prior written consent, which the landlord would not unreasonably withhold. Residents should not assume that permission would automatically be given as the landlord would need to assess the suitability of the property for the alteration, the possible impact on neighbours, the resource cost to monitor and inspect the works, the impact on future maintenance, the marketability of the altered property and the competence of the persons proposed to complete the works.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for requesting a washing machine and dishwasher. However, the landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it would not grant permission for the resident to install her own washing machine and dishwasher at the property. It explained that the building was not suited to have individual washing machines in each property as a greater amount of pressure would be added to the communal water system and there were increased risks of leaks. This is reasonable as the water supply of the entire building could be compromised if each tenant was given permission to install their own washing machine and dishwasher. Communal washing machines were provided and tenants are expected to use these.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that other tenants within the building had their own washing facilities. The landlord has explained that only one other property it owns was granted permission to have a washing machine but this was not within the resident’s building. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman which suggests that this washing machine was installed for medical reasons. This response implied that if other tenants in the building had these individual facilities, they had installed these without the landlord’s permission and demonstrates that the landlord had not shown favour to other tenants within the resident’s building.
The landlord has, however, failed to acknowledge the resident’s comments regarding the behaviour of other tenants which prevented her from using the communal wash facilities and her claim that she had been washing her clothes by hand which affected her skin condition. It is understandable that the resident may not wish to use the communal facilities given her claim of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from other tenants. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and investigate this matter as an ASB case, in line with its ASB policy, since it was ultimately the actions of other tenants which had prevented her from using the communal facilities.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install a washing machine and dishwasher at her property. Whilst its decision to refuse permission was reasonable given the construction of the building, it has not satisfactorily addressed the resident’s concerns around using the communal facilities. The landlord should offer the resident further compensation in recognition of the additional inconvenience this may have caused. it is recommended that if the landlord receives further reports of antisocial behaviour towards the resident from other tenants, it handles such reports in line with its antisocial behaviour policy and responds accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage process for handling complaints. At stage one, a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome, they can request to escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, a panel hearing would take place and a response should be issued within 20 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should update the resident with a revised target for a full response.
The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order to the landlord on 13 January 2021 because it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord was in breach of the Code which relates to the maximum timescale for complaint responses. In this instance the landlord has failed to manage the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale resulting in unnecessary delay and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman initially wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2019 and explained that the resident wished to raise a complaint about being removed from its internal transfer list and being denied permission to install a washing machine and dishwasher. Whilst an informal response was sent to the resident in late January 2020, the landlord did not provide its formal stage one response until 3 March 2020, which was considerable outside its complaint timescales at stage one.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 12 March 2020 but the landlord’s stage two response was not issued until 26 January 2021, which considerably lengthened the timeframe of the complaint and caused the resident significant inconvenience. Whilst some delay is to be expected because of Covid-19, the landlord was aware from 14 August 2020 that the resident did not have access to the internet and was therefore unable to participate in a panel hearing held virtually. There is no evidence that the landlord considered other options in a timely way or referred to its own complaints policy, which did not state that a resident was required to be present for the panel hearing. Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider other options for progressing the complaint such as holding a panel hearing without the resident being present, holding the hearing over the phone or issuing a stage two complaint response without the need for a hearing.
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord has failed to acknowledge these complaint handling failures in its stage two response on 26 January 2021 or offered any suitable redress to the resident in view of this. The length of time it has taken the landlord to respond to the issue is not sufficient and does warrant financial compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. It is also recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint handling processes to develop systems for carrying out stage two responses where it is not possible to arrange a panel, for example, a review of the complaint by a senior member of staff.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the resident’s internal transfer request and communication about this which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install a washing machine and dishwasher in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has apologised to the resident for its lack of clear communication regarding her internal transfer request and offered £150 in view of the inconvenience and distress caused. This amount is proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the landlord’s failings.
The landlord’s decision not to grant permission to the resident to install a dishwasher and washing machine in her property was reasonable given the components of the building. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s reasons for requesting this and her reports of antisocial behaviour from other tenants in the communal facilities.
The landlord has failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and has not managed the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale resulting in unnecessary delay and inconvenience. Despite being aware of its complaint handling failures, the landlord did not address this in its stage two response on 26 January 2021 or offer suitable redress to the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident £400, comprised of:
  1. £150 as previously offered in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its communication
  2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience cause by not addressing the resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour from other tenants.
  3. £200 in view of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that if the landlord receives further reports of antisocial behaviour towards the resident from other tenants, it handles this in line with its antisocial behaviour policy.
It is also recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint handling processes to develop systems for carrying out stage two responses where it is not possible for a resident to attend a panel, for example, a review of the complaint by a senior member of staff.