Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202225106)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225106

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 June 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. He has vulnerabilities including mental health concerns, suicidal ideations and is in remission from cancer. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 17th floor of a high-rise block.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 18 January 2023 and said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application. He said that his banding had been reassessed into a lower band and he was also unable to bid for 2-bedroom properties. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to provide a response to the complaint.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had initially assessed the rehousing application in a higher band because of an ongoing leak in the resident’s property which meant it would permanently decant (move) him to another 2-bedroom property.
    2. It had since resolved the leak and therefore it did not need to offer a decant. This meant it would no longer offer a 2-bedroom property because his household size requires a 1-bedroom property only.
    3. It had reassessed his banding into band B based on the medical evidence it had.
    4. If he wished to have a 2-bed property, he could provide further evidence to reflect a medical need for a second bedroom, or he could consider a mutual exchange or remain in his current property.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, but it is unclear when this occurred.
  5. On 14 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that the resident escalated his complaint because he remained unhappy with its decision to not change his banding. It said that due to a lack of new information to consider, it would not change its decision and confirmed that it had previously responded to all points within its initial complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service because he remained unhappy with the lower banding and the decision to not allow bids for 2-bedroom properties. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 18 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application affected his mental health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has asked for rehousing. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise him over other applicants or tenants that require rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about the handling of his rehousing application and its decision to change his banding. The resident has since told this Service that he disputes that it had resolved the leak at the time of the complaint response. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaint matters which the resident had not raised within the landlord’s complaints process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. Instead, this Service can consider the landlord’s decision to reassess his banding and its communication to the resident about the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

  1. The resident applied for rehousing through the landlord’s waiting list. The landlord’s rent a home criteria policy states that it manages the platform in-house by its own staff. However, it is unclear when the resident applied for rehousing due to a lack of evidence from the landlord.
  2. On 19 October 2021, the landlord considered medical evidence provided by the resident’s GP about the impact of his property condition on his mental health. Within internal emails, it said that the impact of the constant repair issues relating to a leak had impacted his mental health. The landlord referred him to its tenancy sustainment team to complete a referral to social care which was appropriate for it to do.
  3. It is unclear when the landlord decided to assess the rehousing application into band A2, which was within the highest category of banding. In its complaint response, it said it had initially assessed the application as band A2 because of an ongoing leak which meant the resident required a permanent decant to another property. It said it would offer a like-for-like decant to another 2-bedroom property. There is no evidence of when it made this decision which is a record keeping failure.
  4. Additionally, it is unclear when the landlord reassessed the resident’s application and changed his banding to a lower priority of band B. The landlord said that it sent a letter to the resident explaining why his banding changed following an informal rehousing query. However, the landlord has not provided this evidence to the Ombudsman. It is therefore difficult to assess the communication and handling of the rehousing application due to the landlord’s poor record keeping.
  5. The landlord said in its complaint response that it had reassessed the resident’s banding based on the fact that it had resolved a leak. It said it now did not need to offer a decant and that it therefore meant it did not need to offer a like-for-like 2-bedroom property. It confirmed he was eligible for a 1-bedroom property based on his household needs. However, it is unclear when it changed his bedroom eligibility.
  6. Within the landlord’s internal emails sent on 13 October 2022, it said that it had originally assessed the rehousing application into the higher banding because of the need for a decant based on the leak but also the impact of the property generally on the resident’s mental health. It questioned why it needed to further assess his housing needs.
  7. Further emails clarified that the leak remained a reoccurring issue, but a member of the landlord’s senior management confirmed that a decant was not required and it would not award a move based on outstanding repairs required to his property. It is unclear why it made this decision as it knew the leak remained ongoing intermittently. This was apparently the same basis for its decision to award the higher banding for a decant of a like-for-like 2-bedroom property. This would have understandably caused confusion and added distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The landlord visited the resident at his property on 17 October 2022 and explained that he was only able to bid for 1-bedroom properties. It advised him to provide evidence of a need for a 2-bedroom property based on medical requirements in order for it to reassess his application. It also later advised of this within its complaint response where it added that he could also consider the option of a mutual exchange to another 2-bedroom property. This advice was reasonable.
  9. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show whether the landlord appropriately communicated its decision to change the resident’s banding and bedroom eligibility. Additionally, it is a concern that the banding was reassessed, which impacted the resident’s bedroom eligibility, despite evidence that the reason for its original higher banding remained a problem.
  10. Considering the failures identified within this investigation, and the distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident. Additionally, the landlord is ordered to reassess the resident’s housing application and confirm the resident’s banding, effective date and bedroom eligibility.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted this Service about his rehousing application. On 18 January 2023, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days (by 1 February 2023). The landlord delayed in providing its response which it made on 14 March 2023. This was 39 working days after notification of the complaint which was not appropriate. This would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. This is a record keeping failure. It is therefore difficult to assess whether the landlord fully considered and assessed the resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction with its complaint response.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. The staff member who responded to the initial complaint also handled the response to the stage 2 complaint. This is not in line with the Code effective at the time of the complaint. The Code stated that the person responding to the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. If a different person had investigated the stage 2 complaint, it would have ensured a fair and independent investigation into the resident’s complaint, and it is a complaint handling failure that it did not do so.
  4. Considering the failures identified with the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident but where there is no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. The apology should include details of where service failures occurred, as identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay £250 compensation for its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. This should be paid directly to the resident and not the rent account.
    3. Pay £150 for its associated complaint handling. This should be paid directly to the resident and not the rent account.
    4. Reassess the resident’s housing application in accordance with its policy on rehousing and confirm his banding, effective date and bedroom eligibility. As part of this, it should consider the property condition and explain its decision as to whether a decant move is necessary. It should provide the outcome to both the resident and this Service.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.