Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202340253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340253

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

21 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s concerns regarding removal of access to the bin chute.
   2. the resident’s transfer request.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of flats. The resident has several health conditions, including cirrhosis of the liver which has impacted on the function of his heart, spina bifida, sciatica and depression. The resident uses a walking stick.
3. In March and April 2021, the resident began the process of a mutual exchange with another of the landlord’s tenants, but was unsuccessful due to the other party moving out of area. On 17 September 2021, the resident applied to the landlord for a transfer to a ground floor property because of his medical needs.
4. The resident asked for an update on his application in May 2022, but was told that he had not been added to the transfer waiting list and that he no longer qualified due to a change in the landlord’s policy. On 5 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again and told the landlord that he had fallen on the concrete steps at the property. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions in 2022 and 2023 to enquire about the progress of his transfer application, provide medical evidence of his current condition and ask about the availability of nearby ground floor accommodation.
5. On 5 September 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
   1. He had informed the landlord that he needed to be rehoused at ground level due to his medical condition which was affecting his mobility. He felt he had been totally ignored by his Housing Officer and Manager and that he had been passed from pillar to post, been promised things would be put in place, but nothing had materialised.
   2. He had requested consideration for four properties at a development close to his current home, by mutual exchange, and by transfer when properties became vacant.
   3. He had been told that the properties were not part of his landlord’s stock once they became vacant and that his only option was to register with Manchester Move.
   4. When he registered with Manchester Move, he was told he would need to communicate with the landlord directly.
   5. He had been trying to speak to someone at the landlord for 3 years, but he felt ignored.
   6. He had sent medical evidence from his doctors, social workers, and mental health practitioner.
   7. His mother had called the landlord on his behalf and was told they would contact him, but had not done so.
   8. He had been informed on 2 separate occasions that a coordinator would come out to inspect his flat, but they had not attended.
   9. The bin chute had been removed meaning that he now needed to carry rubbish down the stairs, which was unsafe.
   10. He wanted to be given priority to move to a property in the nearby block if one became available again.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 September 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that there had been poor communication and missed appointments. The landlord agreed that the resident’s health conditions made living in his property difficult, and noted that it had arranged an assessment which had taken place on 13 September 2023. Following the outcome of the assessment, the landlord said it would submit an application for a management transfer to the landlord’s panel. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation for the missed appointments and poor communication identified in its investigation.
7. On 19 October 2023, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s management transfer application was approved, and that he would be notified when a suitable property became available.
8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2024 and the Ombudsman requested copies of complaint correspondence from the landlord on 6 March 2024. The landlord confirmed that the resident had not previously asked for his complaint to be escalated, but it would now escalate the complaint to stage 2 in light of him remaining dissatisfied and contacting the Ombudsman.
9. On 22 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It said that the landlord believed the stage 1 response was thorough and acknowledged delays in communication and missed appointments and that in the landlord’s view, an appropriate resolution was offered which led to the resident being assessed and approved for a management transfer. The landlord advised the resident that the delay in an offer being made to him was likely to be due to the small geographical area he wanted to live in.
10. The resident told the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate his case. He said the situation had been ongoing for several years, and after removal of the bin chute, he was worried he would fall.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

11. 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.
12. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concern regarding removal of access to the bin chute is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
13. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states:
    1. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale;
14. In his correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised concerns about the removal of access to the bin chute at the property.
15. The Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint and which the landlord has issued a final response to under its complaints procedure. This is so the landlord can resolve the complaint itself before the Ombudsman becomes involved.
16. In this case, there is evidence that the resident raised his concerns in his initial complaint and that the landlord offered a stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence, however, that the resident then indicated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. His complaint was subsequently not addressed at stage 2 and therefore did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. If the resident completes the landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman. The focus of this investigation is the issue raised about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Scope of Investigation

17. The Ombudsman will not always consider complaints that relate to events several years prior as in the Ombudsman’s view, it would be reasonable for a resident to bring any dissatisfaction to a landlord’s attention as early as possible. In this case, however, while the resident did not raise his complaint about his 2021 transfer application until September 2023, he was only informed that he was not on the transfer list May 2022, and that at that time, the landlord had led him to believe that further enquiries were being made to see if he could be added. According to the records, it was then not until February 2023 that the landlord confirmed that the resident would not be added to the transfer list. It was therefore at this point that the resident had reason to complain, and he did so months later. With this in mind, our investigation has considered the full timeline of events, dating back to when the resident first chased his application in May 2022.
18. The resident has advised us that in resolution of his complaint, he would like to be moved to a ground floor property. It would be unfair for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to take such an action, however. The Ombudsman would not make a recommendation that could result in other residents on the housing transfer list being disadvantaged by having their allocations delayed or pushed back. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we would be unable to establish whether there are others with greater priority than the resident in this case and therefore whether ordering a transfer would result in a poor outcome for another resident. We have, nevertheless, commented on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

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

19. Prior to April 2022, the landlord’s transfer application form included a wide range of criteria/reasons for a transfer request, including medical needs.
20. The landlord’s allocations policy from April 2022 states that customers who wish to move to another of the landlord’s properties will be advised to apply to the choice based lettings scheme for the area they require, and that 80% of its empty properties will be advertised through choice based lettings schemes. The policy also states that the landlord will maintain a waiting list for, and directly rehouse, customers who are facing financial hardship due to under occupying a home, customers who are living in overcrowded accommodation, and customers who live in the Bolton area who have medical rehousing needs.
21. The landlord’s Management Transfer procedure from November 2022 outlines its operation in circumstances where a customer would be at significant and immediate risk if they were to stay in their property. One of the criteria for a management transfer is extreme physical disability/medical reasons where the tenant is no longer able to access the existing home. The policy specifies that a Management Transfer Request form should be submitted by either the Tenancy Sustainment Coach, Community Safety Officer, or Community Coordinator.
22. The policy states that the customer will receive one reasonable offer of a property, and should that offer be refused, the tenant will need to find alternative accommodation themselves.
23. The landlord’s records show that the landlord received a transfer application from the resident dated 17 September 2021, requesting a move to a ground floor property due to his significant, and progressive medical conditions which were affecting his mobility.
24. Records show that the resident and his support worker contacted the landlord several times after the application was sent to the landlord. There are records of telephone calls in September and October 2021 to check that the application was received, and a letter in November 2021 to provide further information in support of the transfer application.
25. The resident contacted the landlord again to follow up on his application on 9 May 2022. On that occasion, the landlord confirmed to the resident and his support worker that he was not on the landlord’s transfer waiting list, and that due to a change in the landlord’s policy, he would no longer be eligible to be added.
26. The records show that the resident’s support worker told the landlord that she had evidence that the application had been sent to the landlord by registered post in September 2021, and that it would be unfair if he could not be added to the transfer waiting list now, as he would have been eligible at the time his application was submitted.
27. The landlord’s employee told the resident that they would make enquiries to see whether he could be added to the list. The landlord’s internal emails show that the landlord’s employee asked a colleague if the resident could be added to the transfer waiting list, in light of the apparent error on the part of the landlord in failing to process the resident’s transfer application in September 2021.This was a fair approach, in light of the apparent error. The landlord’s employee also appropriately advised the resident and his support worker of other options such as finding a property for mutual exchange, or registering with the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme.
28. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action or contacted the resident to confirm whether it was possible for him to be added to the transfer list following this conversation in May 2022. This failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s request to consider his application was inappropriate.
29. The resident contacted the landlord every month from August 2022 to February 2023 enquiring about the progress of his transfer application. There is evidence that the landlord’s employee raised a further query by internal email on 5 August 2022 about whether the resident could be added to the transfer list, further to the apparent failure to process his previous application, but no evidence that the landlord took any further steps to resolve this issue during this period. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on the status of his previous application until 20 February 2023, when the landlord left a voicemail to confirm that he was not on the transfer list. This prolonged delay and lack of clarity in the landlord’s communication with the resident was inappropriate, and meant that the resident and his support worker had to contact the landlord repeatedly during this period in order to progress the matter.
30. There is evidence that the resident enquired about a possible transfer to a vacant property in the area on 5 August 2022 and 1 September 2022. This was a further indication to the landlord that the situation regarding his transfer application was unclear. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident to explain why he was not being considered for transfer to the vacant property.
31. There is also evidence that concerns about the resident’s safety were raised on several occasions throughout 2022 and 2023. The resident reported falling down the stairs at the property on 5 August 2022. The landlord’s records highlighted this as a safeguarding concern and noted that he needed to be assessed for rehousing. A further safeguarding concern was recorded in November 2022, stating that action was required within 24 hours, but there is no evidence that any further action was taken. The resident contacted the landlord to report a fall in February 2023, and in May 2023, the landlord’s records state that the resident required a visit as he was struggling with his medical conditions, and that the resident had reported falling down the stairs several times.
32. Despite the landlord’s records showing that there were concerns about the resident’s safety, and that an assessment was required, there is no evidence that an assessment in the resident’s home took place until after the stage 1 complaint in September 2023. This delay in addressing safety concerns or carrying out an assessment of the resident’s needs was inappropriate. Whilst the landlord’s Home Allocation policy from April 2022 meant that the resident would no longer be eligible to be added to the landlord’s transfer waiting list, the landlord operated a separate Management Transfer procedure for urgent moves. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider an application under this procedure, in light of the resident’s reported safety concerns.
33. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged for a home visit to the resident, and confirmed his property was not suitable for his needs. In the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, it appropriately explained that following the home visit, the landlord agreed that the property was unsuitable and that it would make an application for a management transfer on the resident’s behalf. While the assessment and application by the landlord was reasonable action due to the resident’s circumstances, it was not completed in a timely manner. This caused a delay in the landlord submitting a management transfer application on the resident’s behalf.
34. After the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s application for a management transfer had been successful and that he would be contacted when a suitable property became available. The landlord also appropriately informed the resident that this may take some time, due to his preference for a property within a small geographical area. The resident was also appropriately reminded to use the choice based lettings schemes available, and to consider a mutual exchange alongside the management transfer scheme, in order to find an alternative property which met his needs as soon as possible.
35. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2024 as he had not yet been offered a property under the landlord’s Management Transfer procedure. Following contact from the Ombudsman to the landlord in March 2024, and a telephone call to the resident, the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
36. In its response, the landlord confirmed its conclusions from its stage 1 response and noted that his complaint had been upheld and that he had been offered compensation for the poor communication and missed appointments. The landlord also noted that the resident was frustrated because he had not yet been offered an alternative property. The landlord appropriately explained to the resident that by limiting his area of choice to a small geographical area, it may take longer for a suitable ground floor flat to become available.
37. While the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s circumstances following the stage 1 response, and provided an appropriate response to his concerns regarding delay in offering a property at stage 2, there was initially a prolonged period of delay where the resident was left without a clear understanding of his situation. As stated in his complaint, he was left feeling deflated and distressed by the landlord’s poor communication, and contacted the landlord over many months to ask about his transfer application without receiving a clear answer about whether he would be added to the transfer waiting list. The landlord also failed to adequately consider and assess safety concerns raised over this time. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.
38. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident in its stage 1 response, to recognise the landlord’s poor communication and missed appointments. However, the sum of £100 did not fully reflect the failures in the landlord’s communication, or its failure to assess the resident’s safety at the property until after his complaint was made. An order has therefore been made for an additional £350 of compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failings identified through this investigation. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the handling of his concern regarding removal of access to the bin chute falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident an additional sum of £350 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s transfer request. Evidence of the compensation payment must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    3. Arrange to meet with the resident to discuss widening his property search to support him in securing a property as soon as possible. Confirmation that the meeting has taken place should be provided to the Ombudsman.