Citizen Housing Group Limited (202302810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302810

Citizen Housing

25 February 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 response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in the property with his partner and three children, aged under 5 at the time of the complaint.
3. The resident moved into the property in 2018. He was told at the time that the property was in an area designated for future redevelopment, but he would be given help and support to find alternative accommodation as part of a planned rehousing programme. 
4. On 1 August 2022 the resident received a letter from the landlord asking residents for expressions of interest in moving to 2- or 3-bedroom new build properties as part of the regeneration programme. It asked that interested residents complete a form and deliver it to the local office by 17 August 2022.
5. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 22 August 2022. He said that he had delivered his expression of interest form to the office on 15 August 2022, but unlike his neighbours, he had not received an acknowledgment that it had received his form. He asked if it could respond to him about this.
6. On 8 September 2022 the landlord wrote to all residents that had sent it an expression of interest form to tell them whether they had been successful. The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 September 2022 to ask for an update about his application.
7. The landlord telephoned him the same day to tell him that it had not received his form. During the conversation, it became evident that the resident had not yet notified the landlord that he had a newborn baby, bringing the number of children in the household to 3. The landlord told him that it had matched all available 3 bed properties to current residents whose tenancies had started prior to 2018. This meant that, even if it had received the form, it would not have offered the resident one of the 3 bed properties as he had moved in after 2018. It said that it would include him on the list should one of the successful applicants withdraw their application.
8. The resident queried this again with the landlord in February 2023. During an exchange of correspondence between the resident and landlord in February and March 2023, the landlord repeated its position. The resident asserted that he posted his form along with a neighbour’s form, and the landlord had acknowledged the neighbour’s form, but not his form. He also alleged that the landlord had misplaced other residents’ forms. He said that his flat was in a poor state of repair which was affecting the health of his children. As the landlord had not resolved the matter to the resident’s satisfaction, it agreed to raise a complaint on his behalf on 8 February 2023.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2023.  It said that:
   1. it could not account for it not receiving a copy of the resident’s form
   2. it had reviewed its processes and was satisfied that it had followed the correct process
   3. letters sent to residents in August 2022 informed them that it would give priority to those residents that had moved into their homes before 2018
   4. there were only 7 available 3–bed properties, and it had matched all properties to residents who had moved into their homes prior to 2018
   5. a neighbourhood officer would visit to inspect the property condition and asked that the resident make contact to arrange a convenient time
   6. it provided advice about housing options and signposted the resident to local authorities’ choice-based lettings schemes and local housing associations
10. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 March 2023. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 April 2023. It said that:
    1. no other residents had reported that the landlord had misplaced their form
    2. only residents who had completed an expression of interest form had been considered for either the 2–bed or 3–bed properties
    3. it matched residents to properties based on their needs and eligibility criteria 
11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

12. The resident says that he delivered his form to the landlord’s office, but it was not logged by the landlord in error. The landlord’s position is that it did not receive the resident’s form. In the absence of independent evidence, such as a receipt or postal delivery confirmation, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding whether the form was delivered or received.
13. At the deadline for submitting the expression of interest form, the resident had a newborn baby, but the landlord had not yet been notified of this change in the household size. It is unclear from the landlord’s lettings document how it determined a family’s bedroom entitlement, but it is likely that this would mirror the local authority’s policy, as its properties were advertised through its choice-based lettings scheme. Based on the resident’s family circumstances as of August 2022, under the local authority’s allocations policy, the resident was eligible for a 3-bed property.
14. The letter sent by the landlord to all residents in August 2022 said that it would prioritise families who lived within the redevelopment area, but more specifically those who had moved into their homes prior to 2018. The properties that the resident was eligible for were all offered to those who had moved into their homes prior to 2018. The Ombudsman therefore accepts the landlord’s position that, even if the resident’s form had been processed, he would not have been offered a property.
15. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial communication of 22 August 2022 and no explanation has been provided for this. When the resident followed this up by email on 12 September 2022, the landlord responded the same day providing an explanation and offering advice about rehousing, which was reasonable.
16. The records do not show that the resident followed this up with the landlord between September 2022 and February 2023. When he raised this again in February 2023, the landlord corresponded with the resident and provided a reasonable explanation in response to the resident’s enquiries.
17. When it became clear that the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, it followed its complaints policy by raising a complaint on his behalf, and appropriately exercised its discretion to consider the complaint although the issue complained of had happened more than 6 months earlier. 
18. In most circumstances the landlord’s properties are allocated through the relevant local authority’s choice-based letting scheme (CBL) or other partnership CBL schemes. The resident had enquired about a transfer to another property based on his family’s health needs and the condition of their home. The resident said that due to the growth of his family, the property was no longer suitable for them.
19. The landlord’s policy provides for emergency transfers or discretionary moves where there would be a serious impact on the health or wellbeing a person if they were to remain in a property. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is unhappy with the conditions in his property and wishes to move. However, the landlord would need to first inspect the property to see if it could undertake works to improve the conditions in the property. Further, to consider a discretionary move, it would likely need supporting medical evidence.
20. In its correspondence and later complaint responses, the landlord asked the resident to make contact to arrange an inspection of the property condition. It also provided information about discretionary and emergency moves and how the resident could find alternative accommodation by applying to the local authority and other housing associations. In the circumstances, we consider the landlord’s response to have been reasonable. We understand that the resident has since provided the landlord with medical evidence in support of his request to move.
21. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s enquiries. It provided a reasonable explanation to the resident about the offers of accommodation and provided information about how he could apply for alternative accommodation. In doing so, it followed its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s transfer request.