Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202309781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309781

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

28 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 26 October 2009. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom property. The resident lives with her partner, 2 children, and her nephew. The resident has physical difficulties as recorded by the landlord.
3. The resident made a formal complaint on 20 June 2023 which said that the landlord had not given her help or support with regards to a move from her current property. She said she believed the police had told the landlord they supported a move as she was considered at high risk due to antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour but had since been told by the landlord that was not the case. She said her son was awaiting an assessment for autism and was not able to share a bedroom with her daughter and that her nephew had a court order saying he needed his own room. Therefore, they needed a larger house.
4. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord said it had looked at the reasons behind why it did not support a direct let. It said it had received a report from the police about the family’s risk and as an injunction had been put in place, they did not support a move.
   2. It confirmed it worked in line with the local authority allocations policy and it did not have enough evidence to support a direct let. For the landlord to consider this, it would need a letter from the police which said they support a move on the grounds the family is at significant risk.
   3. In terms of a medical move, the landlord said that until the resident’s son had undergone his assessment, and a consultant recommends he needs his own room, the landlord could not move forward.
   4. It said the resident was a band 2 with the local authority and urged the resident to expand her location search. It also suggested the resident speak to the housing options team at the local authority.
   5. It said that a direct let does not consider overcrowding, which was looked at by the local authority. It said that was why the resident had been accepted onto the local authority housing register.
5. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 21 July 2023. She said the risk factor was not the only reason they had asked to move and said the injunction did not stop the neighbour from shouting things at them.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. It said it had discussed at the length with the resident the measures it had already taken to support her. The key points of the response were as follows:
   1. It confirmed the resident was going to speak to the local authority about her nephew and the special guardianship order which said he must not share a room to see if there was anything further, they could do to support a move.
   2. It confirmed it had applied to the court and obtained an injunction against the neighbour and therefore her risk of harm was significantly reduced. It said it appreciated that it was unpleasant to still live near the neighbour.
   3. It said the resident was a band 2 on the local authority housing register due to the overcrowding. It confirmed it had spoken to the local authority to ensure every avenue had been considered. This included that full consideration had been given to the nephew and the evidence provided from social services about the urgency of a move.
   4. It said that the local authority had quota nomination rights and if they thought the circumstances called for an urgent move, they could put forward a case for consideration. Therefore, it recommended that the resident speak to her social worker and request for a case to be put forward.
   5. It concluded that the resident did not meet the criteria for an internal direct let with the landlord.
7. On 6 November 2023, social services confirmed that a quota nomination application had been put forward due to the court paperwork which said that the nephew should have his own room. A quota nomination is given where a resident has been nominated by a statutory service with whom the council has agreed to accept a certain number of applicants each year for rehousing. Although the date is unknown, the resident was given the quota nomination and therefore moved to band 1 on the housing register.
8. The resident accepted a direct let on 19 December 2023. The Ombudsman understands that after work was undertaken on the property, the resident moved into a new property in early 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has reported the impact these events have had on her mental health. The ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between a landlord’s actions or omissions and a resident’s mental health. However, we will take into account any overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for an insurance claim or the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s allocations policy states that in relation to under and over occupying, it will allocate homes on the basis that each cohabiting couple will have a separate bedroom and it will permit a bedroom to be shared by persons 10 year of age and over of the same sex and children under 10 years of age regardless of sex. It says that it will take into account the need for an additional bedroom where there are medical requirements.
11. Its policy states that for extended family, where a minor is to be included or added to an application, but no parental responsibility exists, proof of legal guardianship or confirmation from social services that the action is a permanent arrangement must be supplied.

Rehousing

12. The resident had been trying to move out of her property for some time due to both ASB from her neighbour and due to overcrowding in the property.
13. On 29 March 2023, the landlord contacted the local authority to confirm the resident’s current banding with them and to ensure they had a live application with the local authority. This highlighted a commitment by the landlord to support the resident in her request to move.
14. The landlord actively collaborated with the police about the resident’s risk and the possibility of them providing evidence to support a move. In May 2023, the landlord requested a risk assessment report from the police and inquired about their willingness to endorse a move. Although the police indicated that the resident was no longer at high risk due to the injunction that had been put in place, the landlord proactively collaborated with them to explore all possible options to assist the resident; this was in line with its policy.
15. Further to this, in its stage 2 response, the landlord clarified the evidence needed from the police to help the resident’s move. This proactive step showed the landlord’s commitment to aiding the resident’s request for a direct let and ensured she understood the process and what was required of her.
16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, in line with its policy, it correctly informed the resident that a managed move on medical grounds would have to wait until her son had undergone a medical assessment. The consultant would need to specify that the son needed his own room. The landlord correctly followed its policy and was clear in the evidence it needed from the resident for a move on the grounds of her son’s possible diagnosis.
17. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s medical conditions, which she had mentioned in her formal complaint. It would have been right for the landlord to clarify the evidence required from the resident to support a medical move, beyond just relying on her son’s outstanding assessment. The lack of clarity prompted the resident to seek further information on any other evidence the landlord might need. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made it clear that it had considered her medical concerns and whether it would affect her application or to have discussed what further evidence it needed. Failing to address this would have frustrated the resident and caused her to expend time seeking further advice.
18. Following the resident’s request for escalation to a stage 2 complaint in which she sent further medical evidence in relation to her and her daughter, the evidence shows the landlord appropriately asked for the resident’s case to be reviewed by the housing team. The landlord acted appropriately, given the further evidence and this would have reassured the resident that it was empathetic to her situation.
19. Throughout the complaint process, the resident consistently asserted that her nephew needed his own room in accordance with the terms of the special guardianship order. However, the landlord’s communication was clear: they acknowledged the overcrowding issue and explained that this was why the resident had been accepted onto the housing register, allowing her to bid on four-bedroom properties. The landlord explicitly said that its policy did not permit a direct let due to overcrowding. Furthermore, it clarified why it could not exercise discretion beyond its policy. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s frustrations, it was appropriate for the landlord to adhere to its policy and effectively communicate its reasoning to the resident.
20. However, internal emails reveal that after escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, the landlord questioned whether the situation with her nephew had received full consideration. The evidence showed an urgent move was necessary. At this point, the landlord engaged with the local authority to explore quota nomination rights for the resident. While this action was appropriate, considering the resident had previously raised the issue of her nephew, it would have been prudent for the landlord to recognise the urgency earlier. The delay in discussing quota nomination rights likely caused frustration for the resident.
21. Following this, the landlord appropriately recommended that the resident spoke to her social worker about the possibility of obtaining quota nomination rights with the local authority. While the landlord could have done this in a timelier manner, it was right for it to inform the resident and give advice on how to obtain the rights.
22. In November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the ASB and their housing situation had affected her entire family’s mental health. It was commendable for the landlord to extend support. It offered help from both internal mental health services and external resources. Despite the resident declining this support, it showed the landlord’s commitment to helping and underscored its empathy toward her situation.
23. The landlord maintained clear communication with the resident throughout the duration of her complaint. It provided the resident with clarity about the evidence needed for a direct let to be considered. Additionally, it explained why a direct let was not immediately possible and linked this decision to its policy. Moreover, the landlord offered support to the resident when she expressed well-being concerns. The landlord supported the resident in obtaining a quota nomination and ensured she had the necessary information. Once the resident became eligible for a direct let, the landlord helped in finding a suitable property and consistently collaborated with the local authority during the complaint process. However, there was a delay in considering the terms of the special guardianship order and giving advice on obtaining a quota nomination. This delay was unacceptable given that the landlord was aware from the outset the terms of the order and the need for the nephew to have his own room. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the residents own medical needs mentioned in her formal complaint.
24. Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request to be moved.

Determination

25. In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £200, made up of the following:
    1. £100 for the delay in considering the terms of the special guardianship order.
    2. £100 for the failure to consider the resident’s medical needs in its handling of her rehousing request.
27. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.