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

Housing 21 (202233585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233585

Housing 21

30 March 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:
    1. The residents transfer application.
    2. Repairs to the smoke detectors.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since November 2020. The property is a 1 person, studio flat in a retirement scheme for individuals aged 55 and over. The resident has medical conditions and experiences anxiety and depression which the landlord is aware of. The resident has received support from Citizens Advice in bringing her complaint to this service. The landlord specialises in providing retirement living and extra care accommodation for people aged 55 and over.
  2. In 2021, the resident applied to the landlord for an internal transfer to a 1-bedroom property. The resident provided medical letters from her GP, Community Mental Health team, Citizens Advice, and a family member as part of her application. The landlord placed the resident on its transfer list for a 1-bedroom property. The resident requested a review of the priority awarded to her application as she believed the landlord had not given sufficient weight to the medical information provided. She asked the landlord to consider awarding her a management transfer. The landlord reviewed the resident’s application and supporting information. It informed her the application would remain on the transfer list but did not meet the criteria to be considered for a management transfer.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied and in December 2022 made a stage 1 complaint. She also complained about being disturbed by false alarms from the smoke detectors in the roof space above her flat. She said the false alarms were contributing to her anxiety and affecting her sleep and mental well-being. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the issues with the smoke alarms and said it would arrange an investigation by its alarm engineers. In respect of her transfer application, it informed her it had reviewed her application and supporting information. It confirmed it had prioritised her application in line with its lettings policy and the circumstances did not meet the criteria to be considered for a management transfer.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in February 2023, escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. In its response, it confirmed the circumstances of her case had been reviewed again by the Head of Housing. It explained its lettings policy and outlined the circumstances in which it could award management transfer status. It said it would make her an offer of accommodation when she reached the top of the waiting list in line with its lettings policy. In respect of the issues with the smoke alarms it acknowledged the situation caused disturbance and distress and had taken longer than it would have liked to resolve. It apologised and offered £150 pounds in compensation. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the issue the resident wants the landlord to offer a larger property.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states, ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome that is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide’. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to offer the resident a larger property outside of its allocations and lettings procedure. This would be unfair. However, the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord processed her transfer application, how it applied its allocations and lettings policy, how it responded to the concerns raised by the resident at the time of her application and subsequent complaint. Where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, the Ombudsman will consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the transfer application

  1. The landlord’s lettings policy and procedure set out one of its key commitments as, ‘giving priority for retirement living to older applicants using a “banding” system (priority to applicants in Band 1 which is 65 years and over’). It further explains that ‘applicants are banded automatically according to their age and then ordered in each band by date of application’.
  2. The bands set out in the policy are:
    1. Band 1 – 65 years old and over.
    2. Band 2 – 60-64 years old.
    3. Band 3 – 55-59 years old.
  3. In respect of management transfers, it states, ‘In exceptional and unusual circumstances a resident or applicant may be offered a property outside of the normal allocation process. Examples of where this may apply include where the resident is a victim of a serious crime in their property, or the police advise for the safety and welfare of the resident they should be moved immediately. In all cases the move must be authorised by the relevant Head of Service.’
  4. The resident was 56 years old when she applied for a transfer to a larger property within the same scheme. The landlord accepted the application and placed her in band 3. This was in line with its policy and procedure. When the resident requested the landlord reconsider the supporting information provided, the landlord completed this and informed the resident of the outcome of its reconsideration, this was the application would remain in band 3.
  5. On 22 December 2022, the resident made a formal complaint that the supporting information she provided with her application was not given sufficient priority. She also complained that it had failed to engage its management transfer provision to make her an offer of a larger property. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about the prioritisation of applications based on age and date order. This approach could mean a younger person with evidenced health, or medical needs would attract less priority than an older person with no health or medical need. It could also mean that by not considering health needs of younger internal applicants it is not considering its obligations under the Equality Act.
  6. On 10 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman finds the landlord took care in explaining its allocations policy to the resident and provided options and advice to increase her chances of moving to a larger property within the scheme. It advised her she could apply for a property at up to four other schemes and it would assist her in applying for a mutual exchange with another resident. In respect of why it had not offered a management transfer, it explained the definition of ‘exceptional and unusual circumstances’. These were hospital discharge cases,( where the resident could not otherwise be discharged from hospital) a victim of a serious crime, severe anti-social behaviour, and where police recommend a move. It informed her the circumstances of her case did not meet these criteria. The Ombudsman has considered the supporting information provided by the resident and finds the landlord’s decision not to offer a management transfer was in line with its policy and procedure. This is because the resident’s circumstances did not match any of the criteria stated in its management transfer procedure.
  7. On 7 February 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and requested a further review of her case. The documents provided show the review request was escalated to a senior member of staff who had not previously been involved with the case. This was good practice and ensured an unbiased and objective approach to considering the facts of the resident’s case. As part of the review process and complaint escalation, the landlord met with the resident and her representative from Citizens Advice. This was customer focused and allowed the resident to explain and clarify the issues with the support of her representative. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 February 2023. The landlord upheld its banding decision and confirmed its decision not to offer a management transfer. It said it would offer a 1-bedroom property as soon as she reached the top of the waiting list in line with its policy and procedure.
  8. In October 2023, a 1-bedroom property became available in the scheme. The property was declined by the higher applicants on the waiting list. The resident was then offered the property in line with her position on the list. The resident declined the property stating the property was no bigger than her current accommodation.
  9. The Ombudsman finds the landlord prioritises applications based on the applicants age and then in date order. It is entitled to do this. In the context of the provision of retirement and extra care housing, this approach aligns with the overriding objectives and purpose of the organisation.
  10. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s challenges and need to move to an alternative property. It is clear the situation has caused some distress. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s allocations policy, its processing of the resident’s application, its reconsideration processes, its decision not to offer a management transfer, and its overall handling of the resident and her concerns. The Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the transfer application.

The landlords handling of repairs to the smoke detectors.

  1. In her stage 1 complaint dated 22 December 2022, the resident also complained she had experienced false alarms from the smoke detectors situated in the roof space above her flat, (the records show that several other residents in the scheme were affected by the same issue). At times the false alarms would happen at night and during the early hours of the morning. She also reported that when the false alarm was in progress, she was unable to use her telecare system. The situation was distressing to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out how it will prioritise repair requests. In respect of a failure of the emergency call monitoring system/ fire alarm system, its repairs guide states it will treat this as an emergency repair and address it within 24 hours.
  3. On 19 December 2022, the resident reported a false alarm. The evidence shows the landlord raised an emergency repair to the external engineers responsible for the alarm system. This timescale was in line with its repairs guide. An engineer attended the scheme to investigate the fire alarm system but could not identify the cause of the issue. The landlord wrote to residents in the scheme advising it would work closely with its engineers to identify the cause of the issue.
  4. The records show that after this the resident experienced intermittent false alarms on at least 4 occasions between December 2022 and December 2023. These caused distress to the resident. The Ombudsman has examined the repairs log, the call history, and the works orders. These show when a false alarm was reported, the landlord would instruct its engineers to investigate on an emergency basis. The engineers would attend and make adjustments to the system in the resident’s roof space and other affected locations in the scheme. There would then be a period of months where there were no false alarms followed by a cluster of false alarms in different locations of the scheme. When a false alarm was reported, the landlord communicated its actions with the resident in person and by sending her a letter. In respect of the resident’s concern that her warden call system was affected by the false alarms, it attended her property at various intervals over several weeks to carry out tests to the system and pendant alarm to ensure it was working correctly. In July 2023, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she did not think further testing of the system was necessary as she was satisfied it was working correctly. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances and provided reassurances to the resident that her personal call system was working correctly despite the false alarms, and it was taking her concerns seriously.
  5. The correspondence between the landlord and its engineer shows the engineer could not conclusively diagnose the cause of the false alarms. On each occasion of a false alarm, the landlord acted on the engineer’s suggestions of things it could try that might reduce the possibility of false alarms. This involved repositioning sensors to limit exposure to dust and draughts in the roof space, changing components of the system, and reducing sensitivity of the sensors amongst other things. While these actions did not prevent further occurrences, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted on the suggestions made to it in a timely manner, was proactive and responded in line with its repairs guide when it was informed of a false alarm. The Ombudsman considers the scheme manager provided a good level of support to the resident and others affected by the issue.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response it acknowledged the matter had caused inconvenience and distress. It apologised for the issues and said it would continue to work closely with its engineers until the issue was fully resolved. The landlord did not offer compensation at this stage. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised again and offered £150 compensation for the issues.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider a compensation amount of between £100 and £500 pounds where there has been a serious or prolonged service failure resulting in severe distress, disruption, inconvenience, or loss of income. Given the landlord acknowledged the duration of the issue and the impact on the resident within its stage 1 response, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation at this stage of the complaints process. However, the Ombudsman finds the compensation at stage 2 was in line with its compensation policy and procedure, was reasonable for the impact, disruption and inconvenience caused, and considers there was reasonable redress by the landlord which satisfactorily resolves the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the matter satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should update the resident on her transfer application and continue to provide advice on her housing options.
  2. The landlord should update her on the situation with the smoke detectors and update her as to further work required.