Hyde Housing Association Limited (202432495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432495

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 June 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 resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a priority move and its complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident occupied his home under an assured tenancy which began on 24 December 2018. The landlord told us that it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but did not specify what they were.
3. The landlord ran its own internal housing register in local authorities’ areas where it was permitted for it to allocate its own stock. At the time of the complaint, the evidence showed that the resident was already on the landlord’s internal housing list as a Band D as, according to the landlord, he was deemed to be suitably housed. Band B was for applicants with a medical need to move. In addition, the scheme also gave priority to those in specific circumstances, including cases of domestic abuse or severe anti-social behaviour or threat to life.
4. On 30 July 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord that he had a health condition which should qualify him as priority for rehousing. On 7 August 2024 he submitted as a complaint a message that he had a health condition that should qualify him as a priority and asking for guidance. The landlord acknowledged a complaint the same day as it considered him to be vulnerable, due to what he had said in his email. We understood that the landlord replied sooner than its standard 5 days because it deemed him vulnerable. While there was no specific provision to do so in its policy, its complaint policy stated it was committed to “meet the needs of all our customers, and particularly for those with disabilities or those with temporary or short-term conditions who might otherwise be disadvantaged”.
5. On 12 August 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 1 response as follows:
   1. The resident was already on its social housing register. He was band D as he was “currently adequately housed”.
   2. To review the position on medical grounds, he would need to evidence he was in receipt of middle or enhanced disability benefits or submit an Occupational Therapist (OT) report to evidence his need for a move based on medical grounds. The landlord would then review the application and it could be re–banded as band B for medical grounds.
   3. It did not currently have any medical conditions or health concerns listed on its systems.
   4. It apologised for any inconvenience or distress this may have caused him
6. On 19 August 2024 the resident informed the landlord that:
   1. He had witnessed a shooting. It had left him in a state of “constant fear and anxiety”. He was having suicidal thoughts and was afraid for his safety.
   2. His GP had referred him to an OT and he was on a waiting list for treatment.
   3. He had not been able to upload the OT letter onto the landlord’s system.
7. On 23 August 2024 the resident provided a GP letter dated 12 August 2024 and a clinical letter stating the service had put the resident on a waiting list for treatment. On 30 August 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord that he was not happy with the complaint response.
8. On 6 December 2024 the landlord re-banded the resident’s position on the landlord’s housing list to Band B with an effective date of 13 February 2023. The landlord did not provide this Service with any communication to the resident notifying him of the rebanding at the time or explanation why he was not in the “priority” band.
9. On 6 January 2025 we wrote to the landlord setting out what the resident had told us he wanted and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and provide its Stage 2 response.
10. On 16 January 2025 the landlord noted internally that, following receipt of the medical evidence, it had upgraded the resident to band B on the basis of medical need. Its anti-social behaviour (ASB) officer contacted the resident and established that the shooting had not involved the resident. He had not been harmed nor was he the target. The resident had not reported the incident to the landlord when it occurred in June 2024. In the circumstances, there was no ASB case opened. The issue concerned the resident’s request for a management move.
11. On 7 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. It had not escalated his complaint when it should have. It did not communicate with any reassurance on the progress of changing his banding. It upheld his complaint.
    2. It offered compensation of £650 consisting of:
       1. £100 for his effort in requesting to be moved
       2. £150 for the delays responding to his request to be moved and his Stage 2 complaint
       3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused with its failures to respond to his request to be moved and escalating his complaint
       4. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. It set out a history of the case.
    4. At the time the complaints officer contacted him on 16 January 2025, his banding had already been changed.
    5. He was unhappy he had had to escalate this to the Housing Ombudsman for this to happen.
    6. His banding had now been amended to band B. The resident was actively bidding. It suggested alternatives to its own register. It advised him to register with the local authority as well as it had a wider pool of properties. It also suggested a mutual exchange.
    7. It apologised that its complaint handling and communication let him down and contributed to the further delays to having his banding changed. It noted that communicating with him would have provided him with some clarity. It had failed to address his continued expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. It had failed to correctly enforce and adhere to its internal complaints process including taking ownership and accountability. It set out lessons learnt and actions it had taken and was taking to improve.

Assessment and findings

12. We appreciate that the resident had suffered a very upsetting episode and he was anxious to move. As the landlord acknowledged, there was a service failure in the landlord not escalating the complaint. It also acknowledged that the resident’s rebanding application was delayed.
13. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. Our view is that the Stage 2 response demonstrated that the landlord appreciated the seriousness of the issue and the impact on the resident. The landlord had already rectified the position and placed the resident on a higher priority banding appropriate to an applicant with a medical need. It also backdated the rebanding date, presumably to the date of his original application for a transfer. This put the resident in the same or even better position, had there not been a delay. It also set out its improvement plan and steps it would take for this error in not escalating the complaint.
15. However, there was no evidence it had communicated the decision to the resident at the time it was made. This was unreasonable. We do not know exactly the date the landlord had all of the information required to reband the resident’s application. The landlord referred to receiving evidence of receipt of a disability benefit. While it is unlikely he would have been eligible for a property in the brief period September 2024 to December 2024, due to the shortage of housing, the landlord did not reassure the resident that he was not adversely affected.
16. We appreciate that the resident was upset he was not placed on a priority band. However, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s priority move policy states that the grounds where the landlord would consider a priority move would only be considered in exceptional circumstances and in cases such as domestic abuse or severe anti-social behaviour or threat to life. There would have to be clear evidence from professional sources such as the police. While witnessing the shooting was impactful on the resident, there was no evidence that he was at risk. The account was that he was a witness, not a victim.
17. The delay in escalating the complaint was a serious failing. There was no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the change of banding at the time or fully explained why it did not place him on a priority banding. However, it did not impact on the resident’s application as the banding was backdated. In all of the circumstances, we consider that the compensation of £650, including £250 for its complaint handling, was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s own policy and our remedies guidance.
18. We consider that the landlord acknowledged and rectified its failures, and offered reasonable compensation. In our view, this was reasonable redress for the resident’s complaint.

Determination

19. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a priority move and its complaint handling.

Recommendations

20. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
    1. The landlord should ensure it communicates its decisions on its internal housing applications to applicants and explains its reasoning with reference to its policy.
21. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.