Midland Heart Limited (202326283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326283

Midland Heart Limited

17 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 applicant 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:
   1. the landlord’s changes to its allocations policy.
   2. the landlord’s handling of a rehousing application.
   3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

2. 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 or parts of a complaint will not be investigated. The applicant’s complaint about the landlord’s allocations policy is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate:
   1.  the landlord’s changes to its allocations policy.
4. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising’. As part of the applicant’s complaint to the landlord he raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to change their allocation policy in in 2015.
5. We are unable to investigate the landlord’s decision to amend their allocation policy as this happened in 2015, 8 years prior to the applicant making a complaint. Our investigation will therefore focus on:
   2. the landlord’s handling of a rehousing application.
   3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

6. The applicant is not a tenant of the landlord, but he had applied to it for rehousing. The applicant has said that he has a mental health condition and mobility needs, which means that he needs a ground floor property.
7. The applicant applied for several properties in 2022, he contacted the landlord to complain that he had been bidding for properties for 5 years, but it had not yet offered him a property. The landlord responded providing information about its allocations process and signposting him to other housing providers.
8. In August 2023, the applicant contacted the landlord about his housing application again, expressing frustration that he had not been successful in bidding for a property. On 21 August 2023, he raised a complaint that the landlord had not allowed him to bid for properties in the locality where his estranged family lives. The landlord did not raise a formal complaint at this time.
9. On 31 August 2023, the applicant successfully bid for a 2-bed bungalow property. The landlord had advertised it as a level-access property. It said that it would accept applications from applicants aged over 60 or those with a medical need who needed ground floor accommodation. The applicant viewed the property on 6 September 2023 and the landlord recorded that he refused the property as it would not change the wheelchair adapted kitchen and because he would not be able to exercise the ‘right to acquire’ the property. The applicant disputes that he refused the property.
10. On 21 September 2023, the applicant raised a new complaint with the landlord. He said that:
    1. He did not refuse the property, and the landlord did not allow the tenancy to go ahead as the applicant wanted his occupational therapist (OT) to attend to provide a recommendation.
    2. It should have only advertised the property to wheelchair users.
    3. He is an Asian man, and the landlord did not want to let him the property as it was an area where there were predominantly white residents.
    4. He wanted to move to where his family lived, but the landlord had prevented this.
11. Between 7 September and 27 September 2023, the landlord and applicant exchanged correspondence about his complaint and its allocations procedure.
12. On 27 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the applicant’s complaint and responded on 4 October 2023. It said:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint.
    2. It did not uphold his complaint about its allocations policy or how the landlord was applying it as it had found no service failure in how it had responded to his application.
    3. It provided advice about its processes and other rehousing options.
    4. It said that where one of its properties is adapted, it would be unusual for it to remove adaptations such as a walk-in shower or adapted kitchen if they were fully functioning.
13. On 4 October 2023, the applicant asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as he was unhappy with its response at stage 1. On 1 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It had investigated the correspondence with him and could not see evidence of discrimination against him, therefore it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
    2. It did not require an OT report to make an offer of a property, so therefore it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
    3. It could see no evidence that it had not applied its allocations policy.
14. The applicant was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s rehousing application

15. The landlord lets 50% of its properties directly to applicants, with the rest being allocated under the local authority’s reasonable preference scheme.
16. Its policy says that local lettings plans may restrict who can apply to live in a particular scheme, street, or neighbourhood. One of its preference groups for housing is for ‘applicants with a local connection to an area.’ The requirements being that an applicant has immediate family in an area who are needed for medical and childcare support as well as employment in a locality. It will ask for evidence such as a council tax bill to show that an applicant has family in an area.
17. The applicant said that he had been estranged from his family for 20 years and wanted to move to where they lived to be closer to them. The landlord applied its policy by requesting evidence, such as a council tax bill, to show where his family lived. The applicant said that he was unable to provide this information as he is not in contact with his family.
18. The Ombudsman understands that the applicant would wish to move closer to his family so that he could reconcile with them, and that the applicant feels upset and frustrated that he has not been able to do so. In applying the criteria in the landlord’s policy, an applicant would need to be closer to their family for medical and childcare support. If the applicant were not currently receiving this support, it would be difficult for him to meet this criterion. Therefore, in applying the policy to the applicant’s circumstances, we find that the landlord’s response was reasonable and followed its policy.
19. The applicant also disputed the landlord’s claim that he refused the property that it had offered him. The Ombudsman is an impartial scheme. We base our assessments on contemporaneous records provided by the parties. Where there are conflicting accounts, we cannot accept one party’s position over the other.
20. Therefore, in the absence of independent evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding as to whether the applicant refused the property and therefore whether the landlord’s response was fair. For the same reason, we cannot investigate the applicant’s claim that the landlord did not want to let the property to him as he is an Asian man, and the property was in an area with predominantly white residents.
21. The applicant has said that the landlord discriminated against him by offering a property that was unsuitable for him because of his health conditions. The landlord’s scheme allows applicants to bid for properties that it advertises each week. The landlord’s advert was for a 2-bedroom bungalow. It said that applicants must either be aged over 60 years or need ground floor accommodation on medical grounds. It also said that the property was level access throughout and had a level access shower.
22. The landlord has a limited number of void properties becoming available at any time and must manage the high demand for social housing in its area. Although its property was adapted for a wheelchair user, it was reasonable for it to widen the group of eligible applicants by advertising properties to persons who need ground floor accommodation, to meet this demand. The applicant has mobility needs and says that he needs to use a walking aid, but he is not a wheelchair user. The applicant’s health condition meant that he met the landlord’s criteria for a ground floor property.
23.  The applicant asked whether the landlord could replace the adapted kitchen with a standard kitchen or if he could exercise a right to acquire the property and replace the kitchen himself.
24. Landlords have limited resources, and it would not be an effective use of its resources, to replace a disabled adapted kitchen with a standard kitchen, unless it had reached the end of its lifespan and was no longer functional. Further, properties that are specially adapted for disabled persons are usually exempt from the right to acquire.
25. The applicant had said that the landlord had not allowed for an OT assessment at the time when he viewed the property. The landlord said in its complaints response that the applicant did not need an OT recommendation to have been offered the property. Had an OT undertaken an assessment of the property at the time of viewing, any recommendations about major adaptations would be subject to funding approval. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that it will consider requests for aids and adaptations from residents, but where it would be more cost effective and practical it would look at rehousing as an alternative. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the outcome would not have been different had an OT assessed the property at the time of viewing.
26. Moreover, the applicant was not disadvantaged, as the landlord had confirmed that he was able to continue bidding for properties, even though it had recorded that he had refused the offer.
27. Overall, the landlord applied its allocations policy considering the applicant’s application for housing and we find that its actions were reasonable in the circumstances. However, we have included a recommendation that the landlord considers including information about whether a property is adapted for wheelchair use when advertising its properties, so that applicants can make an informed decision as to whether a property is suitable for them at the time of bidding.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Where a complainant has asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.
29. The landlord responded to the applicant’s stage 1 complaint on 4 October 2023, which was 9 days outside of its target response timescales. While this delay is unlikely to have caused detriment to the applicant, the applicant had made an earlier complaint to the landlord on 21 August 2023 that the landlord had not treated as a complaint.
30. The landlord did not apply its complaints policy, which says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to them within 10 working days. However, when the applicant asked to escalate his later complaint, the landlord did respond within its target response timescales.
31. For this reason, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and, as the landlord had not offered redress during its internal complaints procedure, orders it to pay the applicant £50. The landlord has since informed this Service that it accepts that there had been some failings in its complaints process. It has looked to learn from outcomes by delivering updated training on complaints handling to its staff and recruiting complaint specialists.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the applicant’s complaint about the landlord’s changes to its allocations scheme is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the applicant’s housing application.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35.  Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the applicant £50 compensation for his time and trouble because of its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should consider including information about whether a property is adapted for wheelchair use when advertising its properties, so that applicants can make an informed decision as to whether a property is suitable for them at the time of bidding.