NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202322929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322929

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

15 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for it to rehouse him.
2. Request for a reasonable adjustment.
3. Request for it to cover costs incurred during his property move.
4. Reports of drainage repairs.
5. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat where he lived with his partner. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The tenancy started in June 2018 and ended in August 2023. The resident moved when the landlord offered him a 2-bedroom bungalow due to his household’s needs. The landlord is aware of the health vulnerabilities within the resident’s household.
On 14 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about rehousing. He expressed dissatisfaction about the allocation of properties. He said he considered there were inequalities in the landlord’s policies and it should be open and receptive to individual needs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and sent its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. The landlord said it appreciated the resident’s feedback. It also said it could look at individual circumstances on a case by case basis, which it said it had done for him. It confirmed it had directly matched him to a 2-bedroom bungalow in agreement with the local council.
The resident escalated his complaint on 14 August 2023. He said:
1. He wanted to work with the landlord on its lettings policy as he considered it breached the Equality Act.
2. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of a previous drainage complaint.
3. The landlord’s communication had been poor and it had not put a reasonable adjustment in place suitable for his needs.
4. He wanted the landlord to:
  1. Revise its lettings policy.
  2. Provide equality training to its staff.
  3. Compensate him for 3 and a half years of “stress” due to drainage issues and damaged personal items.
  4. Compensate him for 6 months of “hell” due to the landlord’s lettings policy.
  5. Reimburse him £1,300 for flooring in his new property. And for the cost of having to uncap his own gas supply.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day. It agreed a complaint extension date with the resident on 30 August 2023 and 20 September 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023. It said:
1. The resident had raised issues that did not form part of his stage 1 complaint. However, it would add these matters to its stage 2 response.
2. It remained satisfied with its handling of his rehousing request and explained the local council’s assessment criteria.
3. How it provided equality, diversity, and inclusion training to all staff.
4. It remained satisfied that the new property had been handed over clean and tidy but passed on his comments about the cleaning standard to the appropriate team.
5. It was sorry for the inconvenience of previous drainage issues and offered £150 compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He considered he had experienced discrimination when trying to move home. He said this had affected his mental and physical health. He also said the recurring drainage issues had damaged his possessions and caused him stress and anxiety. He wanted the landlord to compensate him for mental distress and pay for flooring in his new property as recompense.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says the landlord’s handling of his housing need and repairs affected the mental and physical health of household members.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or ask the landlord to provide him its insurance details if he would like to pursue a claim.
The resident considered the landlord’s process for allocating properties discriminatory. He sought for it to change the allocation process and assessment criteria. In part, the resident is referring to the landlord’s interaction with the choice based letting system run in partnership between the local council and social landlord’s to advertise vacant properties. Bands reflect housing need, with the highest band indicating the greatest need for housing. The bands within the policy are based on the ‘reasonable preference’ criteria set out within the Housing Act 1996.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf. This could include a housing association. It covers assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding, or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
This matter therefore falls outside of our jurisdiction and will not form part of our investigation. We will consider if the landlord followed its own lettings policy.
Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.

Request for it to rehouse him

The landlord aligns its lettings policy to the allocation policies of the local authorities in which it operates. It works in partnership with the local authorities via a choice based lettings system. The local authorities maintain the housing waiting lists, assess the housing needs of all applicants, and decides on their banding based on their household needs.
The landlord’s lettings policy states it adopts the principles of the choice based lettings process. This includes allocating:
1. Houses with gardens generally to families with children under the age of 16 unless exceptional circumstances apply.
2. Bungalows usually when there is a demonstrated need for level access accommodation.
3. Adapted properties where people have a demonstrated need for adaptations for themselves or a member of their household.
4. Age restricted accommodation for older people.
The landlord’s lettings policy details when it may consider a direct let. Its states it will only use this option in exceptional circumstances. In doing so, it may offer a property directly without advertising it via the choice based lettings system.
The landlord states that this option was not normal practice, as it had a 100% nomination rights agreement with the local authority. This meant all property bids should go via the choice based letting system. Therefore, it will discuss and agree the appropriate action in advance when considering a discretionary direct let.
On or around 14 March 2023 the resident started to look for alternative accommodation. A change in the health of household members presented a need for a 2-bedroom property. The landlord’s records show it became aware he had registered on the areas choice based letting system and attempted to bid for 2-bedroom homes. At this stage, the local authority would have made a decision regarding his housing needs. Therefore, we are unable to identify a failure by the landlord.
The resident describes being unable to bid for some properties owned by his landlord due to its lettings policy. For example, properties with gardens. He considered this restrictive and discriminatory and says he discussed this matter with the landlord’s senior managers and Chief Executive. Neither party has provided evidence of these discussions. With no evidence of how these alleged conversations went, we are unable to determine any failure by the landlord.
On or around 7 July 2023 the resident provided additional medical evidence directly to the landlord to support his application for rehousing. He states he discussed feeling excluded from bidding on certain homes with both the local authority and the landlord. He says neither party accepted responsibility for matters he considered discriminatory.
Any dissatisfaction regarding the principals of the choice based letting system falls under the reasonable preference criteria set out within the Housing Act 1996. As such, this is outside our jurisdiction and a matter for the LGSCO.
We are empathetic to the resident’s desire and need to secure a move quickly. That said, a national housing shortage affects the length of time it can take to secure a move. The evidence shows the resident requested to remain in particular communities. It is reasonable that this would have delayed his rehousing success and beyond either the council’s or landlord’s control. The landlord can only advertise stock available to it at the time and has no control of stock availability from other registered housing providers.
The landlord also has a duty to make best use of its housing stock and a responsibility to assist the local authorities with their housing responsibilities. Without sufficient medical evidence and an assessment by the local authority, it was appropriate for the landlord to allocate homes based on the identified need and the principles of its lettings criteria.
However, the evidence shows the landlord considered the resident’s medical evidence upon receipt of it in July 2023. As such, it was able to agree to offer him a property via direct let. This demonstrated the landlord supported the resident’s case with the local authority. It also demonstrated that it used its discretion to offer him a property directly, which included a garden, without advertising it first. This was consistent with its lettings policy and demonstrated it supported his circumstances and was receptive to his needs.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord offered the resident to view a 2-bedroom bungalow. It states it made this offer earlier than its usual service standards and before it completed void repairs. It states it did this as it recognised the resident’s anxiety regarding his need to move. There is no evidence that the resident disputes this.
Therefore, this demonstrates the landlord considered the household vulnerabilities and took steps to support him with the direct let process. It provided him with floor plans and met him at the property to allow him an early viewing. This was reasonable in the circumstances. And it was under no obligation to do this before without sufficient medical evidence.
The evidence also shows the resident agreed to sign the new tenancy agreement digitally on 21 August 2023. However, he expressed concern about being ready to move. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord agreed to overlap the resident’s tenancies. As such, when the resident moved on 28 August 2023 the landlord waived the first weeks rent. This was a gesture that it had no obligation to offer.
Furthermore, the resident’s tenancy handbook states that resident’s must return keys no later than 12 noon on the Monday the tenancy ends. The evidence shows he returned them on 29 August 2023. The landlord had an entitlement to charge the resident for 1 more week on the original property as he returned the keys 1 day late. However, the landlord also used discretion not to apply this charge to support the resident with his move.
The landlord’s letting policy uses principles to make best use of its stock while supporting the local authority to reduce waiting lists. It is reasonable to have criteria which will achieve this. It is however appropriate that, with supporting evidence and in exceptional circumstances, it will allocate properties based on need. We consider the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s health vulnerabilities once he provided sufficient medical evidence of his change of circumstances. This was consistent with its lettings policy.
The landlord had historically provided the resident with appropriate housing to suit his needs. It was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s lettings policy that it could not move him without him joining waiting lists. The initial assessment, evidence gathering, and banding decision was the responsibility of the local authority. Therefore, there is no identifiable failure by the landlord.
The evidence shows that once the resident shared medical evidence directly to the landlord, it considered his circumstances as exceptional. It offered a suitable property for his needs and helped secure a move within 4 months. This was appropriate and consistent with its policies.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s support of the resident’s request for rehousing. It demonstrated that it complied with the choice based letting system and its lettings policy until it received additional medical evidence. It discussed the evidence with the local authority and helped to secure him a direct let. It appropriately used its lettings policy and it waived charges that it had an entitlement to collect.

Request for a reasonable adjustment

The resident raised dissatisfaction regarding a reasonable adjustment request after the landlord’s stage 1 response. Ordinarily, this would fall outside of our jurisdiction as the resident raised it with us prior to it exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP).
However, while it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have requested a new complaint, it chose to acknowledge this point as part of its stage 2 response. We will therefore summarise our findings.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy commits to assist disabled and vulnerable residents in line with its legal duties and regulatory requirements under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident has disclosed health vulnerabilities to the landlord. This includes his preference to receive telephone calls and letters rather than emails. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord has demonstrated recording the household vulnerabilities on its customer management system.
The landlord does not dispute that the resident asked for it to communicate primarily by telephone and letter rather than email. It states the teams supporting him were aware of this. It also says staff would check that it was convenient to speak when calling. And would also discuss and agree with the resident when an email would be faster or necessary. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records between July 2018 to July 2024 show only one occasion where the resident referred to dissatisfaction regarding a reasonable adjustment. This was on 14 August 2023 when he escalated his complaint. Within his dissatisfaction, the resident said the landlord should provide its staff with equalities training. It is unclear what event precisely caused the resident’s dissatisfaction. Therefore, we have been unable to assess this in full.
The landlord’s stage 2 response explained the equality, diversity, and inclusion training completed by its staff. It was reasonable for the landlord to demonstrate steps it took. This went some way to answer the resident’s escalation point.
However, while its stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding a reasonable adjustment, it failed to address the matter further. While this would be disappointing, this is a complaint handling failure which we will consider later in the report.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. The landlord has demonstrated its awareness of the household vulnerabilities and the resident’s preferred method of contact. There is no evidence of the events or reports of recurring failures which led to the resident’s dissatisfaction for us to assess.
As the resident remains a tenant of the landlord, we have recommended it ensures its health and vulnerability records, and any required reasonable adjustments accurately reflect the household’s current circumstances.

Request for it to cover costs incurred during his property move

The resident raised this point after the landlord’s stage 1 response. It would therefore have been reasonable for this to also have been a new complaint. As the landlord acknowledged this point in its stage 2 response, we will summarise our findings.
The tenancy management handbook confirms the landlord is responsible for all costs associated with the servicing and safety of a property’s gas supply.
The landlord’s lettings policy sates it will ensure it obtains all appropriate certifications necessary for electrical and gas safety checks.
There is no evidence that the landlord failed to meet these obligations prior to the resident’s property move.
On 11 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord if it would disconnect his gas cooker and reconnect it at the new property. The landlord advised that this was not a service it provided. The resident considers this would be a beneficial service for the landlord to provide to residents with disabilities. As such, he expressed dissatisfaction for incurring the cost.
The landlord had no obligation to offer this service. Therefore, its response that he would need to arrange a private engineer was appropriate.
That said, following the landlord’s post let visit on 12 September 2023, it recorded “the gas was not uncapped at the cooker point properly so the resident paid for this privately.” It is unclear whether this related to the same matter of 11 August 2023 or an additional cost. The word ‘properly’ in the landlord’s records particularly stands out. However, there is no further evidence that the landlord investigated this matter. Nor did its stage 2 response address this point. While this would be upsetting, this is a complaint handling matter which we will consider.
The landlord’s lettings policy states it will decorate all properties in line with its empty homes standards. This does not include flooring but may include a decoration paint pack. We note that the landlord offered the resident a decoration pack. This was appropriate and consistent with its lettings policy.
The resident requested £1,300 from the landlord to reimburse him for installing flooring in the new property. He considered this sum reasonable to resolve his complaints.
The landlord had no obligation to install flooring or reimburse the resident. However, the evidence shows it agreed to complete additional work for the resident during its void repair stage as a gesture of goodwill and to support his move. This was reasonable in the circumstances and it was under no obligation to complete work beyond its lettable standards.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the new property failed to meet the lettable standards. Nor that any Occupational Therapist assessment considered it necessary for the landlord to provide flooring. Therefore, based on our findings we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
However, we have made a recommendation that the landlord investigates the resident’s need to uncap the new property’s gas himself.

Reports of drainage repairs

The resident also raised this point after the landlord’s stage 1 response. As the landlord acknowledged it in its stage 2 response, we will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states the landlord’s responsive repair standards. The priority categorises include:
1. P99 – within 2 hours out of hours.
2. P1E – emergency within 2 hours.
3. P1 – within 24 hours.
4. P2 – within 7 days.
5. P3 – within 30 days.
6. P4 – within 90 days.
The resident describes experiencing a recurring blocked drain resulting in grey water entering a cupboard at his original home. He states that the dirty, smelly water damaged possessions and put his health at risk. The resident said the issue was a shared drain which he believed other resident’s would put fat and food down sinks.
The landlord does not dispute the resident experienced drainage issues. However, it states it responded in line with its repairs and maintenance policy on each occasion. However, it also accepts that its contractor failed to complete a job as directed. As such it recalled the contractor to redo the drain clearance work.
The landlord’s records show various jobs between 5 June 2020 to 20 October 2023. Each given a particular priority requiring action between 2 hours and 90 days. The landlord does not dispute that the resident experienced these issues over a number of years. However, it states it responded on each occasion when advised of a problem. Having reviewed the landlord’s record’s, we are satisfied that it responded to each occurrence in line with the priority given to it. This was consistent with its policy’s responsive repair times.
That said, the landlord confirms that its drainage contractor did not complete a job as requested. As such, it was necessary to recall it to complete a CCTV survey. The landlord described apologising and explaining the next steps to the resident. It also accepts that it recalled the contractor for a second time and attended the appointments to ensure it completed the work correctly. This demonstrated the landlord took steps to support the resident with his loss of confidence in the contractor.
It would understandably have been upsetting that work to prevent a recurring drainage issue required multiple visits. It is however reasonable that the landlord apologised, rearranged appointments, and attended to monitor the contractors performance. Its records show that it helped the resident clear items from the affected cupboard and offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused. This demonstrated the landlord took steps to put things right.
In contact with us the resident explained that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He considered it did not cover the loss of possessions and the risk grey water may have had on his health. We note that the resident was unable to quantify actual losses to the landlord or ourselves. As such, having visited the resident in person, the landlord made an offer based on its findings. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Should the resident remain dissatisfied, this matter requires a decision by an insurance claim. He should therefore ask the landlord for its insurance details and submit the necessary evidence and claim for consideration.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Associated complaint

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its ICP within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent its stage 1 response within its complaint policy timescales. This was appropriate and consistent with the Code.
The Code states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not respond to the resident’s comments that he considered the allocation process discriminatory. It simply informed him of its decision to offer him a direct match suitable for his household’s changing circumstances. It would have been appropriate at this stage to have explained the choice based letting system. And also the separate roles of the landlord and the local authority. That it did not, caused the resident time and trouble escalating his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day, 14 August 2023. This was appropriate and consistent with its complaints policy.
The Code says if the landlord needs an extension beyond 20 working days to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this.
The evidence shows the landlord remained in communication with the resident throughout his complaint. It arranged a nominated person to support him and arranged meetings to suit his availability. It wrote to him on 30 August 2023 and 20 September 2023 to confirm agreements to extend its stage 2 response date. This demonstrated it acted appropriately and in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response identified matters not raised at stage 1. This included the resident’s dissatisfaction about a request for a reasonable adjustment. And his desire for it to pay for new flooring in his new property. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to request he make new complaints. However, its offer to include the within its stage 2 demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to support the resident with all of his concerns.
That said, while the landlord acknowledged these points as part of his escalation request, it made no further reference to them. Given the landlord’s response said it would include these matters, we would have expected it to have investigated and addressed them within its response. This caused the resident time and trouble bringing his complaint to us.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. While it provided timely responses in line with the expectations of the Code, it missed an opportunity at stage 1 to answer the resident’s complaint in full. Furthermore, while its offer to include additional matters at stage 2 was reasonable, it failed to address them in its response. This did nothing to rebuild the resident’s confidence that the landlord had listened to his concerns.
We order the landlord to pay £75 compensation for these failures, which it failed to acknowledge or put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to rehouse him.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to cover cost incurred during his property move
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of reports of drainage repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £75 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £150 offered at stage 2 of its ICP for the reported drainage issues, if not already paid.
We recommend the landlord investigates the resident’s need to uncap the new property’s gas himself. If it finds this to be a failing rather than the reconnection of his cooker, we recommend it reimburses him, on production of a receipt.
We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustments, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
We recommend the landlord inform the resident of opportunities where he can participate in tenant events or provide resident feedback.