Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202310421)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202310421
Royal Borough Of Greenwich
4 March 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:
- An error on the resident’s tenancy agreement which impacted her mutual exchange application.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
- On 6 January 2023, the resident completed a mutual exchange registration form and submitted it to the landlord.
- On 19 May 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated after 27 years, she had been told that the details on her tenancy agreement were incorrect. The resident explained she was told her property was not a 3- bedroom parlour house as referenced on her tenancy agreement. She stated the error on her tenancy agreement was affecting her eligibility to downsize to a 2-bedroom property.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 June 2023. It acknowledged that the resident’s tenancy agreement issued in April 2001 incorrectly stated her property was a 3-bed parlour house. The landlord stated this was due to an office error. It apologised for the error and recognised it may have misled her to believe she qualified to downsize to a 2-bedroom property. The landlord also confirmed the rent charge on her property had been correct throughout her tenancy and was based on a 3-bedroom property. It explained the resident moving to a 2-bedroom property would mean the property would be under–occupied. The landlord stated it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint.
- On 7 July 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained she was previously allowed to exchange to a 2-bedroom property and asked if this was still possible. The resident also stated her property was registered on the house swap website as a 4-bedroom house and the landlord confirmed this. She also asked about why her housing allocation banding had changed from A to C.
- On 24 August 2023 and 8 September 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023. It reconfirmed that her tenancy agreement included inaccurate information about her property. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused. It also confirmed during September 2023, it provided the resident with a revised tenancy agreement with the correct property details. In addition, the landlord explained based on the size of her current property, she could exchange with another household to a 1-bedroom property. The landlord explained a move to a 2-bedroom property would not meet the mutual exchange criteria referenced in its allocations policy. The landlord also addressed the resident’s query about housing allocation banding.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to allow her to downsize to a 2-bedroom property.
Assessment and findings
Scope of Investigation
- This report will consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the error on the resident’s tenancy agreement, and how it impacted her completing a mutual exchange. It will not consider the issues she raised about her housing allocations banding. The rules which govern our service are set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Housing allocation banding, which is awarded by a local authority in accordance with its allocation policy, are outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about local authority housing allocations banding scheme, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer the complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue it further.
Policies, procedures, and tenancy agreement.
- The landlord’s allocation policy includes information about mutual exchanges and the qualifying criteria. It explains a mutual exchange scheme enables residents to swap homes in or outside of London. The policy states to apply for a mutual exchange, a resident must complete a mutual exchange registration form. Then a resident can find another resident to swap properties with on the relevant website.
- In addition, the policy states applicants can exchange into smaller accommodation if they wish, but the landlord will not consent to an exchange that creates statutory or severe overcrowding, or where the tenant would be under occupying under the housing benefit size criteria.
- The landlord has provided a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement from April 2001. The tenancy agreement states that the property is a ‘3 bed parlour house’.
An error on the resident’s tenancy agreement which impacted her mutual exchange application.
- On 6 January 2023, the resident submitted a mutual exchange registration form. The resident ticked a box in the form confirming she was living in a parlour house and stated she had 3 bedrooms as per her tenancy agreement. In addition, in the form she stated the reason for the mutual exchange application was to downsize to a smaller property. The resident stated she would consider an exchange to a 2–bedroom non–parlour house.
- Following the resident’s application submission, the landlord contacted her in February 2023 and explained that her property was a 3-bedroom non-parlour house with dining recess. The landlord also inspected the resident’s property to confirm that the property was a non-parlour house. Therefore, it explained based on her current property, she could only downsize to a 1-bedroom property. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident to find out she could no longer downsize to a 2-bedroom property.
- After the resident was told her property was a 3-bedroom non-parlour house, she submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 May 2023. The resident explained the landlord had stated her tenancy agreement included incorrect details about the property. The tenancy agreement stated that the resident’s property was a 3-bed parlour house. She stated the error on her tenancy agreement was affecting her eligibility to downsize to a 2-bedroom property.
- On 30 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised that the resident’s tenancy agreement issued in April 2001 incorrectly stated her property was a 3-bed parlour house. The landlord also acknowledged the error on her tenancy agreement may have misled her to believe she qualified to downsize to a 2-bedroom property. It confirmed the rent charge on her property had been correct throughout her tenancy and was based on a 3-bedroom property. It explained the resident moving to a 2-bedroom property would mean the property would be under-occupied. The landlord stated it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the error on the tenancy agreement. In addition, its explanation that the resident moving to a 2-bedroom property would result in the property being under-occupied, was reasonable considering she would be the only resident permanently living in the property.
- Although the landlord’s response was reasonable, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer to provide an amended tenancy agreement with the correct property details. From the information provided by the landlord, we can see the landlord’s staff discussed amending the tenancy agreement prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023. It reconfirmed that her tenancy agreement included inaccurate information about her property. The landlord also confirmed during September 2023, it provided the resident with a revised tenancy agreement with the correct property details. The landlord took the appropriate steps by providing the resident with an amended tenancy agreement. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the amended tenancy agreement sooner than it did.
- In addition, the landlord also stated in its stage 2 complaint response that based on the size of her current property, the resident could exchange with another household with a 1-bedroom property. It explained a move to a 2-bedroom property would not meet the mutual exchange criteria referenced in its allocations policy. The landlord’s explanation of why the resident could only exchange to a 1-bedroom property was reasonable and in line with its mutual exchange criteria.
- The Ombudsman recognises the resident stated to us that the wording in the mutual exchange criteria references a resident under–occupying a property under the housing benefit size criteria. The resident stated she does not receive housing benefit so believes this does not apply to her. Although the resident does not receive housing benefits, she would still be considered to be under-occupying a 2-bedroom property if she completed an exchange. Social landlords have limited housing stock and long waiting lists and larger properties are often in the highest demand with a more limited supply, meaning longer waits for these types of property. Therefore, considering this and the size of her household, it was reasonable for the landlord to state that the resident could only exchange to a 1-bedroom property.
- Overall, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation why it could not allow the resident to exchange to a 2-bedroom property. In addition, it apologised for the error on the tenancy agreement and provided the resident with an amended tenancy agreement. However, the length of time taken to provide the resident with the amended tenancy agreement was unreasonable. Therefore, considering this, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of an error on the resident’s tenancy agreement, which impacted her mutual exchange application. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.
The associated complaint.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
- The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 18 May 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023. The response was around 19 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
- It took the landlord around 47 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 7 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
- The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling delays. Therefore, given the delay in the landlord providing both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of an error on the resident’s tenancy agreement, which impacted her mutual exchange application.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of an error on the resident’s tenancy agreement which impacted her mutual exchange application.
- Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
- The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.