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

Sandbourne Housing Association (202416101)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416101

Sandbourne Housing Association

22 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s transfer application.
    2. Handling of a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 10 June 2024 the resident complained that he felt the landlord was “harassing” him. He clarified his complaints on 18 June 2024. He said the landlord had not responded to his request to meet in person, had sent him “threatening” letters, and that he had been on the transfer waiting list for 8 years.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. It said:
    1. Its policy did not include a provision for a resident to meet with its Chair.
    2. The tenancy agreement states that items must not be stored in communal areas without written permission. Despite issuing a notice seeking possession (NOSP) the resident continued to breach his tenancy agreement.
    3. The resident had been registered on the transfer list since 6 November 2017. It asked him to specify the nature of his complaint and the resolution sought.
    4. It had received the resident’s letter addressed to its solicitor, where he said he would see it in court.
    5. It did not uphold the complaint.
  4. On 1 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 July 2024. It repeated its stage 1 response in relation to the request to meet with its Chair and about items left in the communal area. It said its solicitor was not required to respond to the resident directly and explained how he should contact the landlord instead. It said the resident had not provided further information about his complaint relating to the transfer list and told him to do this.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked it to progress his complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process on 26 July 2024. The landlord responded on 5 August 2024 and said he had not explained why he wanted to progress his complaint to stage 3 of its process and had not met its criteria. It confirmed the resident had completed its internal complaints process.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to this Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 30 June 2023, the Ombudsman previously decided under case reference 202004362 that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application. The complaint considered the assessment of issues up to the landlord’s stage 2 response from June 2021.
  2. In June 2024 the resident complained that he had been waiting on the transfer list for 8 years. It is important to explain that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon”.
  3. In addition to this, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised the issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. As such this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application from June 2023 up to its final response from August 2024.
  4. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service on 8 July 2025 that they only consider the issues defined above to be outstanding and that the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assess the circumstances of the issue that remains outstanding.

Handling of a transfer application

  1. The landlord’s lettings and transfers policy lists its transfer bandings as urgent, priority and general. It explains that an applicant is placed on an urgent list if there is an emergency and immediate need for re-housing, amongst other things. It says an applicant will only be placed on a priority list for all eligible properties if, in its opinion, they have a medical condition verified by a specialist medical practitioner (not normally a GP). The medical condition requires a need for re-housing that one of its properties will meet and the current accommodation does not. Its list includes other situations. The policy allows for an appeal that will be heard by a panel set-up by its Board.
  2. In July 2023 the resident provided the landlord with information from his GP in connection with his transfer application. It is understood that this was to do with a medical condition, this Service has not seen the information from the GP. At that time, the landlord said the information provided did not change the priority of the transfer application. It asked the resident to provide supporting evidence of a medical condition, verified by a specialist medical practitioner to confirm the need for rehousing. It said it would then consider the priority application further. While the resident may have felt the landlord should have accepted what his GP said, the landlord’s request for a specialist opinion was in line with its policy.
  3. In August 2023 the landlord explained the resident’s banding position and made attempts to assist with his application. It made some suggestions including asking the GP to be more specific on the medical reasons (why he needed to be nearer a family member) and said it could ask an independent company to assess whether the resident should be in a higher priority. This was to independently assess the landlord’s decision about the resident’s banding. The landlord’s approach here was reasonable.
  4. Following the outcome of the independent review in October 2023, it was reasonable of the landlord to have shared the outcome with the resident. The independent review agreed with the landlord’s decision, that the information provided did not meet its threshold to change the banding.
  5. Following this, in January 2024, the resident told the landlord he was unhappy about not moving. The landlord appropriately held an appeals panel in February 2024. Its written follow up explained the need for a specialist medical practitioner to verify a diagnosis and detailed other options available to the resident to secure alternative accommodation. The landlord’s response was in line with its policy. There is no evidence to show the resident provided a specialist medical practitioner’s verification.
  6. Overall, it is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy about the length of time he has been waiting for a transfer. While this has been frustrating for the resident, the evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably in explaining the requirements to change banding, assessing the resident’s housing needs, and referring its decision for an independent review and considering the matter at appeal. The landlord has demonstrated that its actions were in line with its policy and that, at times, it made suggestions to support the resident. There is no evidence to show it received the specialist medical opinion. As such, with the evidence available, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.

Decision to issue the resident with a NOSP

  1. The tenancy agreement explains a resident’s obligations, these include, amongst other things:
    1. Not to cause a nuisance, including antisocial behaviour (ASB), threats or actual violence.
    2. Not to store items in communal corridors without first obtaining written permission from the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will utilise the most appropriate informal and/or legal interventions when handling ASB. It explains that it will normally take appropriate legal action to bring about a resolution when alleged perpetrators continue to behave in an antisocial manner and have failed to engage with its staff. It says it will do this when, in its opinion, it is reasonable and proportionate action. It lists legal interventions to include possession action, amongst other things.
  3. For background purposes, the landlord wrote to all residents in May 2023 reminding them that no personal items should be kept in communal areas. It shared its fire assessment findings and said it would inspect communal areas.
  4. On 29 May 2024 the landlord issued the resident with a NOSP. It told the resident that he must improve his behaviour and listed the following issues:
    1. On 8 May 2024 the resident allegedly wrote a threatening note to a neighbour.
    2. On 17 May 2024 the resident was allegedly aggressive towards a neighbour.
    3. The resident left items in the communal area outside his property.
    4. The resident made holes in walls to hang pictures outside his property. This was without the landlord’s permission.
  5. When considering the nature of the reports, the tenancy agreement and the ASB policy the landlord’s decision to issue a NOSP was an action available to it as per its policy.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it appropriately explained the resident’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and reminded him of its terms. It told the resident that inspections completed after the NOSP showed there were still items stored in the communal area. It said this was a breach of the terms of the tenancy. It explained how it had spoken to the resident to encourage compliance with the terms of the tenancy and that it would pursue possession proceedings as and when it was “appropriate and necessary”.
  7. The resident has told this Service that the landlord is continuing with possession proceedings. This Service has not been provided with evidence to show the matter has gone to court or that it has progressed further since the NOSP was issued in May 2024. While it is accepted that the resident may have been caused worry in being told about possession proceedings, the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy and procedure.
  8. It is important to explain that it is not the role of this Service to determine whether an action amounts to ASB. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policy explain the actions available to the landlord when it feels tenant obligations have been breached. The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with an NOSP was an option available to its as per its policy and procedure. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately reminded the resident about his tenancy requirements, explained where breaches had occurred and gave him an opportunity to resolve the issues. As such, when considering the evidence available there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an NOSP.
  9. It is acknowledged that the situation may have progressed since the landlord’s final response from August 2024. As mentioned previously this investigation does not include an assessment of events that happened after this date. However, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if the eviction proceedings have progressed. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of a transfer application.
    2. Handling of a NOSP.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord explain to the resident its current position around his tenancy and next steps, if required. This can be in person or in writing. It should consider signposting the resident to relevant advice or support agencies.