The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202220844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220844

The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited

25 November 2024

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:
1. A homelessness prevention grant application and related property transfer.
Costs the landlord has requested for:
1. Replacing two doors.
2. Repairing a hole in the hallway door.
3. Clearing the garden and house.
4. Court costs.
The landlord’s decision to start legal proceedings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lived in a four-bedroom property under an assured tenancy. The resident lived at the property with one child and then by herself. The resident’s tenancy started on 12 May 1997. The landlord noted on the tenancy agreement is part of the member landlord’s structure. The resident has type 2 diabetes, arthritis, depression, anxiety, and mobility issues.
On 16 August 2022 the resident requested a property transfer as she wanted a smaller property that was more affordable. This was under the landlord’s own allocation policy which outlines when and how the landlord makes offers of accommodation.
On 6 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the landlord’s policies for vulnerable customers and the lack of policies to help with downsizing customers affected by the “underoccupancy charge”.
The resident also complained that the landlord was not helping her with a homelessness prevention grant application. This is an application for financial help that residents in rent arrears facing legal action can make to the local authority. If approved, residents can use this grant to clear arrears and avoid homelessness. Local councils administer these applications with the support of funds from central government.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 January 2023 and said:
1. it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint
2. the resident had got into rent arrears due to changes to her welfare benefits following changes in household composition
3. the resident and her child live in a four-bedroom property and were under occupying
4. the resident was unwilling to pay the underoccupancy charge until she heard from the local council about a discretionary housing payment application and request to exempt one bedroom from the charge
5. the resident is not eligible to transfer to another property under its allocations policy until she reduced arrears to below £150 (it currently assessed her housing related debt at £2,851.73).
6. paragraph 3.1.6 of its allocations policy states that residents who wish to move property must not have more than £150 former tenancy arrears or arrears of more than twice their weekly rent with a repayment arrangement in place
7. it acknowledged that the resident made a homelessness prevention grant application directly to the local council in August 2022, but it was unaware of the outcome.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2023. The landlord filed a claim at court to regain possession of the resident’s property on 23 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 on 6 March 2023 and said:
1. it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint
2. it reiterated that its allocations policy states that a resident must have no more than £150 of former tenancy arrears or current arrears of twice their weekly rent with a repayment arrangement in place to move
3. every landlord has its own qualification criteria to enable residents to join their allocation scheme including the local council
4. it was willing to help with the resident’s reduction of arrears
5. its money advice service tried to support the resident with a homelessness prevention grant application when it tried to call on 3 March 2023.
The resident moved to a one-bedroom property on 19 July 2023 but remained dissatisfied at the landlord’s handling of her homelessness prevention grant application and property transfer request. She also expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s decision to take legal action against her. The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not reimbursed her the court costs and disputes she should have to pay for the recharges at her new property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

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 part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42. of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint–handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
In this case, there is no evidence that the resident pursued her complaint about the costs as set out in paragraph 2 or that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this part of the complaint is outside jurisdiction under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme and will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42. of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: e. concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.” The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord issued a claim for possession on 23 February 2023. The case was adjourned on 18 April 2023 and subsequently struck out on 18 July 2023.
As the landlord’s decision to seek a court order to evict the resident was the subject of legal proceedings, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The resident had a chance to respond to the landlord’s application and raise a defence as part of those proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The scope of investigation

This service is only able to investigate complaints brought by residents against their landlords. The complaint, under paragraphs 34.a. and 41b. of the Scheme, must relate to an act or mission by the landlord. Paragraph 41. of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme.”
In this case, we can only look at what the landlord complained of did and did not do, and we cannot assess how the local authority handled the resident’s homelessness prevention grant application. This is because when the local authority dealt with the resident’s homeless prevention grant application it was not acting on behalf of the landlord. We can however consider how the landlord supported the resident in relation to its actions concerning the homelessness prevention grant application.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the grant application and transfer made her health worse. Where claims are made that a person has been injured or that a medical condition has worsened because of a landlord’s actions or in actions, the Ombudsman must consider the available documentary evidence. When this type of dispute arises, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a report from an independent medical professional whose duty is to the court. This will give an expert opinion on the cause of any injury or deterioration.
A court will also allow examination of witnesses and allow the evidence to be tested. This process helps the court to determine whether a person’s health has been injured by the landlord’s actions or inactions. This question is therefore better for the courts to decide as a court will have the benefit of expert evidence and be able to allow examination of witnesses. It would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective for the resident to seek a remedy for personal injury through the courts. The Ombudsman can consider any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the homelessness prevention grant application

Landlords have a duty to help residents sustain their tenancies. This is under the Regulator of Social Housing’s tenancy standards. The landlord was aware that the resident’s tenancy was at risk in August 2022 because the resident had rent arrears. The landlord’s evidence is that it referred the resident for money advice on 16 August 2022 and that its money adviser completed a financial assessment with her on 16 September 2022. The landlord’s records show that the money adviser reported on 3 November 2022 and told it that the resident had made her own application to the council for a homeless prevention grant.
Having regard to the landlord’s responsibility to help the resident sustain her tenancy the landlord ought to have offered reasonable advice and help. The landlord was aware in August 2022 that the resident was vulnerable and had several health conditions. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence:
1. to verify what action its money adviser took or support it offered to help the resident make a homelessness prevention fund application in 2022
2. to show that it offered the resident advice on applying to the local council for rehousing through the councils’ housing register or offered the resident with advice on exchanging her property or privately renting
3. that it offered the resident any support for her mental health, in terms of signposting or referrals before 10 May 2023 after it asked what support she had on 16 August 2022
4. to explain how it would check the outcome of the homelessness prevention grant application the landlord understood the resident made.
Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied on the available evidence that the landlord took all reasonable steps to help the resident.
The landlord’s account is that it agreed on 3 March 2023 to send the local council an application for a discretionary housing payment and homelessness prevention grant to help the resident. Although the landlord provided this service with a referral for a grant application dated 7 February 2023 the landlord’s notes show it sent this to the council on 7 March 2023. The landlord told the resident’s stepfather on 14 March 2023 that the resident needed to engage with money advice as a precondition of the homelessness prevention grant process. These were reasonable and positive steps for the landlord to have offered or taken.
The Ombudsman has seen a copy of an email the landlord sent the resident on 22 March 2023 and 12 April 2023 chasing the resident for documentation to support her homelessness prevention grant application. This is consistent with its position that it was attempting to help in 2023. The landlord’s evidence is that it arranged a home visit with the resident on 24 March 2023 and told the resident on 19 April 2023 that the council had tried to contact her about the homelessness prevention grant application. The landlord’s records also note that the council tried to call the resident twice on 20 April 2023.
It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to verify, on the available evidence, the home visit, or contacts on 19 or 20 April 2023. However, the emails the landlord sent on 22 March 2023 and 12 April 2023 show the landlord took positive action to help the resident although they could have been clearer on what documentation the resident needed to provide.
The evidence shows that the council paid a homelessness prevention grant to the resident on 23 April 2023 via her rent account to help clear her arrears.

The transfer application

Landlords have a duty to maintain clear rules and policies concerning how they allocate or offer properties. The landlord had its own policy to allow its residents to move from one property to another and which the landlord directly managed.
The landlord was under an obligation to handle the resident’s request for a transfer in line with this policy. The landlord’s allocations policy disqualified the resident from being on its transfer list because she had rent arrears that were more than two weeks rent.
The evidence the landlord and resident have provided indicates that the resident made her request to move on 16 August 2022 and that as of that date:
1. the resident was aware that the landlord’s policy prevented her from moving because she had rent arrears
2. the resident disclosed severe mental health and physical disabilities with suicidal ideation
3. the resident accepted that she was under occupying her property
4. the resident wanted to apply for a homelessness prevention grant to help clear some or all her arrears to allow her to move.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s allocation policy did not allow for a transfer for a resident in her position. While this service would normally expect a landlord to act in line with its policy it would have been reasonable for it to have considered if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify an exception. This is considering the resident’s vulnerabilities when combined with the fact that she was struggling to make rent payments and was under occupying. Failing to consider if there was any discretion it could exercise caused the resident distress and was a failure. It also meant that the landlord delayed offering the resident’s property to another resident whose household composition was more suited to the size of the property.
The landlord’s account is that it posted the resident a transfer application on 24 April 2023. While it is not possible, on the available evidence, to verify when the landlord sent the resident an application or when the resident returned it the landlord acknowledged on 3 May 2023 the resident sent it “screenshots” of the application. The landlord told the resident on 3 May 2023 that it needed the original and the resident provided this on 10 May 2023.
The landlord told the resident on 10 May 2023 that it would consider the application, and it made an offer of a one-bedroom property on 5 July 2023. This was 56 days after the resident sent her application. The landlord’s allocations policy does not specify any timescales for dealing with transfer requests. Under these circumstances the Ombudsman considers that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the landlord in making an offer.
The resident complained on 15 July 2023 that the landlord delayed her moving in because there was outstanding work to replace the kitchen door, patch two doors and clear the house and garden. Despite this the evidence shows that the landlord gave the resident an assured tenancy of a one-bedroom property on 19 July 2023 and the resident has told this service this is the date she moved. The Ombudsman considers that the time from offer (5 July 2023) to the date the resident moved (19 July 2023) was reasonable.

Summary

In conclusion, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps to help the resident with a homelessness prevention grant application in 2022 for the reasons provided in paragraph 22 of this report. The landlord could have taken more steps to help the resident with a homelessness prevention grant application before 2023. It failed to show adequate consideration for her vulnerabilities and whether it could exercise discretion. This caused the resident distress and delayed her move to a more affordable property.
After March 2023 the landlord acted reasonably by helping with a homelessness prevention grant application. It moved the resident within a reasonable time of receiving a completed transfer application, but it ought to have considered if it could have exercised discretion in how it applied its policy. The Ombudsman has awarded a level of compensation to the resident to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the homelessness prevention grant application and transfer request.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time the resident made her complaint the landlord had a three-staged complaint procedure. The landlord had to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The third stage involved a resident led panel which residents could request consider their complaint.
The resident complained on 6 December 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 January 2023.The landlord said that the resident agreed a 10 working day extension from 17 January 2023 to deal with the complaint. The resident has not disputed this, and this was in line with its complaint policy. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. It took the landlord 20 working days to respond. This was in line with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord missed an opportunity during the complaint process to consider and assess whether it could have done more in 2022 to help with the homelessness prevention grant application. If it had done so it may have offered the assistance it eventually went onto provide in 2023. This delayed the resident moving and caused her a level of distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance states that the Ombudsman may make awards of compensation of up to £100 for service failure. This guidance also allows the Ombudsman to make awards of up to £600 for maladministration, where there has been a detriment but no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the homelessness prevention grant application and transfer application.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the resident’s complaint detailed at paragraph 2 above about costs the landlord was seeking from her.
In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to start legal proceedings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for its handling of her homelessness prevention grant application and transfer application
2. pay the resident directly £300 made up of
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the homelessness prevention grant application and transfer request
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.