Together Housing Association Limited (202234002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234002

Together Housing Association Limited

14 February 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:
1. Response to the resident’s request for it to rehouse her due to overcrowding and repairs.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in May 2014. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom end–of–terrace house. She lives with her husband and 2 adolescent children. The landlord has no record of any health vulnerabilities.
The resident made a complaint on 6 March 2023. She described her house as overcrowded and in need of repair. She said the landlord had moved other overcrowded neighbours to larger homes and wanted it to move her. She expressed dissatisfaction about rats in the property, and cracks around windows and walls.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2023. On 14 March 2023 it also acknowledged her dissatisfaction about her ability to apply for alternative housing. The landlord informed her that it would include this new matter in its stage 1 response. It said it needed to extend its response date to fully investigate.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023. It said it:
1. had spoken to the choice based letting coordinator and backdated her ‘B–with–us’ housing application based on overcrowding
2. was unable to grant her a higher priority banding based on her opinion that the property suffered subsidence
3. had activated her application on its own website so she could also apply to its own stock
4. had raised work to seal the rat’s entry points, to disinfect the loft, and replace the insulation
5. apologised that its pest contractor failed to pass on the recommendation to replace the insulation sooner and raised the matter with its contractor as learning to prevent similar delays happening again
6. had raised an independent structural survey as she was unhappy with its own survey findings
7. had raised work orders for 18 May 2023 to repair the property’s window sills and cracks
8. was unable to consider her for a management transfer as there was no evidence her circumstances met its transfer policy criteria
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 April 2023. She said repairs would not resolve her situation. She said she would not be happy “until they were in a suitable 3-bedroom property”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 April 2024. It provided its stage 2 final response on 4 May 2023. It was satisfied with its handling of the resident’s complaint. It reiterated its apology that its pest contractor failed to pass on its recommendations, and recognised the resident had raised additional repairs during the complaints process (ICP). Which it had arranged appointments to resolve. It reassured her it would feedback once it received the independent structural survey.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She said she had not received feedback from the independent structural survey. And considered the landlord had treated her unfairly by not moving her to a larger property. She said she “wanted it to move her to a 3-bedroom house in their local area so the children did not need to move schools”.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the findings of the independent structural survey and recommended work. It explained that the survey identified no structural defects affecting the property. It said the identified repairs were consistent with the construction type and age of the property. The landlord’s records show the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the second survey. She declined the recommended work and advised she only wanted it to move her to a new build property. The landlord notes there were no structural concerns or health and safety risks and it sent a copy of the report to the resident.
On 29 January 2025 the landlord said day–to–day repairs continued, but it had not secured access to achieve the work recommended in the survey. It hoped to achieve all the repairs during void repairs as the resident had secured alternative accommodation.
On 30 January 2025 the resident said she was likely to decline the recently offered property. She said it was too small for her family’s needs and falsely advertised. She said the wait for rehousing was “taking its toll” on their mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of her complaint caused distress to her and her family’s mental wellbeing.
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 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 if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident was unhappy about the landlord’s banding criteria for allocating properties. And the date her housing application started for the B-with-us housing system. This is a choice based letting system run in partnership between local councils 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 re-housing 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 falls outside of our jurisdiction and will not form part of our investigation. We will however consider if the landlord followed its own allocation and management transfer policies.
Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Response to the resident’s request for it to rehouse her due to overcrowding and repairs

The landlord’s housing allocations policy recognises in some circumstances resident’s may have an urgent need to move. In such situations, it may consider a management transfer. The policy states exceptional circumstances may include:
1. to avoid extensive adaptions to meet a resident’s needs if it could find an alternative property
2. to prevent harm (such as a risk to life or fleeing violence)
3. someone moving to benefit from additional support needs
On 1 March 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s home. It recorded no evidence of structural movement, no slipped tiles, and all floors appeared level and secure. It identified minor gapping beneath windows which required filling to prevent cold air entering the room. It identified nothing unusual or of concern beyond standard repairs, which it would raise.
The resident’s complaint of 6 March 2023 said she was unhappy with the findings of the landlord’s survey. She also said she was living in an overcrowded house and considered it had given her incorrect advice in June 2022 regarding size criteria. She said it had told her she would qualify for a 3-bedroom property when her eldest daughter turned 16 years old. But she said it had rejected her housing application and told her that two teenagers of the same sex could share a room until the eldest turned 21 years old.
With no evidence of how these alleged conversations went, we are unable to determine any failure by the landlord. But the choice based lettings policy used by the landlord and other local authorities says that ‘each person over the age of 21 (unless co-habiting as a couple) will require a bedroom. However, when a person who is sharing a bedroom reaches the age of 16, the household will be given an additional bedroom need (though they will not be classed as overcrowded.)’ These statements do not mean the landlord has a responsibility to move a resident.
Reference to 21 years old is the bidding system policy. Reference to 16 years old forms part of the government’s under occupation rules. This refers to the restriction on rent used to calculate benefit entitlement. In this case the rules interact. Therefore, the landlord’s initial decision was consistent with the law and its policies.
However, the landlord supported the resident’s concerns that the second bedroom was small and causing a detriment to the household members. As such, its actions of support ensured she received a backdated banding and she became able to bid via the choice based lettings system. This was reasonable and consistent with our dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right.
The landlord activated an account for her to bid on its own available stock. There is evidence it advised the resident of the limited availability of suitable housing in the precise location she sought. Its actions demonstrated it took steps to support her with her desire to move to a larger property.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with her overcrowding situation. The landlord had historically provided her with appropriate housing to suit her needs. It was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s allocation policy that it could not move her without her joining waiting lists. The landlord has an obligation to manage its allocations process fairly, confidentially, and for the benefit of all residents. Therefore, its actions were appropriate and consistent with its policies.
A landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified staff. It was reasonable that it completed an inspection following the resident’s concerns of subsidence. Its efforts to reassure her by arranging an independent structural survey was reasonable in the circumstances. This showed it took her concerns seriously. This was a reasonable step to remedy her complaint.
During the landlord’s ICP, the resident raised dissatisfaction about additional repairs. The landlord took steps to acknowledge these matters and arranged appointments around her availability. Within its stage 2 final response, it raised works for new service requests including fencing, ventilation, and electrical works. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking action to address the new concerns.
While we acknowledge the resident expressed dissatisfaction about these repairs, it is reasonable that the landlord is only able to address them once informed. It was reasonable for it to summarise in its stage 2 response that it had received no reports of a fencing issue since 2021.
Also, we have seen no evidence that it had previously failed to respond to any of the other reported repairs. Therefore, its action to include and address matters alongside her original complaint was reasonable.
There is nothing within either survey which indicates the property being unfit for human habitation or a health and safety risk. It was therefore appropriate and in line with its management transfer policy to inform the resident it would not move her.
We are empathetic to the resident’s desire to secure a move. We have however seen no evidence of failure by the landlord to offer assistance. It has complied with its allocations policy and assisted her to secure backdated banding via the choice based letting system. Regrettably, a national housing shortage affects the length of time it can take to secure a move, particularly if only looking to remain in specific areas. This is beyond the landlord’s control.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property

The landlord’s pest and vermin policy states it will raise minor works orders if it identifies vermin are inside a resident’s property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete all routine and minor works repairs within 28 days and by a pre agreed customer appointment.
The resident’s complaint of 6 March 2023 said that she was “repeatedly getting rats in the attic”. She said she had concern they were affecting the adjoining homes. And the landlord’s pest control contractor had said it would request for the landlord to repair 2 holes and replace the loft insulation.
Upon receipt of the resident’s complaint, there is evidence the landlord contacted its contractor for feedback regarding her concerns. The landlord’s records show that:
1. it completed 7 checks and treatments between September to November 2021 and ceased treatment as it identified no further rodent activity
2. it recorded only 1 other report of rats from the row of 4 properties in the previous 10 years, also in September 2021
3. it recorded the resident’s request for it to replace the property’s loft insulation in October 2022 however, its contractor made no recommendation for this work at this stage
4. it inspected the property on 16 January 2023 and raised treatment work with its contractor following the resident’s reports on 13 December 2022
5. the contractor attempted to attend on 19 January 2023 but recorded abandoning the appointment due to severe weather conditions
6. the contractor recorded 5 appointments between 26 January to 2 March 2023, and recorded 3 appointments as “no evidence of rodents”
7. treatment ended on 2 March 2023
The rearranged appointment on 26 January 2023 was 1 day beyond the landlord’s 28 day response timescale. But its explanation of the severe weather conditions was reasonable in the circumstances.
During the landlord’s investigation, its contractor stated that it had informed the resident in February 2023 that it would recommend the repair of 2 holes, and replacement of the loft insulation. The contractor acknowledged its failure to pass on its recommendations. It apologised for any delay it caused.
Upon clarifying this, the landlord immediately raised the work orders to block the holes on 14 March 2023. It completed this within 1 day. Also, its records show it completed work to replace the loft insulation on 19 April 2023. This demonstrated the landlord acted on the resident’s reports when she had brought it to its attention.
The landlord does not dispute that its contractor’s error led to a missed opportunity to complete further work in the loft. It also accepts that matters may have benefited from additional action from September 2022. It said sorry and raised the matter with its contractor. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to learn from outcomes to prevent similar errors happening again.
The landlord demonstrated attending within its policy timescales and taking steps to put things right when informed by the resident. It did not know about the outstanding work. But it is reasonable to have expected it to have monitored its contractor’s actions and made sure its property and repair records were up to date. It should learn from this record keeping failure.
Although the rats were not present in the resident’s living spaces, their return would have caused distress. The failure to repair the identified holes in 2022 may therefore have contributed to the rats ability to return to the loft at the beginning of 2023.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. As such, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. A landlord should not exceed these response timescales without good reason and must first agree any extension with the resident.
The landlord provided us a copy of its relevant complaints policy which demonstrated compliance with these expectations.
The Code (1 April 2022) says where residents raise other complaints during the investigation, it should incorporate them into the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint.
The resident raised her original complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
Between 10 March 2023 to 17 March 2023 there is evidence the landlord communicated with the resident, its contractors, and partners to investigate her complaint. This demonstrated it acted on her concerns in a timely manner and took steps to thoroughly investigate.
On 14 March 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with difficulties using the bidding system. The landlord agreed to add her concerns to its stage 1 response and informed her that it would delay its response to thoroughly investigate her concerns. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated a thorough investigation. It identified its pest contractor had failed to provide it with a recommendation report, apologised, and correct this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request within 3 working days and provided its stage 2 final response within 13 working days. These actions were appropriate and met the expectations of its complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated empathy to the resident’s overcrowding and difficulties identifying alternative accommodation. Its response thoroughly explained allocation policy and her housing options. It reassured her that it had not identified any signs of subsidence and arranged additional repairs for new matters raised during its ICP.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to rehouse her due to overcrowding and repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 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 £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord ensures its pest contractor has a process in place to make it aware of any follow on work.
We recommend the landlord ensures it arranges the recommended work to the property if the resident does not accept the recent property offer.