Citizen Housing (202126878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126878

Citizen Housing

25 August 2023

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 applicant 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 handling of:
   1. The applicant’s housing application pre-May 2021
   2. The applicant’s housing application post-May 2021.
   3. Its communications with the applicant.
   4. The applicant’s complaint.

Background

2. During 2020 the applicant decided he wanted to move from his current accommodation as he was experiencing anti-social behaviour in his area. He made various bids for property let by the landlord using a “Homefinder” app operated by the local authority in partnership with the various housing associations situated in his city.
3. Initially, the landlord turned the applicant down for a move on the basis he had outstanding rent arrears on a previous tenancy. However, in March 2021 it skipped one of his bids by which time the arrears had been cleared. The landlord acknowledged that that was a mistake and agreed to offer the applicant one direct match to make amends.
4. In May 2021 the landlord identified a suitable property, but the applicant disputed it was an appropriate match and turned it down. The landlord committed to continue searching and stated it would update the applicant weekly by email.  In June 2021, two further properties were identified with the landlord confirming it was willing to apply the direct match offer to either of them. However, on reflection the applicant concluded they were not suitable after all.
5. In October 2021 the applicant identified and bid on another property. The landlord wanted a reference from the applicant’s current landlord to include information about his mental health. The applicant did not want this enquiry to be made. In the absence of the information being provided, the landlord skipped the applicant’s bid.  
6. On 5 November 2021 the applicant complained about the landlord’s actions. He stated the skip was unfair, made worse by the fact it came on top of a previous unfair skip. He stated he had not received the weekly updates. He considered the landlord had discriminated against him with the information it wanted. The landlord’s position was that it had offered reasonable redress for the initial mistaken skip and that it had fairly skipped the second one. It accepted it had failed to update the applicant weekly as promised. It also accepted that it had failed to address all the issues raised by the applicant in his complaint. It apologised and offered compensation of £50.
7. The applicant was not happy with this outcome, and he referred the matter to this Service. By way of outcome the applicant wants an increased level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8. After the applicant complained to the landlord about the events outlined below, a further property was identified for possible allocation to him. The landlord was prepared to offer it on a direct match basis, but this did not proceed after the applicant had viewed it on 14 January 2022. Reference has been made to the landlord’s handling of this allocation in the records produced for this investigation. 
9. This Service’s remit is set out in our Scheme Rules which require applicants to exhaust a landlord’s internal complaints procedure before referring matters to us (Paragraph 42c). As this allocation was not included in the original complaint and has not been examined by the landlord, it will not be considered further here.

The applicant’s housing application pre-May 2021

10. The landlord’s approach to lettings is contained in two documents. These are its Tenancy and Licence Management Policy (the policy) and its Lettings Statement (the statement).
11. The policy allows the landlord to refuse applicants who have rent arrears, irrespective of the landlord in question. As set out above, the landlord determined that there were arrears in this case at the time of the applicant’s initial bids for housing in late 2020. The applicant has not challenged this. In March 2021, the landlord then refused a bid after the arrears were cleared.
12. The applicant raised the issue with the landlord who accepted it had made a mistake and it offered the applicant one direct match to make amends.
13. The aim of dispute resolution – when there has been a service failure – is to try to place the applicant in the position they would have been in had that failing not taken place. There was no guarantee that the letting would have gone ahead had the landlord not made the error. In the Ombudsman’s view, by offering the direct match, the landlord actually placed the applicant in a better position than previously at this point – he was to be first in line to a suitable property without any competition. This represented a fair and reasonable resolution to the issue. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress for the service failing in question.

The applicant’s housing application post-May 2021

14. On 12 May 2021 the landlord contacted the applicant as it had identified a property which it considered to be a suitable match. The applicant had not bid on the property and turned it down as he did not consider it suited his needs. This does not confirm, however, that the landlord’s nomination of the property was unreasonable. Landlords do not have unlimited numbers of properties to let and there is significant demand for social housing – typically far in excess of availability. The landlord must identify a property that could reasonably accommodate the individual applicant and that is also available for letting at that time. This may not represent the applicant’s ideal of where and how they would like to be accommodated. In this case the landlord’s offer was of a flat in the applicant’s preferred area. It was a reasonable suggestion.
15. On 17 June 2021 the applicant contacted the landlord as he had identified two further properties that he was interested in, but he wanted more information about their layout/facilities. The landlord provided the necessary information and offered to treat either of them as a direct match. This was a fair and reasonable response to those enquiries. The applicant chose not to proceed; he did not request a viewing of either property. 
16. The applicant then bid on a further property in October 2021. The landlord did not offer to direct match him, but it is noted he had not proceeded with three others (as set out above) – all of which the landlord had offered to treat in that way. The landlord’s policy states that “further offers” of accommodation will not be made where the applicant has received three offers and they have been refused. The Ombudsman is satisfied that whilst the properties were not formally ‘offered’, the agreed ‘one direct match’ had been potentially applied three times. The landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable because they followed its overall approach to multiple applications.
17. In terms of the landlord’s handling of the bid, the applicant was invited to allow a reference to be requested from his current landlord. This was to include a query asking about his mental health situation as he had disclosed a need in that regard. The applicant did not want the question to be posed and refused. The landlord skipped his bid – it says fairly. The applicant considers this was discriminatory.
18. The landlord’s statement sets out how it will respond to bids. It contains the following provisions: –
    1. At the end of the bidding cycle each week, the applicant at the top of the list for each property will be contacted and checks made to verify their application. If the checks confirm the applicant is eligible, they can then be considered for the property.
    2. If the applicant does not wish to be considered, does not reply to our contact or is ineligible then we will consider the next person on the shortlist until we have a successful applicant. For some types of properties, a number of people at the top of the shortlist will be contacted at the same time.
    3. The applicant will be able to view the property with a member of our staff, who will explain the main features of the property and answer any questions.
    4. A formal offer of accommodation will not be made until the applicant has completed a satisfactory pre-tenancy assessment, including determining financial capability and personal ability to sustain a tenancy.
    5. Where we identify that an applicant has needs which require a high level of support or has medical needs which cannot be met or arranged in a reasonable timescale in the home that they are being offered then we may not be able to make an offer of accommodation.
19. The landlord’s policy then adds to these provisions as follows: –
    1. We also reserve the right not to make an offer when we feel further background checks are required before we decide whether to offer a property and the information is not provided to us within two working days by the applicant. Where additional information is required from other organisations in order for us to establish the applicant’s ability to sustain a tenancy or licence, and that is not received, we also reserve the right not to make an offer.
    2. We are committed to letting our vacant properties quickly. Our aim is to minimise rent loss, keep the number of vacant properties as low as possible and thereby maximise the availability of housing to meet need.
20. The landlord contacted the applicant about the bid on Friday, 22 October 2021 asking that he confirm his interest by Monday, 25 October 2021 otherwise it would be cancelled. It stated that other bidders were interested. By Tuesday 26 October 2021 the landlord had spoken with the applicant and explained its reference requirements. The landlord’s records show the applicant refused and ended the phone call. The landlord then tried to return the applicant’s further phone call on Thursday 28 October 2021 without success. Finally, the landlord spoke to the applicant on Monday 1 November 2021, explaining the information was required to ensure the landlord could meet his support needs. When the applicant did not give permission for the enquiry to be made with his current landlord, his bid was skipped.
21. The landlord’s policy and statement provide for bids to be assessed quickly. The timeframe set out above only spans one week but the landlord’s approach is to only offer a short timetable for information to be provided – two working days. It allowed that. The landlord wished to satisfy itself as to the nature of the applicant’s support needs and whether it would be able to respond to them adequately. There is no suggestion the tenancy would be denied due to the needs existing in the first place. The landlord’s request for both a reference and the information in question was reasonable – it wished to assess whether the tenancy could be sustained by the applicant. This was in accordance with its policy and statement.  Further, this Service expects landlords to record their tenants’ vulnerabilities so that they can be taken into account within the landlord/tenant relationship.
22. In conclusion, the landlord’s actions were appropriate. They were in accordance with its policy and statement, the relevant provisions having been set out above. The bid was fairly skipped.

The landlord’s communications with the applicant

23. As set out above, during May 2021, the landlord had incorrectly skipped a bid and on 18 May 2021, the landlord emailed the applicant and stated that it would continue to look for a match and that it would keep the applicant updated “via a weekly email”.
24. There is no evidence this arrangement was put into place. Contact took place in June 2021 when the applicant identified two properties of possible interest and again in late October – which has been examined above. Other than that, the applicant was not updated. As part of its complaint handling response, the landlord admitted this was a failure in its service. It offered compensation of £50 as a result.
25. This Service’s Remedies Guidance sets out information on calculating financial redress. Where a service failing results in some impact on the applicant, but it was of short duration and does not significantly affect the overall outcome, an award in the region of £50 – £250 is anticipated. In this case, communications took place but in a sporadic way rather than on the expected weekly basis. However, during that time the applicant was still able to check the availability of properties using the Homefinder app and did contact the landlord when he saw possible matches. The impact overall was limited. Accordingly, the compensation offered, whilst modest, was within an appropriate range. In conclusion, therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failing identified.

The applicant’s complaint

26. The landlord sets out its approach to complaints in two documents. These are its Complaints Policy and its Complaints, Compliments and Customer Feedback Procedure. The landlord notes that some complaints can be quickly resolved informally, but if that is not the case then it offers a two-stage process. The first is an investigation with a written response being given. The landlord aims to acknowledge complaints in three working days and provide a timescale for response from the outset – keeping the applicant advised of any delays.
27. If the applicant remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the procedure. If the landlord determines there are issues which have not been addressed, it will carry out a review. The landlord commits to providing a response within ten working days unless there is a valid reason to extend that timeframe.
28. In this case the landlord’s records show that the applicant contacted it on 20 November 2020, 25 November 2020 and 20 April 2021 indicating he wished to complain about its handling of his bids. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord handled these contacts on an informal basis because on 26 April 2021 it emailed the applicant making the direct match offer referred to above. No formal complaint process had been entered into at that stage and the applicant did not press for this action or raise the fact it had not been done. However, the nature of those contacts might reasonably have led the landlord to the conclusion that a formal complaint was indicated, and this approach was not necessarily appropriate.
29. Once the applicant’s bid had been skipped at the end of October 2021 however the applicant lodged a formal complaint dated 5 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged it on 8 November 2021, that is within the requisite three working days. However, it failed to offer any timescale for a response to be provided which was inappropriate. Further, this Service would normally expect to see landlords committing to a timescale of ten working days for a written stage one response as part of its policies and procedures.
30. By 25 November 2021, some three weeks after the complaint was made, the applicant emailed the landlord confirming it had spoken to him three times about the complaint – but the timeframe for those contacts was not set out. The landlord responded with a date of 3 December 2021 for a response and apologised for the delay. By 6 December 2021 the landlord had not responded but its records state the applicant could not be contacted to discuss matters and it was anticipating closing the complaint. Whilst the landlord’s policy/procedure require it to contact the applicant to explore their concerns, the complaint itself did set out the issues to be addressed. The landlord might reasonably have investigated and responded to them in the absence of such contact.
31. The landlord provided its stage one written response on 9 December 2021. However, the focus of that communication was on updating the applicant about repairs required to the further property now under consideration. The landlord’s approach was that it anticipated resolving the applicant’s housing requirements, it did not need to address his previous concerns. This was not reasonable, and the applicant escalated the complaint the same day, clearly setting out the issues he wanted to be addressed.
32. The landlord acknowledged that request in a voicemail message sometime in the next three working days. However, it failed to provide a response in the ten working day timescale envisaged by its policy and procedure. Instead, on 24 December 2021 the landlord emailed the applicant to request a discussion on 6 January 2022 about the complaint. The applicant declined but further set out his concerns in an email on 12 January 2022. The landlord responded that it would reply by 21 January 2022, but this was later extended to 28 January 2022. A written response was then given on 31 January 2022, some 5 and a half weeks later than the landlord’s policy allows for.
33. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was inappropriate because it failed to manage the applicant’s expectations by giving proper timescales for responses; it asked for details of the complaint which it had already received; and it stated it could not respond to the complaint without clarity when the applicant had made his concerns sufficiently clear.
34. The landlord accepted its complaint handling had been inadequate but only in the sense that it had not fully addressed the issues raised in its stage one response. It apologised and referred to the £50 compensation offer – but which it expressed as being for the upset and distress caused by its lack of communication and which appeared to relate the failure of the weekly email updates.
35. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might reasonably have noted the failings identified in this report and offered the applicant some compensation to reflect his time and trouble in pursuing matters. It is reasonable to conclude his complaint would have been closed had he not pressed the issue. Whilst the landlord was unable to reach the applicant easily by telephone to discuss matters, he had made the landlord aware of the fact such communications left him anxious, and he preferred to correspond by email. This was not taken on board by the landlord during the process of this complaint.
36. These issues took place over a relatively short period and there was no long-term impact to the failings, but the applicant did have to repeat himself and was left somewhat in the dark as to when a response might arrive. His earlier attempts to make complaints had not been heeded by the landlord. An order for compensation of £200 has been made below to reflect the impact on the applicant of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of: –
    1. The applicant’s housing application(s) pre-May 2021
    2. Its communications with the applicant.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the applicant’s housing application(s) post-May 2021.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the applicant’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The landlord should write to the applicant with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
41. The landlord should pay the applicant compensation of £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
42. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

43. The landlord should reoffer the applicant the sum of £50 compensation in respect of communication issues as it was made in recognition of an admitted service failing. The determination of an offer of reasonable redress relies upon this compensation being paid.
44. The landlord to review the inclusion of timescales in its complaints policy and procedure to ensure it is compliant with this Service’s requirements.