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

Longhurst Group Limited (202214060)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214060

Longhurst Group Limited

30 May 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 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request to be rehoused.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) states that ‘the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.’
  3. This Service has not seen evidence of a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident can raise a complaint about the ASB to the landlord if she wishes to. She may be able to refer her complaint about the ASB to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident lives at the property with her son, who has special educational needs.The resident has dyslexia, and she has made the landlord aware of this.
  2. On 13 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she wanted to move properties. She had suffered from ASB and had reported this to the landlord. She said that she and a visitor of hers had been threatened by other tenants. She also reported that on a number of occasions in August 2021 and September 2021, tents, a swimming pool and a bouncy castle had been put up on the communal green space with loud parties going on until midnight. These incidents had prevented her son from going out to use the communal area and he was not able to use their garden due to drainage issues. The resident has raised a separate complaint to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues in her garden.
  3. On 13 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident a housing transfer form to complete.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 September 2021. It advised her that she would not be rehoused straightaway. The landlord said the process could take up to a year and advised the resident to widen the area she would accept properties in.
  5. From September 2021 to November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord several times for updates and help in completing her transfer application. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to return the resident’s calls and tried to arrange a couple of visits to the resident’s property to discuss the transfer process. It is not fully clear why the first visit was cancelled however, the resident cancelled the second visit the day before, due to having to work on that day. The landlord advised the resident to complete certain sections of the transfer form and that it would complete the rest on her behalf.
  6. On 30 November 2021, the resident submitted her application for a transfer and sent information to the landlord about her son’s disability. Due to her son’s needs, she requested a property with a garden.
  7. On 18 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that her transfer request had been approved. It said that it would notify its lettings team so that when a suitable property became available, the resident would be considered for this.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2022 to inform the resident that it would continue to look for a suitable property with a garden for her.
  9. The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 16 August 2022. She said:
    1. She had been on the landlord’s housing list for nine months. The landlord had offered her one property, but this was not in the areas she had requested.
    2. She was not told that as she had asked for properties in two specific areas, it was unlikely that a suitable property would become available.
    3. She needed to be rehoused within the areas she had requested as she relied on her mother for support with her son and needed to be close to her property.
    4. She felt that the last nine months had been wasted. She requested that she be rehoused in the areas she had asked for and if this was not possible that the landlord discuss alternative solutions with her.
  10. On 23 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said that it only had limited properties in the areas the resident had specified. It said that it had offered the resident a property in February 2022, but the resident had not accepted this. The landlord said it was highly unlikely that a property would become available in the resident’s specified areas. The landlord agreed it had not adhered to its policy to review the transfer application with the resident every three months and apologised for this. It said it had now arranged a date to carry out a review and would ensure that going forward all applications would be reviewed with residents every three months.
  11. The resident submitted a stage two complaint on 24 August 2022. She said that the landlord had not told her there were no suitable properties in the areas she had chosen. If it had, she would have looked at other areas or saved up to rent privately. The resident said she felt there had been a breakdown in communication and this had meant that she had been left in her current property with no realistic hope of moving.
  12. On 2 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said that it had informed the resident verbally in February 2022, that it had very few properties in the area the resident had chosen.
  13. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 20 October 2022. She said the landlord should have made her aware at the outset of her transfer request that it had no suitable properties in the areas she had requested. She said the landlord had offered her a property but had not confirmed this in writing, so it was not clear where the property was. She said her son attended a specialist school and her mother helped her with childcare which limited the areas she could move to.
  14. The landlord’s records state that the resident told it on 9 November 2022, that there had been two separate fires in the communal areas. She said that another tenant had been abusive to her. The resident said she no longer wanted to consider a move via the landlord’s transfer list. The landlord said it gave the resident advice about other landlords she could seek to move with. The landlord said it told the resident that it was happy to provide a support letter for her should she need one, as part of an application for housing with a new landlord. The landlord said it told the resident it would close her request to be moved via its transfer list. On the same day, the landlord contacted the local authority’s housing options team which said it would support the resident to complete an application to its home finder scheme.
  15. The landlord told this Service that it had advised the resident to consider mutual exchange as an option, but she had not applied to do so.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it can consider compensation of between:
    1. £50-£250 for service failure where the impact on the resident was of short duration.
    2. £250-£700 for considerable service failure or maladministration but where there is no permanent impact on the resident.
  2. The landlord’s transfer policy states that when processing a transfer request, the landlord should organise a home visit to discuss with the resident which areas they wish to move to, and the likelihood of availability. The policy emphasises the importance of a transfer application only being approved, for areas where the landlord had stock availability. Residents should also be given advice about registering with the local authority and the local mutual exchange service. The transfer policy states that the landlord should complete a review with the resident every three months.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s records state that the resident was advised to widen the area she would be prepared to move to, prior to her submitting her application. However, the landlord’s transfer policy states that it should organise a home visit to discuss the areas the resident would like to move to once it receives the application, to ensure that the resident is told whether the landlord has any properties in those areas.
  2. As noted above, the landlord’s records show that a couple of the home visits it attempted to organise with the resident were cancelled. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord attempted to reorganise a further home visit, nor has it seen evidence that the landlord confirmed its advice in writing to the resident that she needed to widen her search area. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not act in accordance with its policy in the support it provided to the resident with her application.
  3. The resident called the landlord several times for updates during the process of applying for a transfer. The landlord’s records show it made several attempts to return her calls but was not always able to reach her. The landlord acted appropriately in attempting to call the resident, as she had made it aware of her dyslexia and that she found writing difficult.
  4. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord states that it had advised the resident in February 2022, that it was highly unlikely that a property would become available in the areas she had indicated on her transfer form. However, this Service has not seen evidence to confirm this. The landlord said it had advised the resident to consider submitting a mutual exchange application, however, again this Service has not seen evidence confirming when and how the resident was advised of this.
  5. Despite the resident’s dyslexia, the landlord should have followed-up all advice with confirmation in writing, so that it could evidence what advice was given and when. Furthermore, the landlord should have kept detailed internal records to evidence what it had advised the resident along with dates this advice was given, to avoid disputes as to what information she had received.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it had only very few properties in the areas the resident had requested. The landlord’s transfer policy states that transfer requests should only be approved where the landlord had stock availability. If the landlord had such limited availability in the areas the resident had chosen, it should have considered only accepting the resident’s transfer request on the basis that she widen the areas she would agree to move to.
  7. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised and apologised for not carrying out the three-monthly review meetings and said it would learn from this. However, given that the resident’s application was accepted in January 2022 and the landlord did not identify this failing until August 2022, the landlord missed at least two opportunities during this time to let the resident know that it was unlikely to be able to find a suitable property in her chosen area.
  8. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said it had offered the resident a property in February 2022, but that she had turned this down. However, the resident has told this Service that she did not receive the offer in writing, and she was therefore unsure where exactly the property was, as there were two roads with similar names. The landlord has informed this Service that the offer was not a formal one. This approach of making informal offers, is likely to have caused confusion for the resident. The landlord should have ensured that all the offers of housing it made were formal and were confirmed in writing, including the full address of the property. Had it done so, the resident would have been able to make an informed decision whether the property she had been offered was suitable for her.
  9. The landlord’s repeated failures to make it fully clear to the resident it was unlikely that she would be offered a property in her chosen areas, would have caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience, particularly given her son’s disabilities. If this had been confirmed sooner, the resident could have pursued other options for moving such as moving in with relatives or saving up for private rental.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) states that where maladministration is identified that adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. In the opinion of this Service, £250 compensation should be offered to the resident in view of the errors made by the landlord and the inconvenience and distress this would have caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation, within four weeks of this report, ensuring that this Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensure that it follow up all its advice in writing, unless residents specifically ask that it not do so. Where it has been asked not to provide written information, the landlord should ensure that it keeps detailed written internal records showing what it advised and when.