Beyond Housing Limited (202211920)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211920

Beyond Housing Limited

26 June 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:
   1. the resident’s reports of being offered an unsuitable property, including the assessment carried out by the occupational therapist;
   2. the resident’s concerns about her housing register banding;
   3. the resident’s request for a refund of her rent and other charges stipulated under the tenancy agreement for the duration of the tenancy.

Background

2. The resident successfully bid for a two bedroom bungalow on their local authority’s housing register and subsequently viewed it with an occupational therapist and the landlord on 28 June 2022. The occupational therapist advised the property was suitable for the resident and it could be adapted to meet the resident’s needs. The resident subsequently accepted the property and signed an assured tenancy with the landlord on 29 June 2022.
3. The resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord about the following:
   1. She was dissatisfied the property offered to her was unsuitable for her vulnerabilities and disabilities.
   2. She was dissatisfied she would lose her banding on the housing register after accepting the property.
   3. Her next door neighbour had a dog which she found aggressive when she attended the property after signing the tenancy agreement. She said the dog was triggering for her mental health. She was dissatisfied she had not been previously informed of a dog residing in the neighbouring property.
4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 14 July 2022 which advised the following:
   1. The resident was provided with opportunities to view the property and the occupational therapist’s assessment was significant in deciding the suitability of the property.
   2. The resident was advised that in line with the local authority’s allocations policy, if the resident were to refuse the property, any priority banding would be removed as the offer of the property was considered reasonable for the resident.
   3. It had emailed the resident to advise the neighbours will be moving out into another property in the coming weeks. It however advised it would be unable to confirm that any prospective incoming tenants would not own a dog.
   4. The resident’s tenancy was due to end on 31 July 2022 with the keys being collected on 1 August 2022. However, if the resident wished, the landlord on this occasion would allow her to retract her notice.
5. In the resident’s escalation requests on 17 July 2022 and 23 July 2022, she asked the landlord for a full refund on the rent, bills and ‘reach and respond’ payments as she had not used the property and advised she wouldn’t be moving in or utilising it. She requested to be offered another property and retain her previous banding on the housing register. The resident did not move into the property and the tenancy was terminated on 31 July 2022.
6. The landlord issued its stage two final complaint response on 2 August 2022 which outlined the following:
   1. The decision for the banding was made in line with the local authority’s allocations policy.
   2. As the resident has now terminated her tenancy, she can now reapply on the local authority’s housing register but would be placed in band four.
   3. The resident signed a legal tenancy and for the period of the tenancy, all responsibilities lie with the resident. The total rent arrears stood at £526.88.
   4. The ‘reach and respond’ service forms part of the resident’s tenancy agreement and has been fully operational through the tenancy agreement. Therefore, it is unable to refund any charges for the period of the tenancy.
7. The resident paid her outstanding rent arrears to the landlord but remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response as she feels the offer of accommodation was unsuitable for her. As a resolution, she is seeking a full refund for the rent and ‘reach and respond’ service. She feels she should not be liable as she never moved into the property or used the services. She also would like to be granted her previous banding on the housing register.

Jurisdiction

8. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
9. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that, ‘the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
10. The resident’s complaint concerns the local authority’s assessment of the resident’s housing register application and its assessment of suitability of properties for the resident. These functions were carried out by the local authority rather than the landlord and is therefore not within this Service’s jurisdiction to consider.
11. Complaints about the actions of a local authority are for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of this Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s reports of being offered an unsuitable property, including the assessment carried out by the occupational therapist; and
    2. The resident’s concerns about her housing register banding.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for a refund of her rent and other charges stipulated under the tenancy agreement for the duration of her tenancy.

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident must pay the total weekly rent and any other charges under the agreement when they are due. It also outlines that when ending the tenancy, the resident must pay all rent and any other charges up to the date of the end of the tenancy.
13. The resident’s tenancy agreement consisted of the reach and respond service, service charges and support charges. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 29 June 2022. Therefore, the resident was responsible for all payments as stipulated in the tenancy agreement up until the tenancy was terminated on 31 July 2022.
14. Despite the resident’s assertion that she never moved into the property, by signing the tenancy agreement she accepted the tenancy conditions and agreed to a legally binding contract. She committed to, and was responsible for all costs outlined in the tenancy agreement until the agreement ended. This is irrespective of whether she resided in the accommodation or not. The landlord’s decision not to refund the resident’s rent or any other charges stipulated within the tenancy agreement was correct and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the resident’s request for a refund of her rent and other charges stipulated under the tenancy agreement for the duration of her tenancy.