Heylo Housing Registered Provider Limited — case 202214575

REPORT COMPLAINT 202214575 Heylo Housing Registered Provider Limited 31 July 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 The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about her application for shared ownership.

Background The resident made an application to purchase a property from the landlord under a shared ownership agreement. The resident’s plot was reserved in July 2022. On 29 July 2022 the landlord received the resident’s approval to run a credit check. This check was completed the same day and revealed a credit card default from October 2018, as such the application was denied. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 August 2022 by telephone and followed up by email, offering to submit an appeal on the resident’s behalf.

The appeal was made, but declined on 12 August 2022. The resident then submitted evidence for a second appeal. This appeal was also declined. On 16 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint challenging the decline of her application and the conduct of a staff member. On 23 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It explained the decline was due to affordability. It said it had attempted to contact the resident and provide updates.

On 23 August 2022 the resident contact the landlord, requesting the complaint be escalated to stage two, no additional information was added to the complaint. The landlord provided its stage two response on 20 September 2022. The landlord did not uphold the appeal. In summary the landlord said the application would not proceed as the credit check was failed as were the subsequent appeals. The landlord also advised that the conduct of the staff member complained about was in line with its internal processes.

The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She sought compensation for the distress caused to her and an explanation for why her application was denied. Assessment and findings Scope of Investigation Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord included dissatisfaction with the mortgage broker. Mortgage brokers are financial organisations and are not in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate. Complaints about their services are ultimately the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The mortgage broker’s actions will not be considered in this investigation. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about their application for shared ownership and staff conduct The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision on her application. It is important to understand that it is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to retake the landlord’s decision. Rather, this investigation centres on how the landlord handled and responded to the application and complaint.

The resident’s complaint focused partly on the actions of a particular member of the landlord’s staff. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to take collective responsibility for the actions of its staff, rather than single out any specific staff member. Because of that the actions of any staff are the actions of the landlord, and are treated as such. The resident complained to the landlord about the lack of clarity given for its decision, and that it had submitted an appeal without her consent and without evidence.

In response the landlord explained in detail how and why it had made its decision, and how the first appeal had come about. It accepted a further appeal, and again, it explained how it had reached its decision. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation suggests any failings by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s applications, or that there was anything more it could meaningfully explain. It is not apparent whether the resident was aware of the landlord’s eligibility policy prior to making her application.

However, it may have been useful for the resident if the landlord had provided it again with its complaint responses in order to support its explanations, and ensure the resident was clear about the relevant criteria. The landlord acknowledged this and undertook to learn from the resident’s complaint, by amending its processes to ensure its decisions were more easily understood. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint about her application for shared ownership.