Mike Biles on the perils of not being clear about your tenant transfer policy
The case of a tenant recently given "management transfer" priority by a registered social landlord after she was harassed by neighbours and experienced health problems is a lesson for all landlords in the importance of having policies and sticking to them.

The woman was offered a property, but refused it, saying she was concerned about its size, condition and location. As a result, the RSL removed her priority, arguing that under the management transfer category she was not entitled to another offer.

The tenant complained she had not received written confirmation of her transfer priority or been told that there would only be one offer.

During the ensuing investigation it emerged that the RSL did not have any written policies relating to transfers for its tenants, although it had a general allocations policy for applicants, which it purported to have followed in this instance. It therefore had no policies relating to the award or removal of management transfer priority. Also, the RSL's general allocation policy said that the sanction for an unreasonable refusal of a suitable offer would result only in deferment of an application for a year, rather than the priority being removed completely.

The RSL alleged that the complainant's decision was motivated by her knowing that another property, which she preferred, was about to become available in the same area. It considered her refusal to be unreasonable, and deemed that it implied her need to move was not as great as was previously believed. During the course of the investigation, however, it became apparent that the RSL had substituted its own, assumed reason for the complainant's actual, stated reason for refusal. As a result, it had not given her the reasons required under its general policy.

The RSL maintained the complainant was treated fairly and in accordance with the general policy. However, the investigation uncovered evidence that officers involved in the case were under the impression it was general policy to give management transfer applicants less flexibility in refusing offers than mainstream applicants. The ombudsman found that the outcome would have been more favourable to the tenant had the general policy been applied consistently.

Maladministration was found in respect of the RSL's failure to operate according to written policies and its unfair removal of the complainant's transfer status. The ombudsman told the RSL to restore the woman's overriding priority for a transfer and pay her £450 compensation. He said it was for the RSL to decide whether it wished to operate a different policy on refusal of offers by "management transfer", or similar priority categories, from that which it applied to other applicants – provided it set out clear and objective criteria as part of a written policy and communicated them plainly.

The ombudsman suggested that tenants with overriding priority should be accorded the right of refusal set out in the existing general policy, instead of being treated in an arbitrary manner which might result, as in this case, in putting them at a disadvantage.

He also noted that the Homelessness Act will bring such transfers within the scope of a local housing authority's statutory scheme, and he recommended the RSL review its allocations policy to iron out any shortcomings.