Peabody Trust (202202211)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202211

Peabody Trust

25 July 2024

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 rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s mother was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from September 1999. The property was a 2 bedroom flat. She lived there with the resident and his brother.
In 2017, the resident’s mother passed away and his brother succeeded to the tenancy. Two years later, the resident’s brother passed away and the landlord agreed to grant the resident a discretionary succession to a 1 bedroom property.
Shortly after this, it was agreed that the resident would not return to live at the property and would continue staying with his sister while the landlord found him suitable, alternative accommodation. The tenancy was subsequently brought to an end and the property cleared in late 2020.
In June 2020, the landlord made an offer of alternative accommodation to the resident. Due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in place at the time, the resident was only able to view the property via video. He said the video was poor quality and declined the offer. Following this, the landlord told him that he could search and bid for properties himself using its online portal.
In May 2021, the resident asked for new log-in details for the online portal as he had a new email address. The landlord replied 5 months later and asked him to call in regarding this.

Summary of events

On 9 December 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the succession and actions taken to rehouse him. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December 2021. The following month the landlord told the resident that it needed additional time to respond due to the Christmas break and the pandemic. It apologised and said it would respond by 17 January 2022.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord noted that it had previously responded to the resident’s sister, regarding his concerns. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint.
In April 2022 the landlord called the resident to discuss his rehousing and asked if he could log in to its online portal to bid for properties. The resident said he told the landlord he had asked on several occasions for new log-in details, but had not received any. The resident then raised concerns about how he was treated during the call, reporting that the member of staff had spoken over him, shouted at him, was rude and hung up on him. When he tried calling back, it went to voicemail. He asked to not have contact with that member of staff again. He felt he was being discriminated against because of his race.
The following month, the landlord confirmed it had agreed a discretionary succession for him. It was looking for a smaller property to rehouse him as he would be under occupying the property. It asked for a convenient time to call to discuss the matter further, which was subsequently agreed for 13 June 2022.
Following the call on 13 June 2022, the landlord confirmed the resident’s priority status on its transfer list and that he was registered for a 1 bedroom property. It asked him to provide a list of areas he would like to move to and it would continue to search for properties for him. As he was only entitled to 1 offer, he may wish to bid for properties as this would give him more control over the selection. He had confirmed he had received the log-in details for the online portal.
The resident replied that the landlord had never started searching for properties for him. He reiterated that he was being discriminated against and asked what happened to the previous complaint he had made.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord confirmed it would put the resident forward to its priority move panel to apply for higher priority banding. This was being done in recognition of his circumstances and the past customer service, which did not reflect the landlord’s standard. Once this was approved, his case would be assigned to a priority move officer, who would look for 1 bedroom properties for him in the 3 areas he had provided. The resident replied the same day asking to remove one of the areas selected and replace it with a different one.
Six days later, the landlord confirmed that the priority move application had been approved and the resident’s banding increased. It provided his log-in details for the online portal and listed his 3 preferred areas. It said he may wait some time for a suitable property due to the limited number of homes that became available. It asked him to bid for properties where possible but would also try and find him a suitable property itself. It would make 1 offer only. A week later, the landlord gave the resident the contact details for the priority move officer who would be dealing with his case.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord told the resident he had been nominated to view a property. The viewing was in 2 days and it asked him to confirm his attendance. The resident raised concerns about the initial contact for this offer being made via phone, when he had previously asked for all communication to be via email.
The following day, the resident said the property was not in one of his selected areas and he could not get time off work to attend the viewing. The landlord replied on 16 September 2022, that the areas agreed did include this area. Therefore, the offer made was in line with what had been agreed. It explained that letting a property was time sensitive and, for this reason, initial contact was usually by phone. It apologised that it had not told him this before.
The resident replied with a copy of his email of 20 July 2022, in which he had asked to remove the area in question and replace it with a different one. The landlord acknowledged its mistake, confirmed it would amend its records and assured him that the property offered would not be considered his one offer, as this was made in error.
In contact with this Service on 4 October 2022, the resident said that he had made numerous complaints to the landlord about his situation but had never received a response. He wanted the landlord to do what it had agreed several years earlier and rehouse him. He said it had offered him 2 properties but later admitted these were not reasonable or fair offers, and it had recently increased his banding but it should have done this from the start. He said he had been treated unfairly and spoken to rudely by staff and he felt he was being discriminated against and the situation had destroyed his life.
On 21 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update on his rehousing as he had not heard from anyone for 2 months. He had made several complaints over the years but these had not been addressed. The landlord replied 2 days later that it had been searching for a suitable property but had been unsuccessful. It said there was a high demand for properties, and they were in short supply but it would continue to look. It also provided a copy of its complaints policy.
The resident replied and said that the landlord had offered him a property in an area he had not chosen and when he questioned this, it had given an incorrect, arrogant response. It was only after he provided evidence of the mistake that it accepted this. The landlord had told him he could move back into the property (the family home), although he knew he could not as other people had already moved in. His mental health had been affected by this. He said there were months at a time he did not hear anything.
The landlord replied that it had taken accountability for its mistake and apologised. The mistake was put right but he could make a complaint about this if he wanted to. It acknowledged that it had said it would look into whether he could return to the property but once it had fully explored the matter, it told him in June 2022 that this would not be possible. He had been offered the opportunity to bid for properties himself but had declined to do this. This meant he would be waiting for the landlord to find a suitable property and contact him. His case had been assigned to a priority transfer officer who was his first point of contact.
On 30 November 2022, this Service asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response to the resident, regarding the assessment of his priority need, the handling of his requests to be rehoused, and property offers received. Five days later the landlord asked the resident to confirm the current issues for it to investigate the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022 and said it had not received a response to its contact of 5 December 2022. It confirmed his banding and that he was registered for a 1 bedroom property. The priority transfer team were looking for properties for him but he also needed to log in to the online portal and bid for properties. It asked him to make contact if he needed further help or support to bid for properties.
In March 2023, the landlord asked the resident to attend a viewing for a property. The resident was unable to attend due to work commitments, so the landlord provided a video of the property. On 24 March 2023, it said it had not received a response to its request for a decision, the deadline had now passed and the offer had been withdrawn. It would return his case to the panel to decide if the offer made was reasonable and whether he should be removed from the priority transfer list. It asked him to confirm his reason for not accepting the property, or not responding, within 7 days.
The resident replied the same day and said he had been late in replying due to work commitments. He had asked on a number of occasions for help to get logged in to the online portal, as he was not able to log in and search for properties, but had received no response. He did agree to look at the video but was given a very short time to do this and had work commitments, which is why he did not reply. He wanted to ask other questions about the property but had been unable to do so. Five days later, the landlord confirmed that, in light of the information provided by the resident, it was requesting that his case was not removed from the priority transfer list. His request for access to the portal would be responded to.
The same day the resident confirmed he was able to access the online portal and would search for properties. The following day, the landlord’s request for his case not to be removed from the priority transfer list was approved.
On 21 June 2023, the resident asked for an update regarding the property search as he had not heard from the landlord since the 2 offers had been made. The landlord replied 7 days later and apologised that he had not received contact since March 2023, but it was inundated with cases. It could see he was logging into the online portal and encouraged him to check weekly for new properties.
The resident submitted an online complaint to the landlord on 26 June 2023. He asked for his complaint to be escalated and for an answer to be provided. He said he had been treated badly by staff and complained about racial discrimination but nothing had been done. Three days later the landlord told him that if he wanted to escalate the complaint, he needed to respond to the stage 1 manager’s email.
On 10 July 2023, the resident contacted the stage 1 manager and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said that he had previously asked not to have any dealings with the stage 1 manager, but had to for the past year. He had been neglected by the landlord and was dissatisfied with the time taken to rehouse him and with the level of communication. He felt staff had been rude, neglectful, dismissive and arrogant. He had been treated unfairly because of his race. Three days later, the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said it would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord told the resident on 3 August 2023, that it needed to extend the deadline for the stage 2 response by 10 working days and it would respond by 17 August 2023.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, which said:
1. The rehousing process had been communicated to him on multiple occasions. It confirmed he was a priority for rehousing and the band he was in put him in the best possible position. His concerns about the handling of the succession had been addressed via a complaint that was closed in 2019. Due to the length of time that had passed, it was unable to review this.
2. It had found no contact where he had asked not to deal with the stage 1 manager. It had found the contact he had received from them to be professional and helpful but was sorry he did not feel this was the case.
3. It had been in regular contact with him and provided details regarding his request to be rehoused. It had provided details on how to log in to the online portal to bid for properties and multiple updates regarding resetting his password.
4. There was a previous complaint about the priority move, that had been closed in May 2022. The outcome of the complaint was that his case was heard by the priority move panel in July 2022 and approved. As this complaint was closed and due to the length of time that had passed, it was unable to review this. Its complaints procedure said that complaints must be raised within 6 months of the issue occurring.
5. The stage 1 complaint had been managed in a professional manner but the stage 1 response did not provide a date for him to escalate to stage 2. Its complaint process required that it provide this. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and had given feedback on this. The stage 2 response was 1 day overdue because of I.T. issues. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures (£50 for the missing information in the stage 1 response and £50 for the delayed stage 2 response).
In October 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He said that the landlord had failed to address any of the points of his complaint. He had made complaints about staff conduct but these were not dealt with. It had made 2 offers of accommodation but both were unreasonable, which the landlord subsequently agreed with, but only after he had challenged it. He was given short notice of viewings and was expected to attend or lose out. He had to work and needed notice to be able to attend any viewings. The landlord had neglected him and he was still waiting on another offer.
In recent contact with this Service, the resident has said he has not received any further contact or offers from the landlord and is still sleeping on his sister’s sofa.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
In this case, this issue began in 2019 and the resident first raised a complaint in 2021. However, this did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It was not until November 2022, when a further complaint was raised, that this subsequently progressed through and completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to the complaint made in November 2022. Events prior to November 2021 are considered for context, but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Handling of the resident’s rehousing

The landlord is responsible for rehousing the resident as per the terms of the agreed discretionary succession application.
The landlord’s decision to progress a priority move application for the resident in July 2022 was sensible to increase his priority in an attempt to expedite a suitable offer of alternative accommodation. This was particularly important in this case as the resident’s circumstances were not that of a regular succession case, whereby residents remain in the property until a suitable alternative is found.
Instead, the resident was essentially homeless and living on his sister’s sofa. This meant his need for alternative accommodation was more urgent than that of a regular succession case. While sensible that the landlord progressed the priority move application, it should have considered this sooner. The resident had been in contact with the landlord about this issue for at least 7 months prior to the application being made and had expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time the matter was taking. Therefore, it should have considered this as an option sooner. Its failure to do so left the resident feeling that it was not taking the matter seriously.
The property offered in September 2022 was done so in error by the landlord. While understandable that errors can occur, in this circumstance, the error was avoidable. The resident had informed the landlord about his change of preferred areas and the landlord should have properly recorded this information. Its failure to maintain its records resulted in a property being offered in error, which was frustrating for the resident and caused him to lose faith in the landlord.
When the resident challenged the landlord on this, instead of checking its records, it was dismissive and continued to assert its position. It was only when presented with evidence from the resident that it acknowledged its error and apologised for this. It was fortunate in this case that the resident was able to provide this evidence, but residents are not required, or expected, to keep contemporaneous records of their contact with the landlord in this way. It is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
It is noted that the resident’s preferred method of contact was email; however, considering the quick turnaround needed for property viewings, it was reasonable that the landlord contacted him via phone to arrange these. Landlords often have target timescales associated with letting their properties. As this is linked to rental income, it is reasonable that they want to let properties as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is understandable that the resident was only given a short amount of notice for viewing appointments.
However, landlords should not penalise residents who are unable to attend at short notice, as this may be due to work or other commitments. In these circumstances, landlords should, where possible, be flexible and offer residents alternative dates for viewing. This was particularly important in this case, as the landlord knew the resident’s circumstances and that he had been waiting some time for offers to be made.
When the resident could not attend a viewing in March 2023, the landlord provided a video of the property. While not ideal, if residents are unable to attend viewings, videos can be an alternative way of allowing them to see the property.
In this case, the resident was unable to review the video and reply in the timescale given. By its own admission, the landlord did not do all it could to confirm his response to the offer and withdrew it quickly before he had the chance to formally respond. Similarly, it acknowledged that he did not have the chance to ask additional questions about the property. This highlights the need for in-person viewings and the importance of landlords being flexible when arranging them. The landlord’s handling of the offer made in March 2023 was poor and caused disappointment for the resident, as he missed out on a potential property.
The resident raised concerns about staff conduct, including racial discrimination on at least 3 occasions between April 2022 and June 2023. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate allegations of staff misconduct, but to assess the landlord’s response to any allegations of this nature.
In this case, the landlord’s response lacked detail and failed to address all of the specific issues raised. Its stage 2 response made reference to the conduct of one member of staff but this was a very general reply and came more than a year after the first concerns were raised. It also did not provide any detail about how it had investigated the reports or reached this conclusion, and gave no reply to the reports of discrimination. This left the resident feeling ignored and only strengthened his belief that the landlord was discriminating against him.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had found no contact where the resident had asked not to deal with the stage 1 manager. However, from the records provided, the resident made this request in April 2022. There is no evidence that the concerns raised were investigated or formally addressed at the time, or that his request was considered. It is noted that a different member of staff took over the handling of the matter 2 months later. However, it is not clear if this was a conscious decision by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns.
It was sensible of the landlord to enable the resident to have access to its online portal to bid for properties himself. This allows residents a greater element of choice in properties they are offered. As the landlord had committed to make one offer only to the resident, this was particularly important.
The resident said he had trouble accessing the portal for some time and was unable to log in. He asked the landlord for help but this was not resolved. From the records provided, the resident first raised this in April 2022. However, it was not until nearly 2 months later that the landlord addressed this. This was frustrating for the resident, as he was unable to access the portal for that period of time to search for properties. When the resident raised this again in March 2023, the records show that the landlord addressed this at the time and the resident confirmed he was able to access the portal.
In November 2022, the landlord said that the resident had declined to bid for properties himself, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. From the records provided, the resident had asked for log in details to allow him to do this. This indicated his intention and desire to make use of this. It is clear that the resident also expected the landlord to search for properties for him and considering the circumstances, this was a reasonable expectation. The landlord’s comment placed blame on the resident for the lack of offers made. This was unfair and insensitive, considering his circumstances and that he had told the landlord repeatedly how important it was for him to be rehoused.
In June 2023, the resident raised concerns about the lack of 1 bedroom properties being advertised on the portal. He asked to be considered for a 2 bedroom property but the landlord declined this. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable as he only required a 1 bedroom property.
Rehousing residents is challenging for landlords. There is a nationwide shortage of social housing and an ever increasing demand. The landlord told the resident this, which was reasonable to help him understand its limitations. It is understandable that there were periods of time when the landlord had little or no updates to provide the resident, but it should have ensured it remained in regular contact with him. This would have reassured him that it was taking the matter seriously and doing all it could to resolve his concerns.
From the records provided, there were several periods of 2 to 3 months when no contact was made and subsequent updates were only provided when the resident asked for them. This made the resident feel that the landlord had forgotten him.
The resident has told this Service that he has received no recent contact from the landlord. The evidence from the landlord indicates that its last contact with him was over a year ago, in June 2023. This is unacceptable has resulted in the resident losing all faith in the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the succession application and the subsequent ending of the tenancy of the family home have not been investigated by the Ombudsman, for reasons set out earlier in this report. While no assessment of this has been made, the Ombudsman is deeply concerned that the resident has been left living on his sister’s sofa for around 6 years, and the landlord has been unable to find suitable alternative accommodation for him in that time.
It is important that the landlord prioritises this matter and does all it can to ensure the resident is rehoused into his own accommodation as soon as possible. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to appoint a single point of contact for the resident regarding this issue and provide a written update setting out how it will manage his case going forward and communicate with him regarding this.
This investigation has identified multiple failures in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Considering the cumulative effect of these, the significant impact on the resident and that the substantive issue remains unresolved, a finding of severe maladministration is appropriate. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £1,200 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

When the resident made a complaint in December 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord ever provided a formal response. While it may have provided answers to the resident’s sister, that did not negate the requirement for it to provide a formal complaint response. Its failure to provide a response has left the resident feeling ignored.
The resident has referred to this complaint and the landlord’s lack of response on a number of occasions. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has acknowledged this issue or taken steps to investigate it.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation or its own staff. It also says that residents do not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such. In this case, the resident made at least 7 expressions of dissatisfaction between April and November 2022, but the landlord failed to raise a formal complaint in response to any of them.
In November 2022, the landlord provided its complaints policy and confirmed that the resident could raise a complaint. However, it should have used its own initiative and identified that this was required, rather than placing the onus on the resident to make a further request. It was only after intervention by this Service that the landlord raised a formal complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. In this case, the landlord made contact with the resident in 4 working days, but this was not a formal acknowledgement of his complaint. It was a request for clarity on what the issues were. From the records provided, the resident had set out repeatedly what his issues were in previous communication with the landlord. Asking him to provide this again was insensitive and indicated that it did little or no internal investigation into the issue.
The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed the current position but made no assessment of its handling of the issues raised. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage. The stage 1 investigator had previously been involved in the handling of the substantive matter in April 2022, and was a member of staff the resident had raised concerns about. Therefore, it was inappropriate for them to carry out the investigation as they were not impartial. This made the resident believe that he was being treated unfairly and his concerns not being taken seriously.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response in 11 working days. This was slightly over the committed response time of 10 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord has independently identified that the stage 1 response did not provide a date for the resident to escalate to stage 2, which its policy required. This put the resident at a disadvantage as he was not aware there was a time limit for these requests.
It was unreasonable that the landlord refused to accept the resident’s initial escalation request. Asking him to send this request to the stage 1 investigator was an unnecessary barrier to the resident escalating his complaint. Instead, it should have forwarded his request on to the relevant person to ensure the initial escalation request was actioned. It took the resident 3 attempts to get his complaint escalated, which was unfair and frustrating for him.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 14 working days after the initial escalation request. This was over the committed 5 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy at the time. It provided the stage 2 response 40 working days after the initial escalation request. This was over the committed response time of 20 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time. While an update was given during the period of delay, the updated deadline was not met by the landlord. It is noted this additional delay was only 1 day, but as the landlord had delayed in escalating the complaint, the overall delay was unacceptable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response made reference to 2 previous complaints in 2019 and 2022. From the records provided, the landlord had contact with the resident, his representative and MPs in respect of these issues, at these times. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of complaints or formal responses provided, despite specifically asking the landlord for this information.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that there were no formal complaints logged or responded to in respect of these issues, at these times. This is a concern. The landlord declined to review these matters because of the length of time that had passed, but there is no evidence that it carried out a review of these issues in the first place. The landlord has given inaccurate information to avoid having to assess its handling of these issues, which is unfair and dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman cannot say whether the landlord has been intentionally misleading in its actions. However, it is understandable that the resident believes this and that it is trying to cover up its poor handling of these issues. An order is therefore made for the landlord for review its handling of the resident’s complaints from 2019 onwards and produce a written report with the outcome of this and any learning identified.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It not only failed to put things right for the resident, but its mishandling of the complaints caused him to lose further trust in it. As a result, orders are made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling and pay him £1,100 compensation (inclusive of the £100 already offered). A further order is made for staff training on recording and escalating complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rehousing.
2. The formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was delayed in increasing the resident’s priority status and its communication was poor in respect of his rehousing.
The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s complaint raised in 2021. It repeatedly failed to raise complaints when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. When it did progress his complaint, its responses were delayed, vague and inaccurate.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Appoint a single point of contact for the resident regarding this issue and provide a written update to him setting out how it will manage his case and communicate with him going forward. This should include:
  1. How regularly it will check available properties to identify any suitable matches (suggested this is done weekly).
  2. How it will notify the resident of viewing appointments and a commitment that it will be flexible with him in respect of timescales for these, considering his work commitments.
  3. How regularly it will keep in contact with him to provide updates, even when there is no significant update to give (suggested this is done on at least a monthly basis via written updates).
  4. What support it will provide when he moves, for example, removal costs, decoration allowance, and/ or provision of carpets or essential furniture items. The landlord is encouraged to consider this carefully, taking into account its handling of this issue since 2019.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of his rehousing and formal complaint.
3. Pay the resident £2,300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,200 for its handling of his rehousing.
  2. £1,100 for its complaint handling, inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so already.
4. Review its handling of the resident’s complaints from 2019 onwards and produce a written report with the outcome of this and any learning identified. A copy of this report to be shared with the resident and this Service.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on recording and escalating complaints, unless it can demonstrate that it has trained relevant staff on these aspects of complaint handling since this complaint completed its internal complaints procedure. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 8 weeks.