Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202227853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227853

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

4 June 2025

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 a tenancy fraud investigation.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. When a complaint is brought to us we must consider all the circumstances of the case. There are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. I have carefully considered all the evidence and have determined the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord’s since 1986. The property was a 1-bed flat within a low rise block.
5. On 19 August 2020 the landlord began an investigation for tenancy fraud at the resident’s property. The landlord‘s records show it had been unable to contact the resident about his rent account.
6. On 7 April 2021 the resident raised his complaint. He said he felt badly treated by the landlord during its investigation of fraud on his tenancy.
7. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 20 April 2021. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said the following:
   1. It was “normal practice” to ask for evidence if the landlord suspected a property was not occupied.
   2. It empathised with the distress and anxiety caused to the resident. The landlord offered to refer the resident to adult social services but the resident had declined.
8. On 28 May 2021 the resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint.
9. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 25 June 2021. It said the following:
   1. It was satisfied that:
      1. The impact on the resident was acknowledged in its stage 1 response.
      2. It had responded appropriately to concerns about his welfare.
   2. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident.
10. The resident contacted us on 10 February 2023. There is no evidence to show anything prevented the resident from bringing his complaint to us earlier than that date.
11. We were informed on 15 November 2023 that the resident had sadly died. His family contacted us and requested a determination on his case. They wished to understand the circumstances and impact of the landlord’s tenancy fraud investigation upon his death.
12. The cause and underlying issues which lead to a person’s death is a matter for HM Coroner. As such, it is not within the scope of our Service to offer opinion or make comment on these matters.

Reasons

13. Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were brought to us more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
14. The evidence shows the resident escalated his complaint to us around 19 months after the stage 2 response letter was sent by the landlord. As such, the time taken to escalate the case to us was beyond that which we would consider, as per the timescales set out in our Scheme. Therefore the case is outside of our jurisdiction.