Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

First Garden Cities Homes Limited (202313788)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313788

First Garden Cities Homes Limited

13 February 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 the resident’s application to it for financial support for her tenancy.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy of a bungalow from the landlord began in 2020. She lives with her 2 children. The landlord’s vulnerability record for the household notes physical and mental health issues, care needs, and a family tragedy.
  2. During June 2023, after being in contact with its tenancy support for help with her rent, the resident made a grant application to the landlord’s ‘hardship fund’, which involved her providing it copies of her bank statements. The landlord declined her application. The resident queried its decision and asked for its specific reasons. The landlord passed the matter to its manager to review. During July 2023, the landlord made a “safeguarding query” to the police that raised concerns with information from the resident’s bank statements. The police recorded the resident’s surprise at their subsequent call to her. They further noted her view that all was in order, and that the landlord’s concerns were unfounded.
  3. On 18 July 2023, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She strongly disputed the reasons it had given her for reporting the matter to the police. She emphasised that its manager had at no point discussed the matter with her. She suggested that the manager’s actions had been a response to the landlord upholding her separate complaint against one of their staff. She emphasised the distress and inconvenience that the matter had caused her.
  4. On 26 July 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the police referral had been made out of genuine concern and had not been in response to her separate complaint. It acknowledged that it should have spoken to the resident before contacting the police and upheld her complaint on that basis. It apologised for her distress and committed to review its process.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint the following day. She stated that the time that the landlord had taken to make its police referral did not suggest that it had been done out of concern. She highlighted the stress and inconvenience of having to clear her file with the police, and the emotional effect of the landlord’s actions. She asked for assurance that her bank statements had been erased, and to be compensated. The landlord’s director visited the resident 4 days later.
  6. On 10 August 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. It upheld the apology and findings of its stage 1 response. It further explained its ‘duty of care’ and responsibilities. It stated its belief that its actions had been carefully considered and proportionate. It acknowledged that it should have discussed the matter with the resident first, but that this may not have changed its decision to contact the police. It said that it did not therefore consider compensation to be appropriate.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She described the landlord’s reasons for involving the police as “null and void”, and that it had made “false statements” to them. She said that, if the landlord had been acting out of concern, it “would have acted sooner and actually considered asking me to explain the concerns…” She emphasised that she was “not happy with the outcome because the time, energy, stress, and quite frankly the anxiety this has caused cannot be resolved with a sorry”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. Paragraph 42.j. 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”.
  2. Complaints concerning data protection rights fall under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and may not be considered by the Ombudsman. If the resident believes that her personal data has been misused, she has the option to report the matter to the ICO. This assessment is therefore instead focused on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s application to it for financial support for her tenancy, and not on how it handled her personal data.

Application for financial support

  1. The landlord’s ‘hardship process’ stated that it could provide grants “to residents who are experiencing financial hardship or temporary financial difficulty”. It stated that residents were required to provide evidence of their financial need such as bank statements. It said that “we also make referral and signpost you to other agencies”.
  2. The landlord’s safeguarding policy stated that, when abuse is suspected, “it needs to be responded to swiftly, effectively, and proportionately to enable the adult in need of safeguarding to remain in control of their life as much as possible”. It included a list of abuse types that included “financial”.
  3. The landlord had a data sharing agreement with the local police force. It said that its purpose was to formalise the exchange of information with the intention to reduce crime and “to ensure that potentially vulnerable victims of crime are safeguarded”.
  4. On 21 June 2023, the landlord’s tenancy support officer informed the resident that it was unable to approve her hardship grant application. The resident highlighted to the landlord the effect of her and her family’s ill health and extensive medical needs. She asked it to provide specific details of how the decision had been made, which she said that she needed for use with other support agencies. The landlord and resident exchanged further emails the following day, and the resident continued to ask for the reasons for its decision.
  5. On 4 July 2023, the landlord contacted the police about its concerns with elements of the resident’s bank statement. Its email was titled “safeguarding query” and concluded by asking for “advice how to proceed”. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to seek the guidance of the police while it considered its next steps. This would have given it the opportunity to consider any advice that the police provided it, before deciding how to act in the best interests of the resident. This would have been in line with the aims of its safeguarding policy to take effective and proportionate action, while allowing residents to remain in control of their lives. In that instance, it would have been reasonable for its police query to outline the general situation and its concerns, rather than providing them with the resident’s details as it did.
  6. The police subsequently made it clear to the landlord that, before they contacted the resident, they expected it to tell her about its report to them. Therefore, had the landlord used its ‘safeguarding query’ just to seek police advice, it may have recognised the need to discuss the matter with her before considering whether to formally report it. The landlord has failed to provide evidence that it considered discussing the matter with the resident before it made its police report, as it later acknowledged that it should have.
  7. On 11 July 2023, police internal emails noted the details that the landlord had provided, but that it “doesn’t explain the basis for the contact”. Later the same day, the police asked when they could see the landlord about its report. The landlord confirmed that it could be available anytime during normal office hours.
  8. It was unclear from the information provided to the Ombudsman whether the landlord and police further discussed the matter. Nor whether it was the advice of the police which prompted the landlord’s next contact to the resident. However, on 12 July 2023, the landlord’s manager responded to the resident’s request for specific information regarding its refusal of her hardship application. The manager concluded by expressing their concern with elements of the resident’s bank statement. They stated that they were “happy to discuss this further with you”, but that they were away on leave after 13 July 2023.
  9. This gave the resident only one day to act on the landlord’s offer to discuss its concerns about her bank statement with her. While it is to be expected that employees will have periods of annual leave, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an alternative, less limited, means to discuss the matter.
  10. Nevertheless, the resident’s subsequent contacts with the landlord suggested that she had responded to the manager. Her complaint made 5 days later appeared to refer to this. She stated that “in this email I made it explicitly clear that my statements were provided for the sole purpose of the hardship application.”. She further stated that she had “received no acknowledgement of this email or a response”. It is unclear why the landlord has not provided us with a copy of this apparent contact between the resident and its manager, but it did not appear to dispute that it had been made. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident was therefore unreasonable.
  11. On 13 July 2023, the police asked the landlord to confirm when it would write to the resident to advise her “you have contacted our force”. The police explained that they intended to contact the resident, but that they did not want to do this until the landlord had made her aware of its report. Later the same day, the landlord confirmed to the police that it had written to the resident. It advised that “this has gone in the post this evening”.
  12. The landlord and resident had corresponded almost entirely by email up to this point. It is therefore unclear why the landlord chose to post, rather than email, its letter advising her of its police report. The resident said that its letter arrived on 18 July 2023, which was 3 days after she was contacted by the police. While the landlord’s final complaint response to her described its late contact as “unfortunate”, it was also easily avoidable.
  13. The landlord’s letter to the resident listed the indicators that she had met which had led to its police report. The final one was “a person’s inability to explain what is happening to their own income”. She made her complaint to the landlord the same day that she received the letter. She stated that the landlord had given the police “false information”, and she emphasised her distress at this when she brought the matter to us.
  14. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord told the police that the resident was unable to explain what was happening to her income. Nonetheless, having stated to her that this had been a part of its reasoning, it was understandable that she would view the matter as she did. The resident’s distress would have been worsened by the late arrival of the landlord’s letter, and her knowledge that it had failed to give her the opportunity to provide such an explanation.
  15. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2023. It offered her appropriate assurance that it had acted only out of genuine concern and a ‘duty of care’. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that would suggest that the landlord’s actions were in response to the resident’s separate complaint. It highlighted that it may still have reported the matter to the police even if it had discussed it with her. However, it accepted that “we should have spoken to you first”. It appropriately apologised to her for its failure to do so, upheld her complaint, and committed to review how it handled such matters in future.
  16. The resident expressed her continuing unhappiness the following day, and her view that she should be compensated for her distress. The landlord acknowledged her stage 2 escalation request in a timely manner and arranged for its director to visit her 4 days later. This would have allowed it to better understand her concerns and demonstrated a customer focused approach.
  17. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023. It highlighted that there were some circumstances where it would not consider it appropriate to discuss its concerns with a resident before making a report to the police. While we would agree that this is an appropriate consideration, the landlord had already concluded that it should have first discussed the matter with the resident, which it upheld in its stage 2 response.
  18. The landlord stated that it had made this point to highlight the need for it “to take a balanced approach to decisions of this kind”, which we would again agree with. However, as above, it made its report to the police without seeking their general advice first. It also failed to show that it had otherwise considered discussing the matter with the resident first, or the effect it may have on her.
  19. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that, while it would “endorse the apology” that it made to the resident at stage 1, it did not consider compensation to be appropriate. As an explanation, it repeated its stage 1 position that, while it should have discussed it with her first, it may not have changed its decision to report the matter to the police had it done so. It said that it therefore considered that it had acted reasonably.
  20. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will make every attempt to put right any “loss or detriment” caused to the resident and take a fair and proportionate approach in relation to compensation. Its policy does not suggest that the possibility it may not have changed its decision, even if it had acted correctly in the first place, was a valid reason for the landlord to refuse the resident compensation for causing her distress as a result of its failure to do so.
  21. The landlord had accepted that it should have discussed the matter with the resident first. Had it done so, and still decided that it should refer the matter to the police, her complaint would have been either unnecessary or made on a different basis. Its response also failed to address why it had told the resident that she had been unable to explain what was happening to her income, despite having never given her the opportunity to do so, nor the time, trouble, and distress that this caused her.
  22. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to it for financial support for her tenancy. The landlord is ordered to issue a further apology to the resident and pay her £300 compensation for the further failings identified in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman further recommends that the landlord incorporate the findings of this report into the review of its handling of the matter that it previously committed to.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to it for financial support for her tenancy.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Pays the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, and distress caused by its identified failings.
    3. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord incorporate the findings of this report into the review of its handling of the matter that it previously committed to.