Islington Council (202202407)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202407

Islington Council

31 August 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s succession application.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a refund.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Communication with the resident.

Background

The resident occupied her home with her late mother who was the sole secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident’s mother’s tenancy started on 14 March 1988 following the transfer of tenancy from her husband. The resident and her brother were listed as residents on the grant of the new tenancy. The resident’s mother died on 10 June 2021.
The resident is vulnerable, suffering from depression which is treated by anti-depressants and counselling.

Landlord’s Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s succession procedure contains the following:
1. 4.2. Once all required proof has been submitted, the landlord has 10 working days to carry out all necessary enquiries in order to make a decision on whether or not the succession can take place.
2. 4.4. The landlord expects staff to carry out a home visit as part of its investigation into the succession application.
3. 10.1.The tenancy address must be the potential successor’s only or principle home at the time of the deceased tenant’s death. If the potential successor has indicated residence at another address, or they have an interest in another property this must be investigated further.
4. 20.2. The Area Housing Manager (AHM) is responsible for checking that the succession policy and procedure have been followed.
5. 23.4. The landlord should expect the keys to be returned within 28 days of the rejection letter being issued.
The landlord’s refund process requires the recipient to provide their address for the ‘Request for Refund of Account Balance’ form.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy sets out a 2 stage complaints procedure. The stage 1 response should include confirmation that the resident can request a complaint escalation within 1 calendar month. An initial desk top review will be carried out if an escalation request to stage 2 is received. The stage 2 escalation request will only be accepted once all issues raised at stage 1 are completed. This includes arrangements and/or completion of any outstanding work and/or provision of service. A remedy must be addressed at stage 1 or the complaint will be returned as incomplete. Stage 2 complaint requests will be acknowledged within 3 calendar days and a full response issued within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that compensation can be considered for:
1. Time and trouble between £100 to £300.
2. Distress between £100 to £300. For severe or prolonged stress this is increased to up to £1000.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 24 June 2021 to provide notification of her mother’s death.
The landlord’s internal email records dated 28 June 2021 show that it was aware of the resident’s wish to succeed to the tenancy. The records show that it intended to serve a Notice To Quit (NTQ) and create a ‘use and occupation’ account.
On 1 July 2021 the landlord sent a letter to the property, addressed to the ‘personal representative’ of the deceased tenant. This was to establish if there was an executor of the estate to be able to terminate the tenancy. The letter advised that in the absence of an appointed executor, a NTQ would be served on the public trustee.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2021 to advise that it had been trying to contact her by telephone. It said it was in the process of setting up a use and occupation account for which a payment card would be issued in due course. It also confirmed that there was a credit on her mother’s account. It advised the resident to submit her succession application as soon as possible if she had not already done so.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 July 2021 to confirm that she had received the form. She said she had requested a copy of her full birth certificate which would be returned with the form in due course.
On 29 July 2021 the landlord sent a further letter to the property, addressed to the ‘personal representative’ of the deceased tenant. Its purpose was to establish if there was anyone who wished to apply to succeed to the property. It said if there was, they should notify the landlord within 14 days. A NTQ was enclosed with the letter.
The resident completed the succession form and associated documentation on 29 July 2021. The resident stated on the form that she had been a lodger at a different address between 2014 to April 2020. She answered ‘no’ to the question about whether she had an interest in another property. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2021 to confirm that she had submitted the form on 2 August 2021. She said she had received a missed call from the landlord on 3 August but a message had not been left.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident phoned on 2 September 2021 to seek an update on the application and use and occupation account. The notes show that the succession form was pending. The resident had been advised that if she was approved as a successor she may be asked to downsize. A request was made for the resident to be called back urgently. It is unclear whether the landlord did call the resident back at this time.
The landlord’s records show that it requested searches be carried out in respect of the property on 10 September 2021. They also show that the result of the searches made the landlord concerned about the prospect of tenancy fraud. A case was subsequently opened with its intelligence team. An internal request, dated 15 September, was made for a holding letter to be sent to the resident while the investigation took place.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge receipt of the succession application form. It confirmed the form was being reviewed by another team as part of the process.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2021 to express her dissatisfaction about how long it was taking to make a decision. She said:
1. She was still grieving the death of her mother.
2. She was depressed and was receiving both medication and counselling to help manage her mental health. She added that the delay was detrimental to her mental health.
3. She had not received any support from the tenancy team.
4. She had received a letter from the rehousing team addressed to her deceased mother which she said was insensitive.
5. She wished to know how long the process should take according to the landlord’s policy, and asked to speak to a manager.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that she was unable to succeed to the tenancy. It said she had not been able to provide sufficient evidence that she had resided at the property as her principal home for 12 months prior to her mother’s death. The letter requested that the resident return the keys to the property within 5 days. It added that legal action would be taken to recover possession if she failed to comply.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 December 2021; and. an urgent call back was requested. The resident followed up her call by email that same day. She asked why the landlord had not told her earlier that she had not provided enough evidence. She said that 5 days’ notice was not enough, and asked the landlord where she was “meant to go?.”
On 3 December 2021 the landlord contacted the resident by phone to let her know that it was concerned about a discrepancy on the form. It said it wished to call her in to attend an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The recording of the phone call evidences that the resident queried the reasons for the interview. This led to the landlord issuing her with a caution during the conversation to make sure she was fully aware of the situation. An invitation to attend a PACE interview on 13 December was set out in writing and emailed to the resident that same day.
The resident telephoned the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on the same day to complain about the length of time it was taking to make a decision regarding her succession application. This investigation has not seen a file note of the conversation. The landlord opened a formal stage 1 complaint by way of response.
During 6 to 8 December 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged emails to rearrange the PACE interview at the resident’s request. A new date of 12 January 2022 was confirmed to the resident by letter on 8 December.
On 18 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to request a copy of its policies and procedures in relation to how it requested residents attend interviews. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the way she was spoken to during the phone call on 3 December, which she felt was intended to “humiliate and scare” her. She requested information on the complaints process.
The member of staff who participated in the phone discussion replied to the email on 20 December 2021. She stated that she did not agree with the resident’s recollection of the phone call; however, the resident could make a complaint either by contacting a manager or via the formal process. The resident confirmed in return that she would raise a formal complaint.
The resident received an email from her local councillor on 20 December 2021. The email was in response to contact from the resident, details of which have not been provided for this investigation. The councillor apologised for the letter that was issued giving her 5 days’ notice to leave. She agreed it was not acceptable to expect the resident to leave without sufficient notice. The councillor said she understood that the letter was a standard template, that the senior management team were aware and that the wording was being amended.
The resident made a second complaint on 21 December 2021, which the landlord treated as a second stage 1 complaint. She raised the following concerns:
1. The resident felt that the telephone call on 3 December was “condescending and aggressive.” She was cautioned twice over the phone. The resident said that the call had ended amicably, she had no dispute with the member of staff for it not to.
2. The resident submitted the succession application form 5 months earlier. She asked why the landlord waited so long to ask questions about the information that was submitted.
3. The resident was still upset at her losing her mother and she felt the landlord was “putting the boot in.”
4. She said she grew up in the property which was her family home. She was unhappy that the letter only gave her 5 days to move out and was sent several weeks before Christmas.
5. She asked to receive the refund of £500 credit on her mother’s rent account.
The landlord issued a response to the first stage 1 complaint on 24 December 2021. It investigated the way in which the resident’s application to succeed was managed. The response included the following:
1. The landlord had called the resident to gain a better understanding of her complaint, and had apologised for any upset caused by the process and for the decision letter the resident had received.
2. The landlord was reviewing the documentation involved in the succession process. It said that in future, there would be a minimum of 2 conversations between the landlord and applicant. This would allow the applicant to discuss any concerns and/or ask any questions.
3. The landlord partially upheld the complaint on the basis that it had identified improvements to the process to be implemented.
It issued a response to the second stage 1 complaint on 10 January 2022. The complaint was defined as being about the conduct of the landlord during the phone call on 3 December, including the issuing of the caution, and the landlord’s insensitivity in its response to the bereavement. The landlord said it:
1. Did not agree with the resident’s recollection of the telephone conversation.
2. Cautioned the resident in relation to the potential criminal offence to protect the resident’s own rights. It apologised if the resident felt that it was being hostile, this was not its intention.
3. Acknowledged the difficulties dealing with cases following a bereavement, and that it tried to respond swiftly and sensitively. In the resident’s case it was obliged to carry out further investigations around the discrepancy on the form.
4. Apologised for the delay but advised that timescales for responses to enquiries made to third parties were out of its control.
5. Had to ask questions which may appear insensitive to be able to establish the resident’s status as part of the fraud investigation. It apologised if the resident felt it had been insensitive.
6. Accepted that the resident should have been made aware of discrepancy sooner and apologised.
7. Partially upheld the complaint, and apologised for any inconvenience.
The PACE interview was carried out on 12 January 2022. The interview was conducted by two officers, one of whom was the same officer the resident spoke to during her phone call on 3 December. The transcript of the interview provides a detailed, contemporaneous record of the conversation that took place. By way of summary, the resident owned a property with her brother. When she signed the succession application form on 29 July 2021 she said that she had been a lodger at the property 2014 to April 2020 while her brother was away. She did not declare that she had an interest in the property as a joint owner when specifically asked for confirmation on the form.
During the interview the resident said this had been a mistake. She said she had sought advice from the landlord to complete the form, particularly in relation to the property issue. She said that in the absence of any support she had filled it out to the best of her ability. The resident queried why the landlord had not spoken to her about the discrepancy sooner. She said it could have advised her she did not meet the criteria and asked her to leave. She said there was no need for the investigation and interview.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to ask her to confirm when she would be returning the keys. The request was made because she had indicated at interview that she intended to leave the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 January 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 responses, as follows:
1. The investigation into her complaint about the conduct of the landlord during the phone call of 3 December was not truly independent. Given that she had made a complaint about the conduct of that particular officer, she did not believe it was appropriate for them to be part of the PACE interview. She was also concerned that the officer had viewed her ‘LinkedIn’ profile and felt harassed.
2. She felt the landlord’s response to her succession application lacked empathy. It took too long to contact her regarding the discrepancy on the form. She did not feel that the landlord had considered the detrimental impact on her mental health. She was particularly upset that she was given 5 days to leave the property.
3. She said the discrepancy on the application occurred because the landlord had not responded to her calls in relation to support to complete the form. She said she tried to contact the landlord 10 times on one day. She said the landlord had told her that it should have spoken to her on a minimum of 2 occasions times about her application. She said that if that had happened it could have discussed any discrepancies with her at the time. She said the landlord should have just told her that she did not meet the criteria, given her 28 days’ notice and “they all could have moved on.” She was dissatisfied that the landlord did not make contact with her at that stage.
4. She said she left an urgent message for the landlord on the same day she received the 5 day eviction letter, on 2 December 2021. She said the landlord never responded. She described how difficult Christmas was with it being the first one without her mother. The stress had been compounded by the threat of eviction.
5. She said she would clear the property as soon as she could afford to do so.
6. She said she was seeking legal advice as she wanted to pursue a claim for compensation for emotional stress.
7. She sought clarification around paying rent and obtaining a refund on the credit on her mother’s rent account.
8. She confirmed she would like to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaints process.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 January 2022 to advise that it would be carrying out a review of the stage 1 complaint. It said it would issue a response within 10 working days, so by 31 January 2022. Over the course of the same day there was further correspondence between the landlord and resident. The resident replied to query why the review was taking place as she understood the next stage to be stage 2. The landlord emailed to explain that there was a review stage in between the stage 1 complaint response and escalation to a stage 2 complaint.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident, attaching its response to its stage 1 complaint review. It concluded that the complaint remained not upheld as no service failures had been identified. It encouraged the resident to either return the keys or let the landlord know when they would be returned. It said it would be forced to make an application for possession if she failed to do so. A rent credit refund form was also attached. The response advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
A number of emails were sent between the resident and landlord on that same day. The resident asked how long she had to make a request if she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. She also requested the credit refund form again as it was not attached to the previous email. The landlord replied to advise the resident that her use and occupation account was in credit by £10.01. It said her mother’s rent account had been in arrears at the time it was closed. It informed her that any request to escalate to stage 2 of the process should be made within 1 calendar month. The resident sent 2 further emails querying the balance on her mother’s account which remained unresolved at the end of the communication.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if she wished to continue with her application for a refund. It also asked if she wanted a copy of her mother’s rent statement.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 February 2022 to request that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage 1 of the process because she felt it was “steeped in bias and racism.” The landlord replied the following day with a holding letter. It acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 complaint. It went on to say that due to a high volume of complaints it had been registered only at that stage. It said it would send a formal acknowledgement letter once the investigation had begun.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord emailed a letter to the resident seeking confirmation of when the keys to the property would be returned. It asked the resident to confirm by 1 March 2022. If there was no response it would begin possession proceedings. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 February 2022 to confirm that she would not be charged for the disposal of any items left in the property.
On 28 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she returned the keys on 25 March. She said:
1. She had received a rent payment card on 10 March which she felt was insensitive given the situation. She explained that this caused additional stress on top of the emotional stress of trying to sell items ready for the move.
2. She had not been told that she could leave items in the property free of charge.
3. She had already incurred costs moving items because she thought she had to leave the property empty.
4. She had requested a refund of the credit on her mother’s rent account, which she said amounted to £614, but had not received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 March 2022 to acknowledge receipt of her email. It said it was making enquiries into the refund of the credit on her mother’s account and would update her at the end of the week. The resident emailed this service on 24 May 2022 to say she had not heard back from the landlord.
On 7 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase the response to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied on the same day to reiterate its earlier advice and apologised for the delay.
We contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 to ask that it issue a response to the resident by 21 September 2022. The deadline was extended at the landlord’s request.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2022. It included the following:
1. An offer of £100 compensation for delay in issuing the stage two complaint response. A request for bank details to be able to process the payment.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact she was on anti-depressants. It apologised for any added stress and inconvenience it caused.
3. It set out previous issues relating to her dissatisfaction and any new issues which had arisen.
4. It concluded it was appropriate for the housing officer to carry out the PACE interview. The justification being that there was no evidence of misconduct by the staff member during the phone call on 3 December. It said that had there been an issue, a different officer would have been assigned to complete the interview. The responder said that having listened to the recording of the call they agreed with the stage 1 complaint response. At no point did the responder note any bias or racism towards the resident.
5. It said that the service fault had been acknowledged by the housing manager. The stage 1 complaint was partially upheld as a consequence.
6. An acknowledgement that the resident was grieving and an apology for any additional stress caused by the NTQ. It said that the eviction letter was a standard letter and that given the circumstances the landlord had negotiated a suitable date for surrender of keys.
7. It acted fairly by accommodating the resident’s request to delay the PACE interview, moving it from December 2021 to January 2022.
8. That it was entitled to check public records to verify the information provided on the tenancy application. Having carried out its own investigation, it could not find any reference to the resident as a black woman. It could not find any evidence that this influenced housing officer’s behaviour towards the resident.
9. Confirmation that the resident was given insufficient time to clear her late mother’s flat and return the keys. It reiterated that this had been raised with the service for change to prevent a reoccurrence.
10. Confirmation that the refund on the resident’s late mother’s rent account could only be refunded to the executor. It requested the executor’s name and contact details to be able to process the refund. It said that the resident’s own account was £96.27 in credit, and that it could arrange a refund if the resident could confirm the bank details held were correct.
11. The complaint was not upheld on the basis that the fault in processing the succession application had been acknowledged in its stage one complaint response. There was no evidence of additional faults.
The resident emailed this service again on 29 September 2022 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint response and confirmed she wished her complaint to be investigated.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The resident provided this service with a copy of ‘confirmation of administrator of estate’, dated 4 January 2023, for her late mother.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise her that her former rent account was £96.27 in credit. It said it had her bank details on file but needed her new address in order to issue the refund and remittance advice. The resident replied that day to ask that it put the refund on hold as she was not comfortable providing it with her new address and wanted to seek advice.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s succession application

The resident’s comments that the discrepancy on the succession application form was due to a lack of response from the landlord when she tried to ask for help are acknowledged. There is evidence that the landlord did make some attempts to contact the resident by phone. However, the landlord’s succession procedure says that if there are surviving family members a home visit should be offered. The landlord has not provided evidence that it offered to visit the resident. The landlord therefore failed to comply with its own procedure. The landlord missed an opportunity to address any queries the resident may have had in advance of her submission of the succession form.
The landlord’s notes show that the application was pending on 2 September 2021, so it had received it by then at the latest. However, it did not write to the resident to acknowledge receipt until 16 September. It then took until 18 November to decide the resident was not eligible to succeed to the tenancy. This process took 31 working days, significantly longer than the 10 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s procedure. The evidence does not demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to identify this when investigating the resident’s complaint. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put things right.
The landlord failed to be clear in its communication with the resident. Effective communication was even more important given the sensitivity of the situation. It failed to manage her expectations at a time when she was vulnerable which was insensitive. During the complaints process the landlord accepted that communication was lacking. However, there is no evidence that it took steps to put things right which was unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident received no contact from the landlord from 2 September until it wrote to her on 26 November 2021 to give notice to leave. Given the lack of communication, the decision to give notice to leave came as a shock to the resident. To send a letter of this nature, particularly given the length of notice, without any warning was not fair or reasonable, and caused considerable distress. The landlord did so despite receiving an email from the resident on 18 September to advise that the delayed response time was affecting her mental health. The manner in which the landlord communicated its decision was therefore inappropriate, and does not demonstrate that it had regard for the resident’s situation.
The landlord said that it used a standard template for the notice, giving 5 days. Given that the landlord’s policy states that keys should be returned within 28 days of a rejection letter being issued, it is unclear why the template letter provided 5 days. The landlord said it identified the use of standard template letters as a service failure which it intended to address.While it was appropriate to acknowledge this, it is unclear how the landlord intends to ensure that similar errors are not repeated in the future. An order has therefore been made to ensure that this is appropriately addressed.
Given the circumstances, it was not a reasonable to give the resident 5 days notice to leave. The landlord failed to consider that the resident was grieving, that the property had been the family home, and the time of year. To send the letter without any warning or discussion was not appropriate. The landlord’s actions in relation to the eviction notice were inappropriate and insensitive.
It is acknowledged that when the landlord and resident communicated at a later date, the landlord entered into negotiations about the return of the keys. It subsequently extended the deadline by several months to allow the resident some flexibility which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s succession procedure says the ‘AHM’ is responsible for checking that the succession policy and procedure have been followed. Due to the failures identified above this part of the procedure was not followed or the checks made by the ‘AHM’ were ineffective. In either case, this was a failure by the landlord which resulted in detriment to the resident. The landlord acknowledged its failure, which was appropriate, but did not identify any measures that could be implemented to prevent something similar from happening in the future. As such, there was a failure to try to learn from the complaint.
There was further evidence of poor communication in relation to the process of the resident returning the keys. In her email of 28 March 2021 the resident said she had received a rent payment card on 10 March which she felt was insensitive and caused further distress. She also said she had not been told that she could leave items in the property free of charge. She said she had already incurred costs moving items because she thought she had to leave the property empty. There is no evidence that the landlord considered these points. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the detriment caused to the resident and what it could do to put things right, including an amount of compensation in recognition of its poor communication.
The landlord’s succession procedure states all potential successors will be subject to an eligibility check by its fraud team. It therefore acted appropriately and in line with its procedure when it instigated a fraud investigation. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that it should have discussed the discrepancy with the resident at an earlier date for which it apologised. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the prospect of success when deciding to carry out in the fraud investigation. To do so was disproportionate and caused unnecessary additional distress. In any event there is no evidence it wrote to the resident to confirm, in writing, the outcome of the fraud investigation which was inappropriate.
There were a series of failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession application. The number of failings combined with the impact on the resident amount to maladministration. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that payments of up to £1000 can be awarded for severe distress. The Ombudsman has considered this, together with our own guidance on remedies, and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation.

Response to the resident’s request for a refund

The resident made 2 refund requests; for her account and for her late mother’s rent account. The landlord has requested the resident’s address in order to issue a refund for £96.27 for credit on her account and provide a remittance advice. This information is required on its ‘request for refund of account balance form’ so the request is reasonable in the circumstances. The resident can decide whether to provide this information in order to obtain the refund which is currently on hold. If she has not done so already, the resident should confirm her intentions to the landlord.
In relation to the credit on the resident’s mother’s account, there was some confusion as to when and how the refund would be processed. While discussion had taken place about a refund, the landlord was unable to process this without receiving confirmation as to who was the administrator of the estate. This was not obtained until 4 January 2023 therefore, the landlord was not in a position to offer to refund a credit during the complaints process.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately on this point. Its communication was confusing because it did not make its position clear until it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2022. It had previously attached a credit refund form to its email to the resident on 31 January 2022. On 4 February 2022 it emailed the resident to ask if she wished to continue with her application for a refund and whether she wanted a copy of her mother’s rent statement. This lack of clarity raised the resident’s expectations that she would be able to claim the refund. That she was not in a position to do so, added to her distress and inconvenience in having to chase the landlord for a response. If she has not already done so, the resident should provide a copy of the ‘confirmation of administrator of estate’ so that it can arrange to refund any outstanding credit on her late mother’s rent account.
The landlord’s approach to the request for a refund was not appropriate and amounts to service failure.

Complaint Handling

Having made a complaint on 3 December 2021 the resident made a second complaint on 21 December, before the landlord had issued its response to the first complaint. Rather than issue one stage 1 complaint response, the landlord used its discretion to open up a second stage 1 complaint response. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to do so. It avoided an unreasonably long delay which could have occurred by ‘holding back’ the first response to be able include its response to the points raised in the second complaint.
Across both stage 1 responses apologies were issued and service improvements were identified which was appropriate. However, the landlord failed to recognise the significant impact that its failures had on the resident. This is particularly relevant in respect of the letter issued on 26 November 2021. It would have been reasonable to consider compensation for distress at this stage, as per its compensation guidance.
The landlord’s signposting on next steps in the complaints process were confusing. In the first stage 1 complaint response it failed to set out the next stage of the complaints process. However, it did say the resident could escalate her complaint if the request was made within 1 month. In the second response, it set out the next stage of the complaints process but failed to set the timescales within which an escalation request should be made. This was inappropriate and was confusing for the resident in terms of how she should proceed.
Section 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code) states that landlords must “clearly and plainly” provide the details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident remains dissatisfied. Therefore, the landlord also failed to comply with the Code. The landlord should review its template letters to ensure that they contain the correct information in relation to escalating a complaint.
The stage 1 complaint response issued on 24 December stated that, in future, all residents would have a minimum of 2 contacts. Unfortunately, the resident seems to have misunderstood and has repeatedly said that an element of her complaint was that she had not received these 2 contacts. The landlord failed to recognise and address this point.
The landlord included a review stage in between stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process. This confused the resident, who was expecting to go onto stage 2 of the complaints process. The request to escalate to stage 2 of the process was received 17 January 2022 and a review of stage 1 response was issued 31 January. The inclusion of a review stage had not previously been set out to the resident. Furthermore, while this was in accordance with its policy at the time, the policy was not compliant with the Code. The Code states that a landlord’s procedure will ideally only have 2 stages, to ensure that the process is not “unduly long”.
The landlord has now updated its procedure and removed the stage 1 review from its policy. However, this protracted complaint procedure caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Contrary to the two stage 1 complaint responses, the review letter said the complaint was not upheld with no service failures identified. It signposted the resident’s right to request an escalation to the second stage of the complaints process which was appropriate. However, its communication was poor because it did not set out timescales as to when this request should be made. The resident had to go to the time and trouble of emailing the landlord to ask how long she had to respond if she wanted to escalate her complaint. Landlord’s complaint processes should manage resident’s expectations effectively, meaning this was inappropriate. It is also further evidence of the landlord’s failure to comply with section 5.8 of the Code.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 6 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint in a holding letter dated 7 February. Despite this, a response remained outstanding and the resident went to the time and trouble of contacting this service on 4 May. She also emailed the landlord directly on 7 August to chase the response, following which it apologised and repeated its earlier holding advice. The residentcontacted this Service again as a response remained outstanding.
Section 4.10 of the Code states that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation, even where there is no new substantive information to provide. Therefore, while the landlord was not able to commence the stage 2 investigation it could have provided the resident with periodic updates. This would have reassured the resident that her complaint had not been forgotten. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 29 September, 7 months after the resident requested an escalation to stage 2. The stage 2 complaint response issued a further apology again for the eviction notice letter and service failure which was appropriate. However, it once again missed an opportunity to award compensation which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, this service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord failed to consider awarding compensation in relation to the significant distress caused by the serving of the eviction notice at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process. This suggests it had failed to reflect on what had gone wrong, the impact the failures had on the resident, and what it could do to ‘put things right’.
The corporate complaints policy states stage 2 responses will be issued within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. The response was due by 7 March 2022 and was therefore, 142 working days overdue. The policy does not refer to the use of holding letters at this stage of the complaints process.The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response which is consistent with its compensation guidance for ‘time and trouble’.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer some compensation, its offer did not take into account that it:
1. Failed to comply with its own complaints procedure and the resident was put to considerable time and trouble in chasing the response. It also only issued its response following contact by this service asking it to respond.
2. Failed to consider offering the resident compensation for the adverse effect caused by the letter dated 26 November.
The landlord’s compensation guidance allows for payments of up to £300 to be made for time and trouble. Having also considered our own remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident a further £150 to adequately reflect the detriment caused to her by the complaint handling failures.

Communication with the resident

This investigation has considered the general theme of communication failures elsewhere in this report. Poor communication caused the resident confusion and frustration, compounding her distress and inconvenience. They include:
1. The inappropriate content of the letter dated 26 November.
2. The lack of clarity provided regarding the charge for any items left in the property.
3. The issuing of a rent card whilst in discussions with the resident about returning the keys.
4. Inconsistency about whether the resident was able to have her mother’s credit refunded to her.
5. Confused messaging about 2 contacts being required on succession applications going forward.
6. The inclusion of a review between stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process.
7. The failure to update the resident in relation to the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s succession application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for a refund.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its communication.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with its succession procedure. The failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the succession application caused significant alarm and distress to the resident. This was exacerbated by the resident’s vulnerabilities, which were known to the landlord, meaning its response was insensitive in the circumstances.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations around her eligibility to receive a refund from her deceased mother’s rent account.
The landlord’s financial redress was in relation to delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint only. The landlord failed to adequately reflect the time and trouble having to chase its response and that it was only issued after it was contacted by this service.
The landlord’s general standard of communication was poor. It was not timely, lacked clarity and at times was contradictory. This caused confusion for the resident which added to her distress.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1000, comprising of:
1. £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s succession application, including poor communication.
2. £50 compensation for the distress, time and trouble caused by the failures identified in relation to administering the refund on the rent account, including poor communication.
3. £150 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified, including poor communication. This is to be paid in addition to the £100 already paid for the delays in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord is to evidence compliance to the Ombudsman with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 6 weeks of date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Carry out staff training to ensure that succession applications are handled in line with its succession procedure. The landlord should provide the date and content of the training to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
2. Ensure that its commitment to have 2 conversations with succession applicants is embedded into its succession procedure. The landlord should provide confirmation that it has done so to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
3. Review its NTQ template letter to ensure that it gives 28 days notice and not 5 days. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with the date of this review, also within 6 weeks.
4. Review its complaint template letter to ensure that it contains the correct information in relation to escalating a complaint. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with the date of this review, also within 6 weeks.