Leicester City Council (202340167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340167

Leicester City Council

31 October 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:
1. concerns regarding its issuance of a Notice to Quit (NTQ), and termination of their tenancy;
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy that began on 1 August 2022. The property was a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, and the landlord is a council. For the purposes of this report the housing directorate of the council is referred to as ‘the landlord’. All other service areas of the council are referred to as the ‘local authority’ (LA).

Tenancy agreement

Secure tenants have ‘security of tenure’ as defined by s.82 of the Housing Act 1985. This sets out the procedure that must be followed where a tenancy is to be brought to an end. Where a tenant was not occupying the property as their only or principal home (s.81 of the Housing Act 1985), they lose their security of tenure and the tenancy can be brought to an end by a NTQ – given the requisite period of notice.
The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that “you must use the property as your only or principal home. If you do not use the property as your only or principal home, we will take action to end your tenancy”.

Abandoned property procedure

The landlord’s procedure stated that its objective was to ensure that a resident was using their property as their main or principal home. It detailed the process for ending their tenancy with the issuance of a hand delivered NTQ where it had evidence that they were not.
The procedure explained what the landlord should do if a resident contacted it during the NTQ period. It said that “If they state they are either living there or intend to return to live at the property the procedure must cease even if the Notice to Quit has been served. The Notice to Quit must be withdrawn”. It further advised that a home visit should then be completed, the situation monitored, and the NTQ procedure restarted if necessary.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process, with responses issued within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy stated that complaints could be made via its online portal, which it said was its preferred method to ensure the swiftest response. It said that complaints could also be made by emailing, calling, or in person to its customer service team.

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued the NTQ to the resident on the basis that they were in breach of their tenancy agreement by holding a second social tenancy with a housing association in another area of the country. The resident partly attributed their council tax arrears, and the fact that they held 2 tenancies, to what they felt was the confusing information provided by the LA’s homelessness unit, and the LA’s handling of its property offer to them.
What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident presented as homeless to the LA, where they had a local connection, after they had fled domestic abuse from their existing tenancy elsewhere in the country. The LA provided the resident with temporary accommodation, and subsequently offered them a tenancy. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about housing applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the handling of such applications. Since the resident’s housing application fell within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman, and would be more appropriately considered by the LGSCO.
This investigation is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of matters from June 2023, when the LA made it aware that the resident held a second tenancy. Any references in this report to the LA’s handling of its property offer to the resident in 2022 are for the purpose of context only.

Summary of events

On 20 June 2023 the LA sent an email to the landlord’s housing officer (HO) regarding its discussion with the resident. The key points of the email were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident had fled from domestic abuse suffered while living in another social housing property in a different area of the country. It said that the resident had stated that the LA had subsequently contacted them, and advised that it could offer them a permanent property if they ended their tenancy in the other area.
2. It said that the resident had explained that they live and work in the other area 5 days a week, and lived 2 days a week in the landlord’s area where their children were. It said that the resident had stated that they had been very clear to the LA that they would not give up their other tenancy, but that the LA had offered them a property anyway.
3. It said that the resident had been paying rent for both homes, but had built up council tax debts on the landlord’s property, which they blamed on the confusing advice, and lack of support from the LA and landlord.
4. It said that it had advised the resident that they would be unlikely to be able to maintain 2 social housing tenancies, but that the resident did not want to give up either, and wanted the HO to provide advice.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s HO asked the LA’s principal lawyer for information, as she understood that he had had previous involvement in the resident’s case. The lawyer stated that his previous advice had only regarded the resident being offered a secure, rather than introductory tenancy, as they were fleeing abuse. The lawyer asked the HO whether the resident had been invited to terminate their tenancy with the landlord, as they considered their property in the other area to be their principal home. The lawyer advised that if the resident refused to end their tenancy, the landlord should serve them a NTQ.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord’s HO emailed the resident a summary of her discussions with him early that day, and on 30 June 2023. She stated that the resident could not hold 2 tenancies, and so would need to terminate 1 of them. The further key points of the HO’s email were as follows:
1. She confirmed that a “gas gain entry” had been completed in the resident’s property the previous day, and that the photographs taken showed the property to be near empty. She stated that this further indicated that the resident was not using the property as their only or principal home.
2. She acknowledged that the resident had advised that they would be terminating their other tenancy, and that they needed around 3 months to make their property with the landlord habitable.
3. She agreed to provide the resident with a more detailed written summary when she returned from annual leave.
On 14 July 2023 the resident replied to the HO and asked to make a complaint about the matter. The resident expressed their dissatisfaction with the LA’s homelessness unit, how it had been possible for them to have 2 tenancies for the past year, and that they had not been advised until March 2023 that they were liable for council tax on both properties. On 17 July 2023 the HO told the resident that she was unable to take the complaint for them, but provided a link to the LA’s website where the resident could make it.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord’s HO sent the resident the more detailed summary of their discussions. The HO’s covering email stated that “With regards to the NTQ due to be served, this is currently with management, and I will be sure to update you when this is finalised to deliver”. Much of the HO’s summary concerned the matters covered in her previous summary, and the resident’s statements regarding the LA’s property offer, council tax, and advice. The HO included a link to where the resident could complain to the LA if they felt they had been misinformed regarding council tax. The other further key points of the HO’s summary were as follows:
1. She stated that the resident understood that they must terminate 1 of their tenancies.
2. She said that the resident had stated that if the landlord cleared their council tax debt, they would end their tenancy with it and move back to the other area permanently. She said that she had sought advice, and that the resident remained liable for their council tax debt.
3. She stated that the resident had said that they would need around 3 months to make the property habitable. She said that this further indicated that the property was not the resident’s principal home, but that the resident disagreed, and had said that they used both properties equally.
During August 2023 the landlord’s internal emails referred to the resident’s 2 tenancies. The emails stated that it was unclear which tenancy the resident intended to terminate, as they kept changing their mind. The emails noted that it was apparent from the photographs inside the resident’s property that they were not using it as their principal home. The landlord asked the LA’s lawyer about the use of an NTQ. The lawyer advised that the resident “cannot retain security of tenure if the property is not their only or principal home”.
On 25 October 2023 the LA’s ‘investigations team’ told the landlord that it had received a data sharing request from the housing association that the resident held their other tenancy with. The investigation team asked the landlord to consider recovery of the resident’s property, and to keep it informed of its actions.
In late October and early November 2023, the landlord’s internal emails discussed the LA’s investigations team request, and stated that the LA’s lawyer had advised that a NTQ should be served to the resident.
On 5 December 2023 the landlord hand delivered the NTQ to the resident, which had an expiry date of 8 January 2024. The NTQ stated that the landlord believed the resident’s property to be abandoned. It said that it would assume this to be the case if it did not hear from the resident, and would then take steps to repossess the property.
On 8 December 2023 the resident made their complaint to the landlord, which they said was about its HO. They said that the HO had threatened them with Court and eviction on numerous occasions. They stated that the HO had visited them twice in the previous 2 months, and had issued them an NTQ. They highlighted that they had been at home for both visits, were on the electoral register, and had their work, dentist, and doctor all registered to that address. They questioned how the HO could determine that they had abandoned their property, and asked that the HO stop harassing them. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day.
On 21 December 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. Its key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that with regards to the resident’s comments about its HO, she had visited them twice. It said that the first visit had been on 4 October 2023 during an estate walkabout with the Police. It said that the HO had called at the resident and neighbour’s properties to establish ownership of items left in the communal area.
2. It said that the HO had hand delivered the resident’s NTQ on 5 December 2023, in line with the instructions of the LA’s legal services team (LST). It said that the NTQ had been issued as the resident held 2 tenancies, which was not permitted.
3. It stated that the resident had said that they had ended their other tenancy, but had not provided any documentary proof. It said that the resident had refused it permission to speak with the other landlord about the matter.
4. It explained that the LST had advised that it could only resolve the matter by issuing a NTQ, which would expire on 8 January 2024. It stated that the resident would become an “illegal occupier” if they had not provided proof that they had terminated their other tenancy by that date, and so encouraged them to do so.
5. It advised that its LST would seek possession through the County Court if they failed to prove that they had ended their other tenancy. It advised how they could escalate their complaint if they remained dissatisfied.
On 21 December 2023 the resident asked for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2. They said that “I maintain that this NTQ is unlawful and unwarranted”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the following day.
On 2 January 2024 the landlord met with the LA’s lawyer to further discuss the resident’s case and complaint. On 9 January 2024 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that the NTQ was issued on the basis that the resident was not occupying their property as their only or principal home, and reiterated the requirements of their tenancy agreement.
2. It said that it was evident that the resident still had a tenancy with another landlord. It said that it had established that the resident had very few belongings in the property, which did not appear to be resided in. It further noted that the resident’s complaint had provided a different local correspondence address.
3. It explained its reasons for the tenancy agreement requiring residents to use their property as their principal home, with regards to the shortage of social housing and the length of waiting lists.
4. It agreed to review its position if the resident provided any evidence contrary to its understanding. It referred the resident to the Service.
On 9 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to confirm whether it had upheld their complaint. The resident stated that the fact that they had a second tenancy did not mean that their property with the landlord was not being used as their principal home, and asked how the landlord had made this decision.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord met again with the LA’s lawyer to discuss the resident’s case. The landlord’s record stated that the lawyer confirmed that the resident was not using their property as their main and principal home, that a lock change could proceed, and a “provisions notice” sent to the resident. The record further noted that the landlord had no duty to rehouse the resident, as they still had their tenancy in another area.
On 17 January 2024 the landlord confirmed that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had already explained the reasons it had issued the NTQ, and that the NTQ would continue in the absence of the resident’s evidence to the contrary.
On 17 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord’s HO whether she had spoken to the Police regarding their request to move home on the grounds of domestic abuse. On 23 January 2024 the HO expressed her sympathy to the resident and confirmed that she had spoken with the Police. The HO said that she had confirmed that the landlord could not assist with a move, as the resident already had a tenancy elsewhere. She signposted the resident to their GP, and other support services. The landlord’s record stated that the resident’s locks were changed the same day, with an inventory and photographs taken.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 24 January 2024 the resident asked the HO why the locks had been changed on their property. The following day the HO confirmed to the resident that their tenancy had ended, the locks changed, and their possessions placed into storage for 28 days. The HO attached a covering letter, a “miscellaneous provisions notice, and a “notes for tenants document” (the Ombudsman has not seen these documents).
On 5 February 2024 the LA’s investigations team asked the landlord for an update of the resident’s case. The landlord advised that after meetings with the LA’s lawyer, the resident’s tenancy was ended on 14 January 2024.
During the first half of February 2024, the resident and HO exchanged several emails. The resident asked for an inventory of their belongings that the landlord had stored. The HO sent the resident the inventory, which she said had previously been sent to them in January 2024. The resident asked the HO why a Court order had not been needed to end their secure tenancy, given that they had contested the grounds for the NTQ, and maintained that the property was their principal home.
On 20 February 2024 the landlord’s HO asked the LA’s lawyer to confirm her understanding of why a Court order was not needed to end the resident’s tenancy. The lawyer advised the HO that the resident no longer had security of tenure as they were not occupying the property as their only or principal home. The lawyer stated that the NTQ had had the effect of ending the contractual tenancy. The lawyer further advised that, “as the tenancy was no longer secure and the contractual tenancy was ended, the council did not require a Court order for possession”. The landlord’s HO relayed the lawyer’s information to the resident, and further signposted them to other support services.

Assessment and findings

NTQ and tenancy termination

It was not disputed that the resident held 2 tenancies with 2 different social housing providers. It was reasonable for the landlord to give the resident several months to resolve this by ending their other tenancy. The landlord maintained timely contact with the resident throughout this period. When it became apparent that it was unlikely that the resident would end their other tenancy, the landlord issued the resident its NTQ in line with its procedure and the legal advice it had sought.
The resident was at their property when the landlord issued the NTQ, and then further contacted the landlord to dispute the basis of it 3 days later. The landlord’s procedure stated that in such circumstances “the NTQ must be withdrawn”. The landlord’s subsequent complaint response to the resident referred to it seeking possession of their property through the County Court.
It was therefore understandable that the resident expected that they would have the opportunity to make their case in Court before their tenancy was ended. This would be consistent with the statutory provisions in s.3 Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which require a landlord to obtain a Court order. A landlord may not have to seek an order where the property was impliedly surrendered by abandonment. It would be for the landlord to show, with good evidence, that the property had been surrendered. The resident’s expectation of that due processes was not met.
In the circumstances it would be expected that the landlord would manage the resident’s expectations, and clearly set out to them why it was entitled to continue with the NTQ, contrary to its procedure, and why it did not need a Court order. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it either managed the resident’s expectations, or that it provided them this clear explanation. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its issuance of the NTQ, and the termination of their tenancy. The Ombudsman will not decide whether there has been an unlawful eviction as that is a matter for the Court should the resident wish to take that route.
It is not, in and of itself, illegal for a resident to hold more than 1 social housing tenancy. However, the Housing Act (1996) contains provisions to ensure that social housing is distributed fairly, and to those in need. It is generally regarded as being against those principles to allow an individual to maintain more than 1 tenancy, as it may deprive others of access to social housing that is in short supply. It is for this reason that it is standard practice throughout the sector for landlords to include tenancy agreement conditions regarding using a property as “your only or principal home”, and to have processes for ending tenancies where this is not the case.
In June 2023 the LA relayed to the landlord that the resident had told it about their 2 tenancies, and that they spent 2 days per week in the landlord’s area. It is understandable that the resident would view ‘the council’ as a single entity. However, the Ombudsman must distinguish between the landlord and the LA for the jurisdictional reasons explained above.
The LA told the landlord that it had advised the resident that they could not keep 2 tenancies, but that they were reluctant to give up either and wanted to discuss this with the landlord’s HO. The HO sought advice from the LA’s principal lawyer 2 days later, and discussed the matter with the resident the following week. This demonstrated the landlord’s timely handling of matters, which was largely the case throughout.
The landlord’s HO discussed the matter further with the resident 2 weeks later, in mid-July 2023. It was appropriate for the HO to follow up the discussion in writing to the resident, which would have helped clarify the landlord’s position to them.
The HO highlighted to the resident that the landlord had recently had to change the locks on their property to gain access for a gas safety check. The HO further highlighted that the resident’s property was near empty, and that they had said themselves that they would need 3 months to make it habitable. The HO stated that this further supported the view that the resident was not using their property as their principal home. While the resident disputed this point, it did demonstrate the landlord’s evidence based approach.
It was reasonable for the landlord’s HO to agree to the resident’s request to provide a further more comprehensive written summary of their discussion, which she did in mid-August 2023. It was appropriate for the HO to advise the resident that an NTQ was being considered at a more senior level, and to commit to updating them when more was known.
At various points over this period the resident had suggested that they intended to terminate 1 of their tenancies, but changed their mind on a few occasions as to which. It was reasonable for the landlord to hang back from taking further action towards taking possession of the resident’s property. This afforded the resident the time that they had stated was needed to make their property habitable, and to otherwise consider their options.
The landlord’s internal communications, and those to the LA, evidenced its ongoing review and consideration of the matter, and that it appropriately sought and followed legal advice. In October 2023 the LA’s investigation team asked the landlord to consider recovering the resident’s property, and shortly after the LA’s principal lawyer advised it that a NTQ should be served.
The landlord’s HO hand delivered the NTQ to the resident on 5 December 2023, which was in line with its procedure. However, the resident said that they were at the property when the NTQ was delivered, and contacted the landlord to dispute the basis of it on 8 December 2023. The landlord’s procedure explained the actions it should take if a resident contacted it during the NTQ period. It stated that if the resident said that “they are either living there or intend to return to live at the property the procedure must cease even if the NTQ has been served”.
As the landlord was not acting in line with its own procedure, it would be expected that it would make this clear to the resident with a full explanation of why it was entitled to continue with the NTQ and would not need a Court order. Instead, on 21 December 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident said that, following the expiry of the NTQ on 8 January 2024, it would then seek to “gain possession of the property through the County Court”. As such, the landlord failed to offer an appropriate explanation to the resident, nor manage their expectations, and therefore acted unreasonably.
The resident further disputed the basis for the NTQ to the landlord on 21 December 2023, and 9 January 2024. This provided the landlord with further opportunities to clearly set out to the resident why it would act contrary to its own procedure, and would gain possession of their property without the Court. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident on 9 January 2021 did appropriately set out the basis for the NTQ, but failed to explain why it would not act in line with its procedure that would have seen the NTQ withdrawn. It further failed to correct or clarify its stage 1 position regarding its intention to use the Courts.
This continued to be the case with the landlord’s subsequent communications to the resident until it changed their property locks and ended their tenancy later that month. It was a significant failing that, having stated its intention to the resident to seek a Court order, the landlord proceeded to end their tenancy without doing so. This would have left the resident feeling misinformed and that they had been deprived of the opportunity to make their case to a Court, as the landlord’s advice to them had suggested they would.
Following the termination of the resident’s tenancy, the landlord’s HO continued to respond promptly and empathetically to the resident’s queries. Nevertheless, it was a further month before the landlord provided the resident with an explanation of why it considered that it was able to end their tenancy without the Court order it had previously advised that it would seek.
The landlord has demonstrated that it sought and followed qualified legal advice. However, it has failed to demonstrate that it appropriately conveyed this information to the resident, nor that it managed their expectations regarding the need for a Court order. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration, and orders the landlord to review its handling of the matter to prevent a reoccurrence. This is in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which provide the Ombudsman with the authority to require member landlord’s to review policies or practices that might give rise to wider issues within that landlord’s overall service delivery.
In addition to the case review, an order of compensation has been detailed below, reflecting any distress and inconvenience likely to have been experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord failures identified. Namely the failure to explain why it departed from its procedure and why it did not need a Court order. The resident is able to seek a declaration and damages from the Court on the overall lawfulness of the landlord changing the locks without a Court order.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s misleading information regarding use of the Courts in its stage 1 complaint response, and its failure to correct this at stage 2, has been considered in the maladministration finding above. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to accept the resident’s complaint at the first point of contact in July 2023, rather than to refer him to an alternative method. Nonetheless, the landlord did otherwise handle the resident’s complaint in a timely and appropriate manner, and in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The resident first tried to make a complaint to the landlord’s HO in July 2023. The HO told the resident that she was unable to take the complaint for them, and provided a website link where they could do so. While the HO acted in line with the landlord’s policy, it would have been good practice for the resident’s complaint to have been taken when it was first made, rather than to refer them elsewhere (it is noted that the resident’s complaint concerned matters relevant to the LA, rather than the landlord, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO, however there was nothing to suggest that this was the reason for the HO’s actions).
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at that time stated that landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing a variety of methods. The Code was updated in April 2024 (subsequent to the events described above), and became statutory. With regards to access to the landlord’s complaint process, paragraph 3.2 of the Code now states that “residents must be able to raise their complaints in any way and with any member of staff. All staff must be aware of the complaints process and be able to pass details of the complaint to the appropriate person within the landlord”. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The resident made their complaint on 8 December 2023, which they said was about the actions of the landlord’s HO. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response 9 working days later, which was in line with both its policy and the Code.
The resident’s false expectation regarding the Court created by the landlord’s stage 1 response, has been considered in the assessment above. The stage 1 response did otherwise clearly address the issues that the resident had raised. The NTQ that the landlord had issued to the resident was still more than 2 weeks from expiry. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to encourage the resident to evidence the termination of their second tenancy, which would allow it to withdraw the NTQ. This demonstrated a fair and reasonable approach.
The resident escalated their complaint on 21 December 2023, and the landlord again issued its stage 2 response within the timeframe of its policy and the Code. The landlord’s failure to correct its stage 1 reference to the Court has again been considered in the assessment and finding above.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did otherwise clearly explain the basis of its decision that the resident was not using their property as their principal home. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the rationale behind the conditions of the resident’s tenancy with regard to social housing shortages. It was further appropriate for the landlord to state its willingness to review its position if the resident provided evidence that they had ended their other tenancy.
It is acknowledged that the resident would have been dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint. Nonetheless, aside from the failings considered in the prior assessment, the landlord has demonstrated its reasonable handling of it. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s compliant handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its issuance of a Notice to Quit (NTQ), and termination of their tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident will be disappointed that their dissatisfaction with the actions and advice of the LA and its homeless unit prior to the start of their tenancy have not been considered. However these matters, along with the resident’s council tax concerns, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and would be more appropriately considered by the LGSCO.
It was not disputed that the resident held 2 tenancies with 2 different providers in different areas of the country, which the landlord became aware of in June 2023. The landlord demonstrated its largely reasonable and timely handling of the resident’s concerns from that point until it issued an NTQ to the resident in early December 2023.
The landlord acted upon legal advice in its decision not to act in line with its ‘abandoned property procedure’, which would have necessitated that the NTQ be withdrawn. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had offered a clear or appropriate explanation of this decision and its rationale to the resident. It instead created a false expectation that the resident would be given the opportunity to contest the matter in Court.
The landlord failed to explain this to the resident until 1 month after it had terminated their tenancy without a Court order. This would have understandably left the resident feeling that they had been misinformed, and deprived of the opportunity to contest the landlord’s decision.
The landlord failed to offer this clear explanation or manage the resident’s expectation regarding the Courts during its complaint process. However, it did handle all other aspects of the resident’s complaint in an appropriate and timely manner, and in line with its policy and the Code.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pays compensation of £300 to the resident. This sum to be paid direct to the resident.
Also within 4 weeks and in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to the implementation of its abandoned property procedure. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. A review of its handling of this matter from the point that the NTQ was issued, including:
  1. Its decision making as to why a court process was considered as not necessary in this instance;
  2. How it communicated this decision to the resident;
  3. Whether the procedure needs to be reviewed as a consequence of this case review.
2. Following the review, the landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord incorporate a review of its complaints policy regarding how it will accept a resident’s complaint into the work it is already doing to comply with the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code.