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

London Borough of Croydon (202230696)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230696

London Borough of Croydon

27 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. mutual exchange application.
    2. rent account.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The property was a 3-bedroom house which she shared with her daughter. The landlord recorded that the resident had autism.
  2. On 10 May 2021, the tenancy began. The tenancy agreement listed the occupants in the property as the resident and her 2 children. On 20 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident stating that it had strong evidence of social housing fraud as the property was under occupied. It said that it intended to take steps to recover the property with immediate effect. It suspended its legal action and decided to support the resident with a housing transfer application. On 25 September 2022, the resident submitted a mutual exchange application to the landlord declaring that she needed to downsize and required a property for herself and her daughter.
  3. On 10 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint against the landlord. She said that after receiving the email on 20 September 2022, she found a 2-bedroom property but was not able to move and the landlord did not explain why. She said the situation was “rude, ignorant and unfair” and that the landlord refused to communicate her options of a transfer.
  4. On 4 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint about the poor communication and apologised. It explained that the email of 20 September 2022 said that it would support her with a housing transfer application, and because it notified her of its intention to take legal action, it was implied that a mutual exchange would not be granted. It did not uphold this element of the complaint. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord offered to support her with a move via Homefinder UK if she wished to move out of the borough. It also advised that she was in rent arrears and encouraged her to set up a payment plan to reduce the arrears.
  5. On 16 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that there had been no communication for 4 months and the same employee that advised her of its intention to take legal action, provided the stage 1 complaint response. She said that the landlord failed to acknowledge why it had not met its policy of responding within 10 working days and the stage 1 complaint response was outside its timeframe. She said the situation was causing her distress and she was unhappy that her original MP had been notified of the situation when it was a new MP involved in her case. She was unhappy that the landlord had said she was in arrears when she was not.
  6. On 9 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was delayed by 6 working days, and it apologised. The landlord advised that it was not its usual process for officers dealing with the subject of the complaint to complete the complaint investigation. While it found no evidence of bias, it understood why the resident expected the complaint to be handled by another employee. It said it would feedback the issue to ensure the appropriate process is followed going forward.
  7. It said that it had replied to the MP who had originally submitted an enquiry on her behalf and had now forwarded a copy to her current MP. It reviewed the resident’s rent account and noted that her arrears had been cleared as of 1 January 2023. It apologised for the error in its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that her application for Homefinder UK was approved so that she could progress a move to match her housing need.   
  8. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she was concerned that her son may be returning and as such she will need to start the process of applying for a 3-bedroom house again and the situation was affecting her mental health. After the complaint was duly made with this Service there is evidence that the resident secured a transfer in July 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application

  1. The Housing Act 1985 Schedule 3 sets out the grounds under which a housing provider may withhold consent to assignment by way of exchange. It further sets out a time limit of 42 days for refusing consent to an exchange and the requirement to provide grounds for any refusal. This includes if there is a notice seeking possession against the tenant for breach of tenancy.
  2. Based on the evidence, the landlord appropriately refused the mutual exchange, however, its communication was poor. In both complaint responses the landlord accepted that its communication was poor and apologised. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
  3. After the resident submitted a mutual exchange application on 25 September 2022, internal correspondence of the landlord between 2 November 2022 and 7 November 2022 shows that the resident’s application was considered but refused. This Service has not been provided with correspondence from the landlord to the resident confirming that her mutual exchange application was not successful.
  4. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did advise the resident that her mutual exchange application was not successful but did not explain why. This was the reason for the resident’s initial complaint on 10 November 2022. While the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that its email correspondence of 20 September 2022 “implied” that a mutual exchange was not an option for the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to have again clearly communicated its position when refusing the application. 
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023, this was almost 2 months after the resident raised a complaint. This was the first time it clearly communicated to the resident it would not grant permission for a mutual exchange because it intended to take legal action for possession of the property. After sending the initial correspondence to the resident alleging fraud and confirming it intended to take possession of the property, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to engage with the resident for over 3 months.
  6. This failure caused distress to the resident who had been requesting assistance with her housing options. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to represent the distress caused to the resident. 
  7. This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application. The landlord’s apology was appropriate, however, it should have considered the distress caused by its delay to clearly state its grounds for withholding consent to the mutual exchange application. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023, the landlord encouraged the resident to contact her income officer as she had rent arrears of £1,199.51. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there were no rent arrears as of 1 January 2023 and apologised for the error in its stage 1 complaint response. An apology was a reasonable response in the circumstances.

Complaint handling 

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord would investigate and respond to the resident within 20 working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. Stage 2 complaints would be investigated independently by its Corporate Resolution Team, and it would provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied, they could escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. The timescales were not in line with The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) of 10 days for responding to a stage 1 complaint. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord has since updated its times scales as of January 2024 in line with the Code. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against its own policy at the time.
  3. The landlord apologised that it delayed in providing a stage 1 complaint response by 6 working days. The resident raised a complaint on the 10 November 2021 and the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 4 January 2023. This was 16 days beyond its timescales. While this error was not correctly identified in its complaint investigation, an apology was a reasonable response.
  4. The landlord apologised that the same employee that notified her of its intention to take legal action investigated the complaint. It noted that the employee was responsible for the delays in communication and apologised. The landlord found no evidence of biased but understood the resident’s concerns about an impartial complaint investigation. It said it provided feedback to remind the staff involved that an appropriate complaint officer should be assigned to stage 1 complaints. An apology was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that it had not provided the resident’s current MP with her stage 1 complaint response, rather, it sent it to the MP that made an initial enquiry. As a resolution, it confirmed it had sent a copy of the stage 1 complaint response to her current MP when it became aware of the mistake the next day. This was a reasonable response to what appeared to have been an administration error.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord assisted the resident with a transfer through Homefinder UK as she expressed an interest in moving borough. This was over and above its obligations and demonstrated that it used its complaint procedure effectively to try and put things right for the resident.
  7. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling in the form of an apology for the delay in its complaint response at stage 1.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in the form of an apology, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s rent account.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in the form of an apology, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £100, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, for the distress caused by its failure identified in its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.