London Borough of Havering Council (202312359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312359

Havering Council

23 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its:
   1. Withdrawal of an offer of accommodation.
   2. Communication about rent arrears.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was a tenant of the landlord from 2010 to 2012. The landlord applied to the courts to evict the resident, on the grounds of rent arrears, in 2012. The landlord evicted the tenant in November 2012.
4. The resident successfully bid for a property through the landlord’s choice based lettings system in early 2023. The landlord withdrew the offer of accommodation based on the historic rent arrears.
5. The resident made a complaint on 22 June 2023. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s decision to withdraw the offer of the property and she had “no idea” about the historic rent arrears.
6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023. It explained it would not offer the resident another property until the historic rent arrears were cleared. It explained the process it went through to evict the resident.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 6 July 2023. She said its decision to withdraw the offer was “unfair” as she was overcrowded at her property. She said she “never received” the letters about the arrears.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 1 November July 2023 and said:
   1. Its notes “clearly demonstrate[d]” the resident was aware of the arrears and it was in communication with her about the eviction from October 2011 up to the point she was evicted in November 2012.
   2. It said it made “numerous” attempts to contact the resident during that period and the resident made contact at “various points”.
   3. It explained its decision to withdraw of the offer of accommodation was due to the historic rent arrears. It explained its policy said it would withdraw an offer of accommodation if a resident “owes any rent arrears or housing related debts”.
   4. It did not uphold the complaint.
   5. It apologised for the delay in sending it complaint response and explained it was “due to a lack of resources”, and a high volume of complaints being received.
9. The resident contacted us on 6 November 2023 and asked us to investigate. She said she was “unaware” of the rent arrears from 2012 and the landlord had not written to her since 2012. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to withdraw the offer of accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

10. What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
11. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its withdrawal of an offer of accommodation is outside our jurisdiction to investigate. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
12. 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 living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds.
13. We can only consider complaints about transfer 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 assessment of such applications.
14. The resident raised the following concerns:
    1. Dissatisfaction that it had rehoused her in another of its properties and not mentioned arrears.
    2. The landlord’s withdrawal of an offer of accommodation in 2023.

15. All of the above fall within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application, Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), and was dealt with by the landlord within its capacity as the local authority. As such, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman, and the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO about the landlord’s response to her concerns about its withdrawal of an offer of accommodation if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its communication about rent arrears

16. The evidence shows the resident was evicted in 2012 due to rent arrears. Due to the passage of time, matters dating back to 2012 are not within the scope of our investigation. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence we are unable to investigate the landlord’s actions surrounding the eviction in 2012. Instead, we have assessed the landlord’s communication about the rent arrears after the resident complained in 2023.
17. When the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the rent arrears issue the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position. It explained the process it had gone through to evict the resident and why it had done so. The landlord outlined its position with clarity.
18. The resident was evidently unhappy with its response, and in her stage 2 complaint raised a concern she was unaware of the arrears and the landlord had not received its communication about the arrears.
19. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position in relation to the communication it had with her about the eviction from that time. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord explained what evidence it had considered and outlined its position with transparency and consistency. As outlined above, due to the passage of time, it is not possible to corroborate the landlord’s claims about the action it took at that time. However, the information available indicates the landlord considered the evidence it had available (notes from the time in question).
20. The landlord gave the resident’s concern due consideration and investigated based on the evidence it had available. It outlined its position with clarity and consistency and explained the reasons for its decision. There was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
22. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 15 working days after she complained. This outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It was inappropriate the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
23. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 84 working days after she made her stage 2 complaint. It was appropriate to apologise for the delay. However, its response lacked the appropriate learning about the delays, and it did not offer compensation. The resident was inconvenienced by a protracted complaints process, and this was increased by its failure to show learning and try and put things right. It missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
24. Considering the errors identified above we have decided there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where its errors were of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have determined an order for £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its withdrawal of an offer of accommodation is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about its communication about rent arrears.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience cause by errors in its complaint handling.