Solo Housing (East Anglia) (202321835)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321835

Solo Housing (East Anglia) Limited

25 June 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

This complaint is about:
1. The level of support the landlord provided as part of the resident’s license agreement.
2. The cost of the resident’s room.

Jurisdiction

When someone brings a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints about the level of rent for a property.
The resident said he thinks his room with the landlord was overpriced, and that the rent was too high for the level of support provided. As this relates to the level of rent for the property, this part of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Background

The landlord runs a temporary supported accommodation scheme for people with support needs. The resident was referred to the landlord by the local authority. He was granted a license for a room, together with the use of shared facilities, under a license agreement dated 5 October 2022. The landlord’s records show the resident was referred to it due to low–medium level support needs related to mental health and substance use.
Under the license, the landlord was required to provide certain support services to the resident. It was a condition of the license that the resident engaged with those support services.
The resident made a complaint on 9 August 2023. He said:
1. The landlord had not supported him in the way he thought it should, and that various support workers had lied to him.
2. The landlord was preventing him from working, and was not helping him to better himself.
3. The landlord was overcharging for his room based on the level of support provided, and not taking his debts into account.
4. He was unhappy the landlord did not accept a payment offer towards his rent arrears.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 August 2023. It said:
1. Its support workers had tried to contact him, but received no response. It said its records showed the following:
  1. 22 cancellations or lack of response from him.
  2. 27 records of it providing support from 5 October 2022 to 11 August 2023 through emails, text messages, and phone calls.
  3. It had provided support with housing benefits, applying to join the housing register, his banding, mental health and tenancy sustainment, arrears, and making payments.
  4. It held a meeting with him and the local authority on 21 February 2023 to discuss his tenancy, rent, and options for moving on.
2. The effectiveness of support depends on the level of engagement between resident and support worker.
3. It could not comment on his statement that various support workers had lied to him, as he had not provided any specific information. It apologised if he felt he had been lied to.
4. It gave provisional information about changes in his charges and any housing benefit if he started work. It told him on 21 February 2023 that the 30% reduction it applied to the rent was discretionary.
5. The charges for each property were agreed and authorised by the local authority. Rent was a priority to maintain a tenancy, as arrears could put him at risk of losing accommodation.
6. His offer to clear arrears was based on the possibility of finding employment. It could not accept an offer without payslips to prove income.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had not provided support at the outset, and was preventing him from moving on. He said he wanted the landlord to waive all rent arrears.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It said:
1. Although it had provided support at the beginning of his license, there were gaps in the support provided from October 2022 to January 2023. This was due to staff absences. It apologised for this.
2. It had introduced him to 7 different support workers. This was due to staff absences and staff leaving its employment. It could see this had been disruptive. It accepted it should have addressed this when he first raised concerns in February 2023, and apologised.
3. It found no evidence staff members had lied to him. The information its staff had given about absences was correct.
4. It encouraged all residents to pursue training and employment, and would ensure people receive the maximum income they are entitled to, including housing benefit. It also operated a discretionary 30% reduction in rent shortfall after a resident has applied for housing benefit or a discretionary housing payment. It could see that a support worker was helping the resident to apply for any available support.
5. It had discussed his financial situation with him, and offered advice and support to apply for a discretionary housing payment. It was also helping him to explore other options such as a debt relief order.
6. It did not uphold all parts of his complaint, and was unable to clear his rent arrears. It offered £150 compensation for the disruption in support.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to us. He was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. He said, to put things right, the landlord should either waive all rent arrears or offer a substantial reduction with a payment plan for the remaining balance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the way the landlord handled his support needs and concerns affected his mental health. While we do not doubt his concerns about his mental health, we cannot determine liability or causation for any impact on health and wellbeing. That would be for a court to decide. We can however consider the general distress and inconvenience he experienced because of failings by the landlord.

The level of support provided

The resident said the landlord did not offer him appropriate support under the license agreement. He said it offered no support in the first 6 months of the agreement, that he had 7 support workers in 10 months, that the landlord was stopping him working, and that it was stopping him from moving to a permanent home.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that it failed to offer appropriate support at the start of the license agreement. It said that, while its records show there was communication and it did offer support, there were gaps in the support due to staff absences. It said the resident had been introduced to 7 different support workers rather than having a single support worker as a result. It accepted this was disruptive to the resident and offered £150 compensation, which it credited to his rent account. The resident does not think this is sufficient, and the landlord should waive his rent arrears.
The role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations. Where the landlord has accepted fault and offered compensation, we determine whether the landlord has done enough to put things right.
The landlord has provided us with extremely limited evidence of providing or offering support to the resident prior to his complaint. This lack of evidence has hampered our investigation into this complaint. However, it is apparent that while there were some shortcomings in the support provided at the start of the license agreement, there was some support provided (as the resident confirmed they were introduced to multiple support workers and had meetings with some of them).
The evidence shows that initial issues with the support services were largely caused by staff absence. Such absences are outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord took some steps to reduce the impact on the resident by dividing that staff member’s support work amongst multiple existing support workers. However, the landlord has acknowledged that this caused unnecessary disruption to the resident, and that the support offered was insufficient.
The level of support from the landlord improved from February 2023 onwards. We have seen evidence of the landlord offering the following support:
1. Meetings and emails with the resident in February 2023. Emails from the time show that there were discussions about the resident’s concerns and objectives, his progress with looking for a job, and advice on how to increase his chances of successfully bidding on a permanent property.
2. Support workers being available via text message or phone. The resident sent a text message to a support worker on 9 March 2022, asking about his usual support worker. They explained the original support worker was off work, and asked the resident how he was. The resident said he was ‘not to[o] bad’. The support worker asked him to keep them updated when possible, and asked about making some payments towards the arrears. The resident confirmed he would start making payments the next day, and would call the support worker.
3. The landlord trying to follow up with the resident about his recent job interview and seeking to discuss arrears in March 2023 (we have seen no evidence of a response).
4. Phone calls and emails to the resident to discuss rent arrears and a payment plan, and explaining how to make a payment.
Since the resident’s complaint, the landlord has completed various detailed risk assessments, created action plans and support plans, and provided support in multiple forms. The landlord’s meeting notes say the resident described the later support as ‘very positive’, and that the landlord should have provided the support from the start. The landlord has also confirmed that it has recruited additional support staff, and provided further training for all support workers.
As such, it is apparent that the landlord has taken multiple steps to learn from the complaint, to provide adequate support to the resident after its initial failings, and to provide better support services generally in future. However, that does not negate the disruption the resident experienced due to the inconsistent support in the first few months of the agreement. We have therefore considered whether the compensation the landlord offered is sufficient.
When assessing whether a compensation offer is sufficient, we consider the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident. The resident said that that the lack of support harmed his mental health. As set out above, we cannot consider whether there was any harm to the resident’s mental health, as that is outside of our remit. We can only consider any distress and inconvenience caused, together with any specific financial losses.
The resident said the landlord stopped him from working. However, we have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. The evidence provided shows the landlord wished the resident luck with interviews when made aware of them in February 2023, and followed up to find out how the interview went in March 2023. The landlord’s records show that the resident was employed by April 2023, and that it offered to speak to the local authority to confirm whether he could now join the housing register as he was working. As such, there is no evidence to show the landlord stopped the resident from working.
The resident also said that the lack of support prevented him moving on to another property. He said that he wanted the landlord to waive all arrears so he could get a permanent property from the local authority, and that he would go to the press if it did not do so.
The evidence provided shows that the resident moved to another property on 9 January 2024. As such, the landlord’s inconsistent support in the first few months did not prevent him from eventually moving on when ready to do so. We have also seen no evidence which shows he would have been in a position to move on sooner had more support been provided at the outset. The landlord’s evidence shows the following:
1. It did offer some support early in the license agreement (though this was insufficient support).
2. The resident was actively bidding on properties, interviewing for jobs, and speaking to some of the support workers within the first 6 months of the license.
3. The support workers appropriately explained that arrears may prevent a successful housing bid.
4. The landlord was encouraging the resident to make payments towards the arrears to help him move on, and explained how to make a payment.
5. The resident repeatedly told the landlord he would make a payment towards the arrears, and then was either unwilling or unable to do so.
6. There was some evidence of a lack of willingness to engage with the landlord’s support workers. The landlord has provided no evidence to support the summary of missed appointments and lack of resident engagement from its stage 1 response. But the resident has acknowledged not wanting to meet support workers. He also has not disputed that he told the landlord in December 2022 that he did not need support. And the landlord’s support meeting notes refer to a previous lack of engagement from the resident, which improved in later months.
The landlord also carried out a risk assessment and created an action plan for support in August 2023. This said he was already bidding for properties but understood bidding was competitive, had started to pay his utilities, and would contact the support workers or his GP if he needed support with his mental health. It noted he had also said he appreciated the help with food the landlord arranged. While the ‘very positive’ support began from March 2023 onwards (with a new support worker), the resident was not able to move on until January 2024.
The evidence does not show that a lack of support from the landlord was the only thing stopping the resident moving on sooner. As such, any detriment caused directly by the landlord’s failings would be limited to frustration in having to explain his circumstances to multiple support workers, and the inevitable distress caused when he did not receive the level of support he was expecting in the first few months of the agreement. While we would expect a landlord to offer compensation for this, we could not reasonably expect it to waive all arrears from the resident’s rent account.
The landlord has offered £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This was to make up for the resident receiving inadequate support in the first few months of the agreement, and for the frustration of frequent changes to his support workers. This sum falls within the range set out in our published remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the landlord’s failings adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. We have not been provided with any evidence which shows the distress and inconvenience caused directly by the landlord’s failings would need any additional compensation to put things right. In the absence of that evidence, we can only reasonably conclude that the compensation offered was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
Overall, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of compensation based on the evidence provided, and has significantly improved its support provision since the resident raised his concerns. It has therefore done enough to put things right, and does not need to do anything further.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, prior to our investigation, which resolves the complaint about the level of support satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the cost of his room is outside of our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps adequate records of all risk assessments, support plans, and communication with residents.