Newark and Sherwood District Council (202322776)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322776

Newark and Sherwood District Council

30 April 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:
    1. The landlord’s choice-based letting portal.
    2. The resident’s tenancy start date.
    3. Staff conduct.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must first consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s choice-based letting portal

  1. Some aspects of the resident’s complaint were related to the local council’s letting and allocation policies and the functionality of its choice-based letting portal. Specifically, he was dissatisfied that he could bid on properties for which he was not eligible and that he could not continue bidding for properties once he managed to secure a property while waiting for the offered property to become available.
  2. These matters relate to the council’s responsibilities under The Housing Act 1996, which requires local authorities to develop and implement policies for allocating social housing stock within their area of jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman can investigate complaints about councils in their capacity as landlords to their tenants, including obligations related to repairs, the management of tenancies, and the condition of homes and neighbourhoods.
  3. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  4. Complaints about the local council’s choice-based lettings and allocations are usually investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and are outside the scope of this investigation.
  5. If the resident remains dissatisfied, he should consider directing this aspect of his complaint to the LGSCO.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy on a 1-bedroom flat owned by the local authority landlord. The resident has a medical condition affecting his mobility.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement was supposed to start on 14 December 2022. However, due to ongoing repair work, this was delayed. The resident said the landlord had informed him that the tenancy would begin on 26 December 2022. As a result, he said he had checked out of his temporary accommodation and had nowhere to stay for 3 days until the landlord arrived on 29 December 2022. The landlord explained that the appointment was booked for 29 December 2022, as 26 December was a bank holiday. The tenancy agreement began on 29 December 2022.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. He initiated the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions, and through that, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in April 2023. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 May 2023. He said that the surveyor had visited the property and had “little patience” towards him. He also requested compensation for the 3 days between 26 December 2023 and 29 December 2023, saying he had been homeless for 3 days.
  4. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged there were delays with the tenancy start date, but said again the final start date had been 29 December 2023. Nonetheless, it said it would include further compensation for the delay between 14 December 2022 and 29 December 2022 in its settlement offer. It also apologised for the behaviour of its surveyor and said it would address this in accordance with its internal employee processes.
  5. The resident brought his complaint to the Service on 3 October 2023. He said he remained dissatisfied and wanted the landlord to apologise and offer him compensation.
  6. On 24 October 2023, the resident’s solicitor had negotiated a settlement agreement with the landlord. Consequently, the landlord completed the works and paid the resident £2,250 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman involved the condition of his home when he started his tenancy. The resident has previously initiated the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions with the landlord about the property condition. Through this process, the landlord identified that the resident had carried out unauthorised alterations to the property, which compromised the property’s fire safety. The landlord carried out the work to revert the resident’s alteration, for which he charged the resident.
  2. The resident’s solicitor had negotiated a settlement agreement which encompassed the delay between 14 December 2022 and 29 December 2022, the condition of the property on the start of the tenancy, and the unauthorised repairs. As this issue was settled by the parties, it is outside the scope of this investigation.
  3. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

The tenancy start date

  1. It is not disputed that there were overrun works that adversely affected the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response, and it explained how it intended to put things right. It said it would offer compensation to the resident through the legal process he had initiated. In October 2023, following completion of the works, the resident’s solicitor accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation, an element of which was to account for the delays at the start of the tenancy.
  2. The resident requested additional compensation for the 3 days between 26 December and 29 December 2023, saying he was a rough sleeper for 3 days. The landlord acted reasonably by outlining the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns. It inspected its records but found no evidence that the appointment was booked for 26 December 2022, as that was a bank holiday. It discusses the issue with a member of staff who maintained that the appointment was booked for 29 December 2022. The landlord used its initiative and inspected the records of the local council’s rough sleeper unit to check whether the resident had sought their assistance. There were no reports of rough sleepers between 26 December 2022 and 29 December 2022. The resident was also unable to provide evidence.
  3. In summary, in the absence of evidence supporting from the resident, it was appropriate the landlord took steps to investigate his concern. It was not able to find anything showing that it had mis-advised him about the tenancy start date. As it was not able to find such evidence, its decision not to compensate him for the 3 days in December 2022 was reasonable. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made.

Staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that upon receiving a complaint, the complaint manager will discuss the case with the resident to ensure their understanding of what went wrong. Where a complaint is made concerning the conduct of officers, the landlord will investigate to determine whether there was a failure. If there are matters relating to potential disciplinary action, it will not provide details to protect the privacy of its staff. The policy says residents should appreciate that not all complaints may be resolved to their satisfaction. However, it will always apologise where it identifies a failure, and it will try to put things right.
  2. Upon receiving the resident’s report on 12 May 2023, the landlord followed the steps outlined in its policy. It discussed the complaint with the resident and interviewed the staff member within 10 working days on 21 May 2023. In its complaint responses, it set out its expectation that staff should be polite, courteous, and friendly. It said that when a resident raises concerns, it expects staff to forward these to the relevant department on behalf of the resident. It recognised that, on this occasion, the resident reported to the surveyor issues with the property that were outside the surveyor’s remit. The landlord apologised to the resident that the surveyor had failed to notify the relevant department about these additional issues, as it had now expected its employees to do. The landlord confirmed that it had informed the relevant department to contact the resident. It also stated it would address the matter with the employee in accordance with its internal employee policies and procedures.
  3. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately. It investigated the complaint and, on this occasion, found evidence to support the resident’s claim. It followed the steps outlined in its policy and reported its findings to the resident. To put things right, it apologised and forwarded the issue to the relevant department. It demonstrated learning from the complaint by taking further action in accordance with its employee processes. In our opinion, the landlord treated the resident fairly and followed a fair process using the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the choice-based letting portal is outside the jurisdiction of this service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with respect to the tenancy start date.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint about staff conduct.