Acis Group Limited (202226890)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202226890
Acis Group Limited
20 December 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 request to cancel their tenancy.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident was a non-assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
- On 14 September 2022 the resident signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord. The agreement related to student accommodation, with a tenancy period from 17 September 2022 to 22 July 2023.
- The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 November 2022. They said:
- They wanted to complain about the quality of service received since they had made a request to cancel their tenancy.
- The landlord had told them on 16 September 2022 that it would not be possible to cancel the agreement.
- They had made another request to cancel on 17 September 2022 and the landlord had told them there was a 7-day cancellation period.
- The landlord had told them on 28 September 2022 that, as they had not moved into the property and had requested to cancel quickly, it was likely it would grant the request.
- On 7 October 2022 the landlord had refused their request as it did not consider there were any extenuating circumstances. The landlord had also denied them the opportunity to reduce their tenancy length to a single semester, even though it advertised short term lets on its website.
- They believed several clauses within the agreement applied to their situation and that these clauses required the landlord to have re-advertised the property and/or terminate the agreement.
- They did not feel the landlord had taken their concerns seriously and wanted it to fairly assess all the information they had provided.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 November 2022. It confirmed it had refused the resident’s cancellation request. It also said:
- It had advised the resident on 17 September 2022 that there may have been a 7-day grace period, but that it would need to check this and get back to them. It had checked internally and confirmed there was no grace period.
- As the resident had signed an agreement for the full academic year it was not possible to shorten it to a single semester.
- It did not agree with the resident’s view that the tenancy agreement required it to re-advertise the property.
- The resident should use previously discussed resources to try and locate a replacement tenant to take over the agreement.
- On 29 November 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process. They said the landlord had not responded to all the points raised in their complaint. They also said they had spoken to multiple third parties who had said they had the right to negotiate their contract. They advised they would be happy to pay the first semester’s rent and be released early or pay an exit fee.
- On 5 December 2022 the landlord refused the resident’s request and advised that the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure. It said it would consider the resident’s request for a shorter contract and would contact them soon.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2023 and 28 April 2023 to repeat its position that it would not cancel the tenancy agreement.
- This service wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2023 to explain that, when refusing to escalate a complaint, the landlord was required to provide a detailed explanation for its refusal and provide the resident with details of their right to take the matter to the Housing Ombudsman. We asked that the landlord provide an appropriate written response to the resident.
- The landlord re-issued its final response on 28 June 2023. It explained that, under its Customer Feedback Policy, it would only escalate a complaint to stage 2 if it met required criteria. It set out the criteria and advised it did not consider that the resident’s request had met any of them. It confirmed it had closed the complaint.
- On 1 August 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted this service to investigate their complaint. They said they were still wanting the landlord to shorten their contract.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to cancel their tenancy
- The tenancy agreement (the agreement) states that it is legally binding and incorporates the landlord’s ‘Booking and Cancellation Policy’ (the policy). The agreement provides a link to the policy page on the landlord’s website.
- The policy explains the landlord is not legally required to provide a cooling-off period, but that it does allow cancellations in certain circumstances. It explains there is an initial cancellation period during which a resident can cancel the agreement. For a tenancy agreement accepted after 12 August 2022 but before the start of the tenancy period, this is one working day starting from the day the resident accepted the agreement. It also explains that, outside the initial cancellation period, there are 3 circumstances where the landlord may agree (at its discretion) to accept a cancellation. These circumstances are:
- The relevant university had withdrawn the resident’s offer of a place.
- The resident was from overseas and their visa application had been refused.
- Mitigating circumstances such as ill health or family circumstances.
- The policy requires residents to make any cancellation requests in writing and sets out the relevant evidence that they would need to provide in support of the request.
- The policy is, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable. There is no evidence that the resident’s cancellation request met any of the circumstances outlined above in paragraph 16. The landlord’s decision to refuse the request was appropriate as it was in line with its policy.
- In their stage 1 complaint the resident referred to the following clauses from their tenancy agreement:
“2 Guarantor
2.1 The Tenant will within 5 working days of completing the Booking procure that the Guarantor provides a signed guarantee in the Landlord’s standard form.
2.4 If the Tenant does not produce the signed guarantee within 5 working days of completing the Booking the Agent may advertise the Accommodation as available to let. If the Accommodation is then booked by someone else, this tenancy agreement will end when that person provides their Guarantor. The Tenant will remain liable for the Rent and any Fees that became due under this tenancy agreement before it ended.
4 Tenant’s Obligations
4.31 Not to leave the Accommodation unoccupied for more than one month without the Landlord’s consent.
7 Termination of this tenancy agreement by the Landlord
1.1 The Landlord may terminate this tenancy agreement at any time before the Tenant takes occupation if the Tenant has not by then paid the Deposit, provided the Guarantor and paid the first instalment of Rent.
1.1 Unless the Tenant has made arrangements with the Landlord for late arrival the Landlord shall be entitled to terminate this tenancy agreement at any time before the Tenant takes occupation, without notice to the Tenant, if the Tenant has not taken up residence within 3 days of the start of the Tenancy Period but the Tenant will be liable for the Rent up to and including the date of termination.“
- It is apparent from these clauses that the landlord ‘may’ or ‘shall be entitled’ to take certain actions in specified circumstances. The language used in the clauses indicate that it is at the landlord’s discretion whether it takes any action, even if the specified circumstances are met. There is no evidence, beyond the resident’s stated belief, that the clauses obliged the landlord to take any of the actions set out or terminate the tenancy agreement.
- In their correspondence with this service the resident raised concerns about the landlord, after refusing to escalate their complaint on 5 December 2022, not responding promptly or fully to their further requests to reduce the length of the agreement. The Ombudsman has not seen anything which indicates that the landlord, having notified the resident on 7 October 2022 that it was refusing the cancellation request and would not reduce the length of the agreement, was obliged to consider these requests any further. For this reason, while it would have been preferable for the landlord to have responded more promptly, the Ombudsman does not consider any delay or lack of further explanation by the landlord placed the resident in a worse position than they would have otherwise been in. This is because it would have been reiterating the position it had previously explained.
- While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, the available evidence indicates the landlord considered the cancellation request in line with the terms of the agreement and the policy. There is no basis on which the Ombudsman could find the landlord acted unreasonably in its decision making, failed to take any required actions, or exercised discretion where it was not entitled to do so.
- For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to cancel their tenancy.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord’s complaint policy (at the time of the resident’s complaint) stated it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and would aim to provide stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 working days.
- The complaint policy further stated that the landlord would only escalate complaints to stage 2 if they met one of the following criteria:
- The earlier investigation and associated response were factually inaccurate.
- The response did not address the complaint.
- Important relevant information was not considered at stage 1.
- The landlord did not complete the actions agreed at stage 1 within a reasonable timescale.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response and initial final response were issued within the time scales set out in its complaint policy. This was appropriate. However, when this service notified the landlord it should reissue the final response it took it 23 working days to do so. This was not appropriate.
- The resident’s escalation request clearly set out that they did not consider the landlord’s stage 1 investigation had considered or responded to all the points and/or evidence they had included in their complaint. The escalation request therefore appears to have met at least 2 of the landlord’s criteria. Neither of the landlord’s final responses provide a detailed explanation for why it disagreed with the resident and did not consider they had met any of the required criteria. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and was not appropriate.
- The landlord also did not provide the resident with details of the Housing Ombudsman or their right to seek assistance from this service in either its stage 1 response or initial final response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code and was not appropriate.
- When reaching a finding the Ombudsman must consider the detrimental impact of any failures. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the detriment caused by the landlord’s complaint handling was minimal. This is because:
- Even if the landlord’s final responses had been in line with its policy, given the findings reached in this report about the landlord’s handling of the cancellation request, it is likely the outcome to the substantive issues would have remained the same.
- While the landlord’s failure did delay the resident being able to approach this service, a third-party organisation had provided the resident with the details and they were able to contact this service on 2 February 2023. The overall delay was therefore just under 2 months and did not impact on the resident’s ability to exercise their rights.
- For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
- The landlord did not offer any redress to the resident for its failures in complaint handling. This was not reasonable. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its service failure. This is in line with its policy on compensation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s cancellation request.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
- This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.