Anchor Hanover Group (201913687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913687

Anchor Hanover Group

7 December 2020

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 applicant’s application for a property.

Background and Summary of Events

2. In December 2019, the landlord’s estate manager made arrangements for the applicant to view a property. The estate manager had concerns about the way the applicant had spoken to her over the telephone and had decided that if he wanted to accept the property, the landlord should check his references from both his current and previous landlords.
3. On 5 January 2020 the applicant travelled over 150 miles from his home to view the property. He stayed overnight in a bed and breakfast because of the length of the journey. He then viewed the property the following day and accepted it. The landlord asked him to provide a copy of his passport, and references from his last two landlords.
4. On 27 January 2020, the landlord advised the applicant that it could no longer offer him the tenancy, as it had still not received the requested references. It confirmed that it had offered the property to someone else, who had accepted it.
5. In the applicant’s formal complaint of 28 January 2020, he said he had accepted the property during the viewing on 6 January 2020, and he understood the property would be his, subject to the return of references. He said there was no time limit given regarding the references and at no point was he told that someone else could apply for the property and be given it. He only found out that he had lost the property on 27 January 2020. He explained that he had been so confident that there would be no issue with the references, that he had already purchased new furniture and packed his belongings into boxes. He also said that he had booked and paid for removals.
6. The applicant stated that the situation had caused him unnecessary anxiety and he claimed compensation of £530 (£65 for petrol; £60 for the hotel, £25 for food; £180 for the removal van and driver; and £200 for unnecessary anxiety). He also wanted the landlord to confirm further details about what had happened.
7. In the landlord’s response of 17 February 2020, it made the following points:
8. Its lettings procedure was followed. It explained that it was not able to proceed to a formal offer of tenancy on the property, as the references from the applicant’s former and current landlords had not been received and had still not been received;
9. It had some concerns about the applicant’s communication with the estate manager as he had shouted at her on a number of occasions over the telephone, which it would consider to be anti-social behaviour. It had therefore requested references to determine if there was a history of that kind of behaviour towards staff or other residents;
10. It does not hold empty properties whilst awaiting references. However, the applicant should have been advised of this at the time, and so it agreed with this part of his complaint;
11. The lettings procedure was new to the estate manager, as it was a recently merged organisation, and so all staff were having to work with new procedures. It was this which led the estate manager to think that the applicant would be contacted by the Lettings Team, when he was not. It should have been the Application Assessment Team, or the estate manager herself, who should have updated him about the application.
12. The Lettings Team provided the list of applicants for the property, who were contacted in order on the list. The applicant was at the top of that list, though the others did view the property. On 15 January 2020, the estate manager was advised by the Lettings Team that it could not hold the vacant flat while awaiting the applicant’s references;
13. On 17 January 2020, the estate manager contacted the Lettings Team about informing the applicant of the decision, and she was referred to the Application Assessment Team. The landlord accepted that the applicant should have been informed of this at the time but advised that this would not change the situation with the property not being offered to him;
14. No offer of tenancy itself was made formally or can be, until the references are completed;
15. Although it accepted that the applicant should have been advised that his application was on hold due to the references not being supplied, the references not being provided was outside of its control, and so it was not prepared to offer compensation.
16. With the applicant’s response of 26 February 2020, he provided a letter from his sister who had attended the property viewing with him in her capacity as his carer. She explained that she and the applicant believed the property was secure, but he had forgotten his passport. She therefore arranged for the passport to be verified and a copy was emailed to the landlord, but this did not arrive. The passport copy was ultimately sent by post.
17. The applicant and landlord discussed the matter on 29 February 2020 and the landlord then wrote to the applicant on 12 March 2020 with its final response:
18. It apologised that the applicant’s experience had not been to the standard it expects, and for falling short of that expectation;
19. The applicant was still on the waiting list for the apartment block, but there were no properties for let at that time. He had been awarded priority status the previous year, so when a property became available, he would be invited to view it;
20. As previously advised, its lettings procedure was correctly followed, but it agreed that the information regarding the process when it asks for references was not handled well. It apologised for not getting this right;
21. When it asked someone to provide references, their application is effectively put on hold. However, it did not communicate to him that it would let the property to another individual. It had asked its Application Assessment team to come up with a way that it could capture this and advise a potential resident as quickly as possible where this has not been done. It hoped to reassure him that it had taken this learning directly from his feedback to ensure it did not happen to future applicants;
22. Information the applicant had sent to it was misplaced between departments, but this delay was not the reason that he was not let the property;
23. It assured him that it had not shown any prejudice towards him with regards to his mental health, and this information had meant that he had been awarded priority status;
24. In summary, it advised that his application was live with a priority status, and he was on the list for the relevant apartment block. It also said it had used the case as a catalyst to review the way it communicated with applicants in this situation and was looking to introduce a new process to avoid it from happening in the future;
25. It agreed to compensate him £150 for the travel, accommodation and food costs he had incurred, and a further £200 for the other failures, but it could not agree to removal costs or furniture storage as this should not have been arranged until a tenancy had been offered and agreed, and it never was. It would therefore pay a total of £350 compensation.

Policies and procedures

26. The landlord’s lettings policy explains that it maintains a waiting list for each estate, and all lettings are made from the waiting list. Applications are awarded priority into one of four priority status groups and offers of tenancies are made in order of the date when the person’s application is registered for the relevant estate, with the highest priority being priority one.

Assessment and Findings

27. When the applicant visited the property, he was at the top of a list of applicants as he had priority status, so he had first refusal of the property. The landlord wanted to see references before offering the applicant the tenancy because he had apparently “shouted” at the estate manager a number of times before viewing the property. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to have therefore requested references to establish if the applicant had a history of anti-social behaviour, before offering him the tenancy.
28. The applicant was aware that the tenancy would be subject to the return of references, but he was not advised of any timeframe for this, and also did not know that the property would be let to someone else if his references were not provided immediately.
29. Given that the landlord was aware in December 2019 that it would require the references if the applicant decided he wanted the property in question, and that it would not hold the property for him until it had received the references, it ought to have made him aware of this at that time. He could have then put in place arrangements to obtain the references as soon as possible, ideally so he could have given them to the landlord on 6 January 2020 if he decided he wanted the property after viewing it. Even if he could not have obtained the references in that time, his expectations would not have been raised, and he would have known that the property would not be held for him if his references were delayed.
30. The mistake happened because the estate manager was unaware of the landlord’s processes, and so did not realise that the property would not be held for the applicant until the references were returned. Consequently, she failed to advise him of this, and he was therefore under the mistaken impression that the property would be let to him as soon as his references were returned.
31. Although the applicant has referred to problems with his passport being sent to the landlord, this issue did not delay matters, as it was the lack of references that led to the property being offered to another applicant. It is clear the applicant was caused a lot of disappointment by the landlord’s actions. By failing to make him aware of its processes, it raised his expectations unnecessarily by leading him to believe that he would be moving into the property in question. It is understandable that he was extremely upset to then find out that this was not the case, and that the property had been let to someone else.
32. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation to recognise the trouble and upset its actions caused the applicant. He had asked the landlord to pay him £530 compensation, which included £150 he had spent on travelling to view the property, overnight accommodation and food. The landlord agreed to reimburse him for this, which was reasonable. The applicant also wanted £200 for the upset he had been caused. Again, the landlord agreed to this, which, given how upset the applicant had been over the matter, was an appropriate response.
33. Finally, the applicant asked the landlord to reimburse him £180 for the cost of a removal van, but the landlord refused to do so. The applicant has not provided evidence to confirm that he spent £180 on a removal van, though even if he did, it would not be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse him for this cost. The tenancy had not been formally offered at that point and, although the applicant says he booked the van because he was confident there would be no problem with his references, any number of potential issues could have arisen that prevented the landlord from offering the tenancy. It is not reasonable for applicants to make arrangements to move to a new property before a tenancy has been offered and an agreement signed. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refuse to reimburse the applicant for any costs he spent on arranging removals.
34. The landlord appears to have learnt from the issue and has reviewed the way it communicates with applicants in these circumstances. It says it intends to introduce a new process to avoid it from happening in the future. This was an appropriate and proportionate response and reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘learning from outcomes’.
35. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events though the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. As the landlord has done so here, no further action is required.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

37. The applicant viewed a property and agreed to let it. He was made aware that this would be subject to the return of references, but he was not advised that those references would need to be returned immediately, or the property would be let to someone else. This meant that he lost the property and it was let to another applicant. The landlord ought to have made the applicant aware of this in December 2019, when it first decided that it wanted to see his references before offering him a tenancy. As a result of the landlord’s lack of clarity over its processes, the applicant was caused a great deal of disappointment when he learnt that he would not be moving into the property and that it had been let to someone else.
38. The landlord recognised its errors and took action to prevent the same thing from happening again, which was appropriate. It also offered the applicant £350 compensation (£150 for his financial loss in visiting the property and £200 for the upset and inconvenience it caused). This was reasonable in the circumstances and was the amount the applicant had wanted in respect of those expenses, and for the upset he was caused. Although the applicant also wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the amount he says he spent on arranging removals, it would not be appropriate for the landlord to do so, as it was not reasonable for him to arrange a removal van given that he had not been formally offered the tenancy at that point, and had not signed a tenancy agreement.

Recommendations

39. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should pay the applicant the £350 compensation previously offered if it has not already done so, as the finding of sufficient redress has been made on that basis.