Bromford Housing Association Limited (202006884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006884

Bromford Housing Association Limited

23 July 2021

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 complainant 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the lettings process for the complainant’s former tenancy.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complainant is a former tenant of the landlord. She signed a tenancy agreement for a 2-bedroom, 1st floor property in a low-rise block (‘the property’) in August 2020 but served the required one month’s notice to terminate the tenancy in September 2020. The complainant did not move into the property and the tenancy duly ended in October 2020.
The landlord has a Lettings Policy which states it expects ‘a minimum of one month’s rent to be paid at sign up’, however it also clarifies that, ‘where paying a month’s rent would cause significant hardship’, it will request a minimum of one week’s rent and ‘will explore alternative options with the customer’, such as a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application via the Local Authority or a payment plan to bring the account into a month’s credit.
The complainant’s tenancy agreement stated that ‘Rent is due in advance and the first payment shall be such amount as represents the Rent payable for the first period of the tenancy which will be from the start date to midnight of the last day of the calendar month (the First Period). Rent will then be due monthly in advance of the 1st of each calendar month’.
The landlord has a two-stage Complaints Policy. It states it aims to respond to complaints at Stage 1 within 7 working days. If a complainant requests a review of the Stage 1 response and the landlord accepts the request, it aims to respond at Stage 2 within 14 days, although it does not specify whether this target is in calendar days or working days.
The landlord has a Compensation Policy. Under the heading ‘How we pay compensation’, it notes that ‘if a customer owes us money…we may use compensation to offset the debt’.

Summary of events

Having bid for the property via a Local Authority’s Choice Based Lettings (CBL) scheme, the complainant attended a viewing on 30 July 2020. Following this, she had a phone interview with the landlord on 3 August 2020.
On 12 August 2020, after she had agreed to accept the property, the landlord sent the complainant a tenancy agreement to sign. She duly returned the signed agreement to the landlord the following day. One week later, after the sign-up had been slightly delayed, the complainant attended a sign-up meeting with the landlord, made a payment of £442.85 to cover one month’s rent in advance and received the keys to the property.
On 1 September 2020, the complainant contacted the landlord to advise that she wished to surrender her tenancy at the property. She submitted her one month’s notice the following day.
The complainant submitted a complaint to the landlord on 7 September 2020. She stated she had been ‘recently offered (the property)’ and wished to complain about ‘the way in which this was handled at some points and the outcome’. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint the same day and spoke with her on 14 September 2020 to clarify the issues she sought to raise. Landlord records show that it understood the issues raised to be:
1. The complainant felt pressured to get money for a deposit on the property and was told she would lose it if she could not raise enough. This led her to apply for a credit card, which was declined, and a loan from a high interest loan company, which was successful, but which she now could not afford to repay.
2. The complainant was advised that the property came with a garage, but she was never provided with the keys.
3. Each time the complainant had visited the property, her car parking space had been blocked by another car.
4. The complainant felt she should be refunded the ‘full rental amount’ as she had not moved into the property, still had another live tenancy elsewhere, and had been pressured into raising money as a deposit for the property.
The landlord issued its Stage One complaint response on 25 September 2020. It did not uphold the complaint and stated that:
1. The complainant advised it she had already applied for a loan to cover the deposit during the initial viewing, prior to her accepting or signing for the property. It was satisfied its staff would not have pressured her into taking out a loan and there was no evidence to suggest that they had.
2. The property had not been advertised with a garage and the possibility of renting a garage had not been mentioned to the complainant until after she had already agreed to accept the property.
3. During the property sign-up on 13 August 2020, a member of staff advised the complainant they would ‘get back to her’ regarding the garage when they were back from annual leave. However, on the day of their return, 1 September 2020, the complainant contacted the member of staff to advise she had visited the property in the meantime and did not ‘feel she could continue with the flat’ due to concerns over the stairs and communal parking arrangements.
4. It considered that the complainant had had the opportunity to raise concerns over the stairs prior to sign-up. It also considered that she had not given it time to look into the garage issue for her as it advised it would do.
5. It confirmed it would not refund the complainant’s deposit of £442.85 and would not write off the arrears on the rent account, which it stated would be £232.95 at the end of the tenancy. It acknowledged the complainant was in receipt of benefits and stated it was willing to agree a payment plan with her.
On 28 September 2020, the complainant contacted the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The landlord requested further information regarding why she wished for the complaint to be escalated and to clarify which issues she felt remained unresolved, to which the complainant provided a detailed response on 30 September 2020. In her escalation request, the complainant noted the following:
1. She reiterated her claim that the landlord had advised her when viewing the property that it also came with a garage.
2. Although she acknowledged that, when discussing sign-up and the matter of the required deposit, the landlord had signposted her to the Local Authority to make an application for a DHP, she stated it later advised her the process would take too long, asked her ‘how much (she) could raise’ and asked her to let it know the following day.
3. After she had paid the deposit, she was not given a full set of keys as there was no key for the garage. She stated that she ‘could not arrange anything’ regarding moving into the property as she did not have a full set of keys.
4. After being advised on 1 September 2020 that the landlord would ‘sort (the garage) out tomorrow’ as another resident was apparently storing belongings in it, the complainant decided she ‘did not want to pursue this any longer’, referring to the renting of the property, as she had been told two differing stories regarding the status of the garage. She claimed she had been specifically advised that the property came with both a garage and an allocated parking space.
5. She had handed her keys back on 22 August 2020 and considered her agreement ‘terminated’.
6. She alleged that the landlord had ‘deliberately’ caused her upset and worry, prevented her from gaining another property via the Local Authority’s CBL scheme due to not ending her tenancy agreement appropriately and had fraudulently taken money from her.
Records show that the complainant’s tenancy ended on 3 October 2020.
On 8 October 2020, the complainant contacted this Service and advised the landlord was not escalating her complaint as per her request of 30 September 2020. She also stated that the landlord’s actions were preventing her from moving as she had missed out on other properties advertised on the Local Authority’s housing list. However, landlord records show that it subsequently issued its Stage Two response on 28 October 2020.
The landlord had contacted the complainant on 27 October 2020 to discuss the complaint further. Its records indicate that during the discussion with the complainant, it offered a goodwill gesture of £500, and she responded via email the following day to advise she was refusing the offer. She stated the amount was insufficient to cover the ‘longstanding distress…financial impact and difficulties’ she had been caused ‘as a result of being misinformed’.
The landlord then issued its Stage Two response in writing on 28 October 2020 and confirmed that it did not uphold the complainant’s complaint. In its response, the landlord stated that:
1. It had not identified any service failure during the letting process. The property had been advertised via the Local Authority’s CBL scheme and had been advertised as a 1st floor, un-lifted flat with communal parking.
2. Having viewed the property, its records indicated it advised the complainant on 3 August 2020 that ‘if you were unable to afford (one month’s rent due at sign-up)…you would have opportunity to discuss this at the next stage in the process’, the ‘home visit’ stage.
3. As per its Lettings Policy, when customers are unable to afford one month’s rent up front at sign up, it would accept a minimum of one week’s rent payment in advance and come to an alternative arrangement to cover the shortfall. It acknowledged the complainant had formed the perception that she had ‘no alternative but to pay a full month’s rent at sign-up’ and therefore had applied for a £500 loan from a high interest loans company. However, it stated that, following the ‘home visit’, conducted by phone on 11 August 2020, it had simply asked for clarification as to how much money the complainant could afford to pay at sign-up.
4. As per her tenancy agreement, the landlord confirmed that it considered the complainant remained liable for rent from the day of sign-up until the end of the tenancy. It acknowledged the complainant was in receipt of benefits but noted she would not have typically been eligible for dual Housing Benefit payments and, in any case, there was no evidence of her having made a Housing Benefit application in regards of the property and she had not handed in her notice for her other property. It noted that as she had submitted her one month’s notice to end the tenancy on 2 September 2020, rent was owed until 2 October 2020. Discounting the £442.85 already paid at sign-up, it advised the remaining amount due was £209.89.
5. It denied referring to the garage when the complainant initially viewed the property and stated the garage had not been mentioned until the day of sign-up on 19 August 2020. It advised that the property did not come with a garage and noted that there was no additional rental charge for a garage, the tenancy agreement did not refer to a garage, a garage was not linked to the property on its internal systems and the property was not advertised with a garage. It also noted that, when discussing the complaint with her on 22 October 2020, the complainant did not confirm that she would have refused the property had she known it did not come with a garage.
6. It noted that, having mentioned a garage may be available to her during the sign-up on 19 August 2020 and a member of staff advising that they would clarify matters on their return from leave on 1 September 2020, the complainant contacted it that day and advised she wished to terminate the tenancy. The landlord advised it did not consider the complainant had given it a chance to resolve the garage issue as it had committed to do. It did not accept it had not given the complainant a full set of keys to the property as it did not agree that she had been advised it came with a garage. It also did not consider that the garage keys were ‘an integral part of the property or the tenancy agreement’.
7. It acknowledged that the complainant had ‘experienced anxiety and upset during this experience’ but its investigation had not found any evidence of any deliberate action designed to cause her distress.
8. Regarding the complainant being prevented from applying for other properties via the Local Authority’s CBL scheme, the landlord noted it was ‘standard practice’ to change an applicant’s status to ‘housed’ once they had started a new tenancy and it had duly done so this case. It accepted the complainant would not have been able to bid on other properties for a few weeks as a result but also noted that, at that time, she still held two social housing tenancies, so it considered it had acted correctly. The landlord also noted that, while the Local Authority would normally close an applicant’s application once they were rehoused, it understood the complainant’s application had been reinstated, so her priority banding had not been affected.
9. Its investigation did not support the complainant’s allegations of it taking money from her fraudulently. It cited its Lettings Policy in regards of the rent payments that were required in advance, and the terms and conditions of the complainant’s tenancy agreement which outlined her rental liabilities.
10. It acknowledged that it had made an error in advising the complainant different figures regarding money owed and that the original sign-up date had been pushed back due to problems arranging a gas check and this had caused additional anxiety for the complainant. It concluded that, whilst it found no evidence of service failure and maintained that the tenant would be liable for the rent charged during the short duration of her tenancy, it confirmed its offer of £500 as a goodwill gesture. Offset against the money owed on the rent account, it advised it would pay the complainant £290.11 directly.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the lettings process for the complainant’s former tenancy

In investigating this case, this Service acknowledges the stress and anxiety that the complainant has reported feeling both during and following the lettings process related to the property. However, it is noted that the main source of the complaint centres around a fundamental disagreement between the complainant and the landlord as to whether she was advised that the property came with a garage, and whether she was pressured into obtaining funds to pay a full month’s rent in advance on sign-up. As these discussions took place in person or over the phone, and there are differing accounts of the conversations, the Ombudsman cannot determine exactly what was said, by whom, and when. What the Ombudsman can do is review the evidence that had been provided to this investigation by both parties and use that as a basis for determining whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns the complainant raised and whether it acted reasonably and in line with its policies.
Regarding the issue of whether the complainant was advised the property came with a garage, as above, this Service acknowledges the complainant strongly feels she was misinformed by the landlord. However, from the information available to this investigation, it is noted that when the property was initially advertised the property advert did not mention any associated garage and the property was instead listed as benefitting from ‘communal parking’. It is also noted that the complainant’s tenancy agreement made no mention of the property benefitting from a garage or any other allocated parking and the breakdown of charges within the tenancy agreement did not refer to any additional charge or service charge relating to a garage. The landlord’s position is that it did not discuss the possibility of a garage potentially being available until the complainant had already agreed to accept the property and it did no more than advise it would look into the possibility for her. While this investigation cannot determine what was said during conversations between the complainant and landlord that this Service was not privy to, the landlord’s records and the recollections of its staff during its Stage Two investigation are, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, clear and consistent and there is insufficient evidence that it misled the complainant regarding whether the property came with a garage or not. From the information available to this investigation, it does not appear to be in dispute that a member of the landlord’s staff advised they would confirm whether a garage was available for the complainant’s use on their return from annual leave on 1 September 2020. However, the landlord’s records show that the complainant notified it that she no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy on the same day the member of staff returned from leave. This was before the landlord had been able to fulfil its commitment to confirm whether a garage was available or not and it is also noted that the landlord’s records of the conversation show the complainant initially gave reasons other than the issue with the garage – concerns over the stairs and difficulties with communal parking when she had subsequently visited the property – as to why she no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy.
While the complainant advised on 1 September 2020 that she had been unable to move into the property as she had not been given a key for the garage, a position she reiterated in her complaint escalation request, the landlord’s position that this should not have prevented her from moving in was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable one for it to take. From the information available to this investigation, there is no evidence that the complainant previously raised the need to store a lawnmower during the lettings process or after signing the tenancy. As the landlord did not consider the property to come with a garage and, as above, there is no evidence to suggest that it was ever advertised as such, it was also reasonable for the landlord to advise in its complaint responses that it believed it had given the complainant the full set of keys at sign-up. It is also noted that the ‘Your Obligations’ section of the complainant’s tenancy agreement stated ‘you agree to move into your home of the start date and occupy your home as your only or principle home’. Other than not being given a key to the garage which she believed came with the property, this investigation has not seen any other reason provided by the complainant as to why she was not able to move into the property. While this Service acknowledges it will not always be practical to move into a property on the exact tenancy start date, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s belief that it had already provided a full set of keys, and its expectation that the complainant should have moved in on, or at least shortly after, the tenancy start date were reasonable positions for it to hold.
Regarding the complainant’s assertion that she was pressured into taking out a loan as she felt the landlord implied she may lose the property if she could not afford one month’s rent in advance at sign-up, while in its Stage Two response the landlord acknowledged she had formed that impression from their correspondence, it did not accept it did anything to give her that impression. While not expressing any judgement of the complainant’s interpretation of how the lettings process unfolded, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is no evidence that the landlord pressured her into taking out a loan, or that it indicated to her that she could lose the property if she did not pay one month’s rent in advance. In an email sent following the ‘home visit’ carried out with the complainant on 11 August 2020, the landlord noted that it advised her that at sign-up a payment was ‘required and we can agree an arrangement to get account into credit afterwards’. It noted it advised the complainant to apply for an overlap (taken to mean a Dual Housing Benefit claim), contact her current landlord to give notice on her current property and clarify the credit left on her account at the end of that tenancy, which notes suggest the complainant believed would be around £200. The landlord also noted that it asked the complainant to ‘consider overnight what she can afford at sign-up and ring (us) to confirm…(it) needs to be something she can afford’.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is consistent with the landlord’s Lettings Policy which advises that, when a resident cannot afford a full month’s rent in advance, it can be flexible and come to other arrangements such as providing advice and support regarding DHP applications or agreeing a payment plan to bring the rent account into credit at a later date. This investigation has not seen any evidence that it did not follow its own policies in this case. The correspondence noted above indicates that the landlord was seeking to treat her fairly and ensure that renting the property did not cause the complainant financial hardship. It is also noted that the complainant confirmed she had applied for a loan on the same day as the ‘home visit’, 11 August 2020, having already unsuccessfully applied for a credit card. While this Service acknowledges the complainant may have had genuine fear of missing out on the property and concerns regarding finances and moving in general are often a source of anxiety, there is insufficient evidence to indicate she was prompted to borrow money following advice or pressure from the landlord. There is also insufficient evidence to suggest that the landlord would not have been flexible regarding the amount of money it expected to receive at sign-up as, from records of its conversations with the complainant seen by this investigation, it appears to have advised the complainant on several occasions during the initial lettings process that it would discuss the amount she could pay with her. It is not disputed that the landlord initially signposted the complainant to the Local Authority regarding a potential DHP application, which was an appropriate action and, from evidence available to this investigation, it appears to have dealt with the lettings process in an appropriate and reasonable way.
However, as noted above, while it did not accept that it pressured the complainant into taking out a loan, the landlord did acknowledge she had been left with this impression and that she had experienced anxiety and financial hardship as a result. In its Stage Two response, it advised it was therefore making a goodwill gesture of £500, which matched the loan the complainant took out, to reflect the ‘stress and anxiety’ she felt during the lettings process. This Service notes that, as there was no evidence of service failure by the landlord, it was not under any obligation to offer the complainant compensation. However, in this case it used its discretion to offer the complainant a goodwill gesture and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, in doing so it acted proactively, sought to treat the complainant fairly and to ‘put things right’, as per the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The complainant did not accept the landlord’s offer and advised that she felt she should also be refunded the full amount of rent due for the duration of her tenancy, 19 August 2020 until 3 October 2020. In its Stage Two response, the landlord confirmed its position that the complainant remained liable for the rent owed and it would not agree to refund the rent paid in advance or to write off the outstanding arrears. It instead advised that, of the £500 offered, it would offset the amount owed at the end of the tenancy and pay the remainder to the complainant directly, which came to £290.11. In the Ombudsman’s experience, it is common practice for landlords to offset money owed against any compensation award. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it may choose to do this and therefore in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
Within the complainant’s tenancy agreement, Section 4.11 notes that she was required to ‘give (the landlord) at least one calendar months’ signed notice in writing’. While it is not disputed that she submitted her notice on 2 September 2020 and did not move into the property, Section 4.12 notes that ‘if you leave your home…before the expiry of the one calendar months’ notice period, you agree to pay the rent…up to the expiry of any notice given’. From the information available to this investigation, other than the money paid at sign-up, the complainant did not appear to make any other arrangements to cover the rent at the property after signing the tenancy agreement, such as making a dual Housing Benefit or DHP application to the Local Authority. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was entitled to maintain that, as she had had signed the tenancy agreement, the complainant was liable for the whole rent for the duration of the tenancy and the fact that a debt had accrued was not because of any service failure on its part. Although the complainant noted she had been quoted two different figures for the amount owed at the end of the tenancy, the landlord acknowledged this error in its Stage Two response, apologised for the confusion and clarified the amount owed. Its acknowledgement and apology were a reasonable and proportionate response. It also advised that it was willing to agree a repayment plan with the complainant for the amount owed. This was a proportionate action and indicated that the landlord did not want to push the complainant into financial hardship while it sought to recoup the money owed.
There is no indication that the landlord took money from the complainant fraudulently, as she alleged in her complaint escalation request. From the information provided to this investigation, the only financial transactions that occurred between her and the landlord related to the rent owed once she signed the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that the landlord took, or sought to take, any other monies from her other than those it was due under the terms of the tenancy agreement, which it is not disputed that the complainant signed.
Regarding the complainant’s assertion the landlord prevented her from bidding for further properties on the Local Authority’s CBL platform, once she had handed in her notice, the landlord stated in its Stage Two response that it considered it had acted correctly. Although this Service has not seen evidence relating to the complainant’s CBL application or account as it is managed by the Local Authority, in the Ombudsman’s experience, it is accepted that applicants’ accounts will be amended once they have been ‘housed’, as the complainant was when she signed the tenancy with the landlord. Although she did not move into the property and served notice within a month, for that period it was not unreasonable that her application would have been suspended or closed. The landlord advised in its response that the Local Authority had confirmed that it had reinstated her application rather than cancel it, meaning she did not suffer any detriment by losing priority points or status. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and its response to the complainant’s concerns was reasonable.
It is also noted that the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, demonstrated good practice in its complaint handling. Its Stage Two response provided a lengthy and comprehensive response to all issues the complainant raised, both in her initial complaint and her complaint escalation request. It contacted her to discuss the complaint in more detail and conducted its investigation in conjunction with an independent member from a resident’s panel. The landlord sought to treat the complainant fairly and, while it was not obliged to make any offer of compensation as it had not identified any service failure, it recognised the distress and anxiety she had experienced and used its discretion to offer her a goodwill gesture. While its Stage Two response was issued slightly outside of its target time and the delay caused the complainant to contact this Service out of concern her complaint had not been escalated, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the short delay did not cause her any obvious detriment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the lettings process for the complainant’s former tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the lettings process for the complainant’s former tenancy.

From the evidence provided to this investigation, the landlord acted appropriately and appeared to follow its procedures during the lettings process. There is insufficient evidence to suggest it misled the complainant regarding the availability of a garage. It was entitled to consider that it had given the complainant a full set of keys and that, while it had advised it would ‘look into’ the possibility of a garage being available, the complainant appears to have served notice on the property before it had a chance to confirm either way.
There is also insufficient evidence to suggest the landlord pressured the complainant into taking out a loan, which she reported caused her anxiety and financial hardship. Its records indicate it followed its procedures and policies throughout the lettings process and there is no indication that it would not have been flexible in accepting a lower amount that one months’ rent in advance at sign-up, as per its Lettings Policy. It signposted the complainant to the Local Authority regarding a DHP application and its internal correspondence records that it was keen to ensure that she only paid what she could afford.
There is in no evidence that the landlord deliberately sought to cause the complainant upset or distress and there is no evidence it took money from her fraudulently.
There is no evidence the landlord’s actions, or inactions, unfairly prevented the complainant from bidding on properties via the Local Authority’s Choice Based Letting scheme. Its position that her application was suspended after she had signed the tenancy and been ‘rehoused’ was reasonable and it was fair to note that she held two concurrent tenancies until her tenancy with the landlord ended.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider re-offering its previous goodwill gesture of £500 to the complainant.
The landlord should consider reviewing the wording in its Lettings Policy and tenancy agreements to ensure they fully align. While its tenancy agreement states ‘rent is due in advance and the first payment shall be such amount as represents the rent payable for the first period of the tenancy which will be from the start date to midnight of the last day of the calendar month (the First Period)’ (ie less than one full month’s rent) its Letting Policy states it requires ‘a minimum of one month’s rent to be paid at sign up’. While this Service acknowledges that the wording is not directly contradictory and the Lettings Policy later makes clear the landlord will accept as little as one week’s rent in advance, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it would be appropriate for the amount residents are expected to pay at sign-up to be expressed consistently across the documents.