Cambridge City Council (202009399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009399

Cambridge City Council

25 March 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 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 application of its abandonment process to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Its tenancy agreement with him confirms that he must inform it in writing before leaving the property if he intends to be away from the property for longer than 28 days. This also specifies that prior to departure, he must provide a forwarding address and the contact details. The tenancy agreement cautions that failure to inform the landlord of a period of absence may lead it to decide that the resident has ceased using the property and lead to it issuing a notice to quit.
The landlord’s abandonment and long-term absence policy and procedure states that, if it receives a report of suspected abandonment, it is to “visit the property, attempt to contact the tenant in person, by telephone or email, allowing 28 days for a response”. It will also consult with relevant agencies, complete an abandoned property investigation form, and leave a seven-day warning letter at the property requesting the resident contact it, otherwise it may treat the property as abandoned.
The landlord’s abandonment and long-term absence flowchart states that, after abandonment is suspected, it will investigate links between the resident and other properties, attempt to contact the resident and/or visit the property, and issue an abandoned property letter. If there is no contact from the resident within seven days, then it is to complete an abandoned property investigation form.
The landlord’s complaints handling procedure confirms that where it has found a failure, it may change or clarify procedure to prevent reoccurrence.
The landlord’s compliments, complaints and suggestions leaflet confirms that it has a two-stage complaints procedure with complaint responses to be issued within ten working days. If the complaint cannot be responded to within this timeframe, it is to advise the resident of the updated timeframe.

Summary of events

The landlord received a report on 8 May 2020 from a third party that the resident’s property had appeared to be vacant since November 2019.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it appeared that he was not occupying the property as his main and principal home and he had no intention to return to the property. It stated that it presumed this amounted to a permanent abandonment of the property and implied an offer to surrender the property. The landlord stated that it would accept the offer of surrender within seven days of the date of the letter unless the resident gave written notice that this was not the case. It gave a deadline of 30 June 2020 for such contact.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2020 to confirm that he did not wish to surrender the property and highlighted that it had not attempted to contact him prior to ascertaining that he had abandoned the property. He said that the landlord had not enquired as to how he, as a vulnerable person, had been coping during the corona virus pandemic. The resident stated that he would be following up with a formal complaint the following day.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 June and said that:
1. it was sorry if the resident felt that it had behaved unreasonably in contacting him in relation to the property.
2. it had received reports of the property being “empty/abandoned” since November 2019, and that it had a duty to investigate these reports.
3. the tenancy agreement specified that he should inform the landlord if he intended to be away from the property for more than 28 days, otherwise it may assume the property was not being used as his only home and seek repossession.
4. it gathered that the resident had been away from the country and asked him to confirm when he would be returning to the property while also expressing its understanding that the corona virus pandemic may have impacted his travel plans.
The resident replied later that day to contend that the landlord had not investigated the matter adequately. In his email, the resident said:
1. the landlord had “relied on faulty ‘enquiries’ to determine that the property had been abandoned.
2. up until the corona virus lockdown, the property was being used and he was in and out of hospital.
3. In relation to travel, the resident said that when the government imposed travel restrictions, nobody “intended” to be separated for a period of time. Adding that his priority was to ensure that his family was taken care of, instead of calling the landlord.
4. He had been shielding as he was at high risk of complications if he contracted the virus, and this made travel impossible. The resident also explained that he did not have family nearby.
5. He had asked a friend to visit the property to cut the grass to appease neighbours; however, he had tried on multiple occasions to arrange a mutual exchange as they were struggling within the property.
6. He wished to know whether the landlord had made “sufficient efforts” to contact him before sending its letter; adding that if it could not do so, he would raise the matter as a formal complaint.
The landlord replied on 7 July 2020 to advise that it had acted on information which “appeared genuine”, the property had been visited by a local councillor, and it had sent a letter to the property to highlight that the visual appearance of the property indicated that it was not being occupied. It stated that it had carried out a further visit to the property on 24 June 2020, in which the door was not answered and it had taken photographs of the property.
The landlord acknowledged that the corona virus lockdown in March 2020 had created difficulties for people but highlighted that it had received reports of the property being empty since November 2019. It asked him again to confirm, if he had not yet returned to the property, how long he had been away and when he intended to return. The landlord explained that the letter was not intended to cause stress but was to prompt a response.
Correspondence between the landlord and the resident continued, and the resident requested details such as the dates on which reports were received – adding that he was away for treatment in November, but then returned. The resident explained that he was also in and out of hospital at the end of January and beginning of February, and that they had family staying over Christmas. The landlord duly provided further information about the reports it had received. However, the landlord explained that it was still not clear whether the resident was (then) presently at the property and asked if the resident could provide some confirmation. The resident subsequently confirmed their return to the property on 22 July 2020 – after travel restrictions had been lifted.
On 9 September, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In his email, he said that he wished to complain about the handling of its enquiries into the report of his property being abandoned. Specifically that:
1. it had made no attempt to contact him or verify the reports of his property being abandoned. The resident said that the landlord had received a report on 8 May, and on 18 June sent written notice of a “threatened eviction within seven days”.
2. the landlord had determined that the property had been permanently abandoned and that it appeared that it was in a “rush to evict a tenant with no grounds except anecdotal and anonymous reports”.
3. there was no attempt by the landlord to perform an investigation into whether or not the property had been abandoned.
4. the landlord had shown no interest in his welfare as a vulnerable tenant. He advised that both he and his wife were suffering from health concerns and its actions had exacerbated their distress.
5. the resident raised issues with the way the landlord had followed up on “anonymous complaints” against him, citing a historical incident where it had acted after receiving a report from his neighbour which had been untrue.
6. He did not consider that the landlord had followed correct procedures; and that he said that he expected to be compensated for the distress caused by the its actions which he experienced whilst being hospitalised.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 25 September 2020 in which it apologised for the distress he experienced. It said:
1. there was no attempt to “illegally evict” him and the purpose of the letter sent on 18 June 2020 was to allow an opportunity for him to respond to it.
2. that the resident subsequently responded by email and telephone on 28 June to advise that he had not abandoned the property, but that he was not in the country owing to travel restrictions imposed by the lockdown. It added that in the circumstances, no further action would be taken.
3. in line with its abandonment procedure (which it had attached to the email) f the resident had not responded to the letter by 30 June, the investigation and any decision that the property had been abandoned would be reviewed by a manager. This would have involved looking at all of the information it held before agreeing that the tenancy had been surrendered.
With regards to the investigations that had been undertaken before the letter of 18 June was issued, it said:
1. a local councillor visited the property on 11 May 2020 when no signs of habitation were observed.
2. a telephone call was made to the mobile number which it held on file for him. This was not answered. However, as the member of staff’s phone had since been upgraded, it could not confirm when the call was placed.
3. due to it receiving further reports of the property being empty since November 2019, it had made enquiries about the energy use at the property which indicated that the energy usage was below what would be expected for an occupied home.
4. it also received information from border checks which showed that the resident left the country on 25 November 2019, returned on 23 January 2020, and then departed again on 8 February 2020, returning again on 21 July 2020.
5. whilst it understand the difficulties that were brought about by the travel restrictions, if the resident had alerted them to the fact that he and his wife intended to be away from the property, it would have noted as such on its records.
6. it had now added details of the household’s vulnerabilities to its records and advised that it would consider this in the support it would endeavour to provide in the event of further corona virus restrictions. It repeated that it was sorry that its letter caused distress but explained that it was obliged to contact tenants if it believed that a tenancy breach had occurred.
The landlord relayed to the resident that its organisation had received three anonymous reports and one named report of the property being unoccupied, and assured him that it did not act solely on these reports but carried out an investigation into them. It said that it was unaware if he had been experiencing harassment from neighbours in the form of anonymous reporting and offered to discuss this further with him.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2020 to escalate his complaint to the final stage, contending that it had not followed its abandonment and long–term absence policy. He highlighted that the policy stated that the implied surrender of the property followed from the removal of belongings from the property and rent being unpaid. The resident reasoned that these criteria had not been met before sending him the letter on 18 June 2020 and the evidence that the landlord mentioned was mostly gathered after it had been issued. He added that these investigations were an invasion of his privacy and could have been avoided.
The resident further contended that the landlord had not allowed 28 days for a response from him, as specified in the abandonment and long–term absence policy. He said that it had failed to provide evidence that it had made attempts to contact him and that it had not allowed sufficient time for a response before proceeding to send an abandonment letter. The resident contended that this was a breach of the landlord’s procedure.
The resident added that he did not intend to be absent for an extended duration, but his travel plans had been curtailed by the corona virus pandemic. He therefore reasoned that it was “unreasonable” for the landlord to expect him inform it of his intention to be away. The resident said that whilst he appreciated the landlord’s apology, he felt that it did not appreciate the level of distress he and his wife had experienced and therefore he sought compensation for this.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 9 October 2020, after discussing the sequence of events with him the day before. It summarised the timeline of events and said that whilst some of its evidence had been gathered after the seven-day letter had been sent on 18 June 2020, its visit on 24 June 2020 was conducted before receiving contact from the resident and was therefore a “reasonable” part of its investigations. It reasoned that its receipt of the border checks information on 29 June 2020 served to “demonstrate that there was some merit to these investigations”.
Regarding the landlord’s execution of its abandonment and long–term absence policy and procedure, it noted that an error existed between the procedure and its accompanying flowchart. It advised that this flowchart omitted the 28 period which should have been allowed for contact to be made with the resident. Due to this error, an “important part of the process” had been missed. The landlord conceded that the resident was “entirely right” about this and offered a “profound apology” for this.
The landlord considered that the distress caused by this error was for a “relatively short” time and stated that the resident’s obligation to inform it of an absence from the property for more than 28 days still applied. Therefore, it offered compensation of £100 for the distress caused. The landlord advised that its documentation had been revised so that it now corresponded with its policy. It confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint.
The resident advised this Service on 5 January 2021 that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord not following its abandonment and long–term absence policy. He also felt that there was no reason for the landlord to believe that the property had been abandoned and that its investigations with the border force had been intrusive.

Assessment and findings

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord investigating whether his property was abandoned or not. As a landlord, it would be expected of it to ensure that its housing stock was being used in the most effective way to provide housing for those in need. Therefore, it was reasonable that it initiated investigations based on multiple reports of the property being abandoned.
The tenancy agreement is the legal contract between the resident and the landlord. This specified that he was to inform it of his being away from the property for a period longer than 28 days. While the resident stated, on 29 June 2020 and 26 September 2020, that he had no intention to remain away from the property for an extended time, the onus was on him to inform the landlord that his stay away from the property had been extended beyond the 28-day timeframe due to circumstances beyond his control.
Therefore, considering that the landlord had not been informed of any long-term absence, that it had received multiple reports of the property being abandoned, and its initial visit on 11 May 2020 showed no signs of occupation, it was overall reasonable for the landlord to initiate the procedure specified in its abandonment and long–term absence policy and procedure.
However, the landlord’s abandonment and long term absence policy and procedure and its accompanying flowchart, above at points 3 and 4, are inconsistent with each other, with the policy specifying that 28 days should be allowed to establish contact with the resident before a seven-day warning letter is issued, whereas the flowchart omits this timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this error, offered an unreserved apology, assured the resident that this flowchart would be corrected, and offered compensation. This was a reasonable response from the landlord which demonstrated this Service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting it right and learning from outcomes. The landlord’s actions in response to the complaint should also help to ensure that a similar error is not made in the future.
The amount of compensation offered by the landlord of £100 was a reasonable and proportionate offer which was line with our remedies guidance for where a failure has occurred “which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. It is noted that the landlord issued the letter which the resident found distressing on 18 June 2020 and it acknowledged that the property was not abandoned on 29 June 2020. There was no evidence of the landlord pursuing its abandonment process after this date and therefore the likely period of distress caused to the resident was relatively short.
In conclusion, there was no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part in initiating its abandonment and long–term absence procedure, as it initiated investigations with reasonable cause. There was a failure in its handling of the procedure due to an inconsistency in its procedural instructions, which it acknowledged, apologised for, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for. Therefore, while a failure did occur, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which ‘put things right’. Furthermore, as detailed above, the landlord has taken action which should prevent a similar error from occurring in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning the landlord’s application of its abandonment process to the resident satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failure to follow its abandonment and long–term absence policy and procedure correctly, apologised for this, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the amount of £100 compensation that it offered him in its final stage complaint response on 9 October 2020.