East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202326458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326458

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

31 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Calculation of the disturbance allowance.
   2. Communication about the disturbance allowance.
   3. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. 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 consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
   1. Concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
4. The Land Compensation Act 1973 states any dispute as to the amount of a disturbance payment shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
5. This Service is therefore unable to investigate the calculation of the disturbance payment. The resident should therefore pursue this matter with the Lands Tribunal. This Service will however investigate the landlord’s communication around the disturbance payment.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a local council. The property is a 1-bed flat in a sheltered living complex. The resident’s tenancy agreement commenced in July 2015.

Landlord obligations

7. The landlord’s decant policy sets out its disturbance allowance payments. It states:
   1. A flat rate of £1900 is payable for the reasonable expenses incurred for decant of a 1-bedroom property.
   2. Services allowed within the flat rate included:
      1. packing services, removal and storage costs where necessary
      2. disconnection and reconnection cookers by gas safe engineers, washing machines and other plumbing
      3. removal and refitting of adaptations
      4. where possible the uplift and refitting of carpets or in re-modelled dwellings, replacement of carpets/floor coverings
      5. removal and refitting of light fittings, security fixtures, curtain poles and fitted wardrobes if remedial works or remodelling necessitate removal.
   3. In the event of a resident having already paid for any of the above items, re-imbursement may be made on production of invoices and official receipts.
   4. It will appoint a dedicated decant officer to support residents. Where the local council organises removals, service reconnections etc, this is undertaken with full consultation with the resident.

Summary of events

8. On 28 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out further information about the decant following a residents meeting on 7 November 2022. Within its letter it stated the resident would be entitled to disturbance allowance which ‘would cover any removal costs’.
9. On an unspecified date, the resident was provided with a choice of carpet colour by the landlord. However, due to an earthquake in Turkey where its manufacturer was based, the chosen colour was no longer available to be delivered. The resident said she spoke to the landlord’s decant officer and was advised she could source her own carpet and be reimbursed for the cost.
10. On 11 May 2023 the resident provided the landlord with her choice of cooker and washing machine and confirmed the prices she saw.
11. On 5 July 2023 the resident raised concerns the landlord spent more on her white goods than she expected. Had it purchased the white goods she chose for the prices she saw, she states there would have been more disturbance allowance left over to cover the cost of the carpets.
12. On 7 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident it would not reimburse the resident for the cost of the carpet she purchased, as it had already exceeded the £1900 limit.
13. On 6 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated:
    1. The landlord told her she could have the cost of her carpets reimbursed and it had now refused to do so.
    2. The landlord advised her it would pay for the removal fees. However, the removal fees were included in her disturbance allowance costs. The removal costs meant there was not enough allowance to reimburse her for the carpet she purchased.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 4 July 2023. However, the resident received the letter on 13 September 2023. The stage 1 response stated:
    1. The £1900 disturbance allowance was a flat rate for a 1-bedroom property. It had exceeded the rate and incurred £2,098.55 of the disturbance allowance costings associated with the resident’s decant.
    2. It offered to carpet the property for the resident from the council’s budget and not from the disturbance allowance. However, the resident declined this offer and chose to pay to have her own carpet fitted. It would not therefore authorise payment for reimbursement of £830.
15. On 26 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She explained:
    1. The stage 1 response was received on 15 September 2023 and the date of the response was therefore incorrect.
    2. She did not decline the landlord’s offer to pay for her carpets. Following her initial choice of carpet no longer being available, she was presented with new colours by the landlord’s decant officer which were unsuitable to her preferences. She did not have enough money to pay for carpets, but the decant officer said she would be reimbursed for the cost.
    3. The landlord informed her the cost of white goods was over its estimations and therefore took a larger proportion of the disturbance payment than expected.
    4. The landlord stated it would pay all removal fees at the residents meeting on 7th November 2022. It was unfair it deducted this from the disturbance allowance.
16. On 26 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
    1. The stage 1 response had not been delivered to the resident initially. It therefore sent a new copy by post. It apologised for the inconvenience.
    2. The landlord provided floor coverings to vacant properties. It appreciated the resident originally chose a carpet, but there was a stock issue. Its decant officer tried to source the carpet from an alternative supplier, but was not an exact match. After initially placing the order with the second supplier, the resident decided to source her own carpet, meaning these costs would be deducted from the disturbance allowance. It therefore did not uphold her complaint.

Assessment and findings

17. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.

Communication about the disturbance allowance

18. The resident disputed the landlord’s inclusion of removal costs into the disturbance allowance. She states on 7 November 2022 at a meeting with the landlord and its residents, it confirmed it would cover the removal costs.
19. This Service does not disbelieve the resident’s account of the information she received at the resident’s meeting. However, there is unfortunately no evidence this Service can rely upon to support the resident’s account. The landlord’s decant policy does allow it to include the removal costs in the disturbance payment. It also wrote to the resident on 28 November 2022 following the residents meeting. Its letter confirmed the costs of removal were to be included within the disturbance allowance. The landlord acted appropriately.
20. While the landlord acted in line with its policy for disturbance allowance, its policy was not clear on the estimated costs expected for its removal service. Equally, the resident raised concerns the cost of the white goods the landlord purchased were more than the cost of the items she selected and sent details of to the landlord. This Service cannot investigate the reasonableness of the costings as it is outside of our jurisdiction to do so. However, there was no evidence the landlord discussed the estimated costs of removal with the resident or provided the resident with options to source her own white goods, when it realised the costs were higher than the landlord and the resident anticipated. This is particularly relevant where the landlord’s decant policy allowed the resident the option to purchase the white goods herself and be reimbursed.
21. The landlord’s decant policy states it would ensure full consultation with the tenant. This Service would therefore expect the landlord’s communication of the estimated costs to have been clearer, allowing the resident to make an informed choice of whether it would have been appropriate to facilitate the associated moving costs herself or to have elected to purchase the white goods. While this Service does not know if the resident would have opted to make her own arrangements, the resident’s concern over the cost in her email dated 5 July 2023, suggested her expectations were not managed. The landlord’s communication of the expected costs was unreasonable and did not fully consult the resident as its policy required. This was evidence of a service failure.
22. The landlord was aware of the importance to the resident to obtain a carpet colour which met her preference. When it could no longer provide the resident’s initial choice, it acted reasonably to provide her with alternative options.
23. The resident states she discussed her options for obtaining a carpet colour with the decant officer, was advised she could purchase her own carpet and be reimbursed for the cost. The landlord stated in its complaint responses it did not advise the resident she would be reimbursed, and the resident had opted to cancel the carpet order it placed to source her own. This Service does not disbelieve the resident’s account however, we do not have enough evidence to understand what was advised as there was no record kept of the discussion by the landlord.
24. While there is no evidence to support either the landlord or the resident’s accounts, this Service would expect the landlord to have an information management procedure in place to record its in-person discussions with the resident. Especially where there was a significant cost to the resident in purchasing her own carpets and the landlord stated she refused the landlord’s offer to fit its own carpets for no additional cost. There is no evidence of the landlord’s communication with the resident relating to the selection of carpets which has prevented this Service understanding what took place. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have kept no record of its in-person discussions with the resident and is evidence of a record keeping failure.
25. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the expected costings for the disturbance payment and its record keeping were unreasonable. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of its communication about the disturbance allowance was maladministration.

The associated complaint

26. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 24 July 2023 however, it was not received by the resident until 15 September 2023. This was a delay of approximately 2 months.
27. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response, it did not deliver the stage 1 response and apologised for its error. It was good practice to apologise to the resident. However, the landlord did not recognise the impact caused to the resident and that it had left her in the complaints process without a clear timeframe for a resolution. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was unreasonable and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was service failure.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s calculation of the disturbance allowance is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its communication about the disturbance allowance.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

31. The landlord failed to record its in-person discussions with the resident about the disturbance allowance. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
32. The landlord did not deliver its stage 1 complaint response to the resident until approximately 2 months after her complaint. While we acknowledge the landlord apologised for its mistake, it did not offer compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident at total of £400 compensation comprising of:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its unreasonable communication with the resident.
       2. £100 for its record keeping failures.
       3. £100 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failure.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report.