Hyde Housing Association Limited (202006083)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006083

Hyde Housing Association Limited

22 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to terminate her tenancy and her subsequent request for her tenancy to be reinstated.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The nature of the complaint meant that the correspondence addressed the legal status of the resident’s occupancy agreement and her legal rights to remain in the property. Whilst the Ombudsman has regard to relevant legislation, and the terms of any contractual arrangements, it is not for this Service to make a legally binding decision on whether the tenancy was initially terminated by the resident, what the terms of any new/continuing tenancy should be, or what date should be on the resident’s tenancy. These matters could only be definitively decided by the courts.
  3. As a result, these matters are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. Instead, this investigation is focused on the standard of service provided by the landlord in response to the resident’s requests and the reasonableness of its actions in that regard.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord by ‘assignment by way of mutual exchange’ on 30 May 2011 when transferring from a local authority property. The tenancy agreement with the former tenant dated 2005 describes an assured weekly tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988.
  2. The resident submitted a ‘notice to quit’ (NTQ) on 16 March 2020, with the end of tenancy date ‘to be confirmed’ once her new property was ready. This was acknowledged by the landlord the same day, when it replied with a confirmation of tenancy letter with a provisional end date of 12 April 2020 and advised that Property Services would be in touch to book a moving assessment.
  3. The following day, the resident advised that the move would definitely be after 12 April 2020, given ongoing renovation works and the national lockdown due to the covid-19 pandemic. She therefore said that she would advise further in due course. In the landlord’s response it thanked her for the update and said that it would await further details from her.
  4. On 30 June 2020 the landlord emailed the local authority for an update on the works to the resident’s new property. The landlord then treated the resident’s tenancy as having been terminated, following the issuance of the NTQ, despite the resident not specifying a tenancy end date on the NTQ itself.
  5. The landlord issued a complaint response on 6 July 2020 in relation to a separate complaint concerning the resident’s utility accounts being ended by it. It acknowledged that it should have considered that the end of tenancy date was not confirmed on the NTQ and that it should have been more aware of the circumstances and implications of this.
  6. On 7 July 2020 the resident confirmed that she had not yet given notice of when she would leave the property and, in an email of 10 July 2020, she stated that there was an ‘unfinished detail’ of the use and occupation charge. In the landlord’s further response to the utilities complaint on 22 July 2020, it confirmed that lessons had been learnt in that staff should be mindful of the tenancy end date and the distress and inconvenience caused by changing the energy supply without that date.
  7. The landlord then requested that the resident sign a new tenancy agreement on 27 and 30 July and 5 August 2020, as it considered that her previous tenancy had been terminated by her, and it recommended that she take legal advice. In the resident’s response she said that she was not comfortable signing a new tenancy agreement due to the implications on her move/tenure rights and legalities and she was unaware that her previous tenancy had been terminated.
  8. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns as a service recovery enquiry rather than a formal complaint and responded on 6 August 2020. It referred to its email of 27 July 2020, regarding its invitation for her to sign a new tenancy agreement, with the same terms and conditions and rent as the original tenancy and dated from the expiry of the NTQ.
  9. On 17 August 2020 the resident submitted her complaint that a new tenancy was inappropriate, the proposed home visit was never arranged as discussed, and the response to the utilities’ complaint acknowledged that she was not ready to leave the property.
  10. Following contact from this Service on 25 August 2020, the landlord outlined the scope of the complaint. It stated that the resident had asked to terminate her tenancy but had stated that the termination date was ‘to be confirmed’ and, despite this, it had proceeded with the termination at the end of the four–week notice period following receipt of the NTQ. The landlord had advised that the termination was a legal requirement following the issuance of an NTQ, but the resident was dissatisfied with this outcome and had asked for the original tenancy to be reinstated. In response, the landlord had agreed to offer a new tenancy effective from August 2020, but the resident was not happy with this. 
  11. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 21 September 2020, it said it could not reinstate the tenancy from the original 2011 date as it had been legally obliged to terminate it. It advised that it would grant another tenancy on the same terms which would not affect the resident’s tenure rights or legal position.
  12. On 9 October 2020 the resident’s MP contacted this Service to submit the resident’s complaint regarding the ‘accelerated NTQ’. On 9 December 2020 the resident confirmed that the landlord had again offered to reinstate her tenancy but with a new signing date, which she was not willing to do, as she wanted the original tenancy reinstated. She felt that the landlord had made an error in proceeding with the termination despite the email trail indicating that no termination date had been specified. Therefore, the crux of her complaint was that the landlord did not read emails properly or behave professionally.
  13. Following further contact from this Service, the landlord reviewed the case on 26 January 2021, reinstated the resident’s original tenancy, apologised, and offered £150 compensation for the frustration and upset caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. An NTQ ends a tenancy and once served cannot be withdrawn. In accordance with section 32(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 an NTQ should be in writing and for weekly tenancies, such as the resident was assigned by the previous tenant, must give at least four weeks notice. If an NTQ is invalid, the landlord or tenant is entitled to treat it as if it were ineffective and continue with the tenancy until a valid notice is served.
  2. In this case, the NTQ made it clear that the date of termination was to be confirmed as the resident’s new property was not yet habitable. The landlord responded to say that it would be in contact, and later that it would await the resident’s update. The email correspondence which followed the service of the NTQ made it clear that no termination date had been specified, and it is not disputed by the landlord that the resident had not yet confirmed when she wished the tenancy to come to an end. As a result, it would have been more reasonable for the landlord to have treated the NTQ as ‘invalid’ and not proceeded to terminate the tenancy on that basis.
  3. The landlord’s online guidance on moving home (Moving in and moving out of your home | The Hyde Group (hyde-housing.co.uk) and NTQ form (as at 10 February 2021)  warns: ‘IMPORTANT: when you send this form to us, we will begin the formal process to end your tenancy – Please only submit the form when you have firm confirmation on your onward move’. As a result, the landlord had taken steps to highlight to residents the implications of issuing a NTQ and there was therefore a responsibility on the resident to familiarize herself with these terms and act accordingly.
  4. Despite the written warning on the form she completed on 16 March 2020, the resident gave notice when she did not have a date to move and this must be considered as a contributing factor which mitigates the landlord’s actions to some extent. As there are legal implications for the landlord following receipt of an NTQ, these must be taken seriously and both parties should be well informed of the consequences of entering into this process. The resident has not offered any explanation for serving the NTQ without a termination date, beyond knowing that she knew the move would occur at some point, and this does not meet the requirements set out on the NTQ form (see paragraph 20 above). This is reflected in the Order detailed below.
  5. However, on balance it was inappropriate that the landlord accepted the NTQ, when it was aware that the resident was unable to move, particularly given that this was at the early stages of the Covid-19 national lockdown, which would likely delay the move. Instead, it would have been prudent for the landlord to expressly reiterate the warning on the form to resident and confirm that the NTQ would end her tenancy in four weeks, despite her not specifying a date on the form.
  6. The landlord’s ‘Customer Strategy 2020’ states that it ‘will always put the customer first’ and its objectives include embracing ‘customer driven decision making’. One of the strategic themes is for the landlord to ‘improve (residents) services with a consistent, intuitive experience that supports (residents) needs’, and its values include ‘proactively taking responsibility for our customers’. With that in mind, the landlord, as an organization with experience of processing NTQs and the resources to administer them, could have been more proactive in communicating with the resident and managing the matter more effectively. The landlord did not reflect its own values and objectives to act in the interests of the residents, when it based its decisions on one incomplete NTQ.
  7. The landlord ultimately identified an alternative action that could have been taken with regard to the NTQ but has given no reason why it did not do this when the resident first contacted it to complain in August 2020. Whilst it would have been preferable for the resident to have been advised in March 2020 that the NTQ could not be withdrawn once accepted, had this alternative been considered earlier, it could have saved five months of further delay.
  8. In the landlord’s response to the complaint about the resident’s utilities’ accounts, it said it should have considered that the date was not confirmed on the NTQ, and be more aware of circumstances and implications, and that information had been shared with managers as ‘lessons learnt’. This demonstrates that the landlord identified areas of service failure and implemented practical measures to avoid similar issues arising in the future. This is an important part of considering a formal complaint, and reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘learning from outcomes’.
  9. The landlord’s letter of 26 January 2021 apologised for any frustration or upset caused since the resident first raised the issue and offered £150 for inconvenience but did not advise how the sum was calculated. The landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy does not specify amounts of compensation for particular circumstances but does state that compensation may be paid in recognition of inconvenience. The £150 offered would fall into the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance band for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but not having significantly affected the overall outcome.
  10. The landlord could have done more to identify the discrepancy on the NTQ when it was submitted in March 2020, and to discuss the implications of the NTQ with the resident in a more open manner, to ensure that she was aware of the impact on her tenancy. When the resident became fully aware of the situation and submitted a formal complaint in August 2020, the landlord had a further opportunity to review its position and take steps to put things right. However, it was not until January 2021, after the end of the complaints process, that the landlord reinstated the tenancy and offered compensation.
  11. Whilst this went some way to recognising the impact of the complaint on the resident, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord did not fully acknowledge the level of its service failing or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It would have been an understandably anxious time for the resident not having any certainty about the status of her tenancy and, as a result, this Service considers that an increased compensation award is appropriate. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s requests to terminate and reinstate her tenancy. 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to ensure that she understood the implications of submitting the NTQ. Any compensation payment already made in relation to this complaint may be deducted from this sum.