Look Ahead Care and Support Limited (202534239)

Background

1. The landlord is selling the building that the resident’s property is in. It has offered the resident alternative accommodation. The landlord has considered taking legal action to gain possession of the resident’s property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about rehousing.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rehousing.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about rehousing

4. There were repeated failings involving communication, record keeping and delays.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints and feedback policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident raised concerns about the lawfulness and legal basis of the landlord’s actions and decisions.
7. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint matters about the lawfulness and legal basis of the landlord’s actions and decisions are better dealt with by a court because a court can more effectively deal with these matters. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint matters about the lawfulness and legal basis of the landlord’s actions and decisions.
8. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will consult with the resident before making changes in matters of housing management or maintenance which are likely to have a substantial effect on the resident.
9. We are satisfied that the landlord has consulted the resident in line with its obligation in the tenancy agreement. The landlord has written to the resident. It has also been in regular contact with the resident and has responded to his emails and questions.
10. The landlord has also met with the resident on several occasions. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated the landlord initially met with the resident on 19 October 2024. The landlord’s records showed that other meetings took place on 21 August 2025 and 17 October 2025.
11. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident showed that on 18 November 2024, 28 November 2025, 28 January 2026 and 27 February 2026 the landlord offered to arrange additional meetings with the resident.
12. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response dated 22 September 2025 that it had not fully considered the resident’s preferences and safety concerns when it offered the resident properties for alternative accommodation.
13. The landlord said it would put this right by ensuring the resident’s housing needs, safety concerns, and locality preferences were appropriately recorded and considered in all future accommodation offers.
14. The landlord also acknowledged that it could have done more to have explained and supported the resident with other housing options. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would provide the resident with a written summary of all available housing options outside of being rehoused by the landlord.
15. This was an appropriate action. However, the landlord did not provide the written summary until 14 November 2025 which was after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response and over a year after telling the resident it was selling the building. This was an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with relevant information and carrying out a remedy from the stage 1 response.
16. The evidence showed the landlord offered some support to the resident. This included pausing processes in June 2025 and July 2025 so the resident could access mental health treatment. The landlord offered financial incentives to help facilitate the resident’s move such as rent-free months and the clearance of rent arrears. It said it would support the resident in making a housing application to the local council.
17. On 17 February 2025 the landlord offered the resident a property which he had viewed on 6 February 2025. The resident accepted this offer on 18 February 2025.
18. On the same date the landlord asked the resident for his bank details as he was eligible for a home loss payment. The landlord also advised the resident that he could keep his current parking permit for a period of 6 weeks while he transitioned to the new property. It said it would provide removals and asked the resident what date he could move.
19. However, on 13 May 2025 the landlord withdrew this offer of accommodation. This was because it said it had been identified that the property was not a long-term option and may involve further disruption and possible relocation in the future.
20. In its stage 2 response it said the offer was withdrawn as it could not provide the level of secure tenure to which the resident was entitled. The landlord advised us that only an assured shorthold tenancy had been available on this property.
21. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not established the tenure of the property before arranging the viewing, and even more so not to have checked the tenure before offering the resident the property.
22. The landlord did not recognise this error until almost 2 months after offering the resident the property. In this time, the resident said he had made plans and incurred costs as he thought he was moving.
23. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused given the resident had begun planning his move and preparing for relocation. The landlord apologised but this was not a proportionate response to the likely distress and inconvenience the resident experienced from the landlord’s failing. It would have been reasonable to have offered the resident some compensation in this situation.
24. The landlord issued the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on 14 October 2024. However, on 18 November 2024 the landlord re-served the notice as it had identified “incorrect wording” on the previous notice. On 10 April 2026 the landlord told the resident a third notice would need to be issued. This was because the previous notice had expired.
25. The landlord told us it thought it had submitted paperwork to the court for possession proceedings, but the application could not be found. The landlord was unable to pursue new possession proceedings with an expired notice, hence the need for a new notice.
26. The repeated errors in this process have shown the landlord did not have adequate oversight of these matters. While these failings may have potentially inadvertently benefited the resident by prolonging his occupation of the property, it was unfair for the resident to be experiencing unnecessary repeated correspondence and extended uncertainty.
27. The landlord also failed to keep the resident appropriately updated. The landlord decided to instruct a solicitor but did not advise the resident about this. Therefore, without warning, the resident received a notice of change from the solicitor as he was the other party to the claim.
28. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 April 2026 to get clarity on what this meant. The landlord apologised about this the following day and explained what had happened. This was another avoidable incident that likely caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was already being impacted by an unexpected move from his long‑term home.
29. The landlord did not award the resident any compensation during its complaints process. Compensation would have been an appropriate remedy to the failings identified. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rehousing.
30. It is important to note that this compensation is separate from the statutory home loss payment and any discretionary payments made by the landlord for the disruption of leaving a long-term home.

31. The landlord’s complaints and feedback policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
32. An extension at stage 1 was requested by the landlord as the resident was away and unable to discuss his complaint. The extension request was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
33. All acknowledgements and responses were issued within the correct timescales in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord should ensure it keeps thorough and accurate records. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping.

Communication

35. Having better oversight of matters would enable more accurate correspondence and more timely updates to be issued to residents.