Peabody Trust (202209277)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209277

Peabody Trust

29 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The handling of the resident’s rent accounts.
2. Bullying, discrimination, and harassment by its staff.
3. Increase in the resident’s rent without prior warning.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the housing Ombudsman’s scheme the matter of the increase in the resident’s rent without prior warning is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42 (a) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. At the time of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she had not raised a complaint about the rent issue with the landlord. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with any evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this. As such the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on this issue. If the matter remains outstanding, the resident is entitled to raise a complaint and the landlord is encouraged to provide the necessary responses.

Background and summary of Events

Background

The resident previously had a tenancy with the landlord for a market rented property. In March 2021 she moved home into a 1 bedroom flat on an assured tenancy owned by the landlord.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process and aims to provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days. It states all stage 2 escalation requests must be received within 10 working days of the receipt of the stage 1 response, and stage 2 responses will be provided within 20 working days. It aims to provide responses within the timeframes provided at both stages unless an agreement is reached for an extension with the resident.
The landlord’s empty homes (voids) policy states that a full set of keys must be returned within the timeframe as agreed between the landlord and the departing resident. If the keys were not returned by the agreed time, the tenancy may continue to run while the keys are obtained and the departing resident would be charged accordingly.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal notes state that the resident telephoned and informed it on 15 March 2021 that she had left her old property on 5 March 2021 and moved to the new address. Her former account was still live, and she asked for it to be closed.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 16 March 2021. She said she wanted to clarify and check some figures in writing. She explained she had transferred a payment towards her old tenancy, and part of that was moved towards her new tenancy and this left a credit on her account. She stated she was advised that it would be quicker to move the payments across accounts than get it refunded. She advised of her rent according to her contract between 1 March 2021 and 4 March 2021 and said the remaining credit could be transferred to her new tenancy account and the old one closed. She asked the landlord to confirm in writing if she was correct.
The resident moved to her new property on 5 March 2021. During this time, she raised a complaint with the landlord about the state of the property and issues with electrical heating.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response to her complaint and explained the actions it had taken to rectify the issues. It acknowledged it had not provided a good standard of service and apologised for this. It also apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused to her and explained the learning it had taken from her complaint. It then offered her compensation of £500 for inconvenience caused, £170 refund for food/travel during her temporary hotel stay, and a rent adjustment of 1 months’ rent of £989.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 April 2021 and provided her a rent statement she had requested for both her tenancies. It informed her it noticed her old tenancy had ended on 15 March 2021 but the new one started on 5 March 2021. It told her it would raise a query about why there was an overlap of 10 days as it influenced the balance on the account.
The following day, the landlord told the resident it agreed with her calculations. It explained the charge for the 4 days in March 2021 and that the credit from her deposit account would cover the amount outstanding for the old property once the end date on her former account was either corrected or explained as to why it ended late. It said it did not understand why she was told her former tenancy would end on 24 March 2021, particularly when her new one had begun on 5 March 2021. It advised it had not received a response from the relevant team, but it would continue to chase them until they acknowledged the query so that it could get the account finalised.
The landlord discussed internally on 15 June 2021 and advised it had spoken with the resident about the outstanding balance on her former rent account. It said the balance occurred as the account was not closed until 15 March 2021, but her new tenancy had started on 5 March 2021. It explained the overlap appeared to have been caused by one of its teams not receiving the keys to the old property. The resident had handed the keys back during an inspection when she moved into the new property, as she was not given instructions on how to return them. The landlord asked for the end date on her former account to be altered given that she had returned the keys prior to 15 March 2021. It then said alternatively, it could apply a credit to reduce the outstanding balance. The landlord said if the account was closed on 4 March 2021, a balance of 4 days would remain which it could clear using the additional funds in the deposit account. As it stood, she was charged for 15 days at her previous address, as her tenancies had overlapped despite returning the keys. It advised that she had received no resolution about the issue, and she was considering submitting a formal complaint.
The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 30 July 2021. She complained about a member of its staff and raised issues of bullying and harassment. She explained:
1. The situation to the landlord including her previous compensation award and said she had been receiving monthly letters from its member of staff stating she owed money.
2. The compensation she received was settled on 20 April 2021, and on the same day, she received a call from its member of staff telling her, her rent account was in arrears. She had a deposit which should have been transferred from her previous tenancy, and it was agreed that the remainder would go towards covering her rent from the previous tenancy.
3. It had also input the wrong date as her tenancy end date. The system showed she moved on 24 March 2021 rather than 4 March 2021. She made the member of staff aware of all the errors and also that she had emailed another member of the landlord’s staff on 16 March 2021, asking them to confirm all the details but did not receive a response.
4. She also did not hear back from the member of staff who contacted her about the arrears after their conversation. She advised that every time she rang, she was told they were unavailable. Her emails were also not responded to, and her rent accounts were never updated.
5. Every month, she received a letter telling her she owed a different amount. The resident stated this was unfair and infuriating. She had also been told she did not return the keys to her previous flat despite doing so to a member of its voids team and receiving email confirmation of this.
6. When she was finally able to contact the member of staff who had rung her, she had to make more corrections. She was assured an email would be sent to the “respective people” but at the end of June 2021, she received another arrears letter. She then emailed the member of staff for an update and received no response.
7. It was now the end of July and she had received another arrears letter for a different amount and had no information on what was happening. She felt as though she was being punished for making the initial complaint when she moved properties. She told the landlord she had, had enough and would be taking legal action should her complaint not be resolved. The matter had been ongoing since April 2021 and had affected her mental health.
8. She did not deserve to be bullied and harassed as she was. She had not received a single response from its member of staff. As a resolution, she wanted the matter resolved and both rent accounts corrected and updated. She asked for apologies from its member of staff and their team for the stress that they had been causing her since April. She explained she also wanted £1000 for the stress caused to her mental health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 August 2021 and told her it would respond within 10 working days.
The resident asked the landlord to reopen her old complaint on 20 August 2021. She said this was because it was marked as resolved, but she had received monthly letters about arrears for varying amounts. She also:
1. Said she received 3 to 4 letters a month at times. She stated it had made several promises which were not kept, and she was provided with inaccurate information.
2. Advised most of the rent she had been paying for her new tenancy had been paid towards her old rent account. The promised rent adjustments did not appear to have been made by the appropriate team.
3. Reiterated it had incorrectly recorded her move dates initially, then incorrectly documented it on a second occasion. She reiterated she had been charged an extra 10 days rent, she had handed the keys to the old property to the landlord, and her frustrations at attempting to contact its member of staff.
4. Told it she believed its actions were in retaliation for the compensation she received. It had told her to email the relevant team herself and ask them to correct the tenancy end date. When she raised exception about this, they told her they would get back to her.
5. Stated she was advised that they had not received a response from the relevant team. She raised dissatisfaction around the landlord’s internal communications and said she was in the situation as information was not passed between teams.
6. Said the matter had been ongoing for 5 months. When she agreed to the terms of resolution following the complaint response on 9 April 2021, she believed that would be the end of the matter. All communications would be sent between the correct departments and her tenancy would have been correctly ended, but this did not happen. Every time she contacted someone; they were confused by the details she provided them. Based on this she wanted her case reopened.
The landlord responded on the same day and told her it could not reopen the complaint as it was already resolved. It said it would liaise with a member of its staff regarding the issues with the rent and contact her once it identified the resolution for the issues.
The resident chased her complaint response on 5 November 2021. She highlighted it had been over 3 months since she raised her complaint and she had to keep chasing for an update. She identified she had continued to receive letters from her previous address which meant the housing team were not updating their system. She told it she would be approaching the Ombudsman if she did not hear from it by 8 November 2021.
The same day, the landlord wrote to the resident to update her on her complaint. It said it could confirm that it would not be applying any credit to her former rent account, as the keys were returned on 15 March 2021, and as per their policy and procedure, it ended the tenancy on that date and would not make any changes. It said a tenancy would continue until the keys were returned, so no credit would be applied for those 11 days. The extra funds from her deposit had been transferred to her current rent account to reduce the balance on there. It said it was still waiting for a response from the voids team however, as they stated that there may have been a rent adjustment offered due to ongoing works “when the property was void”. It would chase this again and provide a further update with hopefully some news on whether any credit would be offered to her. It acknowledged the matter was frustrating, but it hoped to rectify the matter soon.
The resident responded on the same day and said she had told it during her initial complaint that there was no way for her to return the keys as her new property was not ready. She said it was agreed that she would return the keys to the voids inspector who inspected her new property. She expressed her dissatisfaction about having to constantly explain the same things to the landlord. She told it that it was clear nothing had been done since August and she was constantly told it was awaiting a response. She advised she was still receiving letters for her previous address including gas checks as her mail was redirected. When she spoke with the landlord about this, she was told, to put the matter in writing. She expressed dissatisfaction at having to tell her own landlord that she had moved. She told the landlord she wanted to take her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord emailed internally on 16 November 2021 and explained the resident had contacted it and was upset to find her complaint was marked as complete. She stated no one had contacted or informed her of anything. She requested a “final deadlock letter” so that she could approach the Housing Ombudsman. It asked for someone to contact her to discuss the matter.
The landlord informed the resident on 17 November 2021 that her complaint was closed. It said a note was left on the system that she had contacted, and the account was to be adjusted following discussions with the relevant team.
On 10 December 2021, there were discussions between the landlord and resident about her direct debit. The landlord asked internally for a check to be completed to ensure the resident’s direct debit details were set up on its system and it found that they were not.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 13 December 2021. It provided a summary of the issue and said a dispute needed to be taken up with the relevant team regarding the closure of the account. It advised once she had cleared the necessary payment, the balance would continue to reflect on her current rent account. It said it believed it had explained how the balance came to be. Any further disputes in relation to the closure date about the previous tenancy needed to be forwarded to its lettings team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2021 and said her initial complaint had not been resolved, so she was going to the Ombudsman. She said she did not feel that its investigation properly assessed all the aspects of her complaint, and she was given the impression it was more focused on proving that she owed it money. She said it accused her of not setting up the direct debit for her rent, although she had already done so, and the issue was a fault with its system. It was also unaware of the previous compensation she had received following the failings of its lettings team. It had claimed that they confirmed that she should be charged for the extra 11 days from 5 March 2022 to 15 March 2022 but provided no proof of this. During its final call with her, it said that the supposed debt owed would be passed on to her credit file and it was aware that it was legally obliged to allow her time to go to the Ombudsman. As she now had the final letter, she would be making arrangements to do so and would be seeking the maximum compensation across both her complaints.
The landlord’s notes state on 15 March 2022 it contacted the resident regarding the balance, and she advised she had left the property on 5 March 2021. She had been trying to chase a member of its staff but had not received a response. It was said that the account for the previous tenancy should be closed, and it would speak to the relevant team.
The Ombudsman received a complaint from the resident on 2 August 2022. She explained the issues she had with the landlord, said she felt she was being bullied and harassed, and raised further issues including a rent increase, ASB, and non resident’s sleeping in the communal area of the block. She also explained the remedies she sought.
The resident told the landlord and Ombudsman on 16 August 2022 that she had requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She explained she believed both her April 2021 and July 2021 complaints were linked. She said that it took a lot of “hassle, stress and time” to make many phone calls to explain the situation and also send proof about her compensation for the initial issues following her move. She advised the complaint which was referred to the Ombudsman was based on the requests for arrears to be paid following her April 2021 complaint. She stated the fact she had been asked to forward her complaint to the relevant team showed that the landlord’s process was “incompetent”. She stated it was best to move on to stage 2 and have someone outside the landlord’s organisation investigate.
The landlord responded on the same day and referred her to its previous response. It said it understood the matter was resolved in December 2021 and said it was unable to provide an alternative explanation. It asked her to inform it if there were any further queries.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 August 2022 and clarified some points. She:
1. Explained about her tenancy and that it was agreed with the landlord that she would return the keys to the previous property to the inspection officer when they came to inspect her new property. This was because she moved during COVID-19, and it had not made her aware that she would be charged for the days until the inspector received the keys.
2. Stated the choice of date was not her decision as it depended on when the inspector could attend. She also reiterated that her records were not updated. She then advised that after raising her second complaint in August 2021, the collections team moved funds from her current address and account to clear the old account, transferring the arrears to her current address.
3. Advised about the issue with the wrong dates and that this led to an assumption that there was outstanding rent at the previous property. She told it she had found the situation extremely stressful and confusing. She also said it had been time consuming and explained she continued to receive redirected mail from one of the landlord’s contractors about a gas check at the old property. When she made attempts to rectify this, she was told she had to put the information in writing to it.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord explained internally that the resident had not returned the keys to its officer until 20 March 2021, and this was the reason her old tenancy was not closed. As this prevented void works beginning or the property being let as she still had the keys, the tenancy continued until they were returned. The reason for arrears on the new tenancy was that she did not pay her rent for July 2021, as she felt the rent should be written off on her previous account. She eventually agreed to paying the outstanding sum in February 2022, leaving a balance which she was disputing. She had not received letters from it since 7 November 2021 as it allowed her to pursue the matter of wanting to have the end date of the account for the previous property changed to “4 March 2021”. This would create a credit balance of the amount to be transferred to the current property. Its lettings team was not prepared to do this due to the keys not being returned on time as per their policy, so she wished for the balance to be written off.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response in an email on 20 September 2022. It explained she had told it that the delay in returning the keys from her previous home was due to COVID-19 restrictions and delay from it. To resolve her complaint, she had requested for the rent charged from 5 March 2021 to 21 March 2021 to be removed and compensation for her time and trouble. It then explained its findings and said:
1. Regarding the rent arrears, it was unable to change the tenancy end date on her tenancy, but it acknowledged there was a delay in moving in due to her new property not being ready. Although it could not change the date of her tenancy, it could review her request for the rent to be removed for 10 days between 5 March to 15 March 2021. When her complaint was dealt with at stage 1, she was offered £1695. It said due to the time that had passed; it was difficult to complete a thorough review and it was fair to assume it may not have occurred to her that she would still have to pay rent until it had collected the keys.
2. It explained the outcomes the resident wanted and reiterated it could not change the date on her tenancy. It also said it had a slight concern about refunding the overpayment of rent. It explained she had the opportunity to escalate her complaint, but she may not have been aware of the rent being owed, but retrospectively investigating something that occurred 18 months prior brought its own challenges.
3. She had been offered 1 months’ rent at stage 1. To reach a resolution, it would refund the £325.15 which was owed for the 10 days. Considering the compensation offered at stage 1, it could not justify offering her a full refund and compensation for her time and trouble. The £325.15 could be viewed as a partial refund of her rent and the time and trouble she took in pursuing the matter.
4. The issues regarding the service charge and rent increase were outside the scope of the current complaint.

Post complaint

The resident told the landlord on the same day that it had referred to the wrong matter in its response and no compensation had been offered in her current complaint. She explained she had paid what she felt she owed, but the arrears arose from the landlord claiming she did not return the keys on time and there had been no resolution. She expressed her disappointment as it had not taken the time to investigate her complaint and based its findings on inaccurate information. She also said she had not asked for her tenancy date to be changed from 5 March 2021 to 20 March 2021, and asked for proof that she asked for this. She advised that it originally recorded it as 20 March 2021, but she moved on 5 March 2021.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 26 September 2022 that further to their telephone call, it was prepared to increase the compensation by £75 to bring the matter to a close. It said the resident had informed it she did not believe it was reflective of the inconvenience caused and as an agreement could not be reached, she would refer her complaint to the Ombudsman. On the same day, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and explained the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about discrimination and harassment. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inactions, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination and harassment. Such matters are legal issues better suited for a court of law to decide as a legally binding decision is required. The Ombudsman can however assess whether the landlord’s overall communication and responses to the resident on such matters were appropriate, fair, and reasonable. Further, paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale. In this instance, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns around bullying, harassment and discrimination in its complaint response. As the resident raised the issue, and the landlord failed to address it, the Ombudsman believes this is evidence of a complaint handling failure and will consider the issue within this investigation.
The resident raised issues around service charges for communal areas. The landlord informed her that it was outside of the scope of investigation for the complaint she referred to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was provided with no evidence that the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. If the matter did exhaust its complaints process and the resident wishes to raise an investigation with the Ombudsman, a new referral will be required for it to be investigated. As such it will not be considered within this investigation.
The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour and repairs to the communal doors. The Ombudsman understands that these matters have been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, these matters were dealt with as part of a separate investigation by the landlord. If the resident wishes for these matters to be considered by the Ombudsman, they will need to be considered as part of a new investigation and a new referral will be required. As such they will not be considered within this investigation.
The resident raised issues about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, including claims for loss of earnings, must be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on her health.

Handling of the resident’s rent accounts.

The resident told the landlord on 15 March 2021 she had moved from the property on 5 March 2021 and asked for her account to be closed. This should have prompted the landlord to investigate and potentially rectify the issue at an earlier point. No evidence has been provided that it did so at this point, and this was unreasonable. This contributed to the delays faced by the resident in receiving an outcome to the concern.
The resident also explained to the landlord on 16 March 2022 that she believed there would be a credit on her account which should be transferred to the new one. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s email, and the query she raised within it. This was unacceptable as the landlord has a responsibility to provide the resident with relevant information when requested. The failure to do so shows it failed to take a customer focused approach towards the issue. Had it responded, in a timely manner, it could have used its response as an opportunity to clarify or explain she would be charged the rent as she still held the keys. The failure to provide a response highlights that there were issues with its communications and a failed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
Although the landlord informed the resident of the overlap with her accounts, and the charge for the 10 days, this was down to a failure to act on her information. This was unacceptable and led to unnecessary issues (the rent arrears and chasers), frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord provided a response to the resident in April 2021 about her calculations around the rent. This represents a delay of over 1 month and this was inappropriate. Given that she was looking for clarity around her tenancy and finances, a prompt and timely response would have been appropriate. It did not provide any evidence that it acknowledged or updated her of any reasons for the delay in its communication with her. This contributed to her lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions.
There was also miscommunication and a lack of communication within the landlord’s organisation. The resident had a reasonable expectation that all relevant departments would appropriately communicate information to one another. For example, about any agreement with the handover of the keys, to avoid the issues around her tenancy closure occurring and to also resolve the matter once she made them aware. As a result of the communication issues, the resident remained unaware of why she was charged. Nobody within the landlord’s organisation took ownership of identifying if there had been any failings with the landlord’s administration of the accounts. The failure to do so saw the resident being charged. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration with the landlord.
The landlord explained it continued to charge the resident rent as she remained in possession of the keys to the old property in line with its policy. Although landlords are encouraged to follow their identified policies, policies should allow for discretion if there are exceptional or unusual circumstances. This is especially the case where there are outside influences which restrict a resident or landlord from being able to comply with the policy. In this circumstance, it was explained that COVID-19 played a part in the delay with returning the keys. The landlord did not show that it considered this, and as such exercised its discretion to wave the policy in this instance. Further, it details that it had reached an agreement on when the resident would return the keys, on 15 March 2021 according to its internal email in June 2022. As such the fact that such an agreement was reached, and the resident adhered to the agreement should have led the landlord to consider waving the relevant policy in this instance. The failure to show that it considered doing so is unacceptable and adds to the resident’s reports of being unfairly treated.
The landlord’s policy does explain that unless keys are returned at the end of the tenancy, there would be a charge. However, residents are not expected to know or remember the content of all of a landlord’s many policies and procedures. It should have explained what was required of her at the end of the tenancy, once it became aware she was moving, including the return of the keys. This could have been done in writing to ensure there was an audit trail. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did this, or that it made her aware of any associated charge and this was unreasonable. She also believed there was an agreement between her and the landlord about the return date for the keys.
The landlord also made conflicting statements about when the resident returned the keys. In some instances, it identified she had returned them by 15 March 2022. It then later changed the date to 20 March 2021; despite the member of staff the keys were provided to confirming in an email that they had received them on 15 March 2021. This was unreasonable, shows inadequate investigation into the resident’s complaint, raises questions with its internal communication and record keeping.
The landlord said that the property could not be let, and void works could not be completed as the resident retained possession of the keys to the old property. It stated that this was another reason it charged her the rent. The landlord has not however, demonstrated that it considered other options to allow it to complete the works or let the property quicker. This could be for example arranging to retrieve the keys at an earlier time than agreed, as it knew the location of her current property, agreeing with her to change the locks or providing details of locations she could return the keys to. It instead chose to continue charging the resident rent and this was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to consider additional options contributed to the delays in it being able to make use of the property and it was inappropriate to hold her responsible.
Further in its internal correspondence of 15 June 2021, it acknowledged some fault as it failed to provide the resident with instructions on returning the keys during the move. It then appropriately looked to rectify the issue in the same email and made suggestions on how it could do so. For example amending the end date and clearing the subsequent balance using funds from the deposit account, as suggested previously by the resident. It however failed to do so, and this was unreasonable as the resident continued to be affected by its acknowledged failing. Its failure to act promptly, and accordingly after its acknowledgement led to her raising a complaint. This was another missed opportunity for it to resolve the matter at an earlier point. It also caused the resident frustration, inconvenience, distress and led to her taking the time to try to communicate with it frequently seeking a resolution it had discussed putting in place. This was unacceptable.
The resident had repeatedly informed the landlord about her tenancy end date being incorrect, and it failed to adequately investigate. This was unreasonable and caused her frustration and inconvenience as she repeatedly tried to resolve the matter. It also raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord stated that the resident was made aware of the charges whilst she held the keys to the old property. It however failed to demonstrate that this was ever done. The expectation would be that it provided the resident with the evidence of this agreement, and its failure to do so was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman also requested evidence of any such agreement from the landlord on 5 February 2024. The landlord responded and within its internal communication identified it was unable to provide any evidence that it explained this to the resident. This raises questions with its record keeping, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest there was such an agreement, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to believe that this was not explained to the resident.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with an email from the landlord on 11 March 2021 where it discussed the return of the keys for the old property. It asked for the details of the property, then moved on to discuss the key box and keys of the new property and gave her an address to send the keys too. It is unclear if the landlord was referring to returning the old keys or if it wanted her to return the new keys to it due to issues with the property which led to the complaint it responded to in April 2021. There was also no mention of charges within any of the correspondence between the landlord and resident that there would be charges until the keys were returned.
It further acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were delays in the resident moving into her new property which was why she held on to the keys. It also said it would review her request to have the rent for this period, removed. Although it appropriately looked to remedy the situation, this represented the position it initially took at the beginning of the issue over a year prior. It suggested either applying a credit or using additional funds in the deposit account to clear the arrears and then for unknown reasons decided not to do so, without explanation to the resident. This raises concerns about the consistency of the landlord’s approach. Further, as it identified issues which led to the delay in returning the keys, it should have looked to rectify the situation as opposed to focusing on the arrears. It also offered her compensation of £325.15 rent refund in its stage 2 response, and a further £75 after the stage 2. Whilst this does go a way to addressing the issue, it did not go far enough as it failed to appropriately reflect the time and effort, she spent contacting it to try to resolve the matter. It failed to reflect the inconvenience and distress she faced.
In summary, there were issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident about the rent charges for the former tenancy. There were also issues with communication within its organisation. It has not evidenced that she was told she would incur additional costs for keeping hold of the keys. It identified that it agreed that she should keep hold of the keys until it could collect them, but then continued to charge her for doing so. It failed to apply its discretion around the matter, and failed to consider alternative actions it could take to allow for the keys to be returned earlier. It then chose to continue to contact her about the outstanding balance. It failed to act on information she had provided, and this contributed to the issue around the arrears. The resulting detriment to the resident lasted for over a year due to its failure to appropriately investigate and take necessary action. This saw her taking the time to request updates and chase it for responses. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Bullying, discrimination, and harassment

The resident raised issues of bullying, discrimination, and harassment by the landlord’s staff in her complaint. This was due to the way in which they handled her requests and the continued arrears letters. It failed to acknowledge the reports or reassure her that it took the matters seriously and this was unacceptable. This would have caused the resident frustration and distress.
When she raised the issue with the landlord, it did not demonstrate that it completed any investigations into her reports. This was unacceptable and would have added to the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord. The landlord should have explained the steps it would take to investigate her concerns, shown her that it spoke to the relevant members of staff and provided her with the updates about any investigation and it failed to do this. Demonstrating that it had completed the relevant investigations would have not only allowed it to reassure the resident, but also itself that it had taken the necessary actions to ensure it was providing a fair service to her.
The resident also told the landlord that there had been several instances where she had tried to communicate with members of its staff and did not receive a response. This was even after she was told that they would contact her with a response. She took the time and effort to try to seek a resolution to the matter and the evidence demonstrates that she was ignored on occasion. This was unacceptable as this was an important matter for the resident. This contributed to her dissatisfaction with the landlord and her loss of confidence in it.
As the resident had raised concerns around discrimination, the landlord should have demonstrated to her that it considered whether she had any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and it investigated whether any of its actions were contrary to the act. The failure to do so was unsatisfactory.
In summary, the landlord failed to show that it acknowledged or investigated the resident’s concerns around bullying, discrimination, and harassment. She provided it with instances where she had tried to communicate with it and was ignored. It failed to show that it ever provided her with a response about these issues. It also failed to address this point within its complaint responses, and forms part of its complaint handling failing. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling.

Following her complaint, the evidence demonstrates that she had to request updates from the landlord about her complaint. For example, she asked for an update and was informed her complaint had been closed as it would be adjusting her rent account. She also took the time trying to call and email its members of staff for updates. On another occasion she was informed it believed her complaint was resolved in December 2021, despite her expression of dissatisfaction at its response around the issue and her belief the matter remained unresolved. The landlord failed to be proactive and inform her of the actions it took in investigating and responding to her complaint. This was inappropriate and caused the resident inconvenience as she had to take her time to telephone and email it to be provided with information.
Three months after raising her complaint, she requested another update and was informed that the landlord had closed her complaint. It has not demonstrated that it provided the resident with an explanation on why it closed her complaint without first providing her with an appropriate response. This was unacceptable, caused the resident frustration, distress, inconvenience, and contributed to her lack of trust in the landlord and its actions.
At the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint the July 2020 complaint handling code specified that a complaint response should advise the resident of:
1. The complaint stage.
2. Outcome of the complaint.
3. Reason for any decisions made.
4. Details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. Details of any outstanding actions
6. Details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident did not comply with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s code and this was inappropriate. It was a summary of the issue and its position about who she needed to contact about any further disputes. It did not provide her with any form of resolution or information on how she could proceed if she disagreed with its response.
It also failed to comply with its own complaints policy as the response was delayed. It is unclear if the response deadlines within its policy run from the date of receipt of the complaint, or from the date of acknowledgement. Regardless of this however, the response was delayed. It informed the resident on 3 August 2021 that it would provide its response within 10 working days. It then failed to do so. It provided its complaint response 4 months late and this was unacceptable. No evidence was provided to suggest that it requested an extension or provided the resident with any updates on why the response was delayed in line with its policy.
When it did provide its stage 1 response, it failed to apologise for closing her complaint without informing her. It also failed to apologise for the delay in its complaint handling. This was inappropriate and shows that it did not take a customer focused approach in handling the resident’s complaint. It also did not address most of the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. This was unacceptable and shows that it failed to appropriately investigate her complaint. A complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to review its service delivery, learn from its mistakes and put things right with its residents. The failure by the landlord to recognise this opportunity was unsatisfactory.
When the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the response. The landlord has not shown that it took steps to identify if she was escalating her complaint, if it was unclear that she was. As this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to conclude that this was an escalation request by the resident for a stage 2 response. The failure to query this or investigate the resident’s intention was unacceptable and led to unnecessary delays in the complaint handling process.
The resident had also repeatedly told the landlord she wanted to approach the Ombudsman with her complaint. She also did the same in her stage 2 request as well as explaining she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This should have further prompted the landlord to be inquisitive and query her intentions. The landlord has not shown that it provided her with the relevant information about how the complaint process worked to allow her to better her understanding. It should have explained the requirements for the 2 stage response before approaching the Ombudsman in line with its policy. This would have been a customer focused approach and shown good customer service.
The landlord then proceeded to tell the resident on 16 August 2022 that it believed that her complaint had been resolved in December 2021, despite the fact she had told it she was unhappy with its response. This was unreasonable and raises questions with the landlord’s investigations into her complaint, as well as its record keeping as it should have been aware of her dissatisfaction around the matter. It should have been taking steps to address the matter, but instead there is no evidence anything was done around her expression of dissatisfaction until the Ombudsman’s intervention. This would have contributed to her dissatisfaction with the landlord and her lack of confidence in its actions.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response following the Ombudsman’s intervention. Based on the information provided, the landlord’s complaint response was delayed by over 9 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unacceptable. No evidence has been provided to suggest that it requested an extension or even provided the resident with any updates on why the response was so delayed in line with its policy. The delay would have contributed to the resident’s frustration with the landlord.
The stage 2 response then mixed up 2 different complaints. It used the compensation payment from her April 2021 complaint as a reason to not provide her with compensation for the July 2021 complaint. This was inappropriate and demonstrated that the landlord failed to appropriately complete a thorough investigation and understand the facts of the case prior to responding. The resident also had to take the time to inform it that it had mixed up 2 different complaints and it did not demonstrate that it acknowledged and apologised for the mistake to the resident. This caused her inconvenience, added to her frustration and distress with the landlord and increased her lack of confidence in the landlord.
In summary, there were significant delays with the landlord’s complaint handling. Both its stage one and stage 2 responses were delayed for a matter of months, and in total the complaint was ongoing for over a year. The landlord failed to appropriately identify the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a request for escalation. Its complaint responses were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s code. It mixed up 2 different complaints in its stage 2 response and used the wrong response as justification to limit any compensation offer at stage 2. It failed to properly investigate her complaint at both stages of its complaints process. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, the increase in the resident’s rent without prior warning is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the handling of the resident’s rent accounts.
2. Maladministration with its investigations into the residents reports of bully, discrimination and harassment by its staff.
3. Severe maladministration with its complaints handling.

Reasons

There were issues with the landlord’s communication both internally and to the resident. The communication issues led to detriment to the resident for over a year. It did not demonstrate that it informed the resident that she would be charged for the additional period she had the keys, despite acknowledging that it was agreed she could hold on to the keys and not be charged. It also failed to act on the resident’s concerns about the account remaining open. Had it done so, the matter may have been resolved at a much earlier point and the arrears may not have been accrued. It also failed to exercise its discretion, despite identifying internally that it could apply a credit to the resident’s account and also agreeing with her calculations which showed there should have been a credit on her account.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated the resident’s reports around the matter of bullying, discrimination, and harassment by its staff. It failed to reassure the resident that it took the matter seriously. It also failed to reassure itself around the actions of its staff.
The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed by 4 months at stage 1 and 9 months at stage 2. Its investigation into the resident’s concerns were poor as it did not demonstrate that it investigated the majority of them. It also failed to provide a response to some issues completely. It mixed up the resident’s complaints and used the justification that she was awarded a large sum of compensation from the wrong complaint as a reason not to award her compensation in her current complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology about the failings identified within this report (handling of rent accounts, bullying harassment and discrimination, complaint handling).
2. Provide training to its members of staff on appropriate complaint investigations and complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £1850.15 consisting of:
  1. £325.15 rent refund for 10 days detailed within its stage 2 response if not already paid.
  2. Pay the resident £75 offered after its stage 2 response.
  3. £600 for the identified failings with its handling of the resident’s former and current rent accounts.
  4. Pay the resident £350 for its handling of the resident’s reports of bullying, discrimination, and harassment by its staff.
  5. Pay the resident £500 for its complaint handling failings.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Introduce information sharing with transferring residents about responsibility for rent charges when moving properties.
2. Have clear guidance for the returning of keys, including details of where/ how to return them, when a resident is moving or ending a tenancy.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.