Peabody Trust (202348257)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 3 children. The landlord agreed to her request for a priority move via management transfer in 2022. In 2023 she complained that the property it offered her was not of a lettable standard and that it had provided no support to her. She also complained that it had not answered a previous complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A management transfer including a property offer.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a management transfer including a property offer.
4. The landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident which resolved its complaint handling failing.

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

Summary of reasons

Management transfer

5. We have seen no evidence that the landlord reviewed the priority move application in accordance with its policy, or that it contacted the resident to check on her welfare. It failed to manage her expectations and has not provided several documents we requested. This means we have not been able to investigate whether it ensured that the property it offered her met its lettable standard.

Complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint or provide a response until the resident chased it. However, the landlord apologised and offered compensation to reflect the time and trouble this caused.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that it will consider management transfers when the safety and wellbeing of a tenant or a member of their household is at serious risk.
8. The landlord’s priority move procedure says that it will review all cases after 6 months of them being awarded a priority move to ensure that the resident is bidding and being offered properties as soon as possible.
9. The landlord agreed to rehouse the resident via a management transfer and therefore, it accepted that the household was at serious risk. We asked it to provide evidence of the 6-month review it completed of the case in accordance with its procedure. However, it was unable to do so. The purpose of the review is to ensure that applicants are rehoused as soon as possible. However, the review would also be essential to check whether any of the resident’s circumstances had changed, or if they needed further help or assistance. We have seen no evidence that the landlord proactively contacted the resident after agreeing the priority move. Due to the delay in finding a suitable property this failure left her feeling unsupported which caused her distress at an already difficult time. It also cost her time and trouble because she had to contact the landlord for updates.
10. There is evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident’s support worker in April 2023. It told them about a property that was becoming available and wanted to check that it was in a suitable location for the resident. It also asked the support worker to keep the address of the property confidential. This was an appropriate action to take in the circumstances.
11. Unfortunately, the resident became aware of the property but it was not ready for several months. The landlord’s empty homes (voids) policy says that it will complete pre-empty home visits where possible. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so on this occasion. Had it done so it may have identified that there would be a delay. It could then have managed the resident’s expectations which was particularly important considering the urgency of the move.
12. The landlord officially offered the property to the resident on 9 August 2023. However, on viewing the property the resident felt that it was not at a lettable standard. The landlord’s empty homes policy says that it lets all its homes to its lettable standard and refers to a lettable standard document for clarification on what this means. We asked the landlord for a copy of the lettable standard document but it did not provide it.
13. We also asked the landlord for a copy a of the void inspection report for the property. However, it also did not provide this. Without the requested information we cannot assess whether the landlord had followed its policy and done all it could to ensure that the property met its lettable standard. It should have kept clear and accurate records of the void inspection and the action taken and therefore this was a record keeping failure.
14. Following the resident viewing the property on 11 August 2023 the landlord then agreed to complete further work, which it said was in addition to usual void works. The property was ready for a second viewing on 19 October 2023. However, the resident still did not feel that it was at a lettable standard and did not accept it. The landlord agreed that this would not count as 1 of the offers allowed under its policy which was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. The resident moved her children to schools near to the new property before signing the tenancy agreement. Although this was understandable in the circumstances the landlord acted reasonably when it said that it had not advised her to do so. It also acted reasonably when it offered £200 in vouchers to help with transport costs when the property was not ready in time for the children to start school. It gave instructions on how to redeem the vouchers and then offered to provide the money via bank transfer when the resident told it that she could not redeem them. Although this caused a delay, which would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord did what it could in the circumstances.
16. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge the failings and put them right. In ordering £450 compensation, we have considered the time, trouble, and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to review the application, check if the resident needed further assistance, and manage her expectations.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log new complaints within 5 working days of receipt and provide a response within a further 10 working days.
18. In this case it acknowledged that it had received the resident’s complaint on 11 September 2023 but that it had not responded to it. This cost the resident time and trouble making a further complaint and meant that it took 22 working days for the landlord to provide a response.
19. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £150 compensation. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £50 are appropriate to put right complaint handling failures where the complaint response was delayed by several days and the resident was compelled to chase a response. We have recommended that the landlord pays the compensation it offered if it has not already done so.

Learning

20. The landlord should review how it managed this management transfer and consider how it could have supported the resident better.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should investigate why it was unable to provide the lettable standard and documents we requested, including a copy of the residents first complaint.

Communication

22. The landlord failed to communicate well with the resident after agreeing a management transfer which caused unnecessary distress.