Sanctuary Housing Association (202015737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015737

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 February 2022

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

Complaint A

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

The complaint is about the landlord’s management of the resident’s decant payments.

Complaint C

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that complaint C falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
This is as it does not appear that the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s two stage complaints process. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did attempt to contact the resident on 12 March 2021 to establish the details of her complaint, and subsequently to consider the matter at stage one of its process, however, it does not appear that the resident set out the details of her dissatisfaction. The landlord therefore took the decision to close the complaint and wrote to the resident on 18 May 2021 to explain this. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident challenged this at the time.
Under paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are brought to this Service 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. Subsequently, matters relating to complaint C have not been included within this report and will not be commented on.
The Ombudsman has only investigated:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its staff;
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint; and
3. The landlord’s management of the resident’s decant payments.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant in respect of the property since September 2018.
The property is a two-bedroom, ground floor level flat.
The resident’s daughter is severely disabled and therefore has several care requirements.
The resident was decanted from her property for an extensive period of time due to several issues with her hot water and heating system, shower, and flooring. The Ombudsman notes that a complaint was raised in relation to the landlord’s handling of this matter and was determined by this Service on 28 May 2021, under complaint reference 202006043.

Summary of events

Complaint A

On 17 November 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She expressed that on calling to speak with its service, she had been verbally attacked by an Advisor. She asserted that she had been shouted at by a member of staff who admitted during the call that she had been confused. She considered this to be unacceptable behaviour and explained that while the advisor apologised on the call, she did not accept what she had done or offered the apology willingly.
The resident requested that the landlord listen to the call and to provide its responses by email.
In a separate conversation on 18 November 2020 about the resident’s rent account, she explained that as she was entitled to full housing benefits, and that a discrepancy payment had been approved, any arrears on her rent account would be settled. She therefore advised that any goodwill payments made should be paid directly to her and not be credited to her rent account.
On 19 November 2020 the landlord confirmed that it would consider the resident’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process. It advised the resident that it would offer a response within 20 working days.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its complaint response. It noted that the resident had spoken with its Customer Service Centre (CSC) and explained that her comments on 17 November 2020 were passed to the Advisor’s Team Manager who had listened to the call and subsequently, addressed the matter with the Advisor. The Advisor had acknowledged that the call had not been handled properly and had already brought this to her manager’s attention.
The landlord advised that it was unable to disclose any further details as this directly related to a member of staff. It sought to provide reassurance that the matter had been taken seriously, however. It advised that as a gesture of goodwill, it would provide the resident with £50 compensation. This would be paid directly to the resident’s rent account as it noted that the account was in arrears.
The resident was advised that if she remained dissatisfied with this, she needed to escalate her complaint with this Service.
On 6 and 8 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she was displeased with its response and with the £50 compensation being credited to her rent account. She explained that the landlord was aware of her situation regarding her housing benefit and that this was being dealt with.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. It advised that if the resident could clarify specifically what she was looking for in resolution of her complaint, it would revisit her complaint.
The Ombudsman has been unable to see that the resident set this out for the landlord.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that its offer of £50 compensation was final, and that the complaint would therefore be closed.
The landlord has shared evidence of the follow-up action taken by the Advisor’s Team Manager with this Service.

Complaint B

Evidence suggests that the resident was first decanted from her property on or around 12 September 2020. The Ombudsman can see that during this time, the resident was advised that she would be provided with a meal allowance for both her daughter and her, and would be able to claim back her travel expenses where necessary. The landlord provided the resident with an initial £50 to assist her travel to and from her hotel, and to her property should she need to provide access for the operatives.
On 19 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to establish why she had not received the food allowance. She advised that she was low on funds and that this was creating a problem for her.
While the Ombudsman has not had sight of the agreement, it appears that the landlord and resident agreed that the resident’s daughter would stay with the resident’s parents (due to issues finding suitable accommodation). An incentive payment was agreed for the inconvenience. This covered the period 25 September 2020 – 2 October 2020, until suitable accommodation was secured. The Ombudsman notes that payment was made on 29 September 2020.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord noted, following a phone call with the resident, that there was a charge of £136.50 to be paid for her overnight parking in the carpark at her decant accommodation. The resident advised that she tried to leave the carpark upon learning of the costs, however was unable to pay the charges. Upon explaining her situation, a promissory note was issued.
The resident was also asked to share her receipts with the landlord for reimbursement on monies spent. The landlord noted that only one of the documents shared was an official receipt and two of the files shared showed travel costs for activity in Estonia. This was raised with the resident. The landlord noted, nonetheless that it would attempt to make payment to the parking company on the following day and would establish how further payments could be made.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 12 October 2020. She expressed:
1. She had been incurring new expenses and was still waiting for assistance from the landlord. She highlighted that she was on a low income.
2. She was still waiting for the landlord to resolve the carpark issue. The cost had gone up and the hotel had now prevented her from leaving the carpark with her car as the payment was outstanding. She reported that this, along with her remote location, had meant that she had not been able to go to work or to buy food.
On the same day, the landlord advised the resident that it had contacted the parking company and requested that it release the resident’s car as the payment was on its way.
On 15 October 2020 the resident provided the landlord with receipts for her transport. She stated that she had also included screenshots of the transactions on her statement and food delivery services which she stated she was required to sign up to as she had been unable to release her car from the car park.
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to confirm when she would be issued with a permit for the carpark and a timescale in which she would receive reimbursement for her travel and car park charges. She stated that she had continually attempted to contact the landlord regarding her financial position, but had received no support.
The resident asserted that she had been unable to attend her job on two occasions due to the decant and also that upon reporting this to the landlord, an operator had advised her to take a taxi to work. She stated that this was unacceptable as the landlord had not formally agreed to pay and so she did not take up this offer.
The Ombudsman can see that an initial payment for parking charges was made by the landlord on 19 October 2020.
On 21 and 22 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated:
1. She had been unable to access her car for the third week in a row, reiterating that she had missed two days of work because of this.
2. She still had not received reimbursement despite providing her receipts. She questioned when and how this would be resolved.
3. She wished for the matter to be raised as a complaint. She stated that she had made contact on several occasions to highlight her situation and the issues she had been experiencing. Due to the lack of communication, she was again unable to get her car from the car park and to attend work. She was also unable to leave to buy food and drink.
4. She still had bills which she was liable for and which she still had to pay despite not occupying the property. She emphasised that the decant had become a financial burden.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord advised that it had contacted the car park and attempted to purchase a season card / permit, however this could not be done until the resident’s application was processed. This could take up to 14 days. It explained that it was speaking with the Area Manager of the carpark to see if it could arrange a payment to cover future parking.
The Ombudsman can see that a meal allowance was paid to the resident on 30 October 2020 to cover the period 30 October 2020 to 9 November 2020, and again on 11 November 2020 to cover the period 9 November 2020 to 16 November 2020.
On 13 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that it had made arrangements to reimburse the resident based on the receipts she had provided with the exception of those which highlighted costs from Estonia. The resident had also been advised to supply any further receipts she had upon leaving her previous decant accommodation.
On 17 November 2020 the resident chased the landlord for her reimbursement. She requested that this be sent or that she be provided with an update. She explained that she needed the money as she had been struggling financially.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal note that it spoke to the resident on the same day and had confirmed the steps that were being taken in respect of her payment. It was agreed that she would be updated on the following day.
The resident provided the landlord with further receipts / screenshots of her bank statement to prove her transactions following the use of her taxi app, Bolt, noting that the landlord had previously declined this reimbursement. She also provided her metre readings for the period she was decanted.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord explained to the resident:
1. It had reviewed the receipts and bank statements which had been provided. Once this had been cross–referenced with the resident’s decant situation and the payments already made, the outstanding amount would be released.
2. It had noted the resident’s assertion that there was an outstanding amount of approximately £1000 owed to her for parking charges. It asked the resident to confirm whether these had been paid by her, and if so, to provide these receipts so that she could be reimbursed. It confirmed that it had already paid an amount to the parking company which it had understood covered the full cost. More information had been requested from the parking company, nonetheless.
On the same day, the resident thanked the landlord and expressed her relief that payment had been made to the carpark. She advised that she held no further receipts and that she had shared the promissory notes. The resident suggested that the landlord needed to take into consideration, when cross referencing her receipts, that the money spent was only as it had promised to pay it back. She was unable to do shopping in the area she was in and this was separate from the meal allowance which was used as intended.
On 19 / 20 November 2020 the Ombudsman can see that the landlord and resident agreed that an incentive payment would be made to the resident while she stayed at a friend’s property and her daughter with the resident’s parents, to allow for further works to take place. It was agreed that this would commence from 4 December 2020.
In a separate email, the landlord reassured the resident that it would review and detail all payments and outstanding amounts as part of the complaint.
On 20 November 2020 the resident questioned what was happening with her reimbursement as she stated that the delay in providing this meant that she was having difficulty with paying her bills. She requested to know whether any assistance could be provided. The resident additionally requested to know whether the landlord could provide a letter that she could send to her service providers as she was unaware when she would receive the incentive payment or her reimbursement.
The resident was advised by the landlord that it would be in touch with regards to this matter.
The Ombudsman can see that an incentive payment was made on 24 November 2020 for the period 17 November 2020 to 3 December 2020.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. It explained that it had reviewed the timeline and expenses paid whilst the resident had been decanted from her home. It noted that:
1. The resident had been placed in temporary accommodation between 15 – 22 September 2020, 25 September 2020 – 3 October 2020, 3 – 30 October 2020, and 30 October 2020 – 10 November 2020.
2. During this time, meals were arranged with the accommodation providers where available, and meal allowances and expenses were paid to the resident during October and November amounting to £1,200.
3. The receipts submitted on 17 November 2020 along with the screen prints of bank transactions had been reviewed, and these amounted to £87 – a breakdown of the costs and dates was included. The duplicate receipts were also highlighted for the resident.
4. The resident had made reference to meter readings whilst she was decanted in 2019 amounting to £314.16. It explained that it would not reimburse the resident for utility costs as she was not incurring any additional heating or lighting costs whilst she was staying away from the property.
5. An incentive payment was made to the resident of £896 to cover the period 17 November 2020 – 3 December 2020. This was broken down as £25 per day as an incentive for staying with a friend / at her parents’ home, £15.50 per day meal allowance for both the resident and her daughter.
6. Between 3 – 30 October 2020 the resident was unable to cover the cost of the parking charges to enable a reimbursement. Promissory notices were subsequently completed with the carpark company, and it was advised that these payments were outstanding. A member of staff had made an initial payment of £350 in October 2020 however, and following a request for all outstanding promissory notices, a further £616 was being paid directly to the car park. It had not received any receipts for additional costs from the resident and upon requesting information from the car park, was unable to confirm that any payment had been made by the resident.
The landlord subsequently concluded its response at stage one of the complaint process. The resident was advised that she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied, however, this needed to be done within 20 working days.
On the same day, the resident was reimbursed £87 in accordance with the receipts she had provided.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord made an incentive payment (which included the meal allowance) for the period 4 -12 December 2020.
On 8, 9 and 10 December 2020 the resident chased the landlord to establish when she would receive the next incentive payment. She expressed that she had been told she would receive this on 8 December 2020 and wished to raise a new complaint about this.
The resident was advised on 10 December 2020 that a payment of £448 had been processed on 8 December 2020 which covered the incentive payment for 3 December 2020 to 11 December 2020. Further payments would be made.
In a separate email the landlord advised the resident that following its stage one response, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she needed to outline specifically what she remained dissatisfied with, and this would be looked into.
The resident advised the landlord on the following day that as she was dissatisfied with several elements of the complaint response, she would send her response on the coming Monday. She stated that delays in payments had been a consistent issue throughout the process, however, and was the reason for many of her complaints. Failure to keep to promises and to make sure that payments were made in good time meant that she was often out of pocket.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was advised of her upcoming incentive payment on 14 December 2020. The landlord explained that as it was unclear on how long works would take, payments were reviewed on a weekly basis based on the progress. It additionally advised that there were sometimes delays with bank transfers. The resident was reminded, nonetheless, that she had 20 working days to set out the reasons she remained dissatisfied.
In separate correspondence, the resident was advised by the landlord to speak with her support professionals as while the incentive payments were being made to her in recognition of her staying with friends and family, and for meal allowances, these were temporary and could not be her primary source of income.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s correspondence on the same day and advised that she would outline the matters she remained dissatisfied with by the end of the day.
Throughout December 2020 the resident continued to chase incentive payments which, it appears, were arriving a week later than anticipated.
On 5 January 2021 the resident was again advised by the landlord to set out the reasons why she remained dissatisfied with its stage one response, so that this could be considered at stage two if necessary.
This was also done on 21 January 2021 and 9 February 2021, following the resident’s concerns that her complaint had not been escalated.
The ombudsman can see that throughout January, February, and March 2021, the resident continued to chase the landlord for delayed incentive payments.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. It explained that while it had offered its stage one response on 2 December 2020 and advised at this time that the resident could escalate matters if she remained dissatisfied, she had not set out the reasons for her dissatisfaction or clarified that she wanted to escalate the complaint. On 11 March 2021 (which the Ombudsman has not seen) it had requested that the resident specifically detail what she remained dissatisfied with and provide receipts of any decant payment believed to be still outstanding within five days. The landlord stated that despite this, it had received no response. It therefore concluded that the complaint would be closed.

Assessment and findings

Complaint A – The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its staff.

In considering the reasonableness of the landlord’s approach, and the landlord’s guidance for responding to complaints about staff, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its staff was fair and proportionate.
While the Ombudsman appreciates that there was an initial failure in the service provided (namely, the handling of the resident’s call), the landlord responded in accordance with its guidance and with good practice.
The Ombudsman can see that on receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed for the resident that it would be investigated and considered under its complaints process. This was reasonable and demonstrated to the resident that the matter was being taken seriously. The landlord confirmed that it would re-visit the telephone recording as the resident had requested
The landlord’s policy indicates that where such complaints take place, this will usually be considered by the individual’s line manager and an evidence-based approach will be taken. It was therefore reasonable that the Team Manager reviewed the telephone call and was given sight of the resident’s complaint.
Within the landlord’s complaint response, it apologised for the resident’s experience and explained that steps had been taken to improve its service. Assurance was provided that action had been taken to address the call with the Advisor. This was fair.
The Ombudsman appreciates that as little detail was shared on the specific action taken against the Advisor, the resident may not have considered this to be proportionate. The landlord’s policy explains, however, that it will not share information about the areas which may be addressed with the member of staff complained about, but rather will offer assurance that action will be taken to prevent poor service in the future. Its response was therefore in line with its guidance. The Ombudsman would not have expected it to have shared details with the resident on action taken against staff.
In any case, the landlord has shared with this Service the approach it took with the Advisor and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was proportionate.
Finally, it was reasonable that in recognition of the distress that the call caused the resident, an offer of compensation was made. This offer was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy as well as the scale of the Ombudsman’s own remedies. It has subsequently been determined that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint. The Ombudsman notes that an apology was also offered to the resident during the telephone call.
For completeness, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord asserted that it would make the compensation payment to the resident’s rent account rather than to her. It explained that this was in line with its compensation policy. Given that the landlord was aware that arrangements were being made for the resident’s housing benefit to clear the arrears, however, it may have been more appropriate to pay this directly to the resident. A recommendation has subsequently been made for the landlord to make this payment directly, if it has not done so already.

Complaint A – The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, where a complaint is made about a member of staff, the landlord’s guidance explains that it will be inappropriate for it to deal with the matter at its Front Line Resolution (FLR) stage (stage one) – where the complaint is dealt with by the member of staff receiving the complaint. This is a fair approach, given that if the matter was dealt with at the FLR stage, it would not allow for an impartial investigation to take place.
In line with good complaint handling practice, however, complaints should be subject to a two-stage process before the matter is considered closed by the landlord. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), this ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. Specifically, where a staff member is the subject of a complaint, the Code explains that both parties should be given the opportunity to set out their position and to comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made.
Therefore, while the landlord did act in accordance with its own policy, its approach was contrary to the practices prescribed within the Code. The landlord should have provided the resident with an opportunity to challenge the findings and to receive a final response, before signposting the resident to the Ombudsman Service. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman has noted that while the landlord closed the resident’s case, on learning of her further dissatisfaction, it advised the resident (on 8 January 2021) that it would consider her complaint further if she specifically set out what she remained dissatisfied with. While this should have been done at an earlier time, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this offered the resident an opportunity to have her complaint reviewed at a second stage.
It appears, however, that no feedback was provided to the landlord. It was therefore fair that the landlord closed the complaint and communicated this to the resident.
The Ombudsman has made a recommendation below as the landlord will need to revisit its complaints policy to ensure that complaints which relate to members of staff are not excluded from a two-stage process. The Ombudsman has not determined, however, that there was a service failure here, or that the landlord’s approach in this case resulted in any additional detriment.

Complaint B – The landlord’s management of the resident’s decant payments.

It was appropriate that as the resident had been decanted from her property, the landlord provided a meal allowance and agreed to reimburse the resident for any travel expenses. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the decant statement, which details the payments made to the resident during this time.
On reviewing the evidence, however, the Ombudsman can also appreciate the resident’s frustration as she was not provided with clear details on when she would receive funds, despite her financial situation, and the landlord did not appear to be acting with any urgency.
Upon accruing costs / receipts and sharing this with the landlord, the landlord was delayed in providing the resident with a reimbursement. Evidence demonstrates that the landlord was first provided with the resident’s receipts on 7 October 2020, however, no reimbursement was offered until 2 December 2020.
While this timeframe was not extensive, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have been more proactive as the resident had expressed on several occasions over the course of this period that she was struggling financially and relied on this money.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had some queries in relation to the resident’s receipts and that this would have contributed to its delay in offering a reimbursement. It was also fair that the landlord did not accept receipts for transactions / travel which appeared to take place in another country, until it could confirm for itself that this was not the case.
In any case, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out clearly when the resident would receive her reimbursement to enable her to properly consider her financial situation and to seek further help if required. The Ombudsman notes that the resident asked the landlord on several occasions in October and November 2020, when she would likely receive her reimbursement, but was never given a specific date.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord advised the resident that it had made arrangements for her reimbursement on 13 November 2020. This would have raised the resident’s expectation that payment was being made at this time. On 18 November 2020, however, it advised that it still needed to cross reference the resident’s receipts with the payments already made, before it would release the outstanding funds. Given that the resident had been chasing this for some time, and the landlord’s communication on 13 November 2020, this should have been done already. No clarity was provided on when she might receive her reimbursement.
In light of this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged within its stage one response that it could have managed the resident’s expectations better, the time taken to arrange the reimbursement, and the impact that this might have had on her. This would have been appropriate in the circumstance. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaint response however and cannot see that it did this. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord consequently missed an opportunity to properly recognise its handling of matters.
In respect of the incentive payments and meal allowances, the Ombudsman can see that there was some delay in the payments being made. This subsequently resulted in the resident chasing payments on a weekly basis, to establish when funds would arrive.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have better managed this by setting out the likely payment schedule for the resident. With knowledge of the resident’s financial concerns, delays in the provision of the meal allowance would have presented an issue for her – as she explained.
The Ombudsman does appreciate, nonetheless, that although the occurrence was frequent, the delay in each payment was minimal and was not unreasonable. Evidence provided demonstrates that payments were raised in good time, despite the delays in the funds arriving at the resident’s account. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord reminded the resident that there were sometimes delays with bank transfers which also affected when the funds arrived in her account.
The Ombudsman has also been unable to see that the landlord committed to providing the meal allowance and /or incentive payments within a specific timeframe. Therefore, while the Ombudsman appreciates that it would have been beneficial for the resident to have received the payments in real time, the landlord’s approach was not unreasonable.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained to the resident, upon noting her frustration with the delay in payments, that they were reviewed on a weekly basis and therefore made in arrears. This enabled the landlord to ensure that payment was made for the specific amount of time in which the resident was unable to prepare meals / enjoy her home.
It was also appropriate that the landlord encouraged the resident to reach out to her support network, in order to consider her finances in more detail. As the landlord explained, the meal allowance and incentive payments were temporary and were not intended to be her primary source of income.
In respect of the costs for parking, the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was due a reimbursement for any costs. As the landlord explained within its stage one response, it had not received any receipts from the resident which indicated that she had paid anything towards the parking cost and no such information had been provided by the parking company. It had subsequently only made payments to the parking company to resolve the outstanding balances. This was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord’s management of the parking costs could have been better. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have initially made arrangements with the parking company to enable the resident to park her car. It appears that the resident was expected to cover these costs and then to seek reimbursement however as these costs were high, she was unable to do so.
Failing this, it also would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made funds available at the earliest opportunity, to enable the resident to cover the costs of the carpark herself. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that the resident was unable to utilise her car for some time, creating further inconvenience and distress for her.
Still, on raising the outstanding costs with the landlord on 7 October 2020, the landlord did advise on the same day that the payment would be made and arrangements for future parking. It confirmed on 12 October 2020 that it had spoken with the parking company requesting that it release the resident’s car and its records show that an initial payment was made to the car park on 19 October 2020. This was reasonable. While the resident still appeared to be unable to access her car, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord made an active attempt to resolve this matter.
What’s more, as the resident highlighted, the landlord did recommend that the resident use other forms of transport, such as arranging a taxi, where she was unable to access her car. This would have enabled the resident to get to work, and reimbursement could have been sought from the landlord at a later time. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did not take the landlord up on this offer as she had not received formal confirmation, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, she could have requested this if she was unsure.
The Ombudsman also notes that following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 22 October 2020 the landlord advised her that it was seeking to make arrangements for future parking which included securing a permit. The Ombudsman cannot see that any further issues arose after this time.
Finally, while the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response on 2 December 2020, she was given several opportunities to set out the reasons why. The Ombudsman can see that the resident confirmed that she would do this for the landlord on 14 December 2020, however on reviewing the evidence, it does not appear that she did, despite several prompts from the landlord. It was therefore fair that the landlord took the decision to close the resident’s complaint.
For completeness, the Ombudsman also notes that the resident raised concerns about her utility bills and the ongoing costs whilst she was living in temporary accommodation. Although the Ombudsman appreciates that she would not have been able to use the services she was paying for, this was not considered an additional cost, as there would have been no additional use whilst the property was empty. The resident would have been expected to continue to manage these costs in the same way she had been before the decant, and the landlord would not have been required to cover this. It was therefore reasonable that it declined to do so, in its complaint response.

Determination (decision)

Complaint A

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its staff, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s management of the resident’s decant payments.

Complaint C

In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request, the Ombudsman has found that the complaint falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

Complaint A

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord acted in accordance with its guidance where complaints are made about staff, and undertook a fair investigation. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord recognised that the call could have been handled better and made a proportionate offer of redress in acknowledgement of this. The landlord also assured the resident that steps had been taken to improve its service and to address the call Advisor. The Ombudsman has had sight of the steps that the landlord took and is satisfied that this was appropriate.
2. While the landlord failed to initially offer the resident an opportunity to challenge its findings, and referred the resident to this Service instead, it did advise the resident following her correspondence that it would revisit the issue for her. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman can see that no further response was provided and therefore the decision was taken to close the case.

Complaint B

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a service failure as the landlord failed to properly manage the resident’s expectations and to set out when she might receive her reimbursement. This resulted in her chasing the landlord consistently, for almost two months. While the time taken to eventually provide the resident with this was not significantly long, given the resident’s circumstance and continued updates that she was financially struggling, this should have been managed better. Quicker provision of these funds would have enabled the resident to better support herself and where this was not possible, clearer communication on when she would likely receive the funds could have enabled the resident to better plan her finances. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was asked when the payment would be made on several occasions, but no specific answer was provided.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s service failure, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £50.
The landlord should ensure that the above payment is made within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should also honour the proposed payment of £50, previously offered to the resident in resolution of her complaint. If it has not done so already, this should be made directly to the resident, unless her rent account remains in arrears and no arrangements have been made to clear this.
The landlord should review its complaint guidance to ensure that complaints made about members of staff are not reduced to a one-stage process. This is contrary to the advice given within the Code and would not make for a fair process.