Sanctuary Housing Association (202345441)

Background

1. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision to charge her rent on both her old home and her new home during her move. When the landlord did not resolve the issue, she raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about having been charged rent on two properties at the same time.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about having been charged rent on two properties at the same time.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redressfor how it handled the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Recommendations

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about having been charged rent on two properties at the same time

4. The landlord’s initial communication about the resident’s rent liabilities was unclear and led to confusion. However, it acknowledged this and offered appropriate compensation.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord was significantly late issuing responses at both complaint stages. It also failed to raise and escalate complaints when requested. However, it acknowledged its failings and awarded appropriate compensation.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

6. The resident’s previous property was in disrepair, so the landlord arranged a move to another home. It initially agreed that this would be a temporary move, meaning she would only pay rent on her original property and would have a period of time to move into the temporary home.
7. However, before the move took place, the landlord and resident agreed that the move would instead be permanent. This meant the terms agreed around a temporary move no longer applied, but the landlord did not tell the resident the agreement had changed.
8. On 20 December 2022, the resident signed a tenancy for the new property. She told the landlord she believed she would not be required to pay rent on the new property for the first four weeks. Despite this being incorrect, the landlord failed to explain she would be required to pay rent for both properties during this period. The landlord also failed to give the resident clear instructions on how to end the old tenancy. This was a missed opportunity to provide clear information at a critical point in the process.
9. On 17 January 2023, 4 weeks after the resident signed the new tenancy agreement, the landlord asked whether she was ready to end her previous tenancy and return the keys. The resident said she had completed the move and was ready to hand the keys back. The landlord informed her that she was required to complete a tenancy termination form to end the tenancy, and that it would continue to charge her rent on the previous property until the form was submitted.
10. When the resident did not return the form or keys, the landlord collected them from her on 3 February 2023 and ended the tenancy. She told the landlord that she had posted another set of keys back to it on 31 December 2022.
11. The resident complained on 8 March 2023 about the landlord charging her rent on both properties between 20 December 2022 and 3 February 2023.
12. The resident also disputed the tenancy end date, saying it should have ended on 31 December 2022 when she posted the keys. However, the tenancy agreement requires written notice, and there is no evidence she provided notice to end the tenancy on that date. The landlord’s position on this point was reasonable and aligned with the agreement.
13. In its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, the landlord accepted it had not given the resident clear information about rent expectations when she signed the new tenancy. It refunded £551.84 to cover rent from 20 December 2022 to 17 January 2023. The landlord declined to refund rent after 17 January because it said, on that date, it had clearly explained to her that rent would continue until she returned the keys and formally ended the tenancy.
14. The landlord’s response was reasonable. Although the tenancy required four weeks’ notice, it acknowledged that its poor communication had contributed to the resident’s misunderstanding. Refunding rent for the period during which its communication was unclear was an appropriate and proportionate remedy.
15. The evidence showed that, on 17 January 2023, the landlord clearly informed the resident that it would continue to charge rent on her previous property until she returned the keys. Therefore, it was fair that the landlord did not refund rent beyond that point.
16. The landlord awarded £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. This amount was in line with its compensation policy, which says it can award between £51 to £150 for failures that impact a resident. This showed the landlord recognised its failings and took steps to address them.
17. The resident told this Service that she was unhappy the landlord offset the compensation against her rent account. However, the landlord’s compensation policy permits this where there are arrears or other debts on the account, so it was reasonable for it to take that approach.
18. Although the landlord failed to provide the resident with clear and transparent information regarding rent, it acknowledged these failings in its final complaint response. It issued a refund of rent for the period it had not been clear and awarded proportionate compensation that aligned with both its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

19. At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 3 working days, respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was compliant with the Housing Ombudsman Code that was in place at the time.
20. The resident initially complained on 8 March 2023. When the landlord did not reply, she raised further complaints on 30 March 2023 and 3 April 2023. The landlord did not respond until 13 June 2023, over 3 months after the initial complaint. This was unreasonable and well outside of its policy timescales.
21. The resident then asked to escalate her complaint on 16 June 2023. When she did not receive an acknowledgement, she chased this on 8 September 2023. The landlord eventually responded at stage 2 on 19 October 2023, 4 months after the request to escalate the complaint. This response also far exceeded the timescales in its policy.
22. The landlord apologised that its response was late and awarded £25 compensation at stage 1. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for not raising earlier complaints and for not escalating the complaint when the resident had asked it to do so. It awarded a further £400 compensation. This meant the landlord offered a total of £425 for complaint handling failures.
23. The landlord’s responses satisfactorily acknowledged its complaint handling failures and it awarded compensation that was fair and provided redress that was proportionate to the failings it identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord provided sufficient and relevant information to enable the investigation of this complaint.

Communication

25. The landlord could have been clearer on the expectations over rent payments during the resident’s transition from one property to another. The landlord could consider this and reflect on any changes it could make to improve communication in the future.