Southwark Council (202007668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007668

Southwark Council

21 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A tenancy panel hearing and the resident’s concern that he had been placed on an introductory tenancy rather than a secure tenancy. 
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He previously held a secure tenancy at a different property with the landlord. His tenancy at his current property began in May 2019, at which point he was registered as an introductory tenant.
3. The resident attended a panel meeting with the landlord on 27 February 2020 to discuss the landlord’s intention to terminate or extend his introductory tenancy in view of rent arrears. During the meeting, he raised concern that he should have originally been registered as a secure tenant and was informed that he would receive the outcome of the hearing within five working days. The resident sent multiple emails to the landlord and panel organisers throughout March 2020 requesting an update but received no response. During April 2021, the resident asked for a complaint to be raised due to the lack of communication from the landlord. He later asked for compensation for the time and trouble he had spent pursuing this matter. He continued to pursue a response from the landlord throughout 2020.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response in January 2021 and explained that it had previously sent the outcome of the panel meeting on 16 March 2020 and said it had attached this correspondence. It added that it had since confirmed to the resident that he was a secure tenant. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint as it identified that the tenancy was not registered correctly when it began and the resident should have been registered as a secure tenant from the outset rather than an introductory tenant. It said that the resident had not raised any concerns about this until the date of the panel hearing but this could have been resolved sooner had the resident raised concerns earlier.
5. The resident escalated his complaint via the Ombudsman in April 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken the landlord to respond. He felt that if the landlord had correctly registered him as having a secure tenancy then he would not have been subjected to the introductory tenancy termination procedure. He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall lack of communication and requested £1,000 compensation. He also advised that he had not yet received the outcome of the panel hearing. 
6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident in May 2021. It maintained its position that the resident would have had the opportunity to raise his concerns about being registered as an introductory tenant at an earlier date as there had been communication related to the introductory tenancy before the process to extend the introductory tenancy began. It said that it had based its actions on the tenancy record and had no reason to question the type of tenancy before correctly following the introductory tenancy procedure. It confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint and provided referral rights to the Ombudsman.
7. The landlord issued a further stage two complaint response in August 2021 and apologised for the delay in acknowledging his complaint and responding. It confirmed that it would be awarding compensation but had not yet agreed on the amount. The landlord’s records show that it arranged for £100 compensation to be paid to the resident via cheque on 20 September 2021.
8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. He maintained that he had not received the decision outcome on 16 March 2020 and had still not received this despite sending numerous chaser emails. He was also dissatisfied with the length of time the landlord had taken to respond to his concerns and its overall communication and complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy panel hearing and the resident’s concern that he had been placed on an introductory tenancy rather than a secure tenancy.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that is for both secure and introductory tenancies. It states that the agreement would make the resident an introductory tenant unless they are already a secure tenant of the landlord. the introductory tenant would automatically become a secure tenant after 12 months unless the landlord starts possession proceedings to end the tenancy. The tenancy handbook also states that an introductory tenancy can be extended to 18 months. If the landlord decides to terminate or extend the introductory tenancy it would send the resident a notice to terminate letter. The resident also has the opportunity to ask for a review of the landlord’s decision which would take place within 28 days of the notice. At the review hearing, the resident has the opportunity to put forward any evidence relevant to their case. The landlord should write to the resident within five days of the panel meeting to confirm the outcome.
10. The resident has raised concern that had he been correctly registered as a secure tenant when his tenancy began, he would not have been subject to the introductory panel hearing process or spent significant time and trouble pursuing a response. In this case, the landlord has not disputed that it had made an error and incorrectly registered the resident as an introductory tenant at the start of his current tenancy in 2019. It has explained that the resident should have been registered as a secure tenant from the outset as he previously had a secure tenancy at another property owned by the landlord.
11. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had raised concerns about this matter prior to the panel hearing on 27 February 2020 despite having had the opportunity to do so prior to the meeting. As such, the landlord was not aware of the issue. Given that the resident had been registered as an introductory tenant, the landlord followed the correct process by carrying out a panel hearing review of the resident’s circumstances where he could provide evidence to support his case as to why the landlord should not pursue possession proceedings or extend the introductory period. It is noted that the landlord had begun this process due to arrears on the resident’s rent account. If the resident had been registered as a secure tenant, the landlord would have been entitled to pursue legal action against the resident for non-payment of rent and not consider his circumstances through its review panel. It is, however, acknowledged that had the resident been correctly registered as a secure tenant, he would not have needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing the landlord for the outcome of the panel hearing.
12. In January 2021 the landlord explained that it had provided the resident with the outcome of the panel meeting via letter on 16 March 2020. It is unclear as to whether the letter was sent on this date, however, it is clear that the resident spent significant time and trouble throughout 2020 pursuing this response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a copy of this correspondence at the earliest opportunity once it was aware that it had not been received by the resident in his communication on 25 March 2020 but there is no evidence to suggest that it did so. This amounts to a failure in service by the landlord as it was aware for a considerable period of time that the resident was not in receipt of this information and had asked for it. In addition, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s communication on multiple occasions prior to the complaint being raised which is likely to have caused additional inconvenience and distress.
13. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it had attached a copy of the correspondence to its stage one complaint response on 4 January 2021 but this does not appear to be the case. The outcome letter did not form part of the evidence pack provided to this Service by the landlord for review.  The resident has also explained that he had not received the outcome letter as of August 2021 and it is unclear as to whether another copy has since been sent. Whilst the landlord had confirmed that the resident is now considered a secure tenant, it has not acknowledged of apologised for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing this matter from March 2020 which is likely to have caused significant distress and inconvenience. Although the resident’s tenancy status has been confirmed, he is still entitled to see a copy of the panel’s findings, for his own records.
14. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts between £50 and £250 are proportionate where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant, but the failing may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. in this case, whilst the landlord failed to provide the resident with the requested documentation within a reasonable timescale following his request, this did not affect the overall outcome and the resident was confirmed as being a secure tenant. The landlord should also provide a copy of its communication dated 16 March 2020 to both the Ombudsman and the resident for our records.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

15. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within 15 working days, if the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
16. In this case, it is not disputed that there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint between 3 April 2020 and 3 June 2021, following which there was a significant delay in providing its stage one complaint response. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 January 2021, which was approximately 185 working days outside of the its 15 working days timescale at stage one. The landlord explained that the delay was partly due to the impact of Covid-19 and partly that it needed to coordinate information from different departments. Whilst some delay was understandable due to these factors, this explanation was not sufficient in view of the timescales involved. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord took adequate steps to keep the resident informed of the delay or provide regular updates from September 2020 onwards. This is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a complaint response. 
17. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its internal process on 16 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 4 May 2021, which was within a reasonable timescale. However, as part of this investigation the landlord was initially asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2021. In August 2021, the landlord issued a further stage two response to the resident in which it acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling delays. It also said it would offer compensation but had not confirmed the amount. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the resident was informed of its offer of £100 compensation following this response.
18. In its communication with this Service, the landlord advised that it had not issued a stage two complaint response to the resident at the time of our information request in July 2021. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its complaint handling failures, it would have had the opportunity to do so in both its stage one and two complaint responses in January and May 2021. The landlord’s failure to identify that the complaint had been previously responded to indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. This error also extended the overall timeframe of the complaint which is likely to have caused further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did not supply the relevant information required for the Ombudsman’s investigation until March 2022. This delay further extended the timeframe of the complaint and delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation into the resident’s concerns.
19. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is not considered proportionate to the impact on the resident in this case. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident a further £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling. This is in addition to the £100 offered by the landlord previously. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests that we may award compensation of £250 to £700 in cases where we have found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include significant failures to follow complaint procedure or a resident repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident. The landlord should also consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure complaints are dealt with in line with its relevant policies and procedures.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the tenancy panel hearing and the resident’s concern that he had been placed on an introductory tenancy rather than a secure tenancy.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

22. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £450, comprised of
       1. £200 for the inconvenience caused by its poor communication.
       2. £250 for the inconvenience caused as a result of its poor complaint handling. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100 if it has not already been paid.
    2. The landlord is to provide a copy of the letter dated 16 March 2020 detailing the outcome of the panel review to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

 Recommendations

23. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure complaints are dealt with in line with its relevant policies and procedures. It should also ensure that up to date records are kept of each complaint so that it is able to confirm when a final response had been issued to a resident.