Southwark Council (202218279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218279

Southwark Council

17 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of domestic abuse (DA).
2. The ending of the resident’s tenancy.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, from 2013 to 2022. The property was a 2 bedroom, ground floor maisonette and the resident lived there with her 3 children. The landlord had it recorded that the resident was disabled and a wheelchair user.
Due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, she is being supported by a third party agency, which acts as her representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
In August 2020, the resident reported that she was experiencing DA from an ex-partner and asked for support with moving out of the area. The landlord requested a reciprocal move for her and offered temporary accommodation, which the resident said she declined as it was not suitable for her medical needs.
The resident was rehoused via another local authority in July 2021. The same month, the landlord agreed to arrange removal of her belongings to her new property. Some items were delivered in September 2021, and an appointment was made to deliver the rest in January 2022, but this did not go ahead.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in February 2022, regarding its failure to close her rent account since she had moved out, which had resulted in arrears building up. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in April 2022. It said the tenancy was ongoing because the resident had not terminated it or returned the keys. It invited her to make contact to arrange this, but confirmed it had served a notice to quit (NTQ).
The next day, the resident replied and said that the landlord was aware that she had moved out of the property. It did not provide her with a termination notice and should have done more to help her return the keys. It had delayed in moving her furniture and responding to the complaint. The landlord treated this as an escalation request.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said it had provided a termination form during a home visit. It had arranged to move some of the resident’s belongings, but this had been unsuccessful. The complaint was partially upheld as the communication could have been better.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in November 2022. She said the landlord’s failure to close the rent account had resulted in £5,000 of arrears building up. She wanted the landlord to admit its error, close the account and clear the arrears. She subsequently told this Service that she did not know what had happened to her belongings, but was aware the property had been re-let, so assumed they had been removed.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman 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 paragraphs 41.d and 42.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of DA, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The main action taken by the landlord in response to the reports of DA in 2020 was in relation to rehousing, including an offer of temporary accommodation. Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
The local authority housing register is a function of the local authority that sits outside its capacity as a landlord. Therefore, this issue falls outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to consider.
In relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of DA which did not include rehousing, paragraph 42.c of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The landlord took action in response to the resident’s reports of DA between August and December 2020. However, the formal complaint was not made until February 2022, some 14 months later. Therefore, this issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
It is noted that, within its complaint responses, the landlord provided some response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her reports of DA. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman can use its discretion to extend the timescale of the investigation.
However, in this case, the landlord’s formal responses covered the actions taken in respect of the rehousing element. For the reasons set out above, this falls outside the jurisdiction of this Service and cannot be commented on further. Therefore, the Ombudsman has decided not to exercise its discretion to extend the investigation timeframe in this case, as we would be unable to make a thorough or detailed assessment of the actions taken by the landlord, in its handling of this issue, in any event.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy

The resident said she told the landlord over the phone on 16 July 2021 that she was moving out 3 days later. However, the landlord disputes this. The landlord has not provided any records of phone calls with the resident, despite this being specifically requested by this Service, and said that it does not retain these past 12 months. This means that the Ombudsman is unable to confirm whether this call went ahead.
It is a concern that the landlord is unable to provide records of any calls and this case highlights the importance of these. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to review how it keeps written records of phone contact with residents.
While it is not clear if the landlord was told about the resident’s moving date on 16 July 2021, the evidence provided shows that the landlord was aware that she had moved out from at least 26 July 2021, as it completed a request for removals form on this date.
Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, she was required to give the landlord 4 weeks’ written notice of her intention to terminate her tenancy. The landlord said it provided a termination form to the resident during a home visit in July 2021, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. It is not clear if this is because it did not happen or the landlord failed to maintain appropriate records. Regardless, this is a failure by the landlord and further evidences the importance of keeping records of all contacts with residents.
Between July 2021 and January 2022, the landlord was in contact with the resident on at least 9 occasions regarding the removal of her belongings to her new property. There is no evidence that the landlord raised the issue of the tenancy termination or reminded the resident that this was required during any of these contacts. These were missed opportunities to resolve the situation sooner.
The landlord said it did not end the tenancy because the resident failed to complete the termination form and return the keys. However, the landlord did not actively follow up with the resident to ensure this was done. While it was the resident’s responsibility to complete the termination form, it was particularly important in this case that the landlord followed up with her, as it was aware she was vulnerable and should have done more to support her.
Similarly, the landlord was aware that there were safety issues, which may have prevented the resident from returning to the area. In light of this, it should have considered alternative arrangements for her to return the keys. Its failure to do so shows a lack of care or consideration by the landlord for the resident’s individual circumstances.
Considering the resident’s medical issues and the reason she was moving, it was appropriate that the landlord helped her with removals. The landlord requested this in July 2021, but there is no evidence that any items were moved until around 6 weeks later, in mid-September 2021. This delay left the resident and her 3 children without essential furniture items, including beds, which meant she was left sleeping in her wheelchair.
The landlord arranged emergency removal of essential items in September 2021 and said it told the resident to let it know when she was ready for the rest of the items to be moved. That did not happen until November 2021, but as the landlord knew the resident was vulnerable, it would have been appropriate for it to pro-actively follow up with her to ensure this was progressed at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord arranged removal of additional items on 4 January 2022. The evidence provided shows that it notified the resident of this appointment on more than one occasion, but it did not go ahead. While frustrating for the resident, this was not the fault of the landlord. The landlord said it called her on one occasion after the failed appointment, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this.
When a resident vacates their property, they have a responsibility to terminate the tenancy. If this is not done, the landlord can initiate a legal process to reclaim possession of the property. This is important to ensure that abandoned or unused properties are not left empty for extended periods of time. Considering the shortage of social housing, particularly in London, it is imperative that landlords do all they can to ensure empty properties are reclaimed and relet as soon as possible.
It is a concern that the landlord left it as long as it did to initiate this process. The resident vacated the property in July 2021 (and the landlord was made aware of this the same month) but did not serve an NTQ until 8 months later (only after the resident had made a formal complaint).
When the landlord served the NTQ, it did so at both the property and the resident’s new address, which was reasonable. However, the landlord included the resident’s new address on the NTQ and posted an open folded copy of this through the communal letterbox. This meant anyone could have intercepted the NTQ and noted the resident’s new address, which was her personal information.
Not only was this a potential data protection breach, it also put the resident at risk of being found by her ex-partner, as she had told the landlord that her ex-partner was still visiting the area and would at times, loiter outside the building. This was a significant error by the landlord and very upsetting for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its error in respect of this issue as part of the complaint responses, but it failed to provide any meaningful redress to the resident. This suggested that it did not fully appreciate the severity of its actions and the potential, unnecessary risk it had placed her in. An order is therefore made for the landlord to share lessons learnt from this case with all staff who are responsible for serving NTQs.
Even after the landlord served the NTQ in March 2022, it continued to delay the matter and did not reclaim possession of the property until 6 months after it expired, in October 2022. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said the reason for this delay was because it had hoped the resident would terminate the tenancy. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it provided the resident with a termination notice to do so; or any advice/ explanation on what she needed to do to terminate the tenancy. This explanation placed unfair blame on the resident, as she was not given the necessary guidance on what she needed to do to resolve this matter.
In September 2021, the landlord’s rent collection team contacted the resident regarding the arrears and she told it that she had moved out in July 2021. The evidence shows that this department contacted the staff member dealing with the tenancy termination on 4 occasions between September and December 2021, to highlight this and ask if the rent account would be closed. The member of staff did not reply until after the 4th contact in December 2021, and only said that they had assisted the resident to make a benefit application. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to obtain the termination notice from the resident at this time, despite being aware that rent arrears were accruing.
By the landlord’s own admission, its communication with the resident could have been better. Highlighted within this report are a number of missed opportunities for the landlord to have resolved this matter sooner; had it been more proactive in its contact with the resident.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had a responsibility to give notice and terminate the tenancy. However, the landlord was aware she was vulnerable and going through a move due to upsetting circumstances, and so should have done more to support her. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 response that, had it been in regular contact with the resident, this may have resulted in the tenancy termination form being completed and returned sooner.
Considering the cumulative effect of the numerous and significant failures highlighted in this report, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the potentially dangerous impact of the landlord’s actions; the Ombudsman has determined that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy.
Despite acknowledging its failings, there is no evidence that the landlord considered any form of redress for the resident; particularly, whether she should be liable for the significant rent arrears that had built up. Considering the number and severity of the failures in the landlord’s handling of this matter, and its own acknowledgment that its actions may have contributed to the delay in the tenancy being ended, it is unfair that the resident should be liable for the arrears.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware the resident had moved out from at least 26 July 2021. Therefore, it is reasonable that the resident is liable for the rent 4 weeks after this date only. This means that any arrears that built up after 22 August 2021 should not be pursued by the landlord. An order has been made below for the landlord to clear all arrears on the account that built up from 23 August 2021 onwards.
In addition to the above, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its handling of this issue; and pay her £900 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord is to contact the resident to confirm whether she wants this paid to her directly or used to clear any remaining arrears on the account.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 22 February 2022, which was 6 working days after the complaint was made. This was over the committed timescale of 3 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The acknowledgement was incorrectly sent to the property, rather than being emailed to the representative. As the resident had moved away from the property, the acknowledgement was never received by her or the representative.
The landlord said the stage 1 response was provided on 16 March 2022, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. The landlord noted that it resent this on 4 April 2022, but again, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the response actually being sent on this date.
From the evidence provided, the landlord provided the stage 1 response on 25 April 2022, 48 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was significantly over the committed timescale of 15 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time, and only after the resident said she chased it on at least 9 occasions. The delay and lack of responses to the resident’s multiple contacts left her feeling ignored, and amounts to maladministration.
The stage 1 investigation was carried out by the same member of staff who had dealt with the substantive issue being complained about. This meant there was a lack of objectivity during the stage 1 investigation and a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify any failings in its handling of this matter. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling disappointed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was unclear on the outcome. It noted on its system that the complaint was partially upheld but gave no reason or explanation for this, and failed to consider any form of redress. The stage 1 response also failed to provide the escalation details, which its complaints policy at the time said would be included. The lack of clarity and missing information in the stage 1 response amounts to maladministration and caused confusion for the resident.
When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, the landlord sensibly treated this as a stage 2 escalation request. This was acknowledged on 25 May 2022, some 21 working days later and so over the committed timescale of 3 working days, set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord apologised for the delayed acknowledgement and explained the reason for this, which was reasonable, as it was dealing with a backlog. It provided an extended timescale of 1 July 2022, for the response to be provided. This was over the committed timescale of 25 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time.
While the landlord adhered to the extended timescale, overall, the stage 2 complaint was delayed. Therefore, it should have acknowledged this and offered some form of redress to the resident. The landlord did not do this at stages 1 or 2, and this made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £500 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A further order has been made for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling, in line with its current complaint policy, unless it can provide evidence that it has done so, since this complaint completed its internal process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraphs 41.d and 42.c of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of DA, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Clear all arrears from the resident’s rent account that built up after 23 August 2021.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the ending of her tenancy and the formal complaint.
3. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation, as follows:
  1. £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ending of her tenancy. The landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether she wants this paid to her directly or used to clear any remaining arrears on the rent account.
  2. £500 for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its record keeping arrangements for written records of phone calls to ensure all calls are recorded, with notes of the discussion. Guidance to be provided to all customer facing staff on this process, including the importance of recording all calls.
2. Share lessons learnt from this case with all staff who are responsible for serving NTQ’s, particularly in relation to DA cases and considering the safety of the resident.
3. Provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its current complaints policy. The training to be delivered to all staff involved in investigating and responding to stage 1 and 2 complaints, and should cover areas of failure identified in this investigation. The order will be considered complied with, if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered staff training on this subject, since the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal process.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 8 weeks.