Tuntum Housing Association Limited (202102559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102559

Tuntum Housing Association Limited

31 January 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

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Move on Support Package (MoSP) application.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and the allocation of a keyworker.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. The landlord’s handling of a Homelink (a Local Authority’s Choice Based Letting scheme) application.

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(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of a Homelink (a Local Authority’s Choice Based Letting scheme) application.
Paragraph 39(m) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator of complaint handling body’. This Service is satisfied that the resident’s application to her Local Authority’s choice based letting scheme (‘Homelink’) falls outside of the tenant/landlord relationship and is a function fulfilled by the Local Authority. This issue would therefore be more suitably considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO). If the resident wishes to continue with this aspect of her complaint, the LGSCO can be contacted here: www.lgo.org.uk

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in supported accommodation, managed by the landlord, under an Excluded Licence Agreement. She began living at the property in April 2020.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. Its policy states that it will aim to respond at Stage One within 10 working days and, if it accepts a request to escalate a complaint to its Appeal and Review Stage (Stage Two), it will respond within 20 working days.
For clarity, the Move on Support Package (MoSP) referred to within this report is, according to the Local Authority’s Allocations Policy ‘about assessing the individual’s ability to move from temporary accommodation to long-term accommodation’. If approved, residents in temporary and/or supported accommodation are awarded a certain priority on the Local Authority’s Choice Based Lettings scheme. The application is submitted by staff from the relevant supported accommodation providers (in this case, the landlord) and the application is then processed by the Local Authority (in this case, ‘Homelink’, managed by an Arms-Length Management Organisation on behalf of the Local Authority). For the purposes of this case, this Service will look at how the application was managed by the landlord, rather than how it was processed by the Local Authority. This is because, as set out above, a complaint about the Local Authority’s actions in this case would fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

Summary of Events

On 21 October 2020, the resident lodged a complaint with the landlord. In an email which referenced ‘issues relating to (my) Move On Support Package’, the resident provided some background to the complaint and raised the following concerns:
1. She had completed an application for a MoSP with her keyworker on 19 September 2019. Following this, the Local Authority wrote to her on 10 October 2019 to confirm that she had been placed in Band 4 of its choice based lettings scheme ‘Homelink’.
2. On 7 and 8 May 2020, the resident submitted a supporting letter from her psychiatrist to the Local Authority, with the intention of having her priority for rehousing increased.
3. On 20 May 2020 (in the original complaint this was referred to as 20 June 2020, but in later correspondence the resident’s mother clarified it was May), the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the supporting letter and requested that she provide consent for it to speak to the Local Authority. Records indicate that the resident did not give permission. Following this, the resident stated that the member of staff was rude to her and her mother and advised that her MoSP application would be withdrawn. The following day, she was unable to access her Homelink application online and was therefore unable to bid for properties.
4. The resident’s mother spoke to the landlord on 21 and 25 May 2020 and was advised that it would be ‘straightforward’ to reinstate the resident’s MoSP application, but as of July 2020 this was still not done.
5. She had been advised by the landlord that it had withdrawn her MoSP because of her ‘mental health difficulties’ but this appeared to be based on the assessment of a member of staff whom she had not met, and she queried how this decision had been made and how it could be justified.
6. She requested that the landlord reinstate her MoSP application and backdate it to the original start date of 10 October 2019.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 October 2020 and advised it would provide a response within 10 working days.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord provided its initial complaint response. In its response, the landlord:
1. Apologised that the resident’s MoSP had been withdrawn ‘without the consent of a senior member of staff’. It advised it would amend its procedures going forward and would convene a meeting to discuss the withdrawal of a resident’s MoSP with them in person, along with their keyworker and a senior member of staff. It stated it would advise staff of the new procedures in its next team meeting.
2. Apologised for their member of staff being rude during a phone call with the resident and her mother on 20 June 2020 (as noted above, it was later clarified elsewhere that this was 20 May 2020). It advised that it had arranged a meeting to discuss this with the member of staff involved in November 2020.
3. Advised that it had ‘taken into account (the resident’s) distress with the inconsistencies of various keyworkers’ and advised that this was down to a combination of ‘staff shortage, sickness and the (coronavirus) Pandemic’. It advised that it now had ‘a better understanding of the importance of consistency for you’ and would support the resident’s needs going forward.
4. Outlined seven actions that it would take following the resident’s complaint, which included:
  1. A meeting with staff ‘regarding (the) reason for withdrawing the MoSP’.
  2. Asking the Local Authority to backdate the resident’s MoSP application ‘due to staff error’.
  3. Reinstating the resident’s previous keyworker.
  4. Providing the resident with a copy of the new MoSP.
  5. An offer of alternative accommodation (‘as and when available’) and a referral to its in-house Mental Health worker ‘when (the service is available’).
On receipt of its response, the resident’s mother contacted the landlord on her behalf on 10 November 2020. She noted that, while the landlord had apologised for withdrawing the MoSP application without the consent of a senior staff member, the resident felt the landlord was implying that the decision itself (to withdraw the application) had been reasonable, and the only identified fault was that it had not been done in the correct way. She additionally provided further comment on the interactions she and the resident had had with the landlord’s member of staff on 20 May 2020, when they had allegedly been rude, including that the resident had not been given the chance to seek advice regarding the possible implications of her decision to withhold consent for the landlord to share information with Homelink and that she had effectively been ‘punished’. She also queried whether there was a conflict of interest due to the member of staff who provided the landlord’s Stage One response having involvement in the case, in particular regarding the apparent delays in reinstating the resident’s MoSP application. She requested that the case be reviewed by a senior manager. The landlord acknowledged the request the following day and, also the same day, a senior manager replied to advise that they would provide a further response, but that this would be delayed due to them being on annual leave.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s mother regarding its previous complaint response. It advised that it had gone about the complaint ‘in the wrong way’ and should have ‘waited and gathered all information from all parties before responding’. It also added that it had been informed that its member of staff ‘was not the one that actually withdrew (the resident’s) MoSP as only Homelink have the authority to withdraw it’. It further asked for the resident’s mother to clarify the reasons for requesting a complaint escalation and what their desired complaint outcome was.
The landlord contacted the resident’s mother again on 1 December 2020 to advise that it would issue its response on 7 December 2020, ‘if not sooner’. However, it then sent a further email on 9 December 2020 to advise it would provide its response by 11 December 2020 which it duly did.
In its Stage Two response, the landlord advised that:
1. It believed there had been ‘unintended consequences’ following the submission of the supporting letter from the resident’s psychiatrist, due to the ‘interpretation’ of the letter by Homelink. While the landlord acknowledged the letter was intended to support her rehousing application, they stated the wording ‘led Homelink to believe that (the resident) had in their words ‘high’ support needs’ which led to them recommending she be referred to specialist accommodation.
2. It had now interviewed the member of staff who withdrew the MoSP application (as they had only recently returned to work) and they advised that they had received a call from the Local Authority, stating that it was ‘intending’ to withdraw the MoSP because the resident had declined to give consent for them to discuss the application with the landlord. The landlord advised that it had asked the Local Authority not to withdraw and to allow it to discuss the matter with the resident first but at the end of the conversation between it and the resident and her mother, ‘there was no resolution’.
3. The same staff member denied being rude to the resident and/or her mother during the call of 20 May 2020 and the landlord advised another member of staff had provided a witness statement in support of this. The landlord advised that, as there was no recording of the call available, it was ‘unable to ascertain whose version of events is an accurate reflection of the conversation’.
4. The decision to withdraw the MoSP ‘was triggered by (the Local Authority) but it acknowledged that MoSP applications should ‘only be reversed in conjunction with a senior worker (of the landlord’s staff)’ and that its member of staff ‘acted outside of her level of authority’. However, it stated that it did not consider that she was ‘entirely to blame’ due to the stated intention of the Local Authority to withdraw the application.
5. It acknowledged that the situation ‘could have been remedied’ in August 2020 when the resident gave her consent for the landlord to discuss the case with the Local Authority. It noted that a keyworker had emailed the Local Authority on 21 August 2020 asking for the application to be reinstated. However, while the Local Authority replied the same day and advised that a new application should be submitted, the keyworker did not see the email until 1 October 2020. It advised that the new MoSP application was not sent until 5 November 2020 and, at the time of its response, the application was yet to be reinstated, although it noted that it had asked if the Local Authority could backdate the application to ‘September’.
6. It considered that ‘the communication between ourselves and Homelink contributed to the cancellation of the MoSP’ and it acknowledged that it had not ‘handled the situation as well as we should’ and that it took ‘far too long to…remedy the situation’. It noted that it believed its ‘own actions had caused a lot of confusion and made the process far more complicated than…necessary’, while the ‘lack of clarity’ over who was meant to be working with the resident during her keyworker’s absence ‘did nothing to improve the working relationship’ (with the resident).
7. It apologised for the ‘mistakes’ it had made and for the fact that ‘this situation has caused distress to you and impacted on your mental wellbeing’. It acknowledged that this was ‘unacceptable’ and that it was taking ‘all steps possible to ensure that your (MoSP) application can be backdated’ but that it was awaiting a further response from the Local Authority. It advised that it was providing additional staff training to prevent ‘situations such as this from arising’ and to improve its complaint handling which it stated ‘could have been handled in a more professional way’ and it signposted the resident to this Service if she remained unhappy with its response.
On 15 December 2020, the resident’s MoSP was reinstated by the Local Authority, although her priority date was now October 2020, rather than September 2019.
On 9 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request documentation regarding her complaint so she could send it to a local Councillor. She also advised that she wished to refer her complaint to this Service. The landlord responded the following day and requested a meeting to discuss the matter further and so ‘a satisfactory resolution can be reached’. Records show that it reopened the complaint the same day.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord provided a further Stage Two response to the resident. It noted her complaint was regarding her ‘Move on Support Package being removed by (our) staff’; ‘the attitude of a staff member’; and ‘inconsistencies with keyworker’. The landlord noted that it had discussed the complaint with the resident, and she had provided ‘a detailed account of events’ but had been ‘unable to propose an ideal resolution’ to the complaint. In its response the landlord:
1. Reiterated that it agreed it should not have cancelled the resident’s MoSP ‘without the decision being reviewed by (the resident) and a senior member of staff’.
2. Advised it had reviewed how the resident’s complaint had been handled and noted it had ‘failed to meet the timelines we set out in our complaints policy’. It recognised the ‘stress and inconvenience’ this had caused the resident and that it had offered her a ‘gesture of goodwill’ of £200.
3. Noted that the resident had already declined this offer and instead considered that an offer of £2000 would be more appropriate. It referred to a meeting in person that took place on 22 April 2021 and clarified it had increased its offer to £500, along with ‘help with the costs of furnishing…new accommodation’. It noted the resident had since declined this offer and stated that it was ‘sorry that we were not able to reach a resolution (she) could be satisfied with’.
4. Advised that it had concluded its review into its Stage Two response and provided the resident with this Service’s details for referring her complaint.

Post-complaint

Following the landlord’s final response, the resident logged a new complaint in July 2021, which she stated was regarding how the landlord had handled her previous complaint. The landlord referred the resident back to its previous response and stated that it had addressed her concerns regarding its complaint handling already. It clarified that it would not be opening a new complaint, confirmed that its previous offer of a £500 goodwill gesture and assistance with furnishing her next accommodation still stood, and signposted her to this Service. The landlord has since confirmed its position with this Service during this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Move on Support Package application and its handling of the resident’s complaint

In its submissions to this Service, the landlord has advised that it does not have any ‘policies and procedures relating to Homelink and MoSPs’ so it has not been possible for this Service to determine precisely whether the landlord acted appropriately when measured against any published procedures.
However, it is not in dispute that the resident had completed an application for Move on Support Package with her keyworker and this was subsequently submitted to the Local Authority by the landlord, to assist her in bidding for accommodation via the Local Authority’s Choice Based Letting scheme, Homelink. Following this, in October 2019, the resident was added to the register, and the Local Authority wrote to her confirming her registration and advising her on her priority banding and her priority date.
It is also not disputed that the MoSP was then withdrawn in May 2020 and, as a result, the resident was not able to bid for properties via HomeLink. The information available indicates that the withdrawal of the MoSP was prompted following the submission of a supporting letter by the resident. From the information provided by the resident, it seems clear that the letter was intended to support either an increase in her priority banding, or to assist with her being rehoused more quickly. However, the contents of the letter appear to have caused some concern for the landlord and the Local Authority and led each party to seek clarification of the resident’s support needs. Following this, after being contacted by the landlord, it is also not disputed that the resident withdrew her consent for the landlord to discuss the information with the Local Authority. This led to the MoSP being withdrawn.
Due to the fact that the supporting letter written by her psychiatrist contained detailed medical information, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in raising concerns over its contents. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable that the landlord would seek to carefully consider the letter and consider whether it affected the resident’s move-on application. This Service will consider how the decision was made and subsequently communicated with the resident.
In its initial complaint response in October 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the MoSP had been withdrawn ‘without the consent of a senior member of staff’ and that this should not have happened. Off the back of this, it advised that it had introduced new procedures which it would share with staff imminently. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate response from the landlord and showed that it had considered the matter and demonstrated learning from it.
However, following this, in its subsequent Stage Two response, the landlord provided a different version of events and advised that, after now interviewing the relevant member of staff involved in the decision, it had been advised that it was the Local Authority who had initiated the withdrawal of the MoSP. It still acknowledged that the MoSP should only have been withdrawn ‘in conjunction with a senior worker’ but now stated that it did not consider it was ‘entirely to blame’ after it had been advised of the Local Authority’s intention to withdraw the MoSP. While it is noted the landlord did still acknowledge it had not acted appropriately when the MoSP was withdrawn, it is of concern that there was is inconsistency between the versions of events outlined in its Stage One and Stage Two responses.
While it is noted that the landlord contacted the resident’s mother soon after issuing the Stage One response to advise that it had since discovered that the responsibility for withdrawing the MoSP lay with the Local Authority, it was not appropriate that it issued its original complaint response without first carrying out the appropriate investigations to ascertain exactly what had happened. While the landlord had advised that new facts had come to light after it interviewed the relevant member of staff, evidence provided to this investigation suggests that it was the landlord that made the final decision to withdraw the MoSP. In an email sent to the Local Authority on 20 May 2020, the landlord’s member of staff noted that ‘we are making the decision to withdraw the MoSP’.
It is also noted that, information obtained by the resident from the Local Authority after the landlord’s final response in April 2021 casts some doubt on the landlord’s conclusions. In an email sent to the resident by the Local Authority on 11 June 2021, and cc’d to the landlord, the Local Authority stated that it ‘can only act on information provided by your landlord and therefore if we were asked to withdraw the support plan by your landlord then we had no option but to do that’. It added that this was in accordance with its Allocation Policy and that the resident would need to ‘speak to your landlord…to resolve the matter and explain the reasons why they withdrew the plan’. In conjunction with the email referred to above, sent by the landlord to the Local Authority on 20 May 2020, the evidence suggests that it was the landlord’s decision to withdraw the MoSP. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord’s later complaint responses, having initially accepted responsibility for cancelling the resident’s MoSP, sought to apportion blame to the Local Authority. This indicates that the landlord did not take full responsibility for its actions and therefore did not treat the resident fairly.
After the MoSP had been withdrawn, the resident’s complaint indicated that she, or her mother, had been advised the following day that it would be easy to reinstate. While this Service has not seen evidence to corroborate this, in its Stage Two response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had given consent for it to speak to HomeLink regarding the MoSP being reinstated in August 2020 and that ‘the situation could have been remedied then’. However, the MoSP was not reinstated until 15 December 2020, just after the landlord issued its Stage Two response. This meant the resident had not been able to bid for around seven months. While it is acknowledged that the ultimate responsibility for reinstating the MoSP lay with the Local Authority, there is evidence that the landlord delayed in progressing the issue, including missing an email from the Local Authority regarding the application for some two months, and not submitting a new application when it advised the resident it would. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this and apologised to the resident in its Stage Two response. However, having also advised that it understood that the situation was ‘unacceptable’ and had ‘caused distress…and impacted on (the resident’s) mental wellbeing’, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have considered offering compensation to the resident to better reflect the fact that it accepted its actions had likely caused distress and anxiety to a vulnerable resident.
However, it is noted that, in its subsequent Stage Two review response, the landlord made an offer of a ‘goodwill gesture’ amounting to £200, which it did having reviewed how it had handled the complaint and because it ‘failed to meet the timelines we set out in our complaints policy’. It did not, however, appear to attach the goodwill gesture to any other failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this meant that the landlord missed a further opportunity to ‘put things right’ in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
It is also noted that, after the resident refused the £200 goodwill gesture, the landlord made a further offer which amounted to £500 and further financial support to assist with the furnishing of the resident’s next accommodation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was appropriate that the landlord offered further financial redress to the resident at this stage, it should have done so earlier, and it should have provided more clarity regarding what exactly the goodwill gesture was offered in relation to, as it only seemed to acknowledged the impact on the resident of a notably short delay in providing its original Stage Two response, rather than the way the MoSP was cancelled, or for any delays with it being reinstated. This Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s Compensation Policy so it has not been possible to determine whether the amount offered was in line with its procedures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have offered further clarity over how it came to calculate the amounts offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was appropriate that the landlord sought to offer further redress to the resident, the final amount fell short of reasonable redress. An order has therefore been made to reflect this at the end of this report.

Post complaint

As noted above, after the landlord had issued its final response, the resident sought to submit a new complaint in July 2021, which she advised was regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. While the resident stated that she felt the landlord’s previous complaint response had not adequately addressed concerns she raised regarding its complaint handling, the landlord declined to open a new complaint and advised it believed it had already provided a response. It referred her back to its previous final response and advised that the resident could still escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was reasonable in advising that it had already provided a response in relation to its complaint handling. While the resident may not have been satisfied with the outcome, it is evident that the landlord had addressed its complaint handling within previous complaint responses and made an offer of a goodwill gesture related to identified delays and complaint handling failings. The landlord was therefore entitled to determine that it would not open a new complaint regarding the same issue, and it was reasonable that it gave the resident appropriate advice that she could still escalate her concerns to this Service, where its responses could be investigated.
However, it is noted that, in her post complaint submissions, the resident stated that the landlord had now rescinded its offer to provide assistance with furnishing any future accommodation. In the absence of any evidence regarding this – and it is noted that the landlord did not necessarily have the opportunity to respond to this as it did not open a new complaint – an order has been made regarding this at the end of this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and the allocation of a keyworker.

Regarding the ‘inconsistencies’ the resident experienced with her keyworker service, it is noted that records show the resident had various keyworkers throughout the period covered by her complaint. While this Service empathises with the resident that this may have been disruptive and the Ombudsman recognises the importance of consistency to the resident, the landlord’s explanation that this situation was caused by staff absences and sickness was reasonable. It was also reasonable that it apologised for the situation and advised that it recognised how this would have been disruptive to the resident.
Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that a member of staff had been rude to her and her mother during a conversation in May 2020, while it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology in its Stage One response, it is of concern that it did so without appearing to have conducted any investigations into the issue. While it was reasonable that it advised the resident it would interview the member of staff regarding the matter, it would have been more appropriate to have done so before it issued its complaint response.
This course of action meant that, by the time it issued its Stage Two response, the landlord’s position had changed when it now advised that the member of staff denied being rude and that a further member of staff vouched for them. The landlord was reasonable in its conclusion that, due to there being no recording of the call, it was not possible to ascertain which version of events was correct, but by initially apologising to the resident and then subsequently altering its position, the landlord risked causing the resident confusion and would have likely made her question how it had gone about investigating the issue. However, as above, overall the landlord’s ultimate position was not unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Move on Support Package.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and the allocation of a keyworker.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s MoSP application

Following the submission of a supporting letter regarding the resident’s Homelink application, the landlord appeared to request that the Local Authority withdraw her Move on Support Package. While this is Service is not issuing any assessment of whether the landlord acted reasonably in doing so, the evidence available indicates that the member of staff who withdrew the MoSP acted outside of their authority. While the landlord initially accepted responsibility for this and offered an apology, its later complaint responses provided a differing version of events and sought to indicate that it was the Local Authority who had initiated the withdrawal of the MoSP. This was not appropriate as not only would this lack of consistency have caused confusion to the resident, information available to this Service, and to which the landlord had access, indicates that it was not the Local Authority’s decision to withdraw the MoSP. This meant that the resident was not treated fairly by being given an accurate version of events within the landlord’s later complaint responses and meant that the landlord did not take full accountability for its actions.
After the MoSP was withdrawn, there was then a further avoidable delay in it being reinstated. While the landlord was reliant on the Local Authority completing any subsequent re-registration of the MoSP, there is evidence that there was avoidable delay from the landlord in liaising with the Local Authority regarding the reinstatement of the package.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and the allocation of a keyworker

The landlord acted appropriately when it acknowledged that the resident would have been caused distress or anxiety by the disruption of having several keyworkers during the period covered by the complaint. It also acted reasonably by offering an apology and its explanation that this was caused by staffing issues, such as sickness and related to the coronavirus pandemic, was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord acted appropriately by offering a goodwill gesture relating to delays in issuing its complaint responses. However, there are concerns over the inconsistency between its Stage One and Stage Two responses and the fact that, as the landlord acknowledged in correspondence with the resident’s mother, it issued its Stage One response before it had completed its investigation in full.
It also could have considered offering financial redress to the resident to try and put things right before it had to reopen the complaint and issue a Stage Two review, almost six months after the original complaint had been made. While it was reasonable for the landlord to reopen the complaint and it was positive that it sought to meet with the resident, even after the complaint had been closed, to try and find a resolution, the overall process took too long to complete. Additionally, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the final goodwill gesture, while a welcome attempt by the landlord to offer redress, fell short of what the Ombudsman would expect to see given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord was, however, reasonable in its decision to not open a new complaint to re-investigate concerns over its complaint handling and it appropriately reiterated the resident’s right to escalate any concerns she still had to this Service.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Pay the resident £900 in compensation, an increase of the £500 it originally offered as a goodwill gesture, consisting of:
  1. The £200 originally offered to reflect the delays in progressing the complaint.
  2. An additional £100 to reflect the additional complaint handling issues including the lack of consistency in its complaint responses.
  3. £600 to reflect the distress caused to the resident by withdrawing the MoSP, the avoidable delay prior to it being reinstated and the subsequent period the resident was unable to bid for properties.
2. The landlord should write to the resident to clarify whether it will still honour the offer to assist with furnishing of a future property or not and it should provide this Service with a copy of this letter.
The landlord should also, within six weeks of the date of this letter, carry out a review of its MoSP process and guidance and draw up an action plan to ensure that the findings from this case, particularly regarding the withdrawal of MoSPs, are addressed and used to improve its service. As part of this review, the landlord may wish to discuss the case with the Local Authority and share this report with it. The landlord should then provide this Service with a copy of its action plan.