Moat Housing Group Limited (201816242)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201816242

Moat Housing Group Limited

27 April 2021

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:

(a) Response to the resident’s allegations of harassment.

(b) Handling of a request for service charge information.

(d) Contact with the appointee after consent to do so had been withdrawn by the resident.

(e) Response to the resident’s concerns that it had changed the locks to the building resulting in the resident not being able to access the property.

(f) Response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and tenancy breaches.

(g) Decision to issue legal proceedings.

(h) Provision of incorrect information to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

(i) Contact with an employment agency which the resident claims led to a job being withdrawn.

(j) Response to concerns about the handling of an eviction.

(k) Response to concerns about car parking.

(l) Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the rent account and arrears;
2. The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and tenancy breaches.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

While the resident raised these issues, there is no evidence that he made a formal complaint about them. Accordingly, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to these issues and the matters are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s decision to issue legal proceedings.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(h) concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.

The landlord applied for an injunction on 18 April 2018 to restrict the amount contact the resident had with it as well as the nature of that contact. It applied for adjournment at the end of May 2018 with liberty to restore until the end of May 2019. While the landlord agreed to withdraw the proceedings in July 2019, the evidence shows that there was a hearing on 10 December 2018 which the resident did not attend. This hearing was an opportunity for the resident to raise any concerns he had about the landlord’s decision to issue legal proceedings.
In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s provision of incorrect information to DWP.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”

In a web form submitted to the Ombudsman on 12 March 2020 the resident said that the landlord had been supplying false information to the DWP to adversely affect his benefit. The Office of the Information Commissioner would be the appropriate body to deal with this type of complaint. We made the resident aware of this on 3 February 2021.
In accordance with paragraphs 36, 39(i) and 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s contact with an employment agency which the resident claims led to a job offer being withdrawn.
Paragraph 36 of the Scheme says that the person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
The Ombudsman does not consider that a resident’s employment status adversely affects their occupation of a property, even when the employer is also the landlord. In this case, the evidence suggests that a settlement agreement was reached between the landlord and resident before the matter reached an employment tribunal. The Ombudsman considers therefore that the resident has sought, and achieved, a remedy for this matter and this aspect of the complaint would also be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(i) Concern matters that the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

If the resident believes that the landlord shared information with an employment agency when it should not have done so, that would be a matter for the Office of the Information Commissioner. This matter would therefore fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m) as it would fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body (paragraph 10).
The Ombudsman considers that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his allegations of harassment is also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme (paragraph 14). Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 sets out that a victim may make a civil claim for an actual or apprehended harassment. The Housing Ombudsman’s role is not to determine if there has been harassment and any such claim ought to be made to the court, who can decide on whether the landlord is responsible for harassment. As such, under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it would be quicker, fairer and more reasonable and more effective to have the court determine this point.
The remaining complaints about the landlord’s handling of a request for service charge information; response to the resident’s concerns that it had changed the locks to the building; response to concerns about the handling of an eviction; response to concerns over car parking and complaint handling are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered, below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property with the landlord, which is a two-bedroom second floor flat in a block. He purchased the property in November 2006. At the time of matters complained about, the landlord had leases on four units in the block with underleases granted on a shared ownership basis. The remainder of the block was in private ownership. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
There is a head lease which is a tri-partite lease between the freeholder, the management company and the landlord. The services at the block are provided by a managing agent who manage the block on behalf of a management company.
Under section 21 of the Tenant and Landlord Act 1985, leaseholders have a legal right to ask the landlord for a written summary of the costs which make up the service charges at the end of the year. The request must be in writing and can be sent directly to the landlord or to the managing agent. Leaseholders can ask for a summary of the relevant costs relating to the service charges for the last accounting year or, if accounts are not kept by accounting years, the past 12 months.
Leaseholders also have the right to inspect documents relating to the service charge to provide more detail on the summary. Within six months of receiving the summary, leaseholders can write to the landlord to ask if they can access and inspect the accounts, receipts and any other documents that are relevant to the service charge information in the summary and to ask them to provide facilities to copy these.
The landlord’s income collection policy says that leaseholders are responsible for paying their rent, ground rent and service charges as set out in their lease. Failure to make payments constitutes a breach of their lease. Leaseholders are responsible for informing the landlord if they are having difficulties maintaining their payments and should engage with it to ensure that the arrears are repaid.
Enforcement action will only commence when all other steps have been taken and all reasonable options to tackle the debt have been attempted. Where a leaseholder does not keep to a repayment arrangement or fails to engage with the landlord to resolve their arrears it will pursue one or more of the enforcement options to recover the debt in line with its procedures. These options include contacting the mortgage lender and civil or possession action.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the quality of service, delivery of service, actions or lack of action by it, its employees or associated partners which requires a response. Complaints should be raised within three months of the issue occurring. Negative feedback which does not require a response will be considered outside of the complaints process.
The landlord will contact the complainant within three working days of the complaint to gather any additional information required and to agree a date for resolution. At stage one the landlord aims to respond within 28 days; at stage two it aims to respond within 21 days. Complaints should be raised within three months of the issue occurring.
The complaints policy says that, where there is court action in respect of an issue, the landlord excludes that issue(s) from its complaints procedure. Where a referral for mediation is in progress or has been made, a complaint will be put on hold until the outcome of mediation is known. Subject to the outcome of mediation, the complaint lead officer should assess whether it is appropriate to resume the complaints process.
The complaints policy also says the landlord reserves the right to use discretion when applying the complaints policy and procedure and might deal with a complaint differently where individual circumstances merit it. This could include (but is not limited to) referring a complaint to an alternative organisation such as the Ombudsman without completion of all stages of the complaints procedure.

Summary of events

On 18 April 2018 the landlord applied for an injunction against the resident under section 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.It asked the court to restrict the amount and nature of his contact with it.
On 19 April 2018 the landlord provided the resident with details of the service charge demands and actual service charges for the property from April 2015 to March 2017. This response included some copy invoices.
On 26 May 2018 the resident authorised the landlord to communicate with his parents in all matters relating to his occupation of the property. He said he would also communicate with the landlord through his parents. He said that, if he wanted this arrangement to end, he would let the landlord know in writing.
This Service understands that on 30 August 2018 a letter about rent arrears was sent to the resident. A copy of that letter has not been seen.
On 1 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord’s solicitor (the solicitor) saying that the landlord had breached the agreement by writing to him. He said that the landlord was to “recommence its harassment”. He added all the landlord’s correspondence would be “unopened and disposed of”.
On 4 September 2018 the solicitor wrote to the resident’s parents enclosing his letter of 1 September 2018. They said that letters relating to the lease of the property had to be sent to the resident, by law. They added that they were required to send him more letters in the coming weeks. The solicitor said that, should the resident write direct to the landlord, that would be in breach of the terms of the agreement.
On 9 September 2018, following contact from the resident’s parents, the solicitor wrote to them saying that the landlord would write to the resident care of his mother (who I shall refer to hereafter as the appointee). However, the landlord would still send letters direct to the resident that it was required to do so by law.
On 3 October 2018 the resident told the landlord he was challenging the rent/service charge increase. He asked for a full summary of the last 12 month’s service charges. He also said that, as it had not been providing the services outlined within the service contract, he would not be increasing his payments to it until he had a court ruling. The landlord responded in an undated email and said that it had forwarded his request to its service charge team who would provide the information requested within 30 working days. The landlord asked for details of the services which had not been provided and said it would look into that further once that information had been received from the resident.
On 25 February 2019 the landlord wrote to the appointee with the rent and service charge annual review for the property for the period April 2019 to March 2020. It gave an estimate for the service charge for this period of £159.41. In the letter the landlord explained that the final service charge amount owed for the financial year was not known until it had carried out a check or reconciliation of the accounts. It said it would send all variable service charge payers a written statement to show the difference between the estimated charges and the actual cost of providing the service, usually by the end September each year.
On 11 March 2019 the resident sent an email to this Service copied to the landlord. He said that there was an agreement whereby the landlord should not contact him; however, it had broken that by sending him letters. He said he therefore “retracted his appointee” and said he would deal with these matters. He said he had been “forced to find residence elsewhere” and would not be able to pay his rent payments to the landlord due to the additional costs he was going to incur. In another email to the landlord that day, the resident asked for a copy of “the full accounts for the service charge”.
On 12 March 2019 the landlord contacted the appointee saying that it would be beneficial for all concerned for the contact agreement to be reinstated immediately. In a separate email to the appointee, the landlord said it had asked its Neighbourhoods Operations Manager to take ownership of the management of her son’s flat and that she would call the appointee the next day.
On 5 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the appointee. It said that the resident had made a complaint to it and this Service which referenced some historic issues which were closed, but also raised some housing management issues that it would refer to the managing agent for action, these included the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord asked the appointee to confirm what documentation the resident required in relation to the service charges and said it would arrange to issue that.
On 7 April 2019 the resident responded to the landlord saying his mother was the agreed contact; however, it had been contacting him direct through Christmas and as late as mid-February 2019. He said his mother was no longer his representative. He said, due to its continued harassment, he had forwarded that email to the police. The resident said he wanted the full accounts of the service charges going back five years or “whatever the legal requirement was” and emphasised that he was a vulnerable adult.
On 12 April 2019 the solicitor wrote to the resident. The main points of that letter were:

(a) Last year the resident appointed his mother as his representative and agreed contact between him and the landlord client would be through her. In light of that arrangement, the resident agreed not to contact the landlord directly.

(b) In respect of the landlord’s direct contact with the resident, he was advised this would be confined to documents which the landlord was required by law to send him in connection with his lease.

(c) The solicitors had seen that the resident had retracted the appointment of his mother as his representative in respect of issues with his lease.

(d) The landlord agreed to having direct contact with the resident but needed to make effective use of its resources. Therefore, the landlord insisted on the following:

(e) only send emails to one person within the organisation rather than to multiple people;

(f) immediately stop making disparaging remarks about the landlord or members of its staff; and

(g) stop copying the emails he sent to the landlord to third party organisations.

The solicitor said that, should he fail to do so, the landlord would have no alternative but to restore the injunction application it issued against him the previous year.
On 17 April 2019 the solicitor wrote to the court asking it to restore its injunction and have a hearing before the end of May 2019.
On 10 June 2019 the resident made a complaint of harassment to the landlord about a named member of staff.
On 12 June 2019 the solicitor exchanged messages with the resident about having mediation with the landlord. While the resident expressed his concerns about the process, he agreed to a mediation meeting on 19 July 2019. This date was subsequently changed to 12 July 2019.
On 1 July 2019 the solicitor told the resident that his complaint about a named member of staff had been put on hold while mediation took place. In brief, a mediation meeting was arranged for 12 July 2019 at 12:30pm. The resident did not attend.
On 24 July 2019 the solicitor wrote to the resident following his failure to attend mediation on 12 July 2019. They said that the purpose of the mediation meeting was to give him an opportunity to air his concerns and work out a way to resolve the issues which were concerning him. They added that the landlord had agreed to withdraw the existing legal proceedings against him if he attended and participated in the meeting. The solicitor said that the landlord wanted the resident to refrain from:

(a) Sending emails to anyone at the landlord other than the named contact.

(b) Using offensive language within his emails towards the landlord’s employees.

The solicitor said that this did not affect the resident’s ability to make complaints to the landlord in line with its complaints policy. They concluded by saying that, to draw a line under the matter, the landlord had instructed them to request that the existing proceedings against him are dismissed. They added that, should he resume the pattern of behaviour that the landlord had complained of, it may consider further proceedings against him. The solicitor added that it was the landlord’s intention to investigate the earlier complaint from the resident about the named member of staff (paragraph 46).
On 26 July 2019 the resident asked the court not to dismiss the case saying, “the court has a legal duty to resolve this matter”.
On 25 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the appointee with details of the service charge statement for the period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. This showed a surplus of -£28.56 which the landlord said would be credited to the rent and/or service charge account shortly.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord asked the appointee to contact it. (It did not give a reason for that.)
On 25 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the appointee with the rent and service charge annual review for the property for the period April 2020 to March 2021. It gave an estimate for the service charge for this period of £158.22.
On 3 June 2020 the landlord contacted the appointee asking her to contact it urgently to discuss the resident’s rent account. (At that time the rent account was in arrears by £3,066.50)
On 29 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord attaching a letter from the Insolvency Service. (This letter has not been seen.) He said, among other things that he was aware that there would be arrears to pay and that he needed to arrange a date to vacate the property.
On 25 August 2020 the resident’s energy provider asked him to provide final meter readings in connection with him moving out of the property. On the same day a local charity confirmed with the resident by email potential dates to collect a large item from the property.
On 21 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his complaints. The landlord told this Service that there was no complaint letter from the resident at this time, but it considered it would be appropriate to consider the issues he had raised with it and the solicitor as a formal complaint. This letter said a named officer would be in touch within three working days to fully understand the issue and resolution he was seeking.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the appointee with details of the service charge statement for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. This showed a surplus of -£34.94 which the landlord said would be credited to the rent and/or service charge account shortly.
On 28 September 2020 the resident wrote to the managing agent and landlord. He said that no attempt had been made to resolve the issue of harassment of him by other tenants; the landlord had harassed family members for money and then had “unlawfully evicted” him or tricked him into leaving making him homeless during a pandemic. He said he was willing to resolve this matter with the landlord.
On 2 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. In relation to the complaints brought to the Ombudsman, the main points were:

(a) Changing the locks: the communal door entry system was the responsibility of the freeholder and the landlord had no responsibility for changing the locks or fob system. Having reviewed the repair system for the block, the landlord did not change the fob system nor fail to supply the resident with a fob to prevent access. If there was a specific incident that the resident wanted the landlord to raise with the managing agent, then he should provide details and it would take that forward.

(b) Filing false charges against the resident: the landlord said it assumed the resident was referring to the management of the car park in March 2018. It was at this time the managing agent contacted the landlord to inform it of their intention to construct a wall between the resident’s parking bay and the bike racks. In order for the works to be completed the managing agent requested the bay was kept empty. The landlord said it passed on that request to the resident and provided the photo of the car within the bay, as had been provided by the managing agent. The resident said that was not his car, which the landlord relayed to the managing agent.

(c) Filing a fake eviction against the resident (or attempting to make him believe there was an eviction): the landlord said it had found no evidence or reference to any proposed or intended eviction proceedings within the resident’s customer records to corroborate that allegation.

(d) Cutting off amenities that were included in the lease agreement: the landlord said that the managing agent was responsible for the maintenance and management of the car park at the block. As part of that agreement, the managing agent contact the landlord should they feel there was an issue which required attention and it, in turn, shared that information with the resident(s) concerned as appropriate. The landlord said that the incident it believed the resident was referring to was linked to his claim that another car was parked in his parking bay and therefore had denied him the right to park. The landlord said that that was a matter for the managing agent and the parking enforcement company. It said, if the resident wanted the landlord to raise this issue with the management company, to provide it with further details and it would do so.

(e) Harassment of a tenant under protected characteristics: the landlord said it refuted any claim of harassment and criminal behaviour towards the resident. It had found no evidence to support the allegation.

(f) Service charges: the landlord confirmed there was no formal dispute on the calculation or expenditure of service charges and any outstanding balance would be collected upon completion of the sale of the property.

The landlord concluded by saying that it appreciated that a degree of persistence might feel necessary to follow up a complaint; however, the resident must allow it the opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues he had raised. It said it was sorry that he felt it had treated him unfairly but had found no evidence to support his allegations. It explained how he could request an escalation of his complaint.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that he rejected the stage one complaint response for various reasons including that it had failed to address his allegations of harassment; that the named staff member had not contacted him about the complaint; and that it had “fabricated” reports of ASB against him.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident following his email of 2 October 2020. It said, having reviewed his comments, it could see that it did contact the resident’s mother after he had withdrawn consent to do so. The landlord apologised for that oversight. It assured the resident that the communication was requesting contact, rather than disclosing any sensitive information. The landlord gave an assurance that his mother’s contact details have since been removed from his account to stop that happening again in the future. It confirmed that this was its final response to the resident’s complaint and it had waived the second stage of its complaints process so that he was able to approach this Service without delay.
The landlord also said that it had received notices from the Insolvency Service, the resident’s mortgage lender and the local authority in respect of difficulties the resident was currently experiencing. It said it was very concerned that he might be placing himself at risk of being intentionally homeless. The landlord said it was aware of the impact the current pandemic might be having on all its customers and it offered a range of support and advice. It added it would be happy to arrange for one of its financial wellbeing officers to contact him to discuss this further.
On 1 November 2020 the resident wrote to the Prime Minster explaining that “threatening phone calls to my elderly mother harassing her for money and telling her how they were going to evict me. With no alternative I was led to believe that I needed to leave my home”.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord made a referral to the local authority’s adult social services team on the grounds that it strongly believed he was at risk at harming himself including losing his home or harming others. The resident had threatened to rip out the kitchen and bathroom of his flat which could put himself and other residents of the block at significant risk. The resident had presented himself as homeless to the local authority and had expressed to them that he did not understand the circumstances around his housing situation as he had lost his job due to Covid. It said it had legitimate concerns regarding the resident’s safety and wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a request for service charge information

On 19 April 2018, in response to a previous request, the landlord provided the resident with service charge demands and actual service charges for the period from April 2015 to March 2017 (paragraph 28).
In October 2018 the resident challenged the rent and service charge increases and asked the landlord for a full summary of the last 12 months service charges (paragraph 35). In March 2019 the resident asked the landlord for further information relating to the service charge, clarifying in April 2019 that he wanted “the full accounts of the service charges going back five years or whatever the legal requirement was” (paragraphs 37 and 40).
The resident had the legal right to a written summary of the costs which make up the previous years’ service charge at the end of the year. Within six months of receiving the summary, the resident can ask to inspect documents relating to the service charge (paragraphs 20 and 21). The landlord said in correspondence that the final service charge figure was usually available by the September of each year (paragraph 36). The Ombudsman considers it best practice that landlords provide information in an understandable form, including details of the accounting period and how requests are dealt with. The landlord did not do that in a timely way. Accordingly, it is unclear how the landlord was treating his request for information about the service charges. The landlord could have done more to explain the process to the resident and how the charges were worked out. That was a service failure.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. We have ordered redress, below, of £100 for the evident inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in providing this information. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure and includes cases where there have been delays in providing information.

Contact with the appointee after consent to do so had been withdrawn by the resident.

The resident authorised the landlord to communicate with his parents in matters relating to the property in May 2018 (paragraph 30) and said he would communicate with it through them also. Later that year, the landlord said it would write to the resident care of his mother (the appointee) but would still write direct to the resident when it was required to do so by law (paragraph 34). On 11 March 2019 the resident told the landlord he had “retracted his appointee” (paragraph 37).
The landlord expressed concerns about that the next day to the appointee but there is no evidence that the arrangement was reinstated. The landlord then wrote to the appointee as follows:

(a) On 5 April 2019 about a complaint made by the resident (paragraph 39).

(b) On 25 September 2019 with a service charge statement (paragraphs 50).

(d) On 25 February 2020 with a rent and service charge annual review (paragraph 52).

(e) On 3 June 2020 asking her to contact it about the resident’s rent account (paragraphs 53).

(f) On 25 September 2020 with a service charge statement (paragraph 57).

The resident has said that the landlord also contacted the appointee by telephone (paragraph 64). All this communication was not appropriate because the resident had withdrawn his authorisation for the landlord to deal with the appointee in his behalf. In its final complaint response (paragraph 62), the landlord apologised for that oversight and said it had not disclosed any sensitive information to the appointee. It gave an assurance that her details had been removed from its system to stop communication with her.
However, this unauthorised contact with the appointee evidently caused some distress to the resident and an apology alone was not sufficient to put the repeated failures right. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident. In this case this Service considers that the sum of £100 is appropriate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s contact with the appointee – both in writing and by telephone – following the withdrawal of the authority. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence service failure. This includes cases where there have been communication failures.

Response to the resident’s concerns that it had changed the locks to the building resulting in the resident not being able to access the property

In its complaint response, the landlord explained the communal entry system was not its responsibility, but the freeholder’s. It also said that it had not changed the fob system or failed to supply the resident with a fob to prevent access. It said that, if there was a specific incident that the resident wanted it to raise with the managing agent, then he should provide details.
As part of this investigation, the landlord provided an email chain from November 2014 between it and the local authority which included information relating to the resident not being able to access the property. The landlord confirmed it had not changed the locks to his property at that time. It was appropriate that the landlord did not consider this issue as part of its complaint handling because it was out of time; its complaints policy says that matters should be brought to its attention within three months (paragraph 24). This Service considers it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate an issue that occurred six years previously as documents to support any investigation would likely no longer exist. Accordingly, there is no service failure by the landlord in its handling of this issue.

Response to concerns about the handling of an eviction

In its complaint response, the landlord said it had found no evidence of any the proposed or intended eviction proceedings in relation to the resident.
While the resident has also not provided the Ombudsman with such evidence, the timeline of events shows that the resident first suggested he might leave the property in March 2019 saying he would be “forced to leave” because of the noise issues he reported at that time (paragraph 37). There is no evidence that he did leave the property at that time. The evidence suggests that, by the end of June 2020, the resident had been made bankrupt and he wrote to the landlord saying he would have to leave the property (paragraph 54); and in August 2020 that he was planning to leave the property (paragraph 55). In September 2020 the resident said that it had resulted from the landlord having “unlawfully evicted” him or “tricked him into leaving the property”.
The resident has asserted that he left the property due to the landlord’s harassment of his mother for payment of his rent arrears (paragraph 64). While the landlord communicated with his mother about the arrears (in error – see paragraph 72), she was not responsible for the payment of rent or any arrears. The resident has not provided evidence of any such harassment of his mother.
While the resident was in rent arrears, there is no evidence that the landlord took action to evict him. Indeed, it sought to offer him support in October 2020 when it had concerns he was making himself intentionally homeless during a pandemic (paragraph 63).
The landlord acted reasonably in looking into this matter; however, in the absence of evidence of eviction to support the resident’s concerns it could not make a finding on this issue. In the absence of evidence to support the resident’s assertions here, this Service cannot say that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this matter.

Response to concerns about car parking

This Service has not seen details of the issues but these matters were included in the complaint response. It is not disputed that there are two issues here: in 2018 the resident was asked to keep his parking bay clear. He did, but a car not belonging to him was parked in the bay. The resident made two separate complaints relating to this – that a fake charge had been filed against him by the landlord (in relation to the car parked in his bay) and that he had been stopped from using an amenity that was included in his lease – his car parking space.
It is not clear from the lease that the resident has an allocated car parking bay. However, the landlord’s acted reasonably by telling the managing agent that a car was still parked in the appropriate bay. It also was not unreasonable to ask the resident to park elsewhere whilst a wall was being built.
The landlord acted appropriately and proportionately here. The evidence suggests that the detriment to the resident was minimal and it was open to him to pursue the issue further with the managing agent if his parking bay continued to be used by someone else.

Complaint handling

The landlord decided in around September 2020 to investigate the various issues that the resident had been raising with both it and its solicitors. It is clear that the resident had been dissatisfied with various actions of the landlord for some time – and at least as far back as March 2019 (paragraph 37). There is also no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s allegation of harassment, despite the solicitors saying that it was its intention to do so in July 2019 (paragraph 48). Despite the involvement of solicitors and the referral to mediation (paragraph 26), it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have decided to investigate all these matters earlier – in line with its complaints policy (paragraph 24). We note that the issue of harassment was included in the complaint response (paragraph 59), albeit it did not refer to the named member of staff (paragraph 44).
The complaint acknowledgement letter said a named officer would contact the resident to discuss the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. When the resident subsequently raised this as part of his request for a review of the complaint, the landlord did not address this. That would have been an opportunity for the landlord to have apologised for that oversight or given an explanation as to why it did not do so.
Also, as part of the resident’s escalation request, he said the landlord had not addressed all the issues he had raised. Had the landlord taken the opportunity to speak to the resident, this would likely have been avoided. While the landlord said that it waived the second stage of its complaint response which it had discretion to do so under its complaints procedure (paragraph 27), it did provide a further complaint response on 19 October 2020 (paragraph 62).
The discretion to waive the appeal stage of the complaints procedure would be appropriate where the landlord cannot add to its explanations given at stage one and therefore no value can be added by issuing a second complaint response. However, where the complainant asserts that issues raised in the original complaint have not been addressed, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to the resident and addressed these in a stage two response.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because it delayed raising a formal complaint; did not speak to the resident as it stated; and its use of discretion was not appropriate in this case. Accordingly, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
We have ordered redress, below, of £150 for the evident frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by these complaint handling failures. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure and includes cases where there have been complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:

(a) Its handling of a request for service charge information.

(b) Its contact with the appointee after consent had been withdrawn by the resident.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:

(a) Its response to the resident’s concerns that it had changed the locks to the building resulting in the resident not being able to access the property.

(b) Its response to concerns about the handling of an eviction.

Reasons

The landlord did not act appropriately by failing to provide a summary of the service charges for 2017-18 when the resident requested this information in October 2018.
While the landlord apologised for contact with the appointee after the resident had withdrawn his consent, it did not consider if any detriment had been caused to the resident by this failing and what action it might take to put this right.
The landlord was not aware that any locks had been changed to prevent the resident entering the building and stressed that was the responsibility of the freeholder. While there was evidence of an email chain relating to locks from 2014, it was not reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate that due to the time that had elapsed.
In the absence of evidence to support the resident’s assertions about an eviction, this Service cannot say that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this matter.
The landlord acted appropriately and proportionately in response to the resident’s concerns about car parking. The evidence suggests that the detriment to the resident was minimal and it was open to him to pursue the issue further with the managing agent if his parking bay continued to be used by someone else.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because it did not speak to the resident as it stated it would and its use of discretion in not escalating the complaint to the second stage of its procedure was not appropriate in this case.

Orders

The landlord shall, within four weeks of the date of this report, take the following action:

(a) Provide the resident with a full summary of the service charges for the year 2017-18.

(b) Apologise to the resident for:

(i) The delay in providing this information.

(ii) Contacting the appointee after he had withdrawn his authority.

(iii) The complaint handling failures identified in this report.

(i) £100 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide the requested service charge information.

(ii) £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused by contacting the appointee after he had withdrawn his authority

(iii) £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord asks the resident to confirm what documentation is outstanding (if any) in relation to the service charges and arrange to provide it.