Places for People Group Limited (202306033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306033

Places for People Group Limited

22 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for food and other expenses incurred during a temporary decant.

Background

2. The resident lives in a one-bedroom property under a tenancy dated 29 July 2019.
3. The landlord temporarily decanted the resident between 29 December 2021 and 3 August 2022. This was to allow roof replacement work to the block she lived in and internal repairs to the resident’s property. During this decant period the landlord provided hotel accommodation for the resident.
4. The hotel bookings came with a daily allowance of £26.37 for food. The resident was unable to eat in the hotel because of cultural reasons and the hotel having a limited menu. She claims that the landlord informed her she could eat externally but should keep receipts so the landlord could reimburse her and claim this back on its insurance.
5. In May 2022, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for food, parking, petrol, and the internet usage incurred during her hotel stay or advise her of her options.
6. On 8 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that she should keep receipts for reimbursement of food and parking costs, as usually there is a daily allowance for hotel stays.
7. On 12 July 2022, the landlord provided the resident with three options:

 

1. Option 1- it stated she could stay in hotels with the landlord covering the cost but could move to a self-catering accommodation and claim a daily living allowance.

 

2. Option 2- decant to another property with the landlord laying carpets and covering removal costs for the decant.

 

3. Option 3- permanently decant to another property and claim a home loss payment.

8. The resident decided on option one. The resident moved back home in August 2022 and requested reimbursement for the costs but the landlord refused.
9. On 13 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about its refusal to cover food payments. She asserted that her landlord had told her she could eat outside of the hotel for cultural reasons but must not exceed the daily allowance and keep receipts. The resident stated she had petrol costs to get to and from her property to do laundry and had to borrow money.
10. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023. It stated that it was not upholding her complaint because the resident was not entitled to expenses for food under the decant policy. It offered the resident £1,120.95 to cover her parking charges.
11. The resident requested an escalation on 9 February 2023. In its stage 2 response on 4 May 2023 the landlord:
    1. partially upheld her complaint about the reimbursement of food costs during her hotel stay.

 

2. apologised as it had found a service failure.

 

3. accepted that it had promised to reimburse her food expenses and told her to keep receipts when this was not supported by policy.

 

4. stated it would undertake staff training and review the decant policy to see how it impacts those in temporary accommodation.

 

5. awarded the resident £500 as a gesture of goodwill.

12. The resident requested this service investigate, claiming she was seeking reimbursement of £10,000 to cover the food and parking costs she incurred whilst in the hotel.

  

Assessment and findings

13. The landlord’s decanting customers and home loss policy requires it to consider the unique needs of its residents affected by the policy and specifically allows for adjustments on grounds of culture. The policy also states that the landlord will only cover removal costs and not meals.
14. Despite this the landlord booked hotel accommodation which also covered food costs of £26.37 per person per night. This would amount to a total of £5,748.66 for the period of the resident’s occupation in hotels (218 days between 29 December 2021 to 3 August 2022).
15. The evidence shows that the resident chased her landlord for reimbursement of costs on 4 May 2022, 19 May 2022, and 6 June 2022 and that the landlord did not reject this at the time.
16. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that it had misinformed the resident multiple times which led her to believe she could claim the cost of food and parking. It was therefore unreasonable not to cover these costs because the resident had incurred costs on the expectation of being reimbursed. Had the landlord been clear with the resident from the outset about costs then the resident may have decided not to stay in the hotel.
17. The resident asked the landlord on 6 June 2022 if she should find self-catering accommodation but received no response. She had understood the landlord had allowed her to put the hotel food daily allowance towards food she had purchased elsewhere. The landlord’s decant policy recognises the need to adjust its policies on cultural grounds, and in the absence of contrary instruction, it was reasonable that the resident understood this is what the landlord had agreed.
18. The landlord’s decision to only offer £500 compensation on a discretionary basis at stage 2 was not reasonable because it is likely that it did not reflect the monetary loss to the resident over seven months. It also failed to offer any compensation for parking charges despite the landlord having made an offer in its stage 1 response. For these reasons, the landlord’s position was unfair.
19. There is no evidence to support that the landlord offered to cover the resident’s petrol or internet costs. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord not to cover these. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident’s property is a one-bedroom property and only lists the resident as an occupant.
20. It is important to note that in cases like this one, residents would not necessarily be entitled to all costs back. This is because even living at the property there will have been some expense for food and other shopping. Therefore, the Ombudsman would consider what cost the resident would normally have had, and what the cost was of her living elsewhere. The resident would then be paid the difference. In this case, however, the resident was offered a temporary and permanent decant – and it was open to her to have accepted these to keep the costs lower so that she could prepare her own food. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the £26.37 was a fair amount on a daily basis to consider the increased costs.
21. Importantly, had the landlord correctly explained its position on costs the resident may have made a different decision to accept a decant. As such, the landlord is responsible for the daily allowance for the full period.
22. The landlord took 19 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 59 working days to respond at stage 2. It was required to respond under its complaint policy within 10 and 20 working days respectively. These delays would have caused further distress to the resident. The landlord did not offer compensation to recognise its errors in the handling of her request or its failures in complaint handling. It is therefore appropriate to make an award for compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of her food and parking but not internet and petrol costs.

Orders

24. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must pay the resident the sum of £7,119.61 comprised of:
    1. £ 5,748.66 towards the food expenses the resident incurred during her seven months stay in hotel accommodation (based on the daily allowance offered of £26.37 X 218 days)

 

2. £1,120.95 it offered at stage 1 to cover the resident’s parking costs if this has not already been paid.

 

3. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing this complaint.

25. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay interest of 11% on items a and b (£6,869. 61) to cover the average retail price index inflation rate for the period December 2021 to August 2022 (£755.65).

Recommendations

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. provides residents entering decanted properties with clear guidance on what residents can claim.

 

2. ensures housing staff are aware of the decant policy and confirm any advice given to residents in writing.

 

3. complete an equality impact assessment of the landlord’s decant policy.