Southern Housing Group Limited (201915218)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915218

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 March 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 resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled the administration of her rent account, specifically, its decision to issue a claim for possession of the property.
2. How the landlord handled reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her and her household, including the actions of a particular member of staff.
3. The landlord’s decision to refuse a tenancy to a particular property to her daughter following a Local Authority nomination and how the landlord handled the tenancy interview.
4. How the landlord handled the formal complaint.

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 (o) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s decision to refuse a tenancy to a particular property to her daughter following a Local Authority nomination and how the landlord handled the tenancy interview.
Under paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme, “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. The resident’s daughter raised the same complaint about the landlord’s decision to refuse a tenancy and the landlord provide the same complaint response to the resident and the daughter in relation to this issue. The Ombudsman has investigated the daughter’s complaint separately and therefore this complaint has already been decided upon by the Ombudsman. This complaint is referenced in the below report for context but has not been investigated again.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house (the property). The resident lives at the property with her partner, daughter and grandson.
On 26 November 2018, the landlord sent the resident a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) due to rent arrears totalling £906.17. This stated that court proceedings would not begin until after 31 December 2018.
On 3 June 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident referring to the NSP and stating she currently owed £1,445.41. It said that non-payment could lead to her being evicted from the property and paying legal fees. The landlord said it was not too late to pay the amount owed or come to a suitable arrangement to clear the arrears and requested she make contact.
The landlord’s contact records of 20 June 2019 state that the resident covered the housing benefit shortfall plus arrears for May 2019 with a payment made in early June and this payment put £133.13 towards the arrears. The notes state “monitor for continued payment”. The contact notes of 31 July 2019 state that the resident called in to make a payment of £365 and this was made up of the housing benefit shortfall for June and July. She apologised for not paying June on time and assured the landlord her next payment would be in four weeks’ time.
The landlord’s contact records evidence that it telephoned the resident on 6 September 2019 about rent arrears. During the call the landlord advised the resident she needed to make consistent payments or the arrears would increase. The resident said she disagreed with the arrears. The notes also state that it was agreed that the resident paid £230.90 which was five weeks of housing benefit shortfall and £5 per week. The notes state further “confirmed that next payment would be for 4 weeks’ worth on the 4 October and that we’ll await the call…”.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord decided to apply to court to request a suspended possession order due to irregular payments and lack of engagement from the resident when visiting. The possession claim was issued by the courts on 18 September 2019.
Also on 12 September 2019, the landlord received an allegation from a neighbour of ASB (verbal abuse) against the resident’s daughter. A parking issue was also raised. The landlord opened an ASB case, spoke to the neighbour and arranged to visit the property to speak to the resident.
On 18 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that she owed £1,048.46 in rent and that it would apply to the court to take possession of the property in seven days and she would have to pay its court costs. It said that if she cleared the debt within seven days from the date of the letter, it might be able to stop her having to attend court or pay court costs. On 19 September 2019, the courts wrote to the resident enclosing a claim form for possession and advising how she could complete a defence form.
On 20 September 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord serving an NSP (it is assumed she meant issuing the court proceedings), stating that she had been speaking to it about this and was now paying every four weeks instead of every six. The resident complained that the landlord had taken action due to a conversation she had had with a particular member of staff about an allegation against her daughter.
When making the complaint, the resident also explained that her daughter has mental health issues and a son with special needs and that the neighbour was often staring at her family and gossiping about her. She said that the neighbour was staring at her recently and her daughter approached the neighbour and asked what she was staring at, and the neighbour then shouted at her daughter. This led to the ASB report against the daughter.
On 23 September 2019, the landlord noted that it was not an NSP but notice of court proceedings that had been sent, the court action had since been cancelled as the “process wasn’t followed” and if the resident maintained the £5 payment per week towards the arrears, it would not start it again. The landlord left a voicemail informing the resident of this and confirmed it had nothing to do with the complaint from the neighbour. The landlord closed the complaint. The same day the landlord also wrote to the resident confirming that it had withdrawn its claim for possession. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 30 September 2019, the resident called the landlord advising that she did not wish a particular staff member (the same person who was investigating the ASB and who had requested the court proceedings – X) to attend the property the next day. The resident said that she was not able to be at the property the next day and requested someone else carry out any further appointments.
On 9 October 2019, a member of the resident’s family called the landlord advising that the resident was unwell and the appointment for that Friday was not convenient. They requested it be rearranged for the following week.
On 17 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it had received reports of ASB by her and/or visitors to the property. It said that two appointments had been made to discuss these reports and the rent arrears but she had cancelled them. A further visit had been arranged for 21 October 2019.
X attended the property on 21 October 2019. Their notes of the visit state that during this visit the resident and members of the resident’s family were shouting and behaving in an intimidating way. A second member of staff arrived part way through the visit and their notes of the visit refer to three members of the family shouting at X.
On 13 November 2019, the landlord responded to an ASB report the resident had made about her neighbour and referred to the counter allegations. It requested she make contact to arrange an appointment to discuss the issues.
On 13 January 2020, the resident raised a complaint about X stating that they had been unprofessional and bullying.
On 21 January 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord rejected her comments about X, specifically that they had been “passive aggressive” and was “discriminating” against her family. It referred to the incident on 21 October 2019 stating the resident had shouted and was verbally aggressive towards them, which had been witnessed. It rejected that the staff member was friends with a resident of the landlord. On 29 January 2020, the landlord provided a Stage one complaint response. It said it considered the resident’s personal comments about the member of staff unfair and unsubstantiated. It also urged her to engage with the investigation into the alleged ASB.
On 4 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting to appeal the decision of 29 January 2020. She felt a full investigation had not been completed as it had not spoken to her or her daughter. The resident complained that in relation to the alleged ASB reports, she was advised by another member of staff that they would do the investigation into the events on 21 October 2019, but the resident received no further correspondence other than from X, which she considered wrong as she had complained about this person. She said she was not given the opportunity to engage with someone impartial. She said she was not told of the appointment of 21 October 2019 beforehand.
The resident also explained that the main reason she did not want to engage with X previously was the “unlawful eviction” attempt. She said she received a form for possession of the property with a court date dated 19 September 2019, but the member of staff had not made contact to discuss the rent arrears beforehand. She rang the accounts team and they said X had authorised it. She said she then resolved it herself with the accounts team and they confirmed that she had been paying her shortfall and agreed payment plan of £5 per week towards arrears and that the NSP and court hearing letter did not have the required 7-day gap.
On 5 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident about the allegations of ASB referring to the meeting of 21 October 2019 and that a further meeting was arranged but she did not attend. The landlord said it had witnessed that the family were still parking in the “turning point” despite being requested not to, and it had been reported that the daughter had been shouting at neighbours and videoing them. It said it would visit the property on 18 February 2020.
On 10 February 2020, the resident raised concerns about X of the landlord’s staff intending to attend on 18 February 2020 due to the complaint her and her daughter had made about X. The resident (or a member of her family on her behalf) subsequently informed the landlord that she would not be available on 18 February 2020.
On 24 February 2020, the landlord advised that it felt the best course of action was for the entire complaint to be reviewed by another Head of Region with no connection to the case (although this was not its usual practice). However, on 25 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident again stating that having considered the complaint further it had decided that the involvement of another Head of Region would not be of benefit and it was more appropriate to concentrate on her request to have the issue escalated. The landlord said that to consider escalating to Stage two, it needed her to provide the reasons why she was dissatisfied and the outcome she was seeking. It said it would not be possible to allocate the previous property her daughter had applied for as it had been allocated to someone else.
On 3 March 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord stating she was concerned about the sudden decision not to pass the complaint to another Head of department. She referred to her letter of 4 February 2020 requesting to go to Stage two and setting out her concerns with the response of 29 January 2020. She requested X be held accountable for their actions.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained why it had retracted its decision for a Head of Service to review the request for escalation. It explained that in more usual circumstances, the complaint would have come to the Customer Relations Manager, but given the nature of her concerns, it initially felt it would be more appropriate for it Head of Homes to consider. However, it now felt that it would be better to follow the usual Stage two process. The landlord said that it understood that the only outcome she was seeking was to have a particular property allocated to her daughter and the panel would not be able to consider or change this outcome. The landlord concluded that all aspects of the resident’s complaint had been investigated and it did not agree to escalate the complaint.
On 31 March 2020, the resident responded requesting clarification as to whether this was the landlord’s final complaint response.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised that it felt its refusal for the complaint to be escalated to Stage two was the right decision as the outcome she was seeking was not something the panel could consider.
On 8 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. She asked if the response of 13 March 2020 was the final complaint response. She also referred to the actions of X who had visited the property on 21 October 2019. The resident said she had not received notice of this visit and that X has pushed her bins aggressively into her parking area and then looked around for items they had previously asked the resident to have removed. She felt the staff member was “desperate to get something” on her. She accused X of shouting at her daughter about parking in the wrong area.
The resident also complained that X had addressed her outside in the parking area rather than in private. She referred to her complaint of “illegal eviction” and harassment by X. She also complained that X had told her daughter that the resident was over a thousand pounds in rent arrears and that they would be making a safeguarding referral for her other daughter and grandson.
On 26 May 2020, the landlord wrote a further letter to the resident. The landlord acknowledged that in terms of how the complaint was handled, it offered an option which was subsequently withdrawn and it apologised for this. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to Stage two but given the current COVID 19 restrictions and that the outcome she was seeking was outside of the panel’s jurisdiction, it would not put it forward to the panel but instead arrange for a manager to review the case and as part of which they would contact her by telephone so that she had an opportunity to explain their concerns. The landlord asked if she wished the review to go ahead and said it would likely not take place until July given the Covid 19 challenges.
The resident wrote to the landlord requesting the review and referring to her email of 8 May 2020. She requested clarification as to the refusal to take the complaint to Stage two. The resident requested X be held accountable for their actions and not be her Housing Officer (HO) anymore. She also said that the landlord had not addressed the harassment by the HO to her and her family, in particular, the “unlawful eviction” attempt.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out its Stage two complaint review. In relation to ASB, the landlord said there were recent ASB reports and it was reasonable for it to follow up on these. The landlord said it had received a report on 19 September 2019 and attempted to discuss this but found it difficult to engage with her. The landlord said that an early discussion, mediation and support might have been productive, but these allegations combined with associated nuisance cases, including bulk refuse and parking complaints and arrears contacts seems to have “left the family feeling persecuted”.
On 21 October 2019, a serious incident occurred whereby a number of family members including the resident and her daughter behaved in an intimidating and unreasonable way towards the HO. The landlord said that while the family were frustrated, the conduct witnessed by another landlord employee was unacceptable and constituted ASB. The landlord noted that there had been no significant reports since and the ASB case had since been closed.
In relation to the rent account, the landlord said that on 12 September 2019, it had sanctioned an application to court based on arrears and an erratic recent payment record. The landlord said that that decision followed its policy “though it might be easy to question why that decision was made a day after an ASB report was made against the family”. The landlord said that the subsequent application was withdrawn after a timing issue was discovered and the resident had broadly maintained a payment plan since then reducing the arrears.
The landlord did not agree that it had attempted an “unlawful eviction”. It said it would have followed court protocols and should the case have got to court it would have been at the district judge’s discretion what, if any, order was made. In conclusion, the landlord said that while the complaint had not been handled promptly or consistently, in general it had followed policy and procedure.
In relation to the complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that the handling of the complaint had been slow and had focused too heavily on the resident’s daughter’s letting issue. The landlord acknowledged that it had not handled the complaint in line with its policy: it had not escalated the complaint to Stage two when the resident requested it; its indecision as to how to progress the complaint caused further delays; and there were delays in replying to some correspondence.
The landlord apologised for these failings and said the outcome of the review would be shared with the complaint team. It said it had recently undertaken a review of its complaint service and it was looking to introduce several changes to make it easier for customers to complain and have their complaints escalated in a timelier manner. The landlord offered £50 compensation for service failures and an additional discretionary amount of £50 for the amount of time it had taken to conclude the complaint.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the administration of the resident’s rent account, specifically, its decision to issue a claim for possession of the property.

Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord can only end the tenancy by obtaining a court order for possession on one or more of the grounds listed in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. It also states that the landlord agrees it will give not less than two weeks’ notice in writing of its intention to apply for a Possession Order and will only use certain grounds, which are listed in the agreement.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords states that after service of a notice but before the issuing of proceedings, if the tenant complies with an agreement to pay the current rent and a reasonable amount towards arrears, the landlord should agree to postpone issuing court proceedings for so long as the tenant keeps to such an agreement. If the tenant ceases to comply with such an agreement, the landlord should warn the tenant of the intention to bring proceedings and give the tenant clear time limits within which to comply again and avoid proceedings.
There was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the rent account in that it issued court proceedings for possession on the grounds of rent arrears without giving two weeks’ notice of its intention to do so in accordance with the tenancy agreement. In addition, the landlord’s contact records evidence that the resident had discussed the arrears with the landlord on 6 September 2019, made a payment including towards the arrears and agreed to pay again on 4 October 2019.
It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord made the decision on 12 September 2019 to issue court proceedings. This decision was contrary to what was agreed with the resident on 6 September 2019 and contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol since, if the landlord felt the resident was not keeping to the agreement, it should have warned her of its intention to issue proceedings and give her a time limit in which to apply, which it did not do.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
It is acknowledged that the landlord did subsequently confirm to the resident that it had withdrawn the possession claim and the court hearing did not go ahead. The landlord also apologised for the inconvenience caused. When responding to the resident’s complaint about this issue, the landlord said that the decision to issue court proceedings followed its policy, although noted that the application was withdrawn after a “timing issue was discovered”. It did not agree it had attempted an “unlawful eviction”.
The landlord acted appropriately in identifying that it had issued proceedings prematurely, withdrawing the claim, and apologising. However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord failed to fully acknowledge this shortcoming and the distress caused to the resident. It incorrectly concluded that it had acted in accordance with its policies. While the landlord said it would have followed court protocols and it was correct in identifying that any decision would have been at the judge’s discretion, it missed the main point of the complaint that the landlord had not followed the protocol and tenancy in terms of the decision to issue, and timing of, its application to the court.
It is also noted that the resident’s dissatisfaction in relation to this issue focused on the particular staff member involved in the decision to issue court proceedings, the resident and family members went on to make several complaints about this staff member and also communicated their desire not to engage with the staff member anymore. The resident considered the member of staff made the decision due to a report of ASB against her daughter made at the same time. While there is no evidence to support this allegation, if the landlord had fully addressed the shortcoming in relation to the possession claim at the time or during the visit of 21 October 2019, this might have helped to address the resident’s lack of confidence in this particular member of staff.
The resident’s lack of confidence in this particular staff member damaged the landlord tenant relationship and exacerbated the other complaints raised. Had the landlord acknowledged that it had made a serious error in issuing court proceedings prematurely, and that this caused distress to the resident who received a letter from the court without prior warning, this complaint could have been resolved at a much earlier stage.

How the landlord handled reports of ASB against the resident and her household including the actions of a particular member of staff

The resident complained about how the landlord handled reports of ASB made against the resident and her household. While it is related to this complaint, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled her daughter’s tenancy application and the interview relating to this has been considered under a separate complaint made by the daughter and is therefore not discussed in detail in this report (see paragraph 4 above).
The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it received a report of ASB from a neighbour against the resident’s daughter on 12 September 2019. The landlord contacted the resident about the allegations and arranged to visit the property to discuss them on 1 October 2019. The resident cancelled this appointment and said she did not want to meet with that particular member of staff. A second appointment with the resident was cancelled due to the resident being unwell. The resident’s family member requested the appointment for 11 October 2019 be rearranged for the following week. A call was requested to confirm this. On 17 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident advising of a new appointment for 21 October 2019 at her home address.
The resident complained that the landlord had not informed her it was coming on this day. While it would have been preferable for the landlord to have sent the letter advising of the appointment further in advance to ensure the resident received the letter beforehand, it is clear that the resident was aware of the allegation and the landlord’s desire to discuss it with her. The landlord had already made two appointments which had been cancelled by the resident and therefore it is understandable that it was keen to rearrange this as soon as possible. The resident had requested the appointment be rearranged and the landlord wrote to advise of the appointment. There is therefore no evidence of any shortcoming in relation to this issue.
The landlord’s ASB policy lists various informal actions it can take in response to a report of ASB, and this includes interviewing the alleged perpetrator. It was therefore appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s policy to arrange to discuss the allegations made with the resident and her family.
It is noted that the resident had made a complaint about X of the landlord’s staff and indicated that she did not wish to deal with X. The notes made by X of the visit of 21 October 2019 state that they advised that as they were the resident’s HO, they would be dealing with the ASB reports received and they needed to talk to the resident to get her side. This approach was reasonable where X was the resident’s allocated HO.
It is noted that the landlord could have addressed the resident’s concerns about dealing with X prior to the visit as she had raised concerns beforehand. Had it done so, this would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations at an earlier stage. However, overall the Ombudsman is satisfied that it was reasonable for X to attend to investigate the allegations made by the resident’s neighbour as well as the resident’s own allegations and explanation as to what had happened.
The resident also complained that X had pushed her bins aggressively and shouted at her daughter for parking in the wrong place; had addressed her outside the property rather than in private; and had told her daughter that the resident was over a thousand pounds in rent arrears and that they would be making a safeguarding referral for her other daughter. When responding to the complaint, the landlord said that, on 21 October 2019, a serious incident occurred whereby a number of family members including the resident and her daughter, behaved in an intimidating and unreasonable way towards X.
The landlord has provided the notes taken by its two officers who attended on 21 October 2019. These notes include that X moved the bins into a spare parking bay and that they asked the family to move a car that was parking in the turning point. The notes also state that X confirmed to the resident that the court proceedings had been cancelled and, as long as she kept to the agreement that had been made, no further action would be taken. X also advised that they would be making a safeguarding referral in relation to the resident’s daughter and granddaughter, due to concerns about the daughter’s behaviour and the second member of staff supported this decision.
The landlord’s response in relation to this issue relied on its staff records as to what had happened on this occasion. While this was disappointing for the resident, who had provided a different version of events, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on these records. It is noted that the landlord could have gone further to specifically address the allegations the resident had made (as set out in paragraph 57). However, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the issue and considering the evidence available. Following this incident, a further appointment was cancelled by the resident and the ASB case was subsequently closed therefore no further action was taken.
In conclusion, the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy in making reasonable attempts to investigate the allegations made against, and by, the resident’s household. While this service has identified some areas for improvement, there was no significant failure by the landlord which would lead to a finding of maladministration by this service.

How the landlord handled the complaint.

The landlord’s Complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure:
1. Stage one. It aims to provide a response within ten working days. If it is not able to resolve the matter within ten days, it will let the customer know what steps it is taking to resolve the matter and an indicative timescale. If, following the response, the resident believes it has failed to respond appropriately to the issue, they can request for the complaint to be escalated to Stage two.
2. Stage two. The Complaint review panel will review the decision made a Stage one to make sure it has completed previously agreed actions, and to check that policies and procedures have been followed fairly and appropriately. It states it will aim to provide a report relating to the complaint to all parties at least ten working days before the hearing date and following the review, it will provide the panel’s decision in writing within ten working days of the hearing.
There were several shortcomings in how the landlord handled the formal complaint. The landlord did not provide a written response to the first complaint about the possession claim. There were significant delays in the landlord progressing the complaint to Stage two and it changed its position about how it was handling the complaint more than once. This was confusing for the resident and delayed the final complaint response. The landlord did not handle the complaint in accordance with the process and timescales set out in its complaint policy and the resident had to chase up responses and communicate regularly about the complaint as a result.
However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the complaint had been too slow and that it had not handled the complaint in line with its policy. It noted that it had not escalated the complaint to Stage two when the resident requested it, and that its indecision as to how to progress the complaint caused further delays. The landlord apologised for these failings and said the outcome of the review would be shared with the complaint team. It said it had recently undertaken a review of its complaint management service and it intended to introduce several changes to improve its complaint handling. The landlord offered £50 compensation for service failures and an additional discretionary amount of £50 for the amount of time it had taken to conclude the complaint.
While there were some shortcomings in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately in identifying this, acknowledging this and apologising to the resident. The landlord also explained how it would improve its complaints handling to prevent the same failings happening again and offered compensation.
The offer of compensation was accordance with the landlord’s Compensation policy, which refers to offering compensation where there has been a service failure which has caused inconvenience, such as not following its own policies. The offer was also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Remedies guidance, which refers to awards of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, for example, a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses, but where the failure had no significant impact. The offer was also in line with Orders for compensation made by the Ombudsman for comparable shortcomings in complaint handling.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings, learn from the complaint and offered appropriate compensation. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how it had handled the administration of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how it handled reports of ASB against the resident and her household, including the actions of a particular member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about how it handled the formal complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Pre-Action Protocol in relation to the issuing of possession proceedings against the resident as it did not provide appropriate notice of its intention to apply to court. The landlord appropriately withdrew the proceedings once the resident pointed this out. However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord should have acknowledged this shortcoming as well as the distress caused to the resident, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. This was of particular concern in the situation where this had led to a breakdown in trust between the resident and a particular member of staff, which had exacerbated the other complaints the resident raised.
The landlord investigated the reports of ASB made against the resident in accordance with its ASB policy and there is no evidence of the landlord acting unfairly or unreasonably in relation to these reports.
There were some shortcomings in the way the landlord handled the complaint, which was confusing and took longer than the time frames set out in its policy. However, the landlord acknowledged its shortcomings, advised how it intended to improve its complaints handling and offered proportionate compensation to put things right. In doing so, the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident and pay her compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the decision to issue a claim for possession of the property (within four weeks of the date of this Order).
2. Pass on the findings of this investigation to its staff handling rent arrears and remind them of the importance of following the pre-action steps required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords and the tenancy terms relevant to possession action (within six weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the compensation of £100 for its shortcomings in handling the formal complaint within 28 days of this Recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.