Anchor Hanover Group (202107252)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107252

Anchor Hanover Group

21 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the ending of his tenancy and the amount of rent owed.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. He signed his tenancy agreement on 5 August 2020.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 September 2020. He said when he signed the tenancy agreement he was advised that he would only need to pay £80 for the first month’s rent. He said a few days after the signing, he asked the landlord what would happen if he could not proceed with the move due to health issues, and the landlord advised him to visit, and speak to its officer about his housing benefit. He said he went to visit the officer on three occasions but they were unavailable due to them being on holiday. From the information provided it is not clear when these visits were. The resident said when he spoke to another of the landlord’s officers, they said he would owe two month’s rent if he did not move in. He said the “old carpet removals only took place” the day before the officer went on leave (it is unclear when). He said he found the situation confusing, and was unable to pay two month’s rent.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 September 2020. It said the resident’s tenancy ended on 3 October 2020. It said the resident was responsible for his rent from his sign up date, until the termination date. It said it advised the resident before the sign up that he was entitled to housing benefit, and that if he did not apply, he would be responsible for all of his rent. It said the resident advised it in a phone call on 2 September 2020 that he no longer wanted to move into the property. The resident sent back his keys, and termination letter that day. It concluded by advising the resident to contact it if he required further assistance.
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 February 2021. He said he was disputing the level of rent he owed. He said the “old carpet was not removed for 4 weeks. Inhibiting a move in”. He reiterated that the landlord’s officer was unavailable when he visited in August 2020. He said he had received a council tax bill for the property from 4 August to 30 November 2020. He asked the landlord to assist him.
6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 February 2021. It said before the resident’s tenancy start date, he indicated that he wanted to keep the carpets in the flat. It said when he signed the tenancy, he then said he no longer wanted to keep all the carpets, just one of them. It said it changed the carpets at the earliest opportunity after the resident changed his mind. It said it removed the carpets on 25 August 2020. It said as a gesture of goodwill it would refund to his rent account £399.04 (21 days rent). It reiterated that it had advised him before the sign up of how to apply for housing benefit. It said the resident’s month notice began when he handed in his keys. It said it was sorry the resident was unable to move in because of his illness, but it did not abdicate his responsibility for paying the rent. It said he signed the tenancy agreement, and was legally bound to make the payment. It said if he was unable to make the payment in full, he could contact it to discuss a payment plan. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident continued to dispute the level of rent owed to the landlord following its stage two complaint response. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he explained that the landlord misadvised him about the size of a bedroom, and that he felt forced into signing up for housing benefit.

Assessment and findings

8. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he said the landlord misinformed him about a bedroom size, and forced him into signing up for housing benefit. These concerns were not raised to the landlord during its internal complaints procedure. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, they will not form part of this assessment. The resident should raise these concerns with the landlord first, and then, if it is able to and once it has fully investigated them, he can bring them to this Service if necessary.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is required to pay his rent, service charge, and other charges on the first day of each calendar month (Section1, clause 1.2). If the resident wishes to end his tenancy, he must give at least one month’s notice (section5, clause 1).
10. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord was unavailable when he attempted to visit it in August 2020. The resident explained that the landlord asked him to visit to discuss his housing benefit. No evidence has been provided of when the resident visited, or that a specific appointment was arranged by either the resident or the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s staff member’s absence at those specific times (given their other duties) would not be considered as a service failure.
11. The resident explained that one of the reasons he did not move into the property was because the landlord had not removed the carpets. The landlord acknowledged that it removed the carpets after the sign up date (on 25 August 2020), and explained why it had not removed them earlier. It then refunded the resident £399.04 (equivalent to 21 days rent). This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it demonstrated how it had considered the resident’s concerns that the carpets being there had inhibited his moving in. On the basis of the information provided by both parties, it is not clear what agreement had been reached in terms of the carpets before sign up. However residents are advised that they are accepting the property as it is when they sign the tenancy agreement. Therefore the resident in effect accepted the carpets in the property when they decided to sign the tenancy agreement in August. As such the landlord did not have an explicit obligation to remove the carpets, or to offer any refund. However the landlord’s response is a good example of dispute resolution, given it acknowledge the resident’s explanation of their situation and tried to help with the discretionary payment.
12. The resident also said that he was unable to move in due to an illness he had. The landlord acknowledged his comment but maintained its position that the resident owed his full rent for the duration of when he was a tenant. It is understandable that the resident’s illness may have impacted his move in. Nonetheless, there are no reasonable grounds on which the landlord would be expected to disregard the rent owed as the resident was bound to the terms of his tenancy agreement which states he must pay his rent. The resident was therefore required to pay for the month he signed his tenancy, and for the month after he gave notice. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to request payment from the resident despite his explanations for why he could not move in.

Determination (decision)

13. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.