Greenwich Council (202109482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109482

Greenwich Council

22 March 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to charge rent for the property up until August 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident was a secure tenant, of the landlord, at the property, from 28 July 2014, having moved there to flee from domestic violence. The resident also says she has a disability, which she said that she had advised the landlord of in 2019, although the landlord has said that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The tenancy agreement states that a secure tenancy can only be terminated ‘By [the tenant] giving [the landlord] 4 weeks’ written notice, which must end on a Monday’.
The ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ further states under ‘Giving up your tenancy’ that ‘If [a tenant] is leaving the property, except through a transfer to another [landlord] property, you must contact your [landlord] office to arrange to end the tenancy’ and under the same section, ‘remember you will still have to pay your rent … for as long as the tenancy continues’ and ‘For advice about your circumstances, contact Tenancy Services or an independent advice agency’.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one, within 15 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation of it to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, whereby it aims to review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. Where the landlord requires longer to respond to the complaint at either stage, it will let the complainant know, providing a revised timeframe.
The resident states she had been complaining to the landlord about her neighbours since 2016.

Summary of events

On 31 January 2019, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord in respect of noise nuisance the resident said she was experiencing from the property above hers, which was causing her physical and mental health problems and exacerbating existing ones. There was no information available as to whether or how the landlord responded to this letter.
Between February and May 2019, the resident made a number of reports about the neighbour above her at the property, in respect of issues affecting her mental health, including:
1. Hanging a mop and mat outside on the fire guard, causing a fire hazard.
2. Wearing high heels around the property causing noise and disturbance;
3. Polishing the floor, causing noise and disturbance;
4. Scraping furniture across the floor, causing noise and disturbance;
5. Spilling soap water into her garden below, causing a slip hazard;
6. Spitting into her garden below, causing hygiene issues;
7. Throwing cigarettes, food and rubbish into her garden below, encouraging vermin.
There is no information as to whether or how the landlord responded to these reports, although it has said in response to the current complaint that the issues were fully investigated, as was a complaint about its staff.
On an unknown date around this time, there was also a police report made by the resident, although no action was taken by the police. The resident has said that the police advised it was an issue for the landlord to resolve and advised her that she could complain to the landlord about its handling of her reports if she wished. The resident states that thereafter she contacted the landlord and was “mocked” by it over the telephone, with her words being repeated loudly, so that other members of staff could hear.
The resident has said that on 27 May 2020, she gave verbal notice over the telephone, to the landlord, to terminate the tenancy. She has said that this was because she was being harassed by neighbours.
The resident has stated that in respect of handing back the keys, she telephoned the landlord on several occasions for advice on next steps but “received no response due to [its animosity towards [her]” which she attributed to having made complaints about her tenancy officer regarding handling of her reports about her neighbours and its “lack of service” during the Covid-19 lockdown.
The landlord does not accept that termination of the tenancy was given until 13 August 2020. This is because its receipt of a termination notice and return of the keys did not take place until this date. The landlord asserts that the resident is therefore liable for the rent during this time. The resident disputes this position, saying:
1. She gave verbal notice;
2. She is vulnerable;
3. She had Covid-19;
4. There was no advice on the landlord’s website regarding returning keys at the time;
5. The customer service desk was closed due to Covid-19;
6. She was advised she was unable to return keys to reception staff, as they were transient and as such, there was a risk of keys getting lost;
7. She was advised that keys must be returned to the tenancy team only and not posted though the landlord’s door/letterbox as it was a public building.
On 13 July 2020, the landlord sent the resident a letter entitled ‘Housing Account Statement’ for the property, at the property address. It states under ‘Moving Home and Ending your Tenancy’ that ‘if you are planning to move home and end your tenancy, you must give at least 4 weeks’ notice to [the landlord]’. This was sent to the property address, as were further letters on 27 July and 4 August 2020, although the resident, by this point, was not residing at the property and so did not receive them.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord contacted the resident by phone and by text regarding rent arrears. The resident responded by advising she would be in touch the following week.
On 11 August 2020, the resident called the landlord and advised she had left the property quickly as she could not afford to pay rent and so was unable to return the keys and had not been in London since.
The landlord advised that her rent account was continuing to accrue arrears and that she would need to complete a tenancy termination notice in order to end the tenancy and it was agreed that this would take place on 13 August 2020.
On 12 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise she would be returning the keys the following day. She informed the landlord that she left because she could not afford to pay the rent during Covid-19 and said she had been trying to contact the landlord about this at the same time as she had been contacting it about council tax.
The resident stated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s assertion that she remained liable for rent until the keys were returned and a termination notice signed (plus four-week notice period on top of that). The landlord advised her to put her complaint in writing.
On 24 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord requesting that it waive the rent charge for the six weeks she retained the keys of the property. She advised she had a disability in respect of a speech impediment and anxiety. The reasons for requesting the waiver of rent were because:
1. She said she had to leave the property due to harassment from neighbours, which the landlord did not resolve, despite her making reports since 2016, that it ignored her health issues and disability and had mocked and bullied her when she raised the issues with it. The resident added that when she complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports, her complaint was not investigated.
2. She had notified the landlord (although not the ‘Tenancy Team’) in May and June 2020, of her notice to terminate the tenancy and had therefore fulfilled her obligation. She added that no advice was given to her in terms of how to manage the situation further, given Covid-19 and the national lockdown or how to hand the keys back.
On 22 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident. It advised that the previous issue regarding its handling of reports of harassment from her neighbours had been fully investigated and closed. The landlord did not agree to a rent waiver, on the basis that its reception staff were accepting returned keys and documentation relating to terminated tenancies and that its telephone system remained fully operational throughout the lockdown. It could find no record of the resident having contacted it prior to the date that she handed the keys to it and said that had she contacted it, it would have advised her of the process.
On 21 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, reiterating her request for it to waive the rent for those six weeks. The resident repeated her dissatisfaction with the way in which it responded to her reports about her neighbour and subsequent complaint and added that she had paid £500 for a solicitor to write the landlord a letter in respect of harassment by neighbours, which she would like refunded.
The resident disputed she had not called the landlord, stating she called several times between May and August 2020 and said that she was specifically advised that reception staff cannot accept property keys and only a member of the ‘Rents Collection Team’ could do so.
On 25 November 2020, the landlord responded, advising that it had treated her email of 21 November 2020 as a complaint and that it had now been investigated at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, finding the following:
1. The tenancy agreement required four weeks’ notice in writing to terminate the tenancy.
2. Its records show that the resident contacted its ‘Income Team’ on 11 August 2020, advising that she had left the property in June 2020 but had left quickly and was therefore unable to return the keys to it. The landlord had responded that she remained liable for the rent, that there were now rent arrears and the resident needed to sign a termination notice.
3. Whilst its services had been affected by the pandemic, its centre had remained open and return of property keys remained possible.
4. The resident had attended and signed a termination notice on 13 August 2020, which ended the tenancy from 14 September 2020, which rendered her liable for the rent until 13 September 2020. The landlord explained that a decision had been made not to charge the resident for this additional period, however, due to the circumstances in her case, with the formal tenancy end date confirmed as 16 August 2020, the date that the landlord took possession of the property. It confirmed that this meant that it had waived the additional 28 days of rent normally required under the terms of a secure tenancy, but that it would not waive further rent. It also offered to organise a payment plan with the resident in order to repay the arrears, if that would be helpful.
5. It added that all previous reports about neighbours had been investigated and in July 2019, it had provided a detailed brief to the resident’s solicitor regarding reports between 2017-2019, as well as seeking its own legal advice, which was that no compensation should be offered and that any claim made would be defended. It further added that complaints about its staff had also been previously investigated and found to be untrue.
On 1 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting her complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints process, reiterating her dissatisfaction with its response. In particular, the resident said that:
1. She moved out of the property in June 2020 and paid rent to the end of June 2020 and signed the termination agreement in August 2020. She disputed she owed rent money for September, claiming this to be a fraudulent request on the part of the landlord and bullying in nature. She repeated her request for rent to be waived for July and August 2020.
2. She should not have had to give four weeks’ written notice to terminate the tenancy during Covid-19 because of the circumstances of being in a pandemic, with everything shut. The landlord’s offices were closed and its reception staff did not accept keys. Even if she had given four weeks’ notice, it would not have been received by the landlord because of the pandemic.
3. Nothing was communicated regarding tenancies during this time, nor anything published about the ending of tenancies.
4. Calls she made to the landlord were to the council tax team rather than the tenancy team, so the landlord could find her calls there.
5. The landlord was in breach of the Equality Act (2010) due to it failing to recognise and meet her needs.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints procedure. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord explained that it had reviewed the information and liaised with its ‘Council Tax Department’ and having done so, was satisfied that she was advised correctly and reiterated its previous position.

Assessment and findings

It is not in dispute that the resident reported issues with her neighbours, with evidence of this having being provided to this Service for a period of time during 2019, specifically, February to May, with a supporting letter from her GP having been submitted to it earlier, in January 2019. There is no evidence pertaining to prior to this time, notably, back to 2016, however, when the resident says she started reporting issues.
Neither the 2016 or 2019 reports and complaint, were matters brought to the attention of this Service within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”. Consequently, these matters are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and will not be investigated or considered as part of the current complaint.
Whilst the landlord’s handling of reports made by the resident in respect of her neighbours are not the subject of this complaint, this is important for contextual purposes because it is one of the reasons the resident provides for having left the property. The other is that she could not afford to stay there.
There a number of reasons provided by the resident as to why she did not put notice to terminate the tenancy in writing or return the keys immediately after having left the property, including having Covid-19, the landlord’s offices being shut because of Covid-19, advice she says she was given that she could not return the keys to the landlord at that time, as well as a lack of advice as to how to resolve the issue.
Additionally, the resident says she did in fact give verbal notice to the landlord of her intention to end the tenancy and therefore discharged her duty and should not be liable for the payment of rent beyond the end of June 2020 and moreover, that she is deemed vulnerable, so should not be liable for the rent beyond this time, in the circumstances.
It is clear that the arrears that accrued on the rent account and liability for rent that was conveyed to the resident was a shock to her and it is understandable that being asked to pay rent for the property she was not residing at felt unfair and unreasonable to her. Irrespective of reasons for leaving the property and irrespective of reasons given for the delay in giving formal notice of termination of the tenancy and returning the keys, the fact of the matter remains, however, that the resident is liable for payment of the rent until four weeks’ after having given notice of termination in writing.
This is because it is clearly set out in the tenancy agreement and repeated again in the ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ and in the ‘Housing Account Statement’ that was sent to her on 13 and 27 July 2020 and on 4 August 2020. Although in respect of the latter, the resident did not receive the letters as she was no longer residing at the property, it was appropriate that the landlord sent them to the property address as that is where she remained their tenant at that time. Additionally, in the absence of a forwarding postal address, the landlord was unable to send additional copies elsewhere.
Whilst an unfortunate situation for the resident, rent for the duration of the tenancy remains her responsibility. It was the resident’s responsibility to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which was to be in writing (completing a termination notice) and to pay rent for a further four weeks thereafter, irrespective of any vulnerability, verbal notice, or anything else.
The resident offered a number of reasons as to her delay in providing notice in accordance with the tenancy agreement and returning the keys, included the landlord’s offices not being fully open, being advised that other staff besides the ‘Tenancy Team’ could not accept keys and an absence of instruction as to what to do.
There are contrary reasons given by the resident elsewhere, however, including her not being in London and therefore unable to return the keys. Notwithstanding the different reasoning provided, the landlord has confirmed that its office remained open and the termination of tenancy agreements and the provision of the return of keys remained operational throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. It also found that it gave the resident the correct advice when she contacted it and there is no evidence to the contrary. The Ombudsman cannot find a failure of service on the part of the landlord because, as an evidenced based service, there is no evidence that there were failings in the manner described by the resident.
In responding to the complaint, the landlord appropriately replied at both stages one and two, within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and in its responses, set out the reasons for reaching the decision that it did, explaining that the resident remained liable for the rent, why and how she could go about repaying this. The landlord’s waiver of the rent for September 2020 was a reasonable exercise of discretion as it was entitled to demand an additional four weeks; by deciding not to pursue these additional monies, the landlord demonstrated understanding of the resident’s circumstances. It was also reasonable to offer a payment plan for the resident to repay the arrears, in order to make things financially easier for her.
The resident would need to take the matter to court in order to argue her case that she was not obliged to pay the rent she was obliged to pay, for mitigating or extenuating circumstances such as the ones she has raised here, because this amounts to a legal dispute, that the Ombudsman is unable to resolve.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

There was no maladministration by the landlord, insofar as the resident was obliged to pay the rent up until termination of the tenancy. Termination of the tenancy was to be made in writing, with four weeks’ notice, which the resident did not do until 13 August 2020.

Recommendation

The landlord, if not already done so, to offer to discuss a payment plan with the resident in order for any outstanding arrears to be paid.