Citizen Housing (202102784)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102784

Citizen Housing

14 July 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:
1. The level of support provided by the landlord to the resident in relation to rent arrears (including serving a Notice Seeking Possession for rent arrears issued in September 2019)
2. The landlord’s involvement in the resident’s issues with an energy supplier.
3. The landlord’s assistance with issues relating to damp in the resident’s garage.
4. The landlord’s assistance with issues relating to damp in the brick shed.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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 23(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s assistance with issues relating to damp in the resident’s garage.
Paragraph 23(j) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes.
The resident has rented a number of garages from the landlord under a separate contract to the tenancy. The resident complained about the condition of the garages. In this case, the resident rented the garages from the landlord, however, he did so under a contract separate to his tenancy agreement.
This means that the rental of the garages is a contractual agreement, which is not for the occupation of property for residential purposes. Accordingly, complaints about the landlord’s performance of its obligations in respect of this agreement are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This includes the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s assistance with issues relating to damp in the garage.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2017. The property is a purpose-built one-bedroomed, self-detached bungalow. The resident is elderly.
The tenancy agreement says that rent payments must be made before the day, or on the day, they are due; and residents should not be in arrears of rent at any time. Before a landlord can take possession proceedings, it must first serve a notice of intention to bring proceedings on the tenant. The notice is commonly referred to as a ‘Notice Seeking possession’ (NSP). A NSP can be issued in various circumstances including if at least eight weeks of rent are owing. The landlord’s income collection policy says that it will attempt to contact residents to discuss arrears and for them to enter into an agreement to repay.
The landlord’s tenancy and licence management policy says that it will carry out periodic visits to residents to make sure they are receiving all the support, advice and help they need; to ensure that residents are complying with the terms of their individual tenancy agreement and to ensure that its properties and gardens are being looked after in line with those agreements. In 2019 the landlord partnered with an external organisation to give all its tenants access a wide‑ranging advice service via a confidential freephone helpline and website portal. This gives telephone counselling to advice about finance issues and domestic abuse.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. The complaints policy says that it will contact the resident with an anticipated timescale for a response at stage one. The policy says that, if the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation, details of the dissatisfaction will be evaluated and escalated for review. The landlord’s complaint procedures say that it should aim to respond at both stages within ten working days.

Summary of events

When the resident moved into the property by way of a managed move in 2017, some of his belongings were placed in a brick-built shed (the shed) in the garden by the landlord.
In a letter dated 12 October 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it understood that he was generally happy with the property except for some work required to the shed, which had been scheduled in for completion. It added that, if the resident believed that any goods stored in the shed had been damaged due to its negligence, then he should put that in writing detailing the damage and evidence of why it was liable. The resident subsequently asked for assistance in completing an inventory of his belongings in the shed.
On 28 August 2018 the energy company’s solicitors contacted the resident about a debt of almost £750.
On 30 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to a different complaint saying that he was being supported by a member of the tenancy sustainment team and it had asked them to review his case and his recent contact and recommend appropriate actions relating to:
1. Current issues with his energy supplier.
2. Assist with the issue of damp in the shed.
3. Support to make agreements for his rent arrears
In relation to the shed, the landlord said that a tenancy sustainment officer would assist him. It added that sheds were not designed to be entirely watertight and were only suitable to store cars and garden equipment. It said it would ensure repairs were raised adding that that might mean that the resident had to clear the shed to allow for the works to be completed.
On 13 August 2019 the resident signed an action plan in relation to repaying the rent arrears that had arisen. (This Service has not seen a copy of that action plan.)
On 13 September 2019 the landlord issued a NSP to the resident on the grounds that he had rent arrears of £879.09 (which is over eight weeks of rent). The landlord provided a statement of the resident’s rent account from September 2017 to September 2021 which showed those arrears at that date.
Following the threat of court action on 11 October 2019, on 17 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident with a repayment plan whereby he would pay £20 every four weeks towards the rent arrears.
On 20 September 2019 the landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss the issues he had raised.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaint procedures following a meeting with the resident at the property on 11 October 2019. The main points were:
1. The resident had agreed that a tenancy sustainment officer had discussed rent arrears with him for both the property and the garages but had been unable to reach an agreement on how to clear the arrears; an action plan was subsequently signed on 13 August 2019 after referring the matter back to the income team. It confirmed the tenancy sustainment officer would let the resident know the arrears balance when they visited him.
2. It had tried to contact the resident to discuss the rent arrears prior to sending the NSP which had been issued as the rent arrears were increasing and no arrangement had been made to clear the debt. The resident had agreed at the meeting to pay £5 a week towards the arrears and, should he do so, it would take no further action to recover the debt. The landlord noted the arrears stood at £879.09 on 13 September 2019.
3. The tenancy sustainment officer had worked with the resident with his energy provider and had passed on meter readings and had had the charges for late payment reduced when he had started clearing the debt. The landlord said that the tenancy sustainment officer had told the resident she had done as much as she could and that he needed to communicate with the energy provider directly and start to pay by direct debit. It noted that he had agreed with that when he signed the action plan on 13 August 2019 and that he was now working with National Energy Action (a national fuel poverty charity).
4. It agreed the following action to resolve the issue of damp in the shed. The tenancy sustainment officer:
  1. Would help the resident sort out items in the property, shed and garage to decide what should be kept or disposed of.
  2. Had arranged for the shed to be repaired once it had been emptied. It added the shed was not watertight it was not suitable for storing perishable items long-term. It said there was no evidence to support that it had any liability for items stored there.
The landlord asked the resident to provide further information if he felt this review had overlooked any facts relating to the complaint.
The repair log evidences on 29 January 2020 that the brick garden shed should be demolished and a new timber shed installed.
On 20 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its complaint procedure. It explained that it was reviewing the issues he had referred to that were the subject of the stage one letter dated 17 October 2019. In relation to the issues brought to the Ombudsman in this complaint, the main points made by the landlord were:
1. Its tenancy sustainment team had provided the resident with support during their regular meetings and a way forward had been agreed in the stage one response.
2. In relation to the resident’s concerns that it had not issued prescribed warnings prior to the NSP being served in September 2019, it said it appreciated the resident felt that additional contact should have been made. It explained that its income team had tried to contact the resident via email and telephone on 19 July 2019 and again immediately prior to the NSP being posted on 13 September 2019. It added that, due to the level of arrears on his account at that time, the issuing of the NSP was appropriate.
3. It had supported the resident in discussions with his energy provider and that had been set out in the stage one response.
4. It said a neighbourhood manager had apologised in a call to the resident on 21 April 2020 about the neighbourhood officer’s lack of understanding with regards to the shed replacement. It said the neighbourhood manager was going to lead on resolving the outstanding issue of the shed replacement adding that its progress was delayed at that time due to government lockdown restrictions. It added that once restrictions had been eased it would telephone him to make an appointment to discuss the shed replacement and move that matter forward.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident following a claim he had made to them for damaged items in the shed. It acknowledged that it had put the resident’s belongings in the shed in 2017 and said that was done as part of a support package offered to him as part of the move to the property. However, it gave its reasons why that would not make it liable for any damage caused to these items including that there had been no issues with the shed noted by its staff before or during the viewing, or during the move; nor had the resident reported issues to it during the move, or shortly afterwards. It also said that, if it had failed to fulfil its legal or contractual obligations after the repair was reported to it, then it would need to consider a potential liability for any damage caused after that time. However, it said it was not negligent and did not fail to fulfil obligations and there was no liability on these grounds.
On 11 May 2021 a damp survey of the property was carried out. Among its findings it said that the evidence suggested that the structural and damp issues with the shed were historic condensation, damp and ingress and that before any goods were placed in the outbuilding, these issues should have been picked up by previous surveys and dealt with appropriately. The report recommended, among other things, that the landlord re-roofed the outbuilding.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said he had a managed move into the property and “it has gone so wrong”.

Assessment and findings

This report has focussed on issues that were mentioned at paragraph 34 of a previous Ombudsman report issued 18 August 2020 (under reference 201907225). As these issues had not had a final complaint response from the landlord, the Ombudsman could not determine these issues at that time.

The level of support provided by the landlord to the resident in relation to rent arrears (including serving a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) for rent arrears issued in September 2019)

The rent account statement shows that the landlord had the right to apply for a NSP as the rent owing was more than eight–weeks of rent arrears. While there is no obligation on the landlord to offer support, its income collection policy says that it will contact residents to arrange a repayment plan (paragraph 8). In this case, the evidence from the complaint responses suggests that the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer had tried to reach agreement with the resident on the arrears earlier in 2019 and had also tried to contact him before the NSP was issued but had been unsuccessful.
The landlord acted appropriately in issuing the NSP. It made reasonable efforts to contact the resident before doing so; there is no evidence of service failure.

The landlord’s involvement of the resident’s issues with an energy supplier

While there is no obligation on the landlord to be involved with issues residents might have relating to their energy provider, the evidence in the first complaint response suggests that its tenancy sustainment officer communicated with the energy provider to help the resident when arrears were identified. That was reasonable action to assist the resident; there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s assistance with issues relating to damp in the shed

While the landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement, this did not set out its repairing responsibilities. However, this Service has presumed that the landlord has repairing responsibilities for the shed, given the action it has taken in relation to it. The repair log makes no reference to the shed until January 2020.
The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to raise and carry out repairs once the shed had been emptied. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to the tenancy sustainment officer assisting the resident in sorting through his belongings in advance of any repairs being carried out. (This Service notes that the landlord has decided that the shed will be replaced, rather than repaired.)
In October 2018 the landlord asked the resident for information so that it could consider if it was liable for any damage to the resident’s belongings that were stored in the shed. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident provided this information; however, in January 2021 the landlord rejected the claim.
The subsequent damp survey of May 2021 refers to historical condensation, mould and damp issues and notes that these matters should have been resolved before any goods were placed in the outbuilding. Given this later evidence, it would be fair in all the circumstances of the case for the landlord to refer the issue to its insurers for a definitive decision on liability and a recommendation to this effect has been made, below. If the resident is unhappy with the outcome of the insurer, then this would be a matter for the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The level of support it provided to the resident in relation to rent arrears.
2. Its involvement in the resident’s issues with an energy supplier.
3. Its assistance with issues relating to damp in the shed.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in issuing the NSP. It made reasonable efforts to contact the resident before doing so.
While there was no obligation on the landlord to be involved with issues residents might have relating to their energy provider, it took reasonable action to assist the resident.
The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to raise and carry out repairs once the shed had been emptied. It was reasonable that the landlord offered the assistance of a tenancy sustainment officer to help sort through the resident’s belongings in advance of any repairs being carried out.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Refer the resident’s claim for damage to his belongings stored in the shed to its insurer, along with the recent surveyor’s report, for consideration.