Cross Keys Homes Limited (202103074)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103074

Cross Keys Homes Limited

24 November 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property.
3. The landlord’s implementation of contact restrictions.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s application to the ‘Let’s Be Kind Fund’.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move to a new property or to access the rent to buy scheme.
6. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a one bedroom first floor flat in a building owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the resident must not commit threats of violence or use abusive or threatening language or behaviour towards any person working for the landlord.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure says that it retains the right, in circumstances where a resident’s actions or behaviour is unacceptable, to restrict contact with it. The landlord considers that the following types of behaviour are unreasonable:
1. Physical or verbal abuse / aggression This includes the following:
  1. Verbal abuse over the telephone, in writing or any other method.
  2. Threats of violence.
  3. Derogatory remarks and rudeness .
2. Persistent contact/ harassment. This includes persistently contacting employees regarding the same issues which have been dealt with.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure also says that:
1. It may be appropriate to appoint a single point of contact for a resident in order to manage their contact.
2. The resident should be informed of their single point of contact and the reasons why. The single point of contact should be initially put in place for no more than 12 months; at which time this should be reviewed.
3. The resident has a right to appeal the decision to extend the time they are to have a single point of contact.
4. Should contact with the single point of contact either become persistent, so to be perceived as harassment or involve the use of unreasonable behaviour the landlord may refuse all but emergency contact. This may include terminating calls, blocking emails and not responding to any other contact for a period of time. The first review should be no longer than three months from the date of the suspension.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy lists various repairs that the landlord has no legal liability for and for which the tenant is responsible, including: minor cracks to inside plasterwork if the structure is not affected and replacing floor coverings.
The landlord’s repairs handbook says that residents are welcome to make changes and minor improvements to the property. For some work, residents will need the landlord’s permission before they make improvements, examples include: changing kitchen units, and changing taps.
The landlord’s Be Kind fund was set up to support tenants affected by the Covid 19 pandemic who were struggling financially to fund items that they needed in their daily lives. The landlord’s information leaflet says that gifts from the fund wouldn’t be made when the resident’s conduct was unacceptable towards its staff and when the resident’s rent account was in arrears if the resident was not adhering to an agreement to repay the arrears.
The landlord’s void policy sets out the minimum standard a property needs to meet before a tenant takes up a tenancy.
The landlord’s web site says that before a resident can apply for a transfer or a mutual exchange, the resident must be up to date with rent payments.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage two the complaint will be considered by an appeal panel and the date of the panel hearing will be sent to the resident within ten working days. The landlord will send the appeal panel’s decision to the resident within eight working days of the appeal panel meeting.
Paragraph 5.13 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord carried out a void survey of the property on 3 February 2020 which identified various works to be carried out. The works were completed by 7 February 2020, and the tenancy began on 19 February 2020.
On 20 February 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to say that one of the windows in the living room at the property would not open.
On 21 February 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to say that the flooring was very dirty and smelt and to report a crack in the living room ceiling at the property. The landlord’s notes say that it advised the resident that it had asked him to send it photographs and it was still waiting for them, and that the resident would not listen and kept talking over the landlord’s member of staff. The resident said that he would come to the landlord’s offices and “sort them out”. The landlord advised the resident not to use threatening language and the resident said that the member of staff did not know how to speak to people.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord attended the property for a settling in visit. The landlord says that during this visit:
1. Its contracts manager and the supervisor from its contractors confirmed to the resident that the carpet at the property had been retained as it was in good condition. It offered to remove the carpet, leaving the resident to provide his own floor covering. The resident confirmed that he would retain the carpet.
2. Its contracts manager did not witness any structural cracks or repairs required to the windows and the resident did not identify any repairs needed. There was no evidence of mould and the extractor fans were in good working order. The landlord explained to the resident that the crack on the ceiling was a “hairline crack” and posed no structural damage nor risk. The resident accepted £85 decoration vouchers to address/paint this.
The resident made a number of further telephone calls to the landlord and on 28 February 2020 an appointment was made to remove the carpet on 3 March 2020. The landlord’s notes say that on 4 March 2020 its operative arrived at the property at 8:30am and left at 9am and he “couldn’t call through due to the phone lines being down” and left an attendance card.
On 3 March 2020 the resident spoke to the landlord to say that the fans in the kitchen and bathroom weren’t working. On 6 March 2020 he informed the landlord that the fan in the kitchen was now working and an appointment was made for the landlord to attend the property on 9 March 2020. On 9 March 2020 the resident asked to know the exact time the landlord would be attending the property as he couldn’t wait in the property. The appointment was rebooked and a post void inspection arranged for 17 March 2020.
On 17 March 2020 the resident called the landlord asking what time it would be attending the property that day, the landlord’s notes say that it informed him it would be before 1 pm and that the resident became aggressive. The resident made further telephone calls to the landlord that morning and its notes say that the resident was shouting and swearing. The landlord then told its operative not to visit that morning as “no one should be going there on their own”.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord sent an unacceptable behaviour letter to the resident saying that he had made repeated phone calls to it where he had been shouting, swearing and threatening staff.
On 7 July 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord and said that he wanted a glass panel installed in the bathroom. The landlord advised him that this would not be a repair but he could make a home improvement application and the resident was unhappy with this suggestion.
On 8 July the resident spoke to the landlord about the tile grouting in the bathroom and the kitchen. The landlord asked him to send it images of the grouting.
On 14 July 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that he would like the kitchen reconfigured so that he could put a fridge freezer in it. The landlord agreed to trim the kitchen worktop.
On 20 July 2020 the resident said that he would send the landlord images of the grouting soon.
On 18 August 2020 the resident asked the landlord to move some kitchen cupboards. The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 August 2020 and told him that it would trim the worktop but he would need to move the cupboards himself. The landlord’s notes say that the resident become rude and kept talking over the landlord. An appointment was made to trim the worktops on 6 October 2020. The appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident.
In August 2020 the landlord’s notes say that the resident had been calling constantly and his behaviour had been unacceptable.
On the 29 September 2020 the landlord visited the resident and explained that he had made a number of telephone calls placing an unreasonable demand upon its services. The landlord’s notes say that during the visit an understanding was reached that the resident’s expectations had exceeded what a social landlord could reasonably offer. The notes also say that the resident would look into home improvements and it advised him that his contact would be monitored for four weeks.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident saying that following the landlord’s visit on 29 September 2020 the resident had continued to make similar unreasonable requests of its services, making repeated calls about the same issues. The landlord said that the resident’s recent contact had been unacceptable, and so that it might best respond to him, he had been assigned a single point of contact at the landlord. The arrangement would be reviewed on or before 12 May 2021.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 November 2020 and agreed to visit the property on 10 December 2020 to go through any outstanding repairs with the resident. The landlord attempted to visit the property on 10 December 2020 as arranged and the resident said he wanted to rearrange the visit for 22 December 2020 as he was going to work.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to postpone the home visit until 14 January 2021 due to Covid 19 pandemic restrictions. On 5 January 2021 the landlord sent a text message to the resident saying that the home visit would have to be postponed again due to the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions.
On 23 January 2021 the resident made a request to the landlord’s Be Kind fund.
The landlord sent internal emails on 9 February 2021 saying that:
1. the resident had sent it various emails and videos about grouting in the bathroom and kitchen and a crack in the lounge ceiling.
2. It had passed these onto its surveyors to assess and advise.
3. It confirmed that the following did not require a repair:
  1. The tile grout in the kitchen.
  2. The tile grout in the bathroom.
  3. The small amount of sealant missing in the kitchen.
  4. Adjusting the worktop and units in the kitchen.
The landlord’s rent statements show that on 15 February 2021 the resident was in arrears and the note on the statement says “Agreement monitoring – broken agreement.”
On 17 February 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter saying that he had failed to clear the rent arrears on his account and he needed to make an immediate payment or call its income management team.
On 22 February 2021 the landlord declined the resident’s request to the Be Kind fund as he wasn’t paying his rent consistently and had not fully engaged with a money adviser.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 March 2021 and explained that there were no repairs to be raised at present following its review of the videos received from the resident.
On 24 March 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord asking to speak to someone about its refusal of his request to the Be Kind fund and to carry out repairs at the property. The landlord’s notes say that the resident became extremely angry and it explained that he needed to speak to the single point of contact. The resident said he didn’t know anything about the single point of contact agreement and “became more angry swearing and shouting.” The landlord’s single point of contact made a number of unsuccessful attempts to speak to the resident by telephone that day and on 26 March 2021.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident who said he would send in in photos of the kitchen worktop that required cutting.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 April 2021 saying “it was agreed we would cut the worktop in the kitchen to make space for a fridge and also move one kitchen unit. Please can we attend to measure up? “. an appointment was made for 30 April 2021.
On 7 April 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord about his rent arrears and said that the landlord’s staff “had no brain cells.”
On 9 April 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord and said he would like a face to face meeting to discuss the single point of contact and the Be Kind fund refusal and what the landlord would be doing in the kitchen on 30 April 2021. The landlord said it would check if it could agree to this.
Following the landlord refusing to set up a face to face meeting with the resident he spoke to the landlord on 21 April 2021 and said that the landlord’s staff were “stupid and had no common sense.”
On 23 April 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that:
1. It would be carrying out the following works to the kitchen at the property:
  1. Moving the base unit over to right of the fridge space.
  2. Moving the left hand side wall unit over to right hand side.
  3. Cutting down the work top to allow for fridge freezer to fit.
  4. Moving the socket approximately 300mm.
  5. The works were being completed on an ad hoc basis at the resident’s request.
2. The single point of contact arrangement would be reviewed on or before the 12th May 2021.
3. It was not in a position to arrange a face to face meeting to discuss the Be Kind fund or the current single point of contact arrangement.
On 30 April 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and cancelled the appointment to carry out the kitchen works that day. The appointment was rebooked for 28 May 2021.
On 5 May 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and said that that he would like to change his single point of contact as the single point of contact was offending him. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call say that the resident could not give any specific examples of the single point of contact offending him.
The landlord’s single point of contact called the resident on 5 May 2021. The landlord’s notes say that:
1. The resident again requested that the reconsider his Be Kind fund request.
2. The resident called the repairs team stupid.
3. The resident said “I will come to your offices to have a face to face meeting, if you call the police then you call the police, you are not trained enough to deal with me (he was shouting by now).”
4. The single point of contact explained this was the type of behaviour which meant the resident was breaching his tenancy agreement.
5. The resident told the single point of contact never to call him again.
6. The resident then twice told the single point of contact to “get lost.”
On 5 May 2021 the landlord made the following note on its system, “No Be Kind Requests will be accepted for this customer**Abusive behaviour towards [the landlord’s] employees.”
On 7 May 2021 the resident made 11 telephone calls to the landlord between 3.48 pm and 4.26pm. The landlord advised the resident that details of his calls were being passed to the single point of contact.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord hand delivered a letter (dated 6 May 2021) to the resident. In the letter the landlord said :
1. It had reviewed the single point of contact arrangement.
2. Its records showed that the resident’s recent contact with the single point of contact and other members of the landlord’s staff had been unacceptable and abusive and he had continued to make unreasonable demands on the landlord’s services.
3. Due to the resident’s continued unacceptable behaviour, the single point of contact arrangement had been removed.
4. The resident was prohibited from contacting the landlord, except to report an emergency repair. Any emails, texts or letters from the resident would not be responded to, his calls would be terminated, and he would be asked to leave the landlord’s premises. Further action might be taken against the resident for a breach of his tenancy agreement.
5. This arrangement would be reviewed on or before 6 November 2021.
On 10 May 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord headed “Letter of Formal Complaint” saying that:
1. When he had viewed the property he had reported various works that needed to be done in the property.
2. The landlord had said it would make a space for his fridge freezer in the kitchen and then this had been delayed for months after he spoke to it on the telephone.
3. He had suggested that the landlord put him on its rent to buy scheme and he would then take over carrying out all the works.
4. He had also suggested the landlord move him to another property, but the landlord had said he couldn’t be moved when he had rent arrears. However, he said he hadn’t in arrears when he suggested this, or when he applied to the Be Kind fund.
5. He had not consented to having a single point of contact.
6. He wanted to appeal the landlord’s decision that he was prohibited from contacting the landlord except to report an emergency repair.
7. He felt that the landlord had threatened to remove him from the property.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that it was treating his email as an appeal of the landlord’s contact arrangements. The landlord said that:
1. It had reviewed the contact arrangements restricting the resident to only be able to report emergency repairs and did not uphold his appeal.
2. The contact arrangements would remain in place until 6 November 2021 when they would be reviewed.
3. Due to the repeated breaches of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, it could not consider any further requests for assistance via its Be Kind fund.
The appointment to carry out the kitchen work on 28 May 2021 was rearranged for 3 June 2021. The landlord could not access the property on 3 June 2021.
On 2 June 2021, following contact from the resident this Service wrote to the landlord saying that the resident was complaining about:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s response to his requests that it carry out work in his kitchen to create space for a fridge/freezer, and that it install a glass panel in the bathroom, mixer taps and laminate flooring.
3. The landlord’s response to his request to move.
4. The landlord’s decision to assign him a single point of contact and subsequently, prohibit him from contacting the landlord, except to report an emergency repair.
5. The landlord threatening to seek possession of his home.
6. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage one response to his complaint. In its complaint response the landlord said:
1. The property met its void standard when it was let to the resident on 19 February 2020. The carpet was retained as it was in good condition, as confirmed by its contracts’ manager and contractor’s supervisor during their visit to the resident a week after he had moved in. During this visit, the landlord offered to remove the carpet, leaving the resident to provide his own floor covering. The resident had then confirmed that he would retain the carpet.
2. During the landlord’s visit to the property a week after the resident moved in the landlord’s contract’s manager did not witness any structural cracks or repairs needed to windows and the resident had not identified these at the time.
3. It agreed that the grouting had aged, but it remained fit for purpose and did not prevent the resident from using the kitchen or bathroom. There was no evidence of mould and the extractor fans were in good working order as confirmed by the resident..
4. It had agreed to create a space for a fridge freezer in the kitchen which would require losing some storage space. The resident was agreeable to this although it understood that the resident did not yet have the fridge freezer he wished to go in the space and so the work has not yet been carried out.
5. The requests for laminate flooring, mixer taps and a glass panel were unreasonable requests. The resident had refused a replacement shower rail and curtain which is what the landlord would specify to all homes.
6. The resident had been informed that his requests for a transfer could not be met. The resident was adequately housed in a property which was in good order and therefore in accordance with its policies and procedures, the resident was not eligible for a direct transfer to another property.
7. On 12 November 2020 the resident was assigned a single point of contact following repeated unreasonable requests of the landlord’s service. The resident then persistently contacted the single point of contact and other members of staff regarding matters that had already been responded to in full. The resident’s contact had become abusive and a breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Therefore, further restrictions had been put in place which he had appealed. The landlord informed the resident on 13 May 2021 that his appeal was not upheld, and the contact arrangements would remain in place until 6th November 2021, when they would be reviewed.
8. It had not threatened to commence possession proceedings. It said in its letter dated 6 May 2021 that it had informed him that further action might be taken against him for a breach of the tenancy agreement (should he break the contact arrangements), but did not specify that the action would be to take possession of the property.
9. Its contracts manager and its contractor’s supervisor had fully reviewed the condition of the property and had clearly communicated the landlord’s position to the resident. It had put in contact arrangements to best respond to the resident. The contact had only been restricted following his sustained unacceptable behaviour towards its staff and its warnings that this must cease.
On 14 June 2021 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. An appeal panel hearing was held on 16 July 2021 and on 22 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter with the panel hearing outcome. In its letter the landlord said that:
1. In order to resolve the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to:
  1. Move him to a furnished property, or
  2. Give him a home improvement grant of £5000.
  3. Allow him to go onto the rent to buy scheme so that he could purchase the property.
2. The resident was adequately housed so would not qualify or be eligible to move and its policy was that any resident in arrears would not be eligible to move to another of the landlord’s properties until their rent account was clear of arrears.
3. The property had met the landlord’s void standard when it was let to the resident and the landlord had addressed the repairs it had responsibility for at that time. The resident’s requests for laminate flooring, mixer taps, and a glazed shower screen were considered to be unreasonable and had therefore been refused.
4. Social housing was a scare resource and the landlord had a void standard to ensure it could provide housing in an affordable way, which generally did not include floor coverings or furnishings. The panel understood that the resident believed that this was not the case.
5. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the property and the service the landlord had provided. However, his demands and behaviour had been unreasonable.
6. The panel supported the continuation of contact restrictions and recommended that any future reviews carefully consider his future conduct and impact on its staff.
7. The resident’s original request to the Be Kind fund was refused because the resident was not making regular payments off his arrears or engaging in any support that was offered at that time. His behaviour towards the landlord’s staff had also resulted in his not being able to submit any further requests to the Be Kind fund.
8. Any move to another of its properties would not meet his expectations, as he did not agree that the landlord’s void standard was acceptable.
9. To help support the resolution of the resident’s complaint the landlord would arrange to survey the ceiling crack in the living room again and the damp and mould in the bathroom and carry out any necessary repairs or mould treatment.
10. That the resident could find information about shared ownership on its website and provided the link.
11. The panel found that the resident’s expectations of the landlord were out of step with what any social landlord would be able to provide and thought that the resident might benefit from some independent housing advice and it provided contact details for Citizens Advice.
The landlord’s letter dated 22 July 2021 was its final response to the complaint confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
The landlord carried out the work in the kitchen on 4 August 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.

The resident says that the following repairs were required when he moved into the property: cracks in the ceiling, some of the windows were jammed, tile grouting to be replaced in the kitchen and bathroom, ventilators to be serviced and cleaned.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy as:
1. In accordance with its voids policy the landlord carried out a void survey of the property on 3 February 2020 and the works identified were completed by 7 February 2020.
2. This Service has seen no evidence to demonstrate that the property did not meet the standards set out in the landlord’s void policy.
3. During the settling in visit on 25 February 2020 the landlord’s contracts manager did not witness any structural cracks in the property. The resident requested that the landlord repair a crack in the ceiling. However, under the terms of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy the resident was responsible for repairing cracks to plaster work if the structure was not affected.
4. During the settling in visit on 25 February 2020 the landlord’s notes say that there was no evidence of mould and the extractor fans were in good working order.
5. During the settling in visit on 25 February 2020 the resident did not identify any repairs that were needed.
6. The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 9 February 2021, following its surveyor viewing the resident’s images of the tiles, that the grouting did not require repair.
7. The landlord demonstrated a resolution focused approach in its final response to the complaint in offering to arrange to survey the ceiling crack in the living room again and the damp and mould in the bathroom and carry out any necessary repairs or mould treatment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property

The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports that:
1. Laminate flooring should be installed at the property.
2. Mixer taps should be installed in the kitchen and bathroom at the property.
3. A glass panel should be installed between the shower and the toilet.
4. The landlord should carry out work in the kitchen to create space for a fridge freezer.
The landlord’s response to these reports was appropriate as:
1. Under the terms of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy the resident was responsible for replacing flooring.
2. The landlord’s repair handbook says that changing taps in a property is an example of a change and minor improvements that a resident would be responsible for making.
3. The landlord correctly informed the resident on 7 July 2020 when he requested a glass panel be installed in the bathroom that this would not be a repair but he could make a home improvement application. The landlord also offered to replace the existing shower rail and curtain.
4. The landlord agreed to trim the kitchen worktop and rearrange the cupboards to provide space for a fridge freezer. Although there appears to have been confusion about when this would be done, as the resident did not have the fridge freezer he wished to go in the space by the time he made the complaint, it was reasonable that the landlord had not yet carried out the agreed work.

The landlord’s implementation of contact restrictions.

The landlord acted appropriately in implementing contact restrictions as there is evidence of the resident engaging in the following behaviour that is listed as unreasonable in the landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure:
1. Threatening violence: telling landlord staff on 21 February 2020 that he would come to its offices and “sort them out”.
2. Verbal abuse over the telephone: telephone calls on 17 March 2020, 14 July 2020, 14 July 2020, August 2020, 23 March 2021, 7 April 2021,21 April 2021, 5 May 2021.
3. Persistent contact: numerous telephone calls in August 2020, 11 telephone calls on 7 May 2021.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it would review the resident’s contact restriction to reporting emergency repairs only on 6 November 2021, six months later. However, the landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure says that when a resident’s contact is limited to reporting emergency repairs only the first review should be no longer than three months from the date of the contact suspension. The landlord therefore acted inappropriately and in breach of the provisions of its unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure. This amounts to service failure by the landlord.
The landlord informed the resident in its letter to him dated 6 May 2021 that further action might be taken against him for a breach of his tenancy agreement. The resident said that this amounted to a threat to commence possession proceedings. However, the landlord acted reasonably in informing him that action might be taken for breach of the tenancy agreement as the tenancy agreement says that the resident must not commit threats of violence or use abusive or language or behaviour towards any person working for the landlord. The landlord’s language did not amount to a threat to commence possession proceedings, even though the landlord would be entitled to commence possession proceedings for a breach of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s application to the ‘Let’s Be Kind Fund’.

The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the provisions set out in the Be Kind fund leaflet in refusing the resident’s request to the Be Kind fund as:
1. The landlord’s leaflet said that gifts from the fund wouldn’t be made when the resident’s conduct was unacceptable towards the landlord’s staff. By the time the resident made the request to the fund on 29 January 2021, the landlord had assigned him a single point of contact due to this unacceptable behaviour.
2. The landlord’s leaflet said that gifts from the fund wouldn’t be made when the resident’s rent account was in arrears if the resident was not adhering to an agreement to repay the arrears. The landlord’s records show that on 15 February 2021 the resident was in arrears and had broken an agreement to pay the arrears.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to a new property or to access the rent to buy scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved or to access the rent to buy scheme was reasonable as:
1. It correctly informed the resident that before a resident can apply for a transfer or a mutual exchange, the resident must be up to date with rent payments.
2. During the course of this investigation the landlord has clarified to this Service that it does not have a rent to buy scheme. After three years of tenancy, most residents will be eligible for the right to acquire scheme. However, the resident had not held his tenancy long enough to qualify for this. Therefore the only option for the resident to purchase a property would be via shared ownership and the landlord forwarded details of this to the resident in its final response to the complaint.
3. In its final response to the resident’s complaint it provided contact details for Citizens advice so the resident could obtain independent housing advice.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. It treated the resident’s letter dated 10 May 2021 headed “formal complaint” as an appeal against the single point of contact arrangement, rather than also as a formal complaint.
2. It did not issue a stage one response to the resident’s complaint made on 10 May 2021 until asked to do so by this Service on 2 June 2021.
3. The landlord’s complaints process does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 5.13 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code that landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints about the landlord’s implementation of contact restrictions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about :
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s application to the ‘Let’s Be Kind Fund’.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move to a new property or to access the rent to buy scheme.

Reasons

The landlord did not log the resident’s complaint as a complaint until asked to do so by this Service. The landlord’s complaints process was in breach of the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
The landlord did not set a review date of the contact restriction to reporting emergency repairs only within three months of the restriction being imposed.
The property met the landlord’s void standards.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of repairs and in line with the provisions of its repairs and maintenance policy and repairs handbook.
The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the provisions set out in the Be Kind fund leaflet in refusing the resident’s request to the Be Kind fund.
The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request to be moved by providing information on mutual exchange and shared ownership and signposting him to independent housing advice.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £175 compensation made up as follows:
1. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s breach of its unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to review its complaints policy to ensure it complies with paragraph 5.13 of the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to ensure all staff are aware of the timescales set out in its unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure for reviewing contact restrictions.