Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202201509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201509

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

21 February 2023

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 complainant 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 response to the complainant’s concerns about how it terminated her tenancy.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s communication and overall treatment of the complainant throughout the period of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

Prior to the complaint, the complainant had been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 24 August 2015. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord was aware that the complainant had vulnerabilities in relation to her mental health and substance abuse issues.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the complainant has liaised with the landlord through a representative. The complainant was also supported by a social worker.
The landlord operates a safeguarding policy. The policy relates to tenants that are at risk of abuse. The policy notes that the landlord will report concerns of abuse to its partners that have statutory responsibility. Similarly, the landlord operates an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. This policy notes that where a person has vulnerabilities, these will be considered when taking any action.
The landlord uses a Notice to Quit checklist when ending a tenant’s tenancy. Among the checklist items are requirements to email the ‘Home at Risk’ letter and ‘Notice to Quit’ letter. Similarly, the landlord’s Abandoned Property Process document notes it will make “every attempt to contact tenant,” including using email contact information.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.

Summary of events

During or prior to early 2021, the complainant along with other residents in the building reported serious criminal behaviour occurring in some of the flats within the building. Due to the nature of the criminal activity, for her own safety, the complainant was relocated to temporary accommodation while the police took action.
Based on the landlord’s records provided to this service, the landlord attempted to call the complainant on 14 August 2021 to advise her that her tenancy was at risk. Given that it was aware of the complainant’s circumstances and the reasons for her absence, and that it hadn’t yet attempted to arrange for her return, it is not evident why it considered her tenancy to be at risk at this time. It attempted a further call on 10 September 2021, and left a letter at the property on 15 September 2021. This service has not been provided with a copy of this letter.
In or around early October 2021, the landlord sought to contact the complainant as the police action had now concluded. The complainant’s representative advised that the complainant had left the temporary accommodation due to issues with another resident, and that she was now residing with her partner, but this “arrangement appears to be coming to an end.”
The landlord advised the representative that it considered the complainant’s original property to now be safe, and that she could return to the property. The landlord also advised that as the property was now safe, the complainant would start to accrue rent arrears. It identified that the complainant may require support to complete any paperwork, and further enquired if either the representative or the social worker had spoken directly with the complainant.
On 13 October 2021, the social worker confirmed they had spoken with the complainant in September 2021 and that it was their understanding she would remain living with her partner. The social worker also suggested a ‘multidisciplinary team’ meeting would be helpful to ensure the details were fully understood. It is not evident this occurred, however.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord provided the social worker with a Notice to Quit for the complainant’s tenancy. It also attempted to call the complainant on the same date. The Notice to Quit noted that the tenancy would be terminated on 14 November 2021.
The landlord has provided this service with a ‘Notice to Remove and Dispose of Property’ letter dated 15 November 2021. The letter is accompanied by a number of photographs of the complainant’s personal property within the flat. The letter advised that the property would be disposed of by 22 November 2021 if not collected beforehand. The landlord’s Notice to Quit checklist noted this was “served” on 16 November 2021. The checklist does not detail how this was served, however.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord informed both the representative and the social worker that it had attempted to call the complainant but was unable to reach her. It also advised that the Notice to Quit had been served and the locks had now been changed.
On 24 December 2021, the representative made a formal complaint on the complainant’s behalf, which included the following:
1. They expressed concern at how the landlord had terminated the tenancy and destroyed the complainant’s personal property, which they noted had been left in a skip outside the building and some items were subsequently stolen by other residents in the building.
2. They noted that they had not been informed of the Notice to Quit, or the Notice regarding her personal property at the time they were issued, or prior to the expiry dates.
3. They also noted that the landlord had attempted to call the complainant and considered her to be “untraceable,” but disputed that this was the case given the representative was still in contact with her.
4. They further noted the circumstances of the complainant leaving the property was due to her assisting a police investigation, and that the landlord had not showed compassion in its actions. It had also not given any consideration to her vulnerabilities
5. The representative also noted they had requested a multidisciplinary meeting to help explain to the complainant her options and provide support, but this had been ignored by the landlord. This service has not been provided with copies of this request, but it is not disputed by the landlord that such a request had been made. The complaint also included that the landlord had not offered the support it had identified regarding paperwork, or offered a single point of contact to assist her.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 17 January 2022, which included the following:
1. It advised that it considered it had made a reasonable attempt to contact the complainant prior to taking action.
2. It noted it had informed the representative and the social worker of its desire to discuss her tenancy, in particular the rent arrears that were being accrued, but that no contact was subsequently made.
3. It had also informed the representative and the social worker that the property no longer posed a risk and that she should return.
4. Given the comments made by the social worker that she was now living with her partner, it considered there was a reasonable belief that she would not return to the property.
5. It noted the representatives comments that the complainant had made an application on the landlord’s bidding system, and was expecting further contact. It advised that no bids had been made, and so no contact or offers relating to properties had been made.
6. It concluded that it had appropriately followed its procedures regarding the Notice to Quit and confirmed her personal possessions had now been disposed of.
The representative requested an escalation of the complaint on 2 February 2022. They reiterated their concern about the landlord’s lack of empathy and consideration of the complainant’s circumstances. They requested it provide further detail as to how it had complied with its policies, and also compensation for the personal property.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 February 2022, which included the following:
1. It reiterated that it had attempted to call, but acknowledged it had not sent emails, which it could also have done. It confirmed its team would do so going forward. It nevertheless concluded it had made a reasonable attempt to contact the complainant.
2. It also provided the timeframes in its policy for disposing of personal possessions and confirmed its actions had been in accordance with these policies.
3. It also noted it had contacted the complainant on 3 August 2020 requesting she renew her application on its bidding system to prevent it expiring, but had not received any further contact on this issue.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the representative referred the complaint to their local Member of Parliament, who sought a response from the landlord. On 25 March 2022, the landlord reiterated its earlier responses to the MP.

Assessment and findings

As noted above, when it comes to ending a tenancy by providing a Notice to Quit, the landlord’s policies require it to make “every attempt to contact [the] tenant.” Its Notice to Quit checklist provides examples of how it should endeavour to contact a tenant, including by post, telephone, and email. The landlord’s policies also note that where a tenant has vulnerabilities, these must be considered when taking any action.
It is not disputed that the landlord was aware that the complainant had vulnerabilities. She was supported by a representative and a social worker, and the landlord itself identified she would require assistance with paperwork in relation to her tenancy. It is important to note why the complainant was in temporary accommodation, namely that she had put herself at risk by assisting with a police investigation in the building. The landlord would therefore have been aware of the additional sensitivities for the complainant when it came to returning to the property.
The representative has advised that the landlord was aware the complainant did not have a working telephone and that the representative was best placed to communicate with her. The landlord clearly utilised the representative for contact when it sought to arrange for the complainant to return to the property in October 2021. Around this time, the complainant’s social worker confirmed they had also been in contact with the complainant one month ago.
The purpose of the landlord’s contact with the representative and the social worker in October 2021 was for them to inform the complainant she could return to the property, and that rent was now payable. It is not evident that the landlord had informed the parties of this previously, nor that it had successfully communicated this to the complainant directly. Two months prior to this contact, however, the landlord’s records indicate it had already begun to consider the complainant’s tenancy was at risk. It had begun the process of issuing a Notice to Quit by September 2021. While it had attempted to call the complainant at this time, it had been unsuccessful in reaching her. At no point during its communications with the representative or social worker on 13 October 2021 did it mention that it had begun this process.
Only one day later, on 14 October 2021, it formally issued its Notice to Quit. The landlord’s records indicate that (aside from leaving a physical copy of the notice at the property, which it was aware that the complainant was not in residence at), the landlord attempted to notify the complainant by telephone, and also provided a copy of the notice to the social worker. The evidence for this is that it is noted on its checklist that the social worker was informed. The Ombudsman does not have copies of the landlord’s communications with the social worker, nor the social worker’s internal communications. Given, however, that the landlord had been unsuccessful at contacting the complainant by telephone on every previous occasion, and that the social worker had not been in contact with her for around a month, the Ombudsman would expect that in order to comply with its policy of making “every attempt” to make contact, it would have informed the representative, who had advised that they were in contact with her. It is not evident it did this, however.
Similarly, following the termination of the tenancy on 14 November 2021 (the end of the Notice to Quit period), it is not evident that the landlord informed either the representative or the social worker that this had now occurred. Regarding the Notice to Remove and Dispose of Property issued on 15 November 2021, once again it is not evident either party was informed, and the landlord’s records only indicate the notice had been “served,” without giving further detail. Given the repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact the complainant, the Ombudsman considers this level of record keeping is insufficient to demonstrate every attempt had been made.
Only after the expiry of the notice to dispose of the complainant’s property did the landlord communicate with the representative and the social worker to inform them that the complainant’s tenancy was terminated, and all of her personal property was gone.
Following the complainant’s formal complaint (made through the representative), the landlord sought to justify its actions. In its formal response, the landlord advised it considered it had made a reasonable attempt to contact the complainant. What is considered reasonable is entirely dependent on the circumstances. In these circumstances, the criteria for what is a ‘reasonable attempt to make contact’ is elevated by the landlord’s own policy requirement to make “every attempt.” It is further elevated by the additional needs of the complainant given her vulnerabilities. While the landlord may have telephoned, it had already experienced that this method was repeatedly unsuccessful. It may have left a letter at the property, but it was well aware the complainant had not returned to the property. It may have emailed the social worker, but it was aware that they had not been in contact with the complainant for over a month. The one party who had informed it they were in contact with the complainant, i.e. the representative, was the one party they did not inform, despite multiple opportunities to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, therefore, the landlord’s attempts to contact the complainant were inadequate in the circumstances.
The landlord also noted it had reached out to the representative and the social worker regarding the complainant returning to the property, but no subsequent contact had been made. Based on the landlord’s records, however, the process of issuing the Notice to Quit was already well underway, and only a single day elapsed between it communicating with the parties, and it serving the notice. This timeframe was not reasonable in the circumstances, and does not point to the landlord waiting for further communication before making its decision.
The landlord also pointed to a reasonable belief that the complainant would not return to the property given that she was residing with her partner. The landlord was aware, however, that the complainant had moved in with her partner due to issues with another resident at the temporary accommodation. Additionally, while the social worker had advised that as of September 2021 the complainant intended to remain living with her partner, the representative had advised that this arrangement appeared to be coming to an end. The landlord therefore had reason to doubt the complainant would not be returning to her property, however, it did not take any further action to clarify the situation before commencing with the Notice to Quit. It was therefore unreasonable for it to rely on the complainant’s current living circumstances as justification for this notice.
The complaint also included concerns about the landlord’s failure to raise a multidisciplinary meeting to discuss the complainant’s circumstances. Given the complainant’s vulnerabilities, and the landlord’s own identification that she may need support with paperwork, the landlord’s failure to address these concerns represents a missed opportunity to provide clarity to its actions and fully answer the complaint. Additionally, given the complainant’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would consider it best practice for the landlord to proactively seek to arrange such a meeting to support the complainant, which it did not consider.
The complaint additionally included concerns about the landlord’s failure to discuss with the complainant her options for seeking alternative accommodation. In this instance, the landlord appropriately detailed its understanding of the complainant’s current situation with regards to its bidding system. Given, however, that the current living situation for the complainant was far from secure, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have ensured the complainant was aware of her options regarding its bidding system before it took any action. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have justified why it did not do this or to have otherwise commented on this in its formal responses, however, it did not do this.
It is not disputed that the landlord disposed of the complainant’s personal possessions by placing them in a rubbish skip outside of the property. The landlord’s policies do not stipulate how the possessions should be disposed of. The complainant has reported that the other residents in the building subsequently took the possessions from the skip, something that the Ombudsman understands would be very distressing for the complainant. This was nevertheless not the intention of the landlord and was beyond its control. While it could have disposed of the possessions elsewhere, this would not guarantee the possessions were not still retrieved by third parties, and it was reasonable for the landlord to endeavour to use a rubbish skip for its intended purpose. That said, given that the representative requested further detail on this point, the landlord also missed the opportunity to fully elaborate on this procedure and its position in its formal responses.
In its stage two response, the landlord reiterated it considered its attempted contact had been reasonable and in accordance with its policies. It also, however, accepted that it could have attempted emails in addition to its telephone calls, and advised it would endeavour to do so in future. While it was appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate that it had learned from the outcomes of this case, as noted above, the documents that make up its policies stipulate it should have emailed in this instance as well. Its acknowledgement that it could have emailed is therefore somewhat contradictory to its position that it acted in accordance with its policies.
In summary, the landlord failed to effectively communicate its intentions regarding ending the tenancy with the complainant, despite this being achievable through the representative. It missed multiple opportunities to raise awareness of this intention with the representative, only doing so once it was too late. Despite its checklists noting emails were an appropriate method to provide notice, and despite its multiple failed attempts to contact the complainant by telephone, the landlord maintained it had followed its policies, even though its approach was contrary to the requirement for it to make “every attempt.” The landlord’s failure to follow its policies correctly, and its failure to take the complainant’s circumstances into account, caused her significant detriment, and amount to severe maladministration in the circumstances.
The landlord also reiterated its position that it took action in accordance with the timeframes for ending the tenancy as stipulated in the Notice to Quit, and the timeframes for the disposal of the complainant’s personal property as stipulated in the Notice for Disposal. The Ombudsman does not dispute that this is the case. The issue of whether it took reasonable steps to contact the complainant aside, the Ombudsman must also consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and whether it treated the complainant in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic, or inappropriate manner. As noted above, the landlord failed to provide support to the complainant, despite having identified it would be necessary. It also failed address the representative’s request for a meeting to discuss the complainant’s circumstances and how she could be reported. The landlord was also aware of the circumstances in which the complainant had left the property, and why there may be some trepidation in returning, however, it took none of this into account when pursuing the Notice to Quit. The result of the landlord’s approach was that the complainant, who had left pursuant to assisting the police in an investigation, was left without her property or possessions, despite having a living situation that was not confirmed as secure, and despite requiring support due to her vulnerabilities. There was therefore additional severe maladministration by the landlord due to these failures, and the impact they have had on the complainant.
In light of these findings, an order for compensation is appropriate to reflect the severe distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The order for compensation is intended to reflect the landlord’s failings, not the value of the possessions lost by the complainant. Should the complainant wish to pursue legal action for the value of the possessions, she should consider obtaining legal advice. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that compensation of £1,000 and above is appropriate for instances of sever maladministration where there have been significant failings which have had a serious detrimental impact on the complainant. An order has therefore been made for compensation of £4,000, being £2,000 for the landlord’s repeated failure to effectively communicate its intention to end the complainant’s tenancy and dispose of her possessions, and a further £2,000 for its heavy handed and unsympathetic approach, and its failure to demonstrate it considered her vulnerabilities when taking action.
Additionally, an order has been made for a senior member of the landlord to contact the complainant (through the representative) and apologise for the failings identified in this report. And order has also been made for the landlord to review its staff training regarding the Notice to Quit procedure, and for it to review its policies to ensure that all proper consideration to a resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances are given when taking any action.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has made reference to the complainant accruing rent arrears from the period it considered her property was safe to return to until the tenancy was terminated. Given the failings identified in this case, the Ombudsman does not consider it fair and reasonable for the complainant to be liable for any arrears accrued during this period. An order has therefore been made that the landlord waive any arrears accrued during this period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraphs 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the complainant’s concerns about how it terminated her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraphs 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication and overall treatment of the complainant throughout the period of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed in its requirement to make every attempt to contact the complainant. It was evidently aware it could communicate with her through her representative, however, it missed multiple opportunities to do so. Given the serious determent caused to the complainant as a result, its approach of failed telephone calls was wholly insufficient and unreasonable and amounted to severe maladministration in the circumstances.
In addition, the complainant had a number of vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware. Once again, it missed multiple opportunities to consider these when taking action, however, it has not demonstrated that it took these into account when proceeding to end her tenancy, despite a requirement in its policies to do so. This heavy handed approach amounted to a further instance of severe maladministration in the circumstances, and resulted in a serious detrimental impact to the complainant.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £4,000 for the serious impact caused to the complainant by the failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. a senior member of the landlord is to contact the complainant (through the representative) and apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. the landlord is to undertake staff training to ensure its staff are aware of the contact requirements in its Notice to Quit procedure;
3. the landlord is to review its policies to ensure that all proper consideration to a resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances are given when taking any action.
The landlord is to waive any arrears accrued in the period identified above, and the landlord is to contact the complainant (through the representative) to confirm this has occurred.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this service within four weeks of the date of this determination.