Abri Group Limited (202124340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124340

Abri Group Limited

8 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 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports that she was allocated the wrong property;
2. handling of the associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy that began 8 September 2021. The property was a two bedroom semi-detached house that was part of a new build development. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord had no resident vulnerabilities recorded prior to the complaint. During the course of the complaint, the resident made the landlord aware of a medical diagnosis vulnerability.
The resident completed a mutual exchange to the property of another landlord in July 2022.

Policies and processes

The landlord’s properties are allocated through a ‘choice based lettings’ system. Resident banding and housing need is set by the local authority in line with their banding criteria. The criteria considers the property size and number of bedrooms. It does not consider the garden.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it operates a two stage complaint process.
The landlord’s customer relations procedure states that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. It states, if it will take longer, it will inform the customer and explain the reason why. The procedure states that, “All stage two complaints will be reviewed and resolved within 20 working days”.
The landlord’s ‘Putting things right guidance’ explains when compensation should be considered. It includes a section entitled ‘Trouble and upset’ – this section states that, “These awards are to make up for any emotional impact we have caused a customer, or any steps they had to take to try and resolve matters”. The landlord includes ‘Distress’ in this section. The landlord’s description of distress includes ‘disappointment’ and ‘loss of expectation’.
The landlord’s guidance includes a ‘redress matrix’. The matrix defines between low, medium and high impact. It includes guidance notes for each and states the following values:
1. Low impact – up to £99.99 (can include the purchase of a gift);
2. Medium impact – £100 to £199.99;
3. High impact – £200 to £500.

Summary of events

The resident met the landlord’s housing officer at the property on 8 September 2021. She viewed the property that she subsequently moved into, and completed the sign up process.
The housing officer’s internal email sent on 7 October 2021, stated she had received contact from the resident that said she had been allocated the wrong property.
The housing officer’s internal email stated that the properties were not numbered at the time of the sign up. It stated she had established the number of the property by the key safe code provided. She asked for confirmation if she had, “signed the wrong person to the wrong property”.
The housing officer’s internal email on 8 October 2021 stated she had called the resident. She had asked the resident to sign a new tenancy agreement, reflecting the property address she had moved into. The housing officer’s internal email added that the resident had declined. It stated the resident wanted to move into the adjoining property that she had signed a tenancy agreement for.
The landlord’s subsequent internal emails sent on 8 October 2021, discussed the options to resolve the matter. It acknowledged an error had occurred. It summarised that:
1. The resident and her neighbour had signed tenancy agreements that referred to the address of the properties they were nominated for, not the ones they occupy.
2. The resident was refusing to sign the ‘correct tenancy agreement’ and wanted to swap with the neighbour into her nominated address.
3. The neighbour was unaware of the error at this stage.
4. It referred to the personal circumstances of the neighbour and stated it did not believe it would be appropriate to ask her to move.
5. Legally, the resident and her neighbour had ‘implied tenancies’ for the properties they were occupying. The resident had no legal right to the property she was nominated for.
6. New tenancy agreements should be signed, but if the resident refused she would remain on an implied tenancy.
7. Goodwill gestures should be provided to the resident and her neighbour, and support offered with sorting out utilities, benefits and address changes.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2021. She asked that the matter be treated as an official complaint. She expressed her disappointment with the landlord’s “shocking mistake”. She provided a sequence of events that led to the complaint, and proposed a resolution. Key points were as follows:
1. She had stated at the sign up how much more suitable the garden of the adjoining property would be for her and her family.
2. She had asked at the sign up if she could take the adjoining property instead, as the neighbour had not at that time turned up for her viewing. The request was refused.
3. She had installed various fittings and flooring in the property since moving in, and had completed garden maintenance.
4. She believed her neighbour was moving in slowly to the adjoining property, and queried whether she had been spoken to about a swap.
5. She indicated her willingness to leave the fittings and flooring she had fitted, and referred to her neighbour’s personal circumstances. She suggested this may make a property swap attractive to her neighbour.
The resident’s letter of complaint gave details of the medical condition she suffered from. She explained it left her very vulnerable to sunburn. She stated that both gardens were south facing. She explained this was why the shaded area of the adjoining property’s larger garden was of such importance to her.
The resident’s letter of complaint also described the impact of the matter, and the difficulties caused. Key points were as follows:
1. Delays and difficulties gaining access to the property when she moved in (due to the key safe code she had been given, being the one for the adjoining property).
2. Her broadband was set up in the adjoining property, which required an engineer attendance to rectify and time taken off work.
3. She had spent significant time and effort changing her pensions, driving license and many other formal address details.
4. All of her utility bills had been set up, and her meters registered, to the adjoining property.
5. Her son was unsettled and the whole experience was stressful.
The landlord’s internal emails sent on 19 October 2021, discussed the complaint response and ‘lessons learnt’. It referred to covering any costs that the resident and her neighbour incurred. It proposed sending a hamper to both the resident and her neighbour. It also proposed a “contract extra” be added with developers, ensuring house numbers are in some way displayed on properties prior to sign ups.
The landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2021. It stated the complaint had been upheld and apologised. It stated the error had occurred due to the new build properties not being numbered. It explained the housing officer did not have the site plan with her at the time of the sign up, and had made an incorrect assumption about the property addresses.
The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged the resident’s wish to move into the property she was nominated for, but stated it was not able to do this. It explained the legal position. It stated both houses are the same, and the garden of the property she had moved into was adequately sized. It highlighted the resident had viewed the property before accepting it, and saw the size of the garden.
The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding her utility bills being set up for the wrong property. It asked that she make changes to correct this and offered her help if she wanted support with this. It stated it would reimburse any additional costs she incurred as a result of this.
The resident sent a reply to the landlord’s stage one complaint letter on 22 October 2021. She requested a stage two review and responded point by point to the landlord’s letter. The key points were as follows:
1. She expressed her dismay the landlord’s housing officer had ‘assumed’ that the sign up was at the correct property, and questioned the effectiveness of the landlord’s procedures.
2. She acknowledged the garden was adequately sized but highlighted it was south facing. She explained again about her medical condition and her vulnerability to the effects of the sun.
3. She said she did not believe the landlord recognised how inconvenient and difficult it would be making all the utility, identification and account address changes, within the limitations of her daily commitments.
The landlord emailed its stage two complaint response letter on 23 November 2021. The stage two response letter itself was undated. The covering email apologised for the delay.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response apologised again, and confirmed that the complaint remained upheld. Further key points were as follows:
1. It explained again the ‘human error’ leading to the complaint, and the learning it had taken from it.
2. It stated that in the future it would ensure that all new build properties would have door or plot numbers visible, prior to viewings.
3. It advised it would ensure staff assisting with viewings would always have site plans with them, to confirm they are viewing the correct property.
4. It explained the legal position, and that it could not move the resident to the property she was nominated for. Nor could it agree to reserve it for her, if it became vacant.
5. It stated it was unaware of her medical condition prior to the complaint, as it had not been mentioned previously.
6. It added that it understood her wish to move, but it could not move her for medical reasons without compelling medical evidence. The property she was in met her ‘housing needs’, as set out in her pre-tenancy assessment form.
7. It advised a housing manager would call her to provide a verbal apology and answer any questions (this occurred the following day).
8. It confirmed the proposal at stage one to cover any costs incurred, and offered a payment of £300 for the trouble and upset caused.
9. It directed the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord 24 November 2021, confirming receipt of its stage two complaint response. She stated that she was in the process of taking further advice before she responded.
The resident emailed her full response to the landlord’s stage two complaint letter on 7 December 2021. She queried several of the points in the landlord’s response. She concluded by summarising the impact of the matter on her and her son. She said the offer of compensation was inadequate, but if the landlord reviewed it they may reach a resolution.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 February 2022. This Service wrote to the landlord 11 February 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s letter on 15 February 2022. It apologised for the length of time taken respond. It said the delay was due to an administrative error. It advised that it had an introduced an additional measure to its process to prevent this happening again.
The landlord’s letter responded to the points raised by the resident, offered to complete a compensation review and explained what that would involve.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 21 February 2022, that she remained dissatisfied and wished to proceed to investigation.

Assessment and findings

Allocation of the wrong property

The landlord provided this Service with a site plan dated October 2019. The plan clearly shows the house numbers, and the position of the two properties that are relevant to the complaint.
It is reasonable to assume that if the landlord had taken the site plan to the viewing, it would have correctly identified the properties. It is also reasonable to assume that this would have prevented the resident being signed up to the wrong property. The landlord has stated that it was ‘human error’ on its part that meant this did not happen. This is not in dispute, and was the direct cause of the complaint.
The resident explained the disappointment and loss of expectation caused by not getting her preferred property. She also advised of the inconvenience and time needed to change the address of all her identification, utility and other accounts for a second time, and the difficulty this caused in her personal circumstances.
In reaching a decision in these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord has acted reasonably, and whether the redress offered is appropriate and proportionate to the maladministration identified.
In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions, and offer of redress were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord first became aware of the issue that led to the complaint on 8 October 2021, and acted straight away. The landlord’s internal emails, sent the same day, show that it considered the practical and legal implications and the impact on the resident and her neighbour.
The emails demonstrate that the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s request that her and her neighbour be swapped into the properties they were nominated to. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the personal circumstances of both the resident and her neighbour, and to conclude it was not appropriate to ask the neighbour to move.
The landlord’s internal emails show that, having decided it would not ask the neighbour to move, it considered how to resolve the matter. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude it should offer support with utility and address changes, and reimburse any associated costs the resident incurred. It was also reasonable to conclude it should provide a goodwill gesture by way of an apology, in line with its ‘Putting things right guidance’.

Complaint handling

This Service has reviewed the landlord’s internal emails and complaint response letters. It is the view of this Service, that the landlord did, in the main, act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the substantial delay in responding to the resident after the stage two response was issued, was a service failure.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain and apologise for the property viewing and sign-up failings. It was also reasonable to offer support, reimbursement of costs, and compensation in line with its ‘Putting things right guidance’, and the remedies guidance of the Ombudsman.
The landlord explained how it had learnt from the complaint. It was appropriate to explain the changes it would make with regard to property numbering and availability of site plans to staff and this demonstrated that it seriously considered how it could avoid this situation occurring again in future.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent 23 November 2021. This was two days beyond the 20 working days its ‘customer relations procedure’ states all stage two complaints will be answered within.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident prior to sending the stage two response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this, and to apologise, and explain why there would be a short delay in sending its response.
The resident confirmed receipt of the stage two response the following day, on 24 November 2021. She stated she was seeking advice before responding fully. She sent her full response on 7 December 2022, suggesting how her complaint might be resolved.
The landlord’s complaint policies provided to this Service, do not specify response timescale for resident communications received after stage two of the complaint process. Nevertheless, it would be considered good practice, and good customer service, for the landlord to respond in a timely manner.
The landlord had completed its stage two complaint investigation. As such, it would not have been unreasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident, advising that its stage two response represented its final position. In doing so, it would also be appropriate to again advise the resident of her right to refer the matter to this Service. However, the resident’s constructive response to the stage two letter, also represented a good opportunity for the landlord to agree a final resolution to the complaint.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s final letter until after she had approached this Service in February 2022, some 10 weeks later. It apologised, and explained the delay was due to an administrative error. It was unreasonable that it took so long for the landlord to respond to this resident’s follow up correspondence and will have caused uncertainty to her as to whether it was willing to revise its final position.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s report that she was allocated the wrong property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord accepted and apologised for the service failing that led to the complaint. Up to and including issuing its stage two complaint response, it acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint. The goodwill gift provided, the offer of support, the reimbursement of costs, and the £300 compensation, were proportionate with the impact of its earlier service failure, in line with its own policy and therefore represented reasonable redress.
Having received the stage two response, the resident advised the landlord she would be responding once she had taken advice, which she did 12 days later. It was a clear service failing that the landlord took a further 71 days to reply, and then only after having being prompted by this Service. Along with poor communication practice, this meant a clear opportunity to rebuild trust and agree a resolution with the resident was also missed.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident a further £150 (£450 in total, including the £300 already offered) for the time and trouble caused to her by the service failure identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the learning it identified from this complaint.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.