Dolphin Living Limited (202107992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107992

Dolphin Living Limited

18 March 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to extend her tenancy.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord for three years. The tenancy was designed to support tenants to enter home ownership, by offering rent at a reduced rate to help the tenant save money to buy the property at a later date. The resident signed a participation agreement, alongside the tenancy agreement, that stated if the resident did not provide notification of her intent to purchase a property by 30 months into the tenancy, the tenancy would be terminated at the end of the three-year contract (January 2020). The landlord said this could be extended for a further six months, under limited circumstances, at its discretion.
3. The resident said she had a meeting in April 2019 with the landlord and asked it to extend her tenancy, as she said it would be difficult to move during December with two young children; the landlord advised it would only be possible if she was in the process of buying a property. On 4 October 2019, the landlord sent a letter to the resident advising that as she had not provided notification of her intent to purchase a property by the deadline, her tenancy would end at the end of the three-year contract. The resident then emailed the landlord on 29 October 2019 asking for “clear information about the buying situation” and said the landlord had not responded to her previous emails regarding extending her tenancy. The landlord responded the same day and advised it would consider extending her tenancy if she provided evidence she was in the process of purchasing a property. On 14 December 2019, after the resident had moved out of the property, she asked the landlord why she was treated differently to other tenants who had been granted a tenancy extension, as she had not been provided with the same opportunity. The landlord explained that this was due to personal circumstances of other tenants, to help them avoid risk of homelessness.
4. In its final complaint response dated 1 May 2029, the landlord confirmed its position regarding tenancy extension and said the resident had acted appropriately by sourcing alternative accommodation and it had awarded her priority to move into one of its other properties. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to inform the landlord of “any change of circumstances in line with the qualifying criteria”. It recognised the stress the situation had caused her family, and offered her a £75 high street voucher as a gesture of goodwill. It did not signpost the resident to this Service until 3 June 2020, after she had tried to escalate the complaint to it further on several occasions, and asked for the relevant Ombudsman’s contact details to progress her complaint.
5. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge that she had been treated unfairly and offer appropriate compensation.

Assessment and findings

6. At the beginning of her tenancy, the resident signed a participation agreement, which stated that once the three-year contract had ended, the tenancy could only be extended if the resident provided evidence that she was in the process of purchasing a property. The landlord also explained this to the resident during a meeting in April 2019, and again in correspondence during October 2019, and said it would use its discretion to make a decision on extending a tenancy beyond the end of the three-year contract.
7. Although the resident stated that she had attempted to contact the landlord several times before the correspondence on 29 October 2019, no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to confirm this.  In its stage two complaint response, the landlord said that as the resident had not explained her personal circumstances, it was unable to extend her tenancy. The landlord made the resident aware of the policy from the beginning of the tenancy, promptly responded to her initial queries regarding the process of extending her tenancy, and gave clear and consistent advice regarding the information she was required to provide. There is also no evidence to suggest that the participation agreement was changed, without the resident being notified.
8. When the resident queried why other tenants had been able to extend their tenancies, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it used its discretion to assess individual requests based on evidence the tenants had provided. It explained that as the resident had not provided the requested evidence, it was unable to extend her tenancy, as it was unaware of her circumstances. It provided a brief explanation of why other tenants had their tenancies extended. Due to data protection regulations, the landlord would not be permitted to discuss detailed information about other tenants with the resident without the other tenants’ consent. The Ombudsman has not seen the details of the other tenants’ circumstances and therefore we cannot comment on exactly why their tenancies were extended. However, the landlord has given a reasonable explanation for not extending the resident’s tenancy and there is no evidence to confirm that it treated her differently from other tenants in the same situation as her.
9. Overall, although it was understandably frustrating to the resident that the landlord did not extend her tenancy, when other tenants were granted an extension, the landlord appropriately handled the resident’s queries regarding the issue and its communication was prompt, clear and consistent. It also used its discretion to offer her a £75 gesture of goodwill as it acknowledged the situation had been difficult for the resident, and granted her “discretionary priority 1 status” to be allocated another of its properties.

Complaint handling

10. In accordance with its complaints policy, if the landlord cannot resolve an issue within three working days, it must investigate it and issue a response within ten working days. In this case, the resident made several attempts to raise the complaint, but the landlord initially refused to investigate, stating it had already discussed it with her. Regardless of whether the issue had been discussed, if the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord needs to acknowledge it as a formal complaint and issue a response. The resident first raised a complaint on 20 January 2020, and chased the landlord on multiple occasions, before the landlord issued its initial response on 25 March 2020, exceeding its ten working day response timeframe. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord then issued its stage two response on 1 May 2020, in which it failed to signpost the resident to this Service. The resident then contacted the landlord on several occasions to escalate the complaint, before it provided contact details to this Service on 3 June 2020, as the resident had asked for the relevant information. The landlord has failed to acknowledge or apologise for these failings, and the additional time and effort it caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
11. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in view of these failings. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests that we may award between £50 to £250 in cases where there has been service failure by the landlord resulting in some impact on the complainant. The Ombudsman recognises that there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls and failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
12. In this case, the resident would have been inconvenienced by delays in the landlord’s complaint responses and a lack of information concerning how to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman. However, these delays and miscommunication would not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to extend her tenancy.
14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.  

Orders and recommendations

Orders

15. In light of the additional time and effort caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint, as a result of the landlord’s failings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200.
16. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

17. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to ensure that it signposts the resident to the relevant Ombudsman Service at the end of its complaints procedure.