Home Group Limited (202000698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000698

Home Group Limited

11 February 2021

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 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 response to the resident’s report of an unauthorised person living in the neighbouring property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies a property within a housing scheme intended for residents aged over 60.
3. The landlord’s compliments and complaints webpage provides for a two-stage complaints process where at stage one it will “try to resolve it within five working days” and advise the resident if it is unable to do so. At the final stage the landlord will “aim” to resolve the complaint with 20 working days.
4. The resident informed the landlord on 6 April 2020 that the property next door to his appeared to be occupied by someone who was “severely coughing” and questioned this as he understood the neighbour to have moved out of the country permanently.
5. The resident repeated his enquiry in an email to the landlord’s CEO on 7 April 2020, expressing his belief that the property was occupied by his neighbour’s family. He was concerned that this was not safe in light of the current coronavirus situation. The landlord replied to the resident later that day to advise that the neighbour’s family had advised there was no-one in residence and the family were involved in sorting the neighbour’s belongings. He responded that afternoon to dispute this, asserting that the neighbouring property was occupied by a “female person coughing and loud television”.
6. On 9 April 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the neighbour’s family member was staying at the property. It assured him that it had been in touch with the family and was monitoring the situation, and that the person would be staying there in the “very short term as the property has been sold”. The landlord advised that the coughing was not linked to the coronavirus and it was unaware of any virus risk.
7. The resident raised the matter with the landlord again on 28 April 2020 when he contended that two people were living in the neighbouring property, both of which were not of the appropriate age to be living in the housing scheme. It replied later that day to advise that it was aware of the occupation and confirmed that one person was staying there. The landlord advised that it was not aware of any virus risk but declined to provide further details due to confidentiality. After the resident sought more details from it the next day, it confirmed that the neighbour’s family member would be staying there for approximately two months and did not have symptoms.
8. The resident approached this Service on 2 May 2020 to express his concerns that the landlord had “unlawfully… allowed two under aged people to occupy the flat” and questioned its “secretive behaviour” which may have implications for other residents. He contended that it had not investigated the matter fully as it had not visited the neighbour’s property and he had received no response from its CEO to his enquiry. On 19 May 2020, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord raise a complaint about the matter.
9. After acknowledging the complaint on 22 May 2020 and advising the resident of delays on 2 and 9 June 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 11 June 2020. It apologised for the delay, citing difficulties in obtaining information due to coronavirus restrictions.
10. The landlord confirmed that the terms of the lease precluded a person aged under 60 from living at the neighbour’s property. It confirmed that the neighbour was out of the country and, while waiting for the property sale to be completed, his son was living there. The landlord advised that the neighbour’s son had been advised to shield under government guidelines during the coronavirus pandemic, and had been living in the property, in breach of the lease, due to this. It confirmed that it had commenced formal action to remove the neighbour’s son from the property by 10 July 2020, explaining that this was a “reasonable” timeframe to allow him to complete his period of shielding. The landlord stated that the son did not “present any risk” and had been “living on his own”.
11. The landlord asserted that it had responded promptly to the resident’s enquiries and had been unable to divulge certain information due to compliance with data protection regulation. It clarified the conditions under which it may release information and confirmed these had not been met in this case.
12. The landlord explained that the resident had not received a response from its CEO as requests were delegated to the appropriate person to handle them but hoped that its response would provide reassurance to the resident.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 June 2020 to escalate his complaint, asserting that residents were not allowed to have guests living in their properties at the scheme, even when properties were empty. He contended that he was not advised that his neighbour’s property was “awaiting sale” and disagreed with its assertion that his neighbour’s son posed no risk, questioning its basis for this. The resident stated that he had witnessed the son leaving the property and another person had lived with him briefly and repeated that the landlord had not investigated the situation sufficiently as it had not carried out a visit.
14. The resident explained that, as the neighbour’s son was not a customer of the landlord, data protection regulation did not apply. He added that he had previously not received a response to requests directed to the CEO and he had not been informed that the matter had been delegated to another member of staff.
15. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 8 July 2020 in which it confirmed that the neighbour’s son had been given formal notice to vacate the property by 10 July 2020, which he had agreed to, and enforcement action would be taken if this was not complied with. It agreed that the son should not have been living in the property and apologised that action was not taken sooner. The landlord explained that “matters were however complicated by the COVID- 19 lockdown”; and considering the government restrictions in place at the time, it felt “it would be irresponsible to force the issue without full investigation and an understanding of the implications involved”.  
16. The landlord empathised with the resident’s concerns about the coronavirus but explained that it was unable to prove whether an individual had the virus or not, and, in any event, it would not be able to disclose this information due to data protection regulation. It clarified that data protection regulation applied to “all living individuals” irrespective of whether they were its customers or not and therefore it could not provide any more information on the neighbour’s son’s circumstances.
17. The landlord reiterated that its CEO did not respond personally to all correspondence and usually delegated matters to other staff. It apologised that this had not been made clear to him earlier and assured him that feedback about this had been given to the staff involved. The landlord acknowledged that it had not carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property but explained that this had been prevented by government restrictions at the time and instead it had “made contact with the family during this period by email and telephone to ensure a full understanding of the situation”.
18. The neighbour’s son vacated the property on 10 July 2020, as stipulated by the landlord, and it is evident that the landlord continued to liaise with the neighbour’s family to oversee the removal and sorting of the neighbour’s possessions while the property was being sold.
19. The resident subsequently referred the matter to this Service through his MP on 6 August 2020 and in a call to us on 14 September 2020, he advised that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s investigation of the matter.

Assessment and findings

20. The resident has disputed that the landlord has been prevented from disclosing certain information about the neighbour and his son. Complaints of this nature fall properly within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office and will therefore not be considered in this assessment.
21. It is expected of the landlord to enforce the terms of the lease when a potential breach has occurred. It acknowledged, in its stage one response on 11 June 2020, that the occupation of the neighbour’s property by his son, who was under 60, was not in accordance with the lease and it formally wrote to him to request he leave by 10 July 2020. This was in accordance with the terms of the lease and was therefore an appropriate response on the landlord’s part.
22. There was a period between the resident’s reports and the landlord taking formal action against the neighbour’s son. The complaint procedure is in place so that the landlord can review its service up to that date and decide if different action is required. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess how a landlord has handled a complaint about its service, therefore the use of the complaint procedure is as important as the events which led to the complaint itself.
23. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the landlord did not carry out visits to the neighbour’s property, which was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response to him on 8 July 2020. It however affirmed that it had made contact with the neighbour’s family by email and telephone. It must be considered that these events took place during a time of reduced movement due to government restrictions imposed, where face-to-face contact was discouraged.
24. While the resident reported concerns to the landlord about potential increased corona virus transmission risk, there was no reported identifiable, immediate danger. It has a duty to ensure the safety of both him and its staff and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out its investigation into the matter remotely to reduce face-to-face contact. The resident, on 2 May and 16 June 2020, disputed the veracity of the neighbour’s son’s statements that he was living alone. There was no evidence provided of this and, in any event, this would not have changed the enforcement actions which were expected of it.
25. In conclusion, the landlord took proportionate actions in enforcing the terms of the lease, carried out its investigation reasonably under the circumstances of the government restrictions in place at the time, and there is no evidence of any failings on it part.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of an unauthorised person living in the neighbouring property.

Reasons

27. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions to enforce the terms of the lease under the government restrictions in place at the time of the events.