London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201916247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916247

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

11 February 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 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 request to end his tenancy.
2. The landlord’s handling of the return of the resident’s deposit.
3. The landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a former joint tenant of the landlord.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident called it on 5 September 2019 to report his bereavement of that date to it, which required him to end his formerly joint tenancy with it in the quickest timeframe that it was unable to discuss with him at that time, but that it agreed to add to its notes so that he did not have to explain this to it again.
The resident’s representative provided a timeline which showed that, on 9 September 2019, they sent an email to the landlord regarding ending his tenancy in accordance with its break clause following his bereavement, as he no longer wanted to continue living in the property. He was also described as having confirmed to it on the same date that the representative was acting for him.
The representative recorded that they chased the landlord for confirmation of its timeframes and provided them with documents that it had requested on 10 and 11 September 2019. It was then noted as having informed them on 12 September 2019 that a period of one month’s notice was required for the ending of the resident’s tenancy, but that there was no specific end date provided by it for this, although it asked for the resident to complete a form.
On 13 September 2019, the representative’s timeline showed that the landlord was emailed back a completed form that it had requested be completed to end the resident’s tenancy, and that this attached his bank details for the tenancy deposit to be returned to be returned to him. The landlord was recorded as having later communicated with the representative on 16 September 2019, and it confirmed that the actual date of the end of the tenancy was 10 October 2019, after it initially disputed this and subsequently apologised for doing so before it acknowledged this on 23 September 2019.
On 24 September 2019, the representative’s timeline noted that landlord asked them and the resident for access to his property, as it needed to arrange for this to be viewed. The resident was shown as having responded on the same day, and he explained that the property was empty and could be viewed any time, but that he was unhappy that he had been contacted by it directly, for which it apologised and the representative confirmed that they and not he should be contacted by the landlord.
The representative’s timeline nevertheless recorded that the landlord emailed the resident directly again on 4 October 2019, and it explained that the property would be checked by it, at which he expressed his frustration. The representative noted that landlord was advised by them that the resident was out of the country and that the property was empty. A request was therefore shown to have been made by them for arrangements to be made by it for the best time to hand over the keys via the representative.
The representative recorded that, after they had chased a reply to the above request, a further email was sent by the landlord on 9 October 2019 to them explaining that there would be an inspection of the property on the following day that had been booked with them. The representative noted that they had explained, however, that this was not previously brought to their attention, and that they were unhappy with its handling of this.
The representative’s timeline showed that they later confirmed to the landlord, on 10 October 2019, that they had missed the landlord’s email from 24 September 2019 booking the above inspection of the property, and so they explained to it on the former date that the keys would be left at the property for this to be checked. They nevertheless recorded having expressed their dissatisfaction with how this had been handled by it.
On 10 October 2019, the representative noted that the landlord confirmed that it would return the deposit for the property to the resident in full but that it asked that he complete a form for this. Although no date for the return of the deposit was shown as having been provided by it.
The landlord and the representative recorded that it then emailed them on 14 November 2019 requesting that an attached form be completed by the resident and returned to it with his bank statement so that the property’s deposit could be paid to him in full. The representative subsequently noted that they returned the requested documents to the landlord on 19 November 2019, but that it contacted them on 9 December 2019 to explain that the resident’s sort code was missing, for which it was sent it his full bank statement on the same date.
The representative’s timeline then showed that the landlord confirmed on 10 December 2019 that it would arrange for the deposit for the property to be sent to the resident, and it recorded on 11 December 2019 that it had signed off on the release of the full deposit to him. On 19 December 2019, however, the landlord emailed the representative to let them know that a letter from the executor of the estate was required in order to proceed with processing the return of the resident’s deposit.
The representative responded to the landlord’s above email on 19 December 2019, and they explained that it was inconvenient that the landlord had not previously requested the executor’s letter when this was needed. They also asked it to seek advice from its legal team and respond to them as to whether the letter was needed, as they had understood that the resident had succeeded to his former joint tenancy in his sole name, as well as that it stop copying him into its correspondence when he had made many requests that it not do so.
On 20 December 2019, the landlord responded to the representative via email and it explained to them that it rarely dealt with deposit returns in these circumstances, so that there were additional steps to complete the process, for which they asked it what would happen now on the same date.
On 27 December 2019, the landlord re-requested the above executor’s letter from the representative in order to move the resident’s case forward, for which they reiterated that the landlord needed to check the legality of requesting a letter from an executor. They additionally referred to it as being “insensitive and unhelpful”, including by continuing to contact the resident directly instead of only via the representative.
On 31 January 2020, the representative emailed the landlord to re-request confirmation from it of the legality of it seeking an executor’s letter in order to release the property’s deposit, as well as a final response from it regarding a complaint raised about the deposit not being paid to the resident. They also stated that they had not received any communication from the landlord for over a month.
The landlord then emailed the representative a consent form on 31 January 2020, as it said that it was unsure if this had previously been filled out to show that the resident happy for communication to go through the representative. It explained that, when this was returned to its property manager, it would be able to process the return of the deposit for the property to the resident.
The landlord subsequently received a further email from the representative on 31 January 2020, explaining that they had been dealing with this case for four months, and that the resident had already twice sent it email confirmation to give consent for them to handle this matter on his behalf. The landlord was advised that the return of his deposit and a full review was expected regarding how this matter had been handled within the next three weeks and that, if not, a complaint would be sent to the Ombudsman and the relevant deposit protection scheme.
The resident then emailed the landlord directly on 20 March 2020 to find out the status of his deposit, as it had been over six months since he had first requested this. He explained that without his deposit he had been unable to acquire another rental property, and that he had therefore to stay with family and friends since leaving the property in September 2019, with its lack of compassion upsetting him and the bereavement affecting his mental health. The resident explained that he would seek legal action for compensation due to the stress this had caused him, and the impact of this on him as he had been left homeless. He requested for his deposit back with interest, and he also explained that the representative was in the process of contacting the Ombudsman.
The landlord responded to the resident directly on 20 March 2020, and it apologised that it was not aware about the deposit having not yet being returned to him. The resident was advised that the relevant department had been informed, and that the deposit would be processed for him to receive by 24 March 2020, with his other points having been passed to its property manager’s line manager to respond to.
The representative subsequently emailed the landlord on 25 March 2020 to let it know that they had been in contact with the Ombudsman, and that they were still waiting for a final complaint response from it. They explained that contact had been made with the landlord on 31 January 2020, and that they had given it a deadline within which to respond the complaint, but that it had not responded to this request. The representative further explained that they had been in contact with the landlord several times regarding the deposit, and that it was expected that the landlord would have handled the matter sensitively, given the resident’s dissatisfaction and upset with this.
The landlord emailed the representative back on 26 March 2020, and it explained that it had confirmed with the resident directly that the property’s deposit had been paid back to him, and it apologised that this took this long to resolve that had been escalated to its senior managers to review.
The representative then contacted the landlord again requesting a final response to the complaint on 12 April 2021. They recorded that they later emailed the landlord on 13 April 2021 and provided a summary and a number to be contacted on, as it requested more information on the complaint on that date, and that it apologised for the delay and sought further details of this from them on 22 April 2021. The representative noted that they queried this with the landlord on 10 May 2021, and that they subsequently provided it with the timeline of events in the resident’s case referred to above on 11 May 2021 before chasing it again for a complaint response on 18 May 2021.
The representative’s timeline complained of the landlord’s delays throughout the resident’s case and especially in relation to the return of his deposit, “broken promises” on its part including it not carrying out a manager’s review, its lack of sympathy for the bereavement, and it not taking ownership of the case. They added that there were “rude and insensitive emails and behaviour” by it, and continuous errors in it corresponding directly with the resident, confusing the parties in the case, and requesting documents that were not needed and did not exist without explanation, such as the executor’s letter.
The representative also complained that the landlord had asked for confirmation of them after four months, for new and unnecessary forms that should have been requested at the start of the resident’s case, and that it had continuously failed to deal with his complaint. They asked, as the outcome to the complaint, for its handling to be reviewed in full and for lessons to be learnt from this, as he was going through a very difficult time and did not want the same thing to happen to others.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident and the representative. It acknowledged its failure to respond to the representative as quickly as possible on several occasions, and to resolve their queries in a timely manner, apologising for this and acknowledging the resident’s bereavement. The landlord explained that the delay in the return of the deposit was due to its internal processes, and that the request for further information in order to return the deposit as a result of these was unnecessary, apologising for the inconvenience caused. It acknowledged that it had learned from the complaint, as it was unusual for the landlord to deal with a case such as this. The resident was offered £300 as a gesture of goodwill.
The representative’s timeline showed that they then asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 4 and 8 June 2021.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord sent a final stage complaint response to the resident and the representative. It referred to the issues raised by them, which included delays in responses, the delay in the deposit being returned, and the landlord not demonstrating any empathy and understanding given the resident’s circumstances following a bereavement, which he wanted it to take seriously and learn from.
The resident and the representative were reassured that there had been an internal discussion by the landlord with its relevant staff regarding the way that his complaint was handled, and that the landlord had also discussed the failures as well as how things could have been done differently to avoid situations like this arising again. The landlord reiterated that its staff apologised for the inconvenience caused, and that there had been £300 offered as a gesture of goodwill to the resident. This was offered on the basis of the failures during that particular time. The resident and the representative were advised that this concluded the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident and the representative subsequently complained to this Service, as outlined in their above timeline.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, Policies and Procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord, either party could give at least two months’ written notice on the first day of the month to terminate the agreement. However, both parties to a tenancy can agree to end this together as surrender via a deed or by operation of law by taking unequivocal action to do so. The tenancy agreement additionally stated that the landlord held the resident’s £2,076.92 deposit for the property in accordance with the tenancy deposit scheme, that any interest earned on the deposit would belong to the landlord, and that the deposit would be released to the resident at the end of the tenancy following the procedures set out by the scheme.
The landlord’s website states that: “At the end of the tenancy, the agent/member must tell the tenant within ten days of the end of the tenancy, if they propose to make any deductions from the deposit. Payment of the deposit or any balance of it will be made within ten working days of the landlord and the tenant agreeing the allocation of the deposit”.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it will accept complaints from someone acting on behalf of a resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord aims to make contact by the next working day to resolve the issue complained about at stage one of its complaints procedure. It will write within ten working days after it receives a complaint to explain the outcome of an investigation, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescales. If the landlord is not able to do this, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. After an agreed resolution and confirmed decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
When reviewing the complaint at the final stage of the complaints procedure, the complaints policy states that contact will be made by the landlord within two working days to give the opportunity to explain the side of things complained about. The landlord will write with an outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If unable to do so, the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it also says that “We treat complaints as an opportunity to learn from our mistakes and improve our service. Complaint numbers, outcomes and satisfaction inform policy reviews and the way we deliver our services”.
The landlord’s compensation policy covers “fixed awards for service failure”. Compensation will be paid for “failure to respond to a query within 10 working days as well as failure to respond to a formal complaint within the time scales published in our complaints policy”
Under the landlord’s compensation guidance, with regard to discretionary compensation, the landlord will consider time and effort invested by the customer to raise the issue and reach a resolution, and it has discretion to recognise its service failures with up to £60 each for high impact distress and inconvenience and up to £200 for time/effort.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to end his tenancy

When the landlord received the resident’s request to end his tenancy following a bereavement on 5 September 2019, and via the representative from 9 September 2019 onwards, evidence provided by the latter showed that it responded to the request from 10 September 2019 onwards. It did so by asking for documents to enable the tenancy to be ended, which was appropriate. The resident’s above tenancy agreement stated that either party could give at least two months’ written notice at the end of the month to end the tenancy.
The landlord was nevertheless described by the representative as having confirmed on 16 September 2019 that the resident’s tenancy would end on 10 October 2019, after it initially disputed this before apologising for doing so. As he originally asked it to end the tenancy in the quickest timeframe due to the circumstances of his case, the fact that it took seven working days to arrange to do so one month earlier than his tenancy agreement required, seemingly by surrender as outlined above, was a reasonable timeframe for it to respond to this request.
The timeline provided by the representative also showed that the landlord further communicated with them and the resident about how to end his tenancy on 24 September 2019 to let him know that it required access to the property so that this would be viewed. Follow up emails were then recorded by the representative as having been sent by the landlord to them and to the resident on 4 9 October 2019 to arrange for the property to be inspected by it and for the keys to this to be returned, before the keys were handed over on 10 October 2019.
The landlord was noted as having been prompt and responsive to the resident and the representative throughout the process of ending the tenancy and handing over the property, and it kept them both updated in accordance with the timeframe for this. Although it is of concern that it continued to contact him directly during this process despite him and the representative repeatedly asking it to only communicate via the latter, this aspect of his complaint and its communications is considered separately below as part of its record keeping.
The landlord therefore took reasonable action in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement in relation to the end of the tenancy. The tenancy was ended and the property was handed over on 10 October 2019, just over one month after the resident requested the end of his tenancy on 5 September 2019, which was well within the two–month period required by the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of the return of the resident’s deposit

Evidence provided by the representative showed that they responded to the landlord’s request of 12 September 2019 for the return of a completed form from the resident, together with his bank details for the return of the deposit for the property, on the following day on 13 September. Following the end of his tenancy on 10 October 2019, the representative recorded that the landlord confirmed on 14 November 2019 that it would return the full deposit to the resident, but that it required another completed form from him for this, without it providing a date for the return of the deposit.
Once the representative noted that they had submitted the documents requested by the landlord for the deposit to be paid to the resident on 19 November 2019, they responded to its request of 9 December 2019 for his missing sort code with his full bank statement on the same date. Their timeline then showed that that the landlord confirmed on 10 December 2019 that it would return the deposit to the resident, and it recorded on 11 December 2019 that it had signed off on the release of the full deposit to him.
In accordance with the resident’s above tenancy agreement, the landlord was required to return the property’s deposit to him in accordance with the procedures set out in the tenancy deposit scheme after his tenancy ended on 10 October 2019, and it is concerning that it did not do so. It was nevertheless understandable that it failed to do so immediately when it needed the above further documents and evidence from him for this, which it had received from the representative by 9 December 2019. Therefore, while the landlord initially confirmed that it would release the full deposit to the resident on 14 November 2019, it was reasonable to expect it to do so from its subsequent confirmation of this on 10 December 2019, when it had the necessary documentation for this.
The above provisions from the landlord’s website then obliged it to return the deposit for the property within ten working days of 10 December 2019, i.e. by 24 December 2019. However, it did not do so and the representative noted that it instead requested an executor’s letter from him on 19 December 2019 that it later found to be unnecessary. It is also unclear why the landlord did so, given that the representative described having correctly outlined to it on the same date that the resident had succeeded to his former joint tenancy in his sole name, which therefore entitled him to receive the full deposit.
The representative’s timeline showed that the landlord nevertheless continued to reiterate its above unnecessary document request to them in order to release the deposit to the resident on 20 and 27 December 2019, and it afterwards re-requested his consent for the representative to act for him on 31 January 2020 to enable it to do so. This was despite them recording him as having originally provided this to it on 9 September 2019, and it continuing to communicate with the representative without requiring such consent for them again until 31 January 2020.
The landlord subsequently went on to keep delaying the return of the deposit to the resident until he re-requested this from it directly on 20 March 2020, and the representative chased it on 25 March 2020, after which a response was sent by it to them on 26 March 2020 explaining that the deposit had now been paid. This was approximately three months after its website had required it to do so by 24 December 2019, and this delay occurred despite numerous attempts by the representative and the resident to get this resolved.
It is noted that the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 28 May 2021 attributed the above delay in releasing the property’s deposit to the resident to its internal processes causing it to unnecessarily request further documentation for this. However, the landlord should have prioritised this as the resident had already explained the reasons for ending his tenancy and the distress that this was causing him, as well as identifying that his status as a sole tenant who had already given it consent for his representative meant that there was no need for the additional documentation. Moreover, it ought to have diarised its above timescale for returning the deposit to him, followed this, and updated the representative on any delays and new timescales for this.
It was instead expected that the landlord should have communicated with the representative within a reasonable period of time, to ensure that the deposit was returned to the resident within ten working days of it agreeing to do so in full and having the documents and information necessary to do so, in line with its website. The failure on its part to do so was nevertheless acknowledged by the landlord’s stage one complaint response, together with its unnecessary request for further information and the inconvenience caused, for which it apologised and offered £300 compensation.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 9 June 2021 added that there had been an internal discussion by the landlord with its relevant staff regarding the way that the resident’s complaint was handled, and that it had also discussed its failures as well as how things could have been done differently to avoid situations like this arising again. Its above actions were therefore appropriate, as these demonstrated that it sought to put things right and learn from the outcome of his case by recognising the delay, distress and inconvenience that he experienced by apologising and compensating him for these, as well by seeking to prevent them from recurring by speaking to its staff.
The landlord’s above compensation offer to the resident was also proportionate to recognise its failings in respect of the return of the deposit. This is because its above compensation guidance gave it discretion to recognise the high impact of the distress and inconvenience that he experienced as a result of these with £60 compensation each, together with up to £200 for time/effort, and so its £300 compensation award to him offered him almost all of the compensation available to it for them. The landlord was additionally not required to pay the resident the interest on the deposit, as requested by him on 20 March 2020, since this belonged to it under the terms of his above tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling

In respect of record keeping, the landlord did not provide a full account of how it communicated with the resident and the representative with regard to the end of his tenancy and the return of the deposit, from 9 September to 10 October and 19 November to 10 December 2019. The only evidence for these periods that was therefore considered by the Ombudsman, in relation to the end of the tenancy and the return of the deposit, was provided by the representative in the form of a timeline.
The landlord is expected to keep robust records to provide an audit trail, and to enable the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures. In this instance, there was a failure on its part in the form of poor record keeping for the above periods, as the landlord did not provide comprehensive records in relation to the end of the tenancy and the return of the deposit when we requested it to do so.
This was supported by the fact that, despite the representative reporting that the landlord had initially received the resident’s consent for them to act on his behalf on 9 September 2019, it was described as continuing to contact him directly contrary to his instructions on at least 24 September, 4 October and 19 and 27 December 2019. This is of particular concern, given that its records did show that it had recorded his bereavement on 5 September 2019, and that it had agreed on that date to add this to its notes so that he did not have to explain this to it again, which meant that it should have been aware of the distress that could have been caused him by communicating with him about this directly.
The evidence provided by both the landlord and the representative for the subsequent events in the resident’s case showed that on 31 January 2020, moreover, there were further concerns raised by it on that date with regard to the possibly missing proof of his consent for the representative that it re-requested. This was to enable them to continue to communicate with the landlord on the resident’s behalf with regard to the return of his deposit, which was despite it being shown by the representative’s timeline and its partial records as having previously continued to communicate with them without requiring further consent from him from 9 September 2019 onwards.
When the landlord made another request for proof of the resident’s consent for the representative to be provided to it again, this indicated that the information that he had previously provided to it giving consent for them to communicate with it had not been kept as part of its records. This was a further failure on its part, as the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have kept records for the actions that it previously took, as well as its earlier communication with the resident and the representative. In this aspect of his case, the poor record keeping led to additional distress and inconvenience for the resident considering the circumstances following a bereavement.
Moreover, the landlord failed to adequately consider its handling of the resident’s formal complaint. It failed to recognise that it should have considered accepting a stage one complaint from him following the representative recording that they had expressed their dissatisfaction with its handling of the end of resident’s tenancy on 9 and 10 October 2019, and the return of the property’s deposit to him on 19 and 27 December 2019. There were instead no complaint acknowledgements sent to the representative by the landlord, or reassurances by it that her concerns about these issues would be addressed under its complaints procedure.
This prompted further requests explicitly for a complaint response from the representative to the landlord on 31 January 2020, from the resident directly on 20 March 2020, and from the representative again on 25 March 2020, 12 and 13 April 2021, and 10, 11 and 18 May 2021. The landlord eventually sent them a stage one complaint response on 28 May 2021 approximately 16 months after the initial complaint was explicitly made to it on 31 January 2020. This was inappropriate and another failure on its part, as the resident and the representative were not provided with a stage one response within the ten-working-day period referred to in the above complaints policy, or an update on its inability to provide this within a further ten working days under the policy.
Moreover, the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 9 June 2021 only appeared to acknowledge the most recent stage one complaint sent to it on 18 May 2021, and it apologised for the delay in responding to this, but it did not acknowledge its failings in not doing so from at least 31 January 2020 onwards. This meant that there were further shortcomings in how the landlord handled the complaints, as it did not respond on time or “monitor the progress of its actions” in accordance with its complaints policy above.
Furthermore, the landlord’s above complaint responses failed to demonstrate how it had learnt lessons from the above record keeping and complaint handling failures on its part, or describe the steps that it was taking to ensure that similar issues did not occur again in the future. This was inappropriate, as this would have increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience given the circumstances in which the tenancy had come to an end, the delayed return of his deposit, and the record keeping and complaint handling failings.
There was failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, as it is expected that a complaints procedure is there to ensure that the resident’s complaints are addressed within the timeframes provided in the landlord’s complaints policy.
Given that the landlord took almost 16 months longer than expected to provide a response to the representative and the resident’s stage one complaints, and it failed to keep appropriate records in his case, it should have considered offering the resident further compensation to recognise these failings. Its compensation guidance gave it discretion to do so in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time/effort incurred as the representative and the resident had to chase complaint responses from it and deal with the consequences of its lack of records.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not “often have cases like this”. However, it is still expected that the landlord should have provided a response to and updates on the complaints from the representative and the resident, while it worked to implement policies that aimed to improve its record keeping and complaint communication with its residents.
The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £300 compensation that it previously awarded him if he has not received this already, and to pay him a further £300 compensation for any distress, inconvenience, and time/effort that he experienced from its poor record keeping and complaint handling. This is as well as the below order for it to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the future by reviewing its record keeping processes to ensure that it keeps full and comprehensive records in relation to representatives, communication preferences, the status of joint tenants, returning deposits and formal complaints. The landlord has also been ordered to do so below by reviewing its relevant staff training needs.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to end his tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the return of his deposit satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping and complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately promptly to the resident’s request to end his tenancy by doing so earlier than was required by his tenancy agreement. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s request for the return of the deposit for the property in accordance with the timeframe on its website. Although it offered him proportionate compensation to recognise any distress, inconvenience and time/effort that he experienced as a result of this, and it demonstrated that it spoke to its staff about this in order to prevent this from happening again.
Having taken into account the circumstances which led the resident to request the end of his tenancy and the return of his deposit via the representative following a bereavement, the landlord did not demonstrate that it would put measures in place to address its failures in maintaining appropriate record keeping and communication in his case with other residents in the future.
There were also unreasonable delays in the landlord providing a stage one complaint response to the resident, which would have exacerbated his concerns given the circumstances of his case, and it did not acknowledge or offer him compensation for this or its poor record keeping and communication.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £300 compensation which it initially offered within four weeks, if it has not done so already, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time/effort that he experienced as result of its delay in returning his deposit.
2. Pay the resident £300 further compensation within four weeks to recognise any distress, inconvenience and time/effort that he incurred from its poor record keeping and complaint handling.
3. Review its record keeping processes with regard to representatives, communication preferences, the status of joint tenants, returning deposits and formal complaints to ensure that it keeps full and comprehensive records in respect of these.
4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its record keeping processes, complaints policy and compensation guidance, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that the above orders have been complied.