Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Wiltshire Council (202118464)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118464

Wiltshire Council

10 March 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The suitability of the property allocated by the landlord.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of anti-social behaviour.
    3. The landlord’s decision to charge the resident a full month’s rent while offering no reimbursement for her decorating costs.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under an assured tenancy. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the second floor of a three-floor block of flats.
  2. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 2 July 2021 and the tenancy started on this date. On 12 July 2021 she contacted the landlord to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, listing issues relating to anti-social behaviour, including loud music and a strong smell of cannabis. She called the landlord on 13 July 2021 to let it know she had handed the keys back to the housing officer.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 27 August 2021. She said that she’d been assured by the housing officer that the issues with cannabis were being addressed and that they weren’t aware of any other issues.
  4. In its stage one complaint response, sent on 21 September 2021, the landlord said the property was advertised as being subject to a local letting plan. It also said the housing officer had discussed the known issues and the resident had agreed to proceed with the tenancy. It said that her report of loud music was the first it had received, but that it had received subsequent reports and was pursuing this issue.
  5. On 14 October 2021 the resident called the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord sent its final response on 5 November 2021. In this it agreed to write off the outstanding council tax but said that the outstanding rent balance of £235.19 for the notice period remained due. It said that she had discussed concerns about cannabis use and possible intimidation at the sign up, and had agreed to proceed on that basis, so did not uphold the complaint.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 10 November 2021 to ask for the complaint to be investigated. She told this Service she didn’t feel the landlord took into consideration her reports of intimidation, loud music and drugs. She did not feel she should be liable for rent after she handed the keys back, as she never moved into the property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, complaint element a) falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. This is as complaints which concern the allocation of housing by a local authority properly falls within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As per paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. As such, this element of the complaint has not been commented on within this report. Should the resident wish to pursue this complaint, she will need to take this up with the LGSCO.  The Ombudsman can see that in the landlord’s final response, it appropriately signposted the resident to them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of anti-social behaviour

  1. The property was subject to a sensitive let local lettings plan, due to the previous tenant causing issues and disturbances to neighbouring residents. The landlord’s advert for the property identified that it was subject to a local letting plan. Both the landlord and the resident said that issues with cannabis and intimidation were discussed with the housing officer during the sign-up meeting. The resident says the housing officer told her the landlord was aware of the cannabis problem and that it was being dealt with. The housing officer wasn’t aware of any other current issues and said that the issues had been with the former resident of this property.
  2. In its stage one response the landlord said that the resident’s report of loud music was the first it had received, but that it had received other reports since, and was pursuing this.
  3. The landlord says that during the meeting on 13 July 2021 the housing officer advised her she could seek independent advice, or speak to another department before making the decision to end the tenancy. She decided to go ahead and end the tenancy and handed the keys back.
  4. In its stage two response the landlord said that it has an anti-social behaviour policy in place, but wasn’t given the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns before she ended the tenancy.
  5. A landlord is expected to take steps to tackle anti-social behaviour and have a policy in place to do this. However, it cannot be expected to take action about behaviour it is unaware of. It said that, aside from the cannabis usage which was being investigated, it was not aware of any issues with things such as loud music, until the resident reported this. No evidence has been provided which shows it should have known about this.
  6. The Ombudsman does not consider that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. As the resident ended the tenancy at the same time as raising her concerns with the landlord, the landlord was not given an opportunity to investigate any anti-social behaviour and take any action to deal with it.

The landlord’s decision to charge the resident a full month’s rent while offering no reimbursement for her decorating costs

  1. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 2 July 2021. Under the section ‘Your right to end tenancy’ it says ’14.1 To end your tenancy, you must provide written notice giving 4 weeks’ notice’ and ‘14.23 You must pay all the rent you owe up to the day your tenancy ends.’ As such, the landlord had the right to charge the resident rent until the end of the notice period, as her obligations were clearly set out in the tenancy agreement.
  2. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the circumstances in which the resident ended her tenancy were unfortunate, and that the landlord could have used its discretion here to waive the cost, it was not required to do so. As the landlord explained, the resident was responsible for the cost up until the day the tenancy ended and this was irrespective of whether she decided to occupy the property or not.
  3. The tenancy agreement also sets out, undersection 6.1, that the resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the property. This is at the resident’s own cost and will. The landlord would not be required to reimburse a resident upon undertaking decorations, irrespective of the length of time the property has been occupied for (even if the resident had not physically moved in) and as such, it was not obligated to reimburse the resident here.
  4. While the landlord could have again applied its discretion and offered a reimbursement, this was a decision it needed to make for itself. The Ombudsman accepts that although it could appear that the landlord benefitted from the resident’s improvements, if these were unsuitable for the landlord’s future tenants, these would need to be stripped which could come at a cost to the landlord. The landlord therefore needed to make the decision based on its own position.
  5. The Ombudsman has subsequently been unable to see that there was any maladministration by the landlord in its decision to charge the resident a full month’s rent and to not reimburse the decorating costs. These costs have been incurred in line with the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. A member landlord is required to have a formal two-stage process, as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The Code says a landlord should provide an update if it cannot meet these timescales, with an explanation of why it needs longer.
  2. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 27 August 2021. She called the landlord on 16 September 2021 as she had not had a response or any update. The landlord then issued its response on 21 September 2021, 17 working days after it was raised.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 14 October 2021, and the landlord sent its final response on 5 November 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman considers there to be a service failure by the landlord in its failure to meet the 10 working day timescale for its stage one response and the lack of update provided to the resident to explain this. It is to the landlord’s credit that after failing to send the stage one response within the expected timescale, it did issue the stage two response well within the expected 20 working day timescale.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of the resident’s concerns of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the decision to charge a full month’s rent while offering no reimbursement of decorating costs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of the failures identified with its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to confirm to this Service that the above order has been complied with within 28 working days of this report.