Aster Group Limited (202004941)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004941

Aster Group Limited

18 May 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 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 communication to the resident about her rent arrears and rent increase.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s customer accounts procedure confirms that, in the event of a resident generating rent arrears, it will attempt to contact them prior to initiating a notice of seeking possession.
  3. The landlord’s rent and other charges policy confirms that rents are subject to an annual review in April and notifications of this are to be sent to residents at least 28 days before the review date of 1 April.
  4. The landlord’s income recovery policy states that it will provide account statements on request and provide advice and signpost residents to other agencies when they are in financial difficulty.
  5. The landlord’s complaints guide outlines a two-stage complaint procedure, where the complaint is considered at the final stage by a regional director. After this the resident may bring her complaint to a designated complaints panel, councillor or MP, or to this Service after eight weeks have elapsed.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was subject to a court order granted on 8 May 2019 which suspended the repossession of her property on the condition that she adhered to a payment arrangement specified in the order. This information was emailed to her that day. It is evident that payments were not made and further eviction action was suspended again on 16 July 2019 on the condition that payments were made. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 August 2019 that she was behind with the mandated payments of the court order. This information was relayed to her again on 23 August, 3 and 10 September 2020.
  2. On 27 September 2019 a court order was made against the resident which suspended her eviction on the payment of £550 by 4 October 2019 and the current rent and £20 per week towards arrears and costs, to begin on 30 September 2019. A copy of this court order was sent to her.
  3. On 7 and 29 October 2019, 4, 13 and 26 November 2019 the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge that it had received some payments from her but these were insufficient and therefore she continued to be in breach of the court order.
  4. On 17 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that her weekly rent would be increasing to £139.12. It also called her that day to advise her that she continued to be in breach of the court order and agreed to send her a statement to confirm this.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 11 March 2020 to dispute that she had been in breach of her court order. She stated that she had not received the rent statement it had issued to her on 17 February 2020. The landlord advised the resident that she had not been paying the correct monthly rent amount, resulting in the breach, which she disputed. It arranged for a new statement – with a breakdown of how much rent she should be paying and how her arrears had come about – to be hand delivered to her by two members of staff.
  6. Later that day, after receipt of the rent statement, the resident called the landlord again. She described the statement as “fake” and insisted that she did not owe any rent arrears. She denied knowledge of the court order and the mandated payments associated with this. The resident contended that the landlord’s calculations were incorrect and expressed dissatisfaction with the contacts she had received in relation to her rent arrears which she felt was “harassment”. She advised that she would not be paying the arrears and wanted to settle the matter in court.
  7. On 19 March, 13 May and 10 June 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to ask for updates on her circumstances as she continued to be in breach of court order.
  8. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 25 June 2020 to dispute her rent increase and rent arrears. She relayed that she had been informed in April 2020 that her rent was to increase by £52 per month. The resident contended that the landlord was obliged to give four weeks’ notice of a rent increase and to allow her the option of appealing any increase.
  9. The resident stated that she had been informed that she was in arrears by a “large [sum] of money” but questioned why she had not been evicted from the property. She asserted that she had last been in arrears in 2017 which she had since cleared and she had since maintained her payments, for which she had evidence. The resident contended that the landlord had produced “false paperwork”.
  10. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 6 July 2020 to the resident, in which it noted her assertion that her monthly rent had been increased by £52 a month. It confirmed that she had been notified by letter in February 2020 of a rent increase of £15.87 per month.
  11. The landlord outlined the circumstances leading to the resident’s rent arrears. It relayed that it obtained a court order in May 2019 which suspended her eviction on the basis that she paid her rent and £50 per fortnight to clear her arrears. When the resident’s arrears increased, a further court order was obtained on 27 September 2019 which again suspended her eviction on the condition that £850 was paid immediately, with a further £550 to be paid on 4 October 2019, and then payment of the rent and £20 per week after that. The landlord noted that she was in arrears of £2,556.37 which indicated that she continued to be in breach of the court order.
  12. The landlord advised that, in light of the prevailing circumstances caused by the corona virus pandemic, it had not applied for a further eviction warrant to help maintain the resident’s safety. It confirmed that it did not uphold her complaint.
  13. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 14 July 2020. She contended that she had been given contradictory figures for the payments ordered by the court in May 2019, which were “two different amounts and two different offers in one letter”. The resident attributed this to the landlord being “confused” and insisted that she had not been in rent arrears since September 2017. She challenged it to commence legal proceedings over the arrears and alleged that it had fabricated information.
  14. The landlord responded to the resident on 11 August 2020 to advise that it had reviewed the stage one complaint investigation and deemed it unnecessary to escalate the complaint to the final stage of its procedure. It noted that no new evidence had been provided and also that a review was unlikely to change the outcome. The landlord, therefore, confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

  1. It should be clarified that it is not within the remit of this Service to consider complaints about the level of rent, nor the liability for payment of rent. This is because we do not have the legally binding powers to enforce a decision this matter. Instead this assessment will consider the landlord’s communication about the rent and whether this was reasonable.
  2. There is no evidence that the landlord has acted unreasonably or in breach of its obligations under its policies in the handling of this matter. It is noted that it communicated with the resident five times in October and November 2019 to remind her of her obligations in line with the court order made on 27 September 2019. The landlord made further contacts with her on 19 March, 13 May and 10 June 2020 to seek updates. These were in accordance with its customer accounts procedure, above at point 3, by attempting to contact the resident prior to initiating possession activity. The landlord did not threaten eviction in its latter three contacts, which was reasonable considering the government restrictions on evictions in place at the time.  
  3. After the resident requested clarification of her rent account balance, the landlord duly provided this on 17 February and 11 March 2020, in accordance with its income recovery policy, above at point 5. On 17 February 2020, it also provided over four weeks’ notice of the upcoming rent increase, in accordance with its rent and other charges policy, above at point 4.
  4. In light of the resident’s situation, the landlord made reasonable attempts to inform her of her rent arrears and her payment obligations under the terms of her court order. Therefore, there is no evidence of any failing on the landlord’s part. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its communication to the resident about her rent arrears and rent increase.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has made reasonable attempts to communicate to the resident about her rent liability and rent increase, in accordance with its policy.