Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Crawley Borough Council (202006821)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006821

Crawley Borough Council

21 October 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. This complaint is about how the landlord handled arrears on the resident’s rent account.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The property is a three bedroom house.
  2. On 23 August 2020, the landlord received a complaint from the resident (dated 22 July 2020) regarding a phone call he had made to a member of the landlord’s staff on 21 July 2020, following a letter he had received about arrears on his rent account. The resident asked that the landlord bear in mind that both he and his wife were registered disabled. The resident said that he tried to explain that his rent was paid by Universal Credit (UC) and to ask how he could have been in arrears, but was told that ‘‘as usual he was being very aggressive again’’ and was threatened with being taken to court.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response on 1 September 2020. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident felt his recent interaction with it was not a positive one.
    1. With regards to the rent arrears, the landlord explained that:
      1. On 11 February 2019 the resident’s Housing Benefit (HB) stopped due to his new UC claim and that prior to this he had a long standing static arrear of £74.08.
      2. No rent payment was received between 11 February and 8 March 2019 which left the resident’s account in arrears throughout that period.
      3. Since 8 March 2019 the landlord had been receiving UC housing element entitlement from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) directly. The first payment received was for only £307.24. This amount did not cover his full monthly rent which at that time was £406.15 (a shortfall of £98.91 further arrears). The landlord advised the resident if he had any concerns about the payments being made that he would need to query that directly with UC.
      4. The resident cleared the longstanding static arrear of £74.08 in two payments of £40 and £35 on 21 May 2019 and 4 June 2019 respectively. However, as no further payments were made, the shortfall of £98.91 remained outstanding, which the resident was required to pay, together with any balance in excess of the £478.88 UC housing element.
      5. That residents could request a UC ‘advance payment’ to pay their first month’s rent, to avoid being four weeks in arrears with their rent.  If an advance is not requested and then paid to the rent account, residents are expected to pay a small additional sum themselves until the rent is being paid in advance in accordance with the tenancy agreement.  The landlord said that this was usually £20 per month and would evidence that the resident was seeking to comply with the terms of his tenancy agreement.
    2. With regards to the delay in advising the resident of the rent arrears, the landlord provided a detailed explanation of how payments are received by UC and upcoming changes to the way those payments would be made. The landlord also explained that the resident’s account was not correctly set up with an arrears agreement and therefore did not flag up as missing arrears payments. The landlord said that this was an oversight on its part and resulted in a long gap between June 2019 and July 2020 where it was not aware that the account was not being paid correctly.
    3. With regards to the telephone conversation the resident had with the landlord on 21 July 2020. The landlord said that:
      1. It was difficult to explain the reasons for arrears over the phone and that it understood that this was a source of anxiety for the resident.
      2. The staff member found the resident’s tone and manner confrontational and, unfortunately, instead of discontinuing the conversation until such time as the breakdown of arrears could be clarified and explained very clearly, the conversation turned to the legal consequences of not paying arrears. The landlord said that the staff member denied at any time mentioning eviction. 
      3. The staff member had confirmed that it is never their intention to cause stress or upset and would like to apologise on this occasion if they had done so. The landlord also suggested that it may be that the resident may regret their own behaviour during the call.
      4. That following the conversation on 21 July 2020, both the resident and the staff member had undertaken separate enquiries regarding the payments received from UC and that their subsequent conversations appeared to have been more fruitful.
    4. With regards to the resident’s comments about the Equalities Act 2010. The landlord said that not aware of the nature of the resident and his wife’s disabilities or what impact that may have on the resident’s situation with regards to his rent arrears. The landlord said that if the resident could provide further information about the nature of their disabilities and how they affect their day to day life, it would be able to take this information into account when making any decisions relating to their housing.
  4. On 7 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that his complaint be escalated to the review stage. The resident said that the landlord’s stage one response did not address his complaint, in particular:
    1. That the landlord did not believe him when he advised that UC had made the payment to the landlord and that the landlord had stood by its position that the monies had not been received, according to the landlord’s records.
    2. That the continued threat of eviction and the landlord’s condescending attitude was causing him extreme anxiety and stress, and that the landlord showed no understanding or compassion for people with disabilities.
  5. Between 7 and 9 September 2020, the landlord was in contact with the DWP in order to seek clarity as to the shortfall in the resident’s UC payments.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 2 October 2020. The landlord re-stated its position in its stage one response with regards to the £98.91 arrears and that should the resident wish to dispute the amount paid by UC he would need to raise it with them (Universal Credit). The landlord apologised again for the delay in contacting the resident about the shortfall and acknowledged that it must have been very stressful for the resident given that he had thought his account was up to date. The landlord confirmed why it was asking for an additional contribution of £20 per month and offered to arrange for its Financial Inclusion Officer to contact the resident if he would like them to assist him with any appeals against UC’s decision.
  7. The landlord went on to say that:
    1. It was sorry that the resident viewed its explanation of the legal process as a threat and that that was not its intention. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was a long standing tenant and that where in the past any monies had been owed the resident had made payments to clear that amount. The landlord said that its intention was to explain that there was a legal process that it could resort to. The landlord also agreed that it was reasonable for it not to reference this in future unless it had actually made the decision to commence legal proceedings.
    2. Having read the stage one response letter, it did not consider it to be condescending and that the letter had gone to great lengths to explain the background of the arrears, and to cover all the points the resident raised in his initial complaint. The landlord also noted that the resident had referenced a phone call on 21 July 2020 but that as it did not record the calls it would not be able to give a view on that.
    3. At the time of its stage one response it did not have access to any information about what disabilities the resident might have or how these may impact the resident with regards to his day to day interactions with the landlord. The landlord noted that the resident wanted the landlord to reference his disabilities in any future decision making, which it confirmed it would do. The landlord also suggested that the resident be given access to a different member of staff so that a more positive relationship could develop.
  8. On 23 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that an underpayment of £98.91 had now been paid by UC for the period 24 January to 23 February 2019. The landlord asked that the resident ensure these monies are paid into his rent account. The landlord repeated its request that the resident make a payment of £20 each month to bring the account up to date, as UC make payments in arrears.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to pay their rent four weeks in advance.
  2. The tenant’s handbook states that if residents get behind with their rent or if they do not make the regular payments they have agreed, the landlord will get in touch with them.
  3. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that the landlord will pay compensation where there has been a clear service failure and the tenant has been inconvenienced or disadvantaged as a result. The standard amount being £25 per incident but this could be varied if the inconvenience or disadvantage is more serious.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests awards of compensation of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident, including distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, but was of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2019 as he did not believe that his rent account should be in arrears and that he should not be receiving reminder letters. Following a telephone call with the landlord regarding the arrears, the resident raised a complaint.
  6. On receipt of the complaint, the landlord undertook an investigation of the arrears on resident’s rent account and discussed the resident’s call of the 21 July 2019 with the member of staff he had spoken to.
  7. In the main, the landlord provided well-reasoned explanations in its stage one response and then used its stage two complaint response to satisfactorily address the residents outstanding concerns and provide further clarity to its stage one explanation. 
  8. The landlord provided detailed answers regarding the payments it had received from UC and highlighted two historical issues that had caused the rent account to go into arrears: a long standing static arrears of £74.08 and no rent payment between 11 February and 8 March 2019. The landlord confirmed that resident had paid the £74.08 over two payments, 21 May 2019 and 4 June 2019, but this left a remaining shortfall of £98.91 which the resident was required to pay. During the course of the complaints process, the landlord also:
    1. Said that it was sorry that the resident viewed its explanation of the legal process as a threat and that that was not its intention.
    2. Confirmed that it was never the intention of the member of staff that spoke to the resident on 21 July 2020 to cause stress or upset and that they apologised if they had done so.
    3. Acknowledged that it was difficult for officers to explain the reasons for arrears over the phone and that this must have been a source of anxiety to the resident.
    4. Confirmed why it was asking for an additional contribution of £20 per month and offered to arrange for its Financial Inclusion Officer to contact the resident if he would like them to assist him with any appeals against the UC’s decision
    5. Invited the resident to provide further information about the nature of their disabilities and how they affect their day to day life, so that it could take this information into account when making any decisions relating to their housing.
  9. According to the tenant’s handbook if residents get behind with their rent or if they do not make the regular payments they have agreed, the landlord will get in touch with them. Whilst it does not explicitly state as such, it would be reasonable for the landlord to do so in a timely manner.
  10. It was therefore understandable that when the resident made his arrears payments of £40 and £35 on 21 May 2019 and 4 June 2019 respectively, he assumed that there were no further arrears on his account, given that the landlord did not inform him of the earlier, 8 March 2019, shortfall at that time.
  11. It was not until the landlord sent the resident a letter about arrears on his rent account in July 2020, over a year later, that the resident became aware of further arrears on his account dating back to 8 March 2019. It is understandable that receiving a letter about unexpected arrears, and that they dated back over a year, was upsetting for the resident.
  12. During the complaints process the landlord acknowledged this and apologised to the resident for the delay in contacting him about the shortfall, recognising that this was oversight on its part and that there was a long gap between June 2019 and July 2020 where it was not aware that the resident’s rent was not being paid correctly.
  13. Whilst the acknowledge failure by the landlord did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, given the upset caused to the resident by unexpectedly finding out that his rent account was in arrears and had been for over a year, an apology alone was not sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress.
  14. There is evidence of the landlord contacting UC to discuss the resident’s payments during the course of the complaints procedure and it has been noted that following the landlord’s final response the remaining shortfall of £98.91 was paid by UC. As the landlord explained in its stage two response if the resident wish to raise any concerns about how UC had managed his claim and payments to the landlord he would need to raise his concerns with Universal Credit.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of arrears on the resident’s rent account.

Reasons

  1. Whilst the failure of the landlord to comply with its commitment in its tenancy handbook to get in touch with residents get behind with their rent may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, given the upset caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s acknowledged service failures an apology alone was not sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the upset caused.

Order

  1. That within 28 days of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £50 for the upset caused to the resident as a result of its acknowledged failures in respect of its handling of arrears on the resident’s rent account.