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

Community Gateway Association Limited (202015749)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015749

Community Gateway Association Limited

16 March 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 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 resident has complained about:
    1. Complaint One: the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of rent arrears;
    2. Complaint Two: the resident’s complaint is about the landlord stating that he was abusive in a telephone call; and
    3. Complaint Three: the resident’s complaint is about the landlord making an unannounced visit to his property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a three bedroom house. The resident has an assured tenancy.

Complaint One: Rent Arrears

  1. On 27 January 2021 the landlord received an update from Housing Benefit advising of a reassessment of the resident’s benefit level.
  2. On 28 January 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident requesting contact.
  3. On 1 February 2021 the landlord sent an early contact letter to the resident explaining that there was a shortfall in housing benefit.
  4. On 5 February 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident requesting contact.
  5. On 10 February 2021 the landlord sent a first contact letter for “recovery of arrears” of £211.18, which requested contact within five working days. The landlord also sent an email to the resident requesting contact.
  6. On 15 February 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had not had any previous contact from the landlord and the rent was £95.55 short “due to the bedroom tax”, which he would pay for from 26 January 2021. The landlord treated the resident’s communication as a complaint received on 15 February 2021.
  7. The landlord provided a stage one response on 22 February 2021. In its stage one response the landlord stated that it considered that it had followed the correct course of action and had used appropriate language in its communications. It stated that where there any changes in a tenant’s circumstances it is proactive in putting in place a sustainable arrangement, which is what it had done in this case. The landlord noted that the resident did not inform it of the reasons for the changes until after his complaint and it was his responsibility to advise of any changes. The landlord noted that communicating by email was not proving effective. It noted that there may have been issues with the email address that was used and therefore whether the resident received the email communications as well as the letters. The landlord asked that the resident confirm his email address, advise it when he would be paying the shortfall due on the account and provide a contact number so the matter could be discussed.
  8. On 23 February 2021 the resident requested that the landlord take the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure on the grounds that the stage one response did not “match the facts” and did not refer to the landlord’s “use” of rent as being a “serious breach of protocol”.
  9. On 4 March 2021 the landlord communicated its stage two response to the resident. In this letter the landlord stated that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, on the grounds that the letter which the landlord sent “could have provided an earlier explanation that the arrears could include charges payable through housing benefit”. The landlord acknowledged that amendments could be made to the letter. However, the landlord confirmed its view that its contact with the resident had not been harassment and was in line with established protocols. The initial correspondence that the landlord sent did not refer to legal action and were requests that the resident contact the landlord. The final letter asked the resident to contact the landlord within five days or legal action would commence – which reflects the landlord’s policy for escalation in such circumstances.
  10. On 5 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him that following his stage two complaint it has made changes to the rent arrears letter including making it “softer in tone” and adding additional support numbers.

Complaint Two: Telephone call

  1. On 29 June 2021 there was a phone call between the resident and the landlord. Following the call, the landlord noted on the resident’s file that the resident used inappropriate language during the call. On 9 August 2021 the resident complained about the staff warning note on his file on 29 June 2021. The resident stated that the warning was because he did not respond to a demand from the landlord to provide a telephone contact number. He stated that he had advised the landlord previously that he did not want to communicate with it by telephone. He stated that he had listened to the phone call and there was no evidence of verbal abuse. The resident requested that the warning be removed from his file.
  2. On 17 August 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response regarding the customer’s complaint about its position that he had sworn at the end of a call with a representative of the landlord. The landlord stated that it had reviewed the case and was satisfied that the language used was inappropriate as reported by its staff member, whom it had distressed. The landlord stated that nevertheless it had removed the warning from the resident’s file. It stated that its records would be updated to record the resident’s preference for written communication.
  3. On 23 August 2021 the landlord provided its stage two response regarding the customer’s complaint about the landlord’s position that he had sworn at the end of a call with a representative of the landlord. The landlord stated that the call had been listened to several times and concluded that at the end of the conversation the resident had used an expletive. However, the landlord acknowledged that there was an element of doubt as “the clarity of the recording is not entirely clear”. The landlord noted that in any case a warning had been removed from the resident’s file and it was not clear what the resident would like to further resolve the matter.

Complaint Three: Unannounced visit

  1. On 27 February 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about it attempting to access his property. He referred to a letter dated 27 July 2020 from the landlord, which stated that it would not attend his property without giving 24 hours notice. This was a stage two complaint response letter. The resident submitted that the landlord was harassing him.
  2. On 1 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to formally complain. His complaint was that the landlord had accessed his property without notice even though it had said in the July 2020 stage two complaint letter that it would not. He stated that he is classified within the extremely vulnerable shielding group and had provided the landlord with a copy of his medical letter, the landlord has continued to harass him. The landlord acknowledged the customer’s complaint and advised him that it would provide a response by 5 March 2021. The landlord stated that the July 2020 stage two response was about that “moment in time” and that the recent approach to his property was what needed to be investigated.
  3. On 4 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding the attendance at his property on 26 February 2021. The landlord explained that there had been a mix up because there was another tenant with the same name who lived on the same road. The asbestos surveyor who had approached the resident had thought that the resident had agreed to his visit, however it was in fact the other resident with the same name. The landlord confirmed that the asbestos surveyor had not actually entered the resident’s property but had attempted to interact with him from across the road. When the resident reacted unfavourably he did not attempt further interaction. The landlord apologised and explained it was a genuine mistake.
  4. The resident replied on 5 March 2021 referring back to the July 2020 stage two complaint response which said that there would not be an asbestos survey undertaken without a prior appointment. The resident stated that the landlord’s apology was “meaningless”. The landlord responded asking what resolution the resident sought, noting that a stage two investigation would involve the landlord representatives who had already provided the response set out in the 4 March 2021 email being spoken to again. The landlord stated that it could only provide an apology and ensure that tenants details are double checked going forward. The resident responded that the matter needed to go to stage two as he did not agree that there was a mix up.
  5. On 18 March 2021 the landlord provided a stage two response. The landlord acknowledged that in the stage two letter in July 2020 it stated that the asbestos team would not attend without 24 hours notice. It stated that it was satisfied that there had been a genuine mistake and was not a deliberate attempt to visit the resident without appropriate notice. It stated that it understood why the resident was upset and apologised. It stated that it would ensure that whole addresses are checked before contact.

Assessment and findings

Complaint One: Rent Arrears

  1. The resident does not dispute that there was an adjustment made to his housing benefit after his family members moved out of this property. The crux of his complaint is that the landlord communicated with him in an unreasonable manner about the adjustment and the impact on his rental payments.
  2. The first question is whether the landlord was unreasonable to communicate at all with the resident about rent payments. The resident states that he was aware of the change in his housing benefit because of the change in residents at the property and that he would need to pay a greater amount. The evidence indicates that the first time the resident gave the landlord notice of the change was in his communication to it on 15 February 2021, which was approximately two weeks after the landlord had been advised of this through other channels. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was reasonable to communicate with the resident about the decrease in his housing benefit and the resulting gap in his rental payment, given that the resident had not communicated to it that he was aware that there was a shortfall that he would now have to cover.
  3. The next question is then whether the way in which the landlord communicated with the resident was unreasonable.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that it appears that there may have been some issues with the email address which the landlord was using for communications with the resident. The landlord had an email address on its system from 2013 which was different to the email address that the resident then used to communicate with the landlord about his complaint. It is unfortunate if the email address that the landlord first used was not one that the resident was using at that time. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that this was because of an error by the landlord. Whilst unfortunate that the resident may not have received email communications, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord in any event used two different methods of communication and also sent the customer hard copy letters. The Ombudsman notes that the resident is not clear that he received the first of the hard copy letters sent by the landlord. The Ombudsman is persuaded that it is more likely that the landlord sent the letters but acknowledges that it is possible that there were issues with delivery. In any case the landlord had used other channels of communication with the resident and the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall the landlord took reasonable steps to use effective means to communicate with the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman has also considered the tone and language of the landlord’s communications, noting that the resident has stated that he felt harassed by the landlord’s communications.
  6. The letter the landlord sent dated 1 February 2021 stated that it had “notice[d]” that there were arrears as of 1 February. It noted that some of the rent was paid by housing benefit. It advised the resident to contact the landlord if he required some assistance. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the tone of the letter was appropriate.
  7. The letter the landlord sent to the resident dated 10 February 2021 included as the subject line in red “Rent Arrears” and stated that if the resident did not contact the landlord or pay the arrears within the next 5 working days the landlord “will start legal action to recover the debt owed.”
  8. The landlord has acknowledged that the second letter which it sent “could have provided an earlier explanation that the arrears could include charges payable through housing benefit” and could be softer in tone. It has stated that it will make some changes to the letter. 
  9. In considering whether the letter was appropriate the Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord had also sent three emails asking the resident to contact it. Whilst unfortunate that the resident does not appear to have received these, as set out above there is no evidence that this was because of a failing by the landlord. The landlord therefore sent the 10 February 2021 letter in the context of the resident appearing to have ignored a number of communications from it. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was reasonable to follow its procedures regarding unpaid rents and no response to communications. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord can reasonably be considered to have harassed or acted inappropriately towards the landlord.
  10. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord is taking steps to make amendments to the letter to make it less confrontational.
  11. Therefore and taken altogether, the Ombudsman finds that there has not been a failing by the landlord with respect to its communications with the resident about his rent arrears.

Complaint Two: Telephone Call

  1. The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord has incorrectly concluded that he used inappropriate language to it in a telephone call on 29 June 2021
  2. The Ombudsman has reviewed the copy of the call which has been provided, however this does not appear to include the end of the call when the disputed inappropriate language occurred. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged that the call recording was not entirely clear. The Ombudsman cannot definitively conclude what was said on the call. However, what has been considered in this investigation is whether the landlord dealt with the matter in a reasonable manner. 
  3. The evidence demonstrates that when the resident complained to the landlord about the warning on his file about abusive conduct the landlord reviewed the call. At the first complaint stage the landlord confirmed its view that there was inappropriate language. Nonetheless, the landlord still removed the warning from the resident’s file. The landlord also confirmed that it had updated its records to reflect the resident’s preference for written communication.
  4. The landlord considered the matter again at stage two of its complaint process. The landlord was somewhat more equivocal in its position at this stage and acknowledged that there was an element of doubt and the recording was not “entirely clear”. However, it observed that the warning had already been removed from the resident’s file and it was not clear what the resident wanted to further resolve the matter.
  5. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord based its response having taken reasonable steps to review the telephone call. Given the landlord’s view of the call contents, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to place the warning on the file in the first instance.
  6. In any case, when the resident challenged the warning on his file the landlord removed it. The landlord further reinvestigated the matter at stage two of the complaint procedure. As the landlord noted at stage two, it is not clear what further steps the landlord could have taken to resolve the matter.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was not a failing by the landlord with respect to its handling of the phone call. When the content of the call was disputed by the resident, the landlord took appropriate steps by reviewing its position, acknowledged that the call was not entirely clear and then removed the warning. This was a proportionate response to the concerns raised. The landlord made it clear it was happy to consider other proposed steps for resolution but it was not clear what the resident was seeking to resolve the matter.

Complaint Three: Unannounced visit

  1. The Ombudsman starts by noting that in communications about complaint three the parties have referred to a July 2020 stage two response letter. The complaint which was the subject of this July 2020 stage two response letter has been the subject of a separate investigation by this service and does not form part of this complaint. In this determination the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions on 26 February 2021 regarding access to the resident’s property, which is a new complaint issue.
  2. The crux of the landlord’s submission is that there was a mix up in communications because there is another tenant on the same road as the resident with the same last name. The asbestos surveyor from the landlord had thought that the resident had given permission for a survey on 26 February 2021, however in fact it was the other resident who had given permission. The landlord apologised for the mistake. The landlord also noted that the surveyor had not entered the resident’s property but had interacted with him from across the road. When the resident indicated that the surveyor could not access the property, he did not do so.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has health concerns and is understandably concerned about people accessing his property. The Ombudsman further notes that the resident had given the landlord notice of this and the landlord had stated in its July 2020 letter to the resident that it would give the resident 24 hours notice for access to the property.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord did not deliberately seek to disregard the resident’s wishes regarding access. The Ombudsman is persuaded by the landlord’s statement that it was a simple error and a mix up with the tenant on the same road with the same name. It is unfortunate that this occurred and the Ombudsman understands and is sympathetic to the distress this caused the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has apologised to the resident and that it has confirmed that it will give the resident notice before seeking access. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has made a commitment to check whole addresses going forward to minimising the chance of such a mistake occurring again.
  5. Whilst unfortunate, the Ombudsman finds that this was a simple matter of human error. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, having identified the error, the landlord investigated the matter and offered an explanation to the resident. The landlord confirmed that it would not visit the resident again without notice and would implement additional address checks. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was an appropriate and proportionate response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to all three complaints.

Reasons

  1.  Complaint one: The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was reasonable to follow its procedures regarding unpaid rents and no response to communications, noting that it was unfortunate that the resident did not appear to receive the emails which the landlord had also sent but this was not because of a failing by the landlord.
  2. Complaint two: The landlord based its response to the telephone call on the basis of taking reasonable steps to review the telephone call. Given the landlord’s view of the call contents, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to place the warning on the file in the first instance. The landlord took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s complaint and removed the call warning.
  3. Complaint three: It is unfortunate that there was a clear case of human error regarding seeking access to the resident’s property. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was appropriate and proportionate.