Places for People Group Limited (202008282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008282

Places for People Group Limited

27 September 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

The resident complained that the landlord:
1. Had failed to provide proof that she had an affordable rent tenancy.
2. Had responded unreasonably to her rent arrears.
3. Had unreasonably increased her rent.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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. In this case the resident has complained about the level of her rent and its increase in April 2020.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 23(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, complaint 1(c) concerning the level of the resident’s rent or any increase is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
This is because paragraph 23(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two bedroomed house which is owned and managed by the landlord. The house was registered as an affordable rent property in June 2015 and on 22 August 2017 the resident signed an affordable rent starter tenancy agreement for the property.
In 2019 the resident was awarded universal credit (UC). This was for less than her rent because her rent was for a two bedroom property and she was entitled to one bedroom on account of her being a single occupant. Arrears accrued as a result of the difference between the amount of rent being charged and that being paid by the resident through her UC. The resident failed to make up the shortfall and her non-payment of rent/arrears culminated in the landlord obtaining a possession order on 23 December 2019, with costs of £325 added to her arrears. The Ombudsman notes the resident had not attended the hearing, but had told the landlord in advance she would be unable to and it had directed her to the court should she wish to request a different hearing date.
Meanwhile the resident pursued a formal complaint with the landlord about her level of rent. She did not consider it an affordable rent and was unhappy it was more than that being paid by some of her neighbours. The landlord responded in May 2019, confirming the property was an affordable rent property; was advertised as such when let to her in 2017; she had accepted it on that basis; had agreed to the level of rent; and had signed the affordable rent tenancy agreement. The landlord also explained that some affordable rents were more than social rents.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman but it determined the complaint [under case reference: 201815841] to be outside its jurisdiction because it was unable to consider a complaint about the level of rent charged by a landlord.
In an email exchange with the landlord in January 2020 the resident continued to dispute she had an affordable rent tenancy and the validity of the possession order. To this the landlord confirmed she was on an Affordable Assured Shorthold Tenancy and asked that they meet so that it could explain this and support her in order to avoid her eviction. On 23 January 2020 the landlord referred the resident’s case to the local authority’s homeless prevention team so that it could assist her.
In an email exchange on 4 February 2020 the resident claimed her signature on the tenancy agreement had been fraudulently entered and asked why the possession order was for an assured shorthold tenancy when the landlord had told her it was an affordable rent one and she had no knowledge of it having been changed. She therefore claimed the possession order had been obtained fraudulently.
The landlord acknowledged her ongoing dispute but said it had responded on numerous occasions and it had exhausted its complaints procedure. It confirmed it had reviewed the documentation in the case, had not found the documents to have been ‘doctored’ by staff and if she wished to pursue the issue further it would be for the court to decide prior to it obtaining a warrant for possession of the property. It explained an alternative option would be for her to look for a one bedroom property. It asked that she let it know how she wanted to proceed. [The resident later confirmed to the homelessness prevention officer that she did not want to downsize.]
On 21 February 2020 the local authority confirmed to the resident it would backdate a discretionary housing payment (DHP) from March 2019, reducing arrears by £681.44, and would continue to pay the shortfall in her rent until 20 June 2020, at which point she would need to reapply. [DHP is an extra non-repayable payment made by a local authority if a resident is struggling to pay rent because their universal credit housing element or housing benefit does not cover their rent. It does not need to be repaid. It was awarded here because the resident had more bedrooms than needed and had arrears.] It explained the DHP award was a short term measure to allow her to find a longer term solution and noted she had undertaken to try and resolve her situation by 20 June 2020.
The local authority also advised that the resident let UC know she was on an affordable rent tenancy because as such she was entitled to the local housing allowance rate for a one bedroom property and the rate for that would cover her monthly rent. It copied the landlord into its reply. The landlord acknowledged the reply, asking that it assist the resident with her UC claim as it considered that would solve her rent problems going forward as her rent would be covered in full and at least reduce her arrears until 20 June 2020.
In May 2020 the landlord liaised with the resident’s support worker and the local authority with respect to getting the resident’s DHP renewed.
In June 2020 it transpired the resident had paid her rent twice the previous month by mistake and owing to what appeared to be crossed wires between the landlord and her bank, this was not refunded to her until 24 June 2020, for which the landlord apologised.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord noted the resident had been granted a further DHP award. On 1 October 2020 it contacted the local authority to ask if this could continue beyond 20 October 2020. On 13 October 2020 the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord, and informed it that the resident was having deductions from her UC which left her unable to repay the arrears and asked that it contact the resident to agree a way forward.
Stage 1 complaints: Meanwhile, the resident complained to landlord about her rent increase which she said needed to be adjusted to account for the depressed housing market, Covid, people losing their jobs and UC not covering housing costs. The landlord replied to confirm the rent was increased in line with the government rent increase from April 2020 and that if she considered this was incorrect she could apply to the First Tier Tribunal. By 31 July 2020, however, the resident had requested proof that the property had been registered in 2015 as an affordable rent property, and asked for its registration number. She followed this on 4 October 2020 with a complaint about having received automated rent arrears notices and texts from the landlord’s income recovery team. The landlord registered the matter as a formal complaint.
Stage 1 response: On 8 October 2020 the landlord responded, apologising if its letters and texts had caused distress, reiterating its aim was to assist residents with advice and support “during this difficult time”. With respect to its court action it said this was not taken maliciously but because of the increasing arrears for which no arrangement for repayment had been made. It explained it had no control over the court date (which the resident had been unable to attend) and that the balance of arrears it presented to the court was that which was outstanding on that date.
With respect to its automated letters, the landlord said these had been prompted by the increase in her arrears as a result of the resident failing to pay the amount of rent due and the cessation of DHP. It offered to help her reapply for DHP and help check she was receiving the correct UC rate. It also offered to communicate directly with her support worker if she permitted it, explaining it needed to receive sufficient payments to avoid further recovery action.
Request for Stage 2 review: On 12 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, unhappy with its reply and claiming the landlord had lied to the court and that it was victimising her. She asked for the name of the officer responsible. She said could only pay rent of her UC level and objected to what she saw to be its threatening letter. The landlord escalated her complaint for review and on 30 October 2020 provided its Stage 2 response to the two aspects of its response about which she had indicated she remained unhappy:
1. That it had not provided evidence that her tenancy was for affordable rent – Although it had previously explained, in response to her earlier complaint, why her rent might be higher than her neighbours it had not responded to her request, repeatedly made since May 2019, for evidence that the property was an affordable rent one. It explained there was no such register of affordable rent properties. The evidence of her having an affordable rent was her signed tenancy agreement which made clear the tenancy was an affordable rent tenancy agreement (as opposed to simply an assured tenancy agreement). It confirmed the rent was set at a level not exceeding 80% of the market rent.
2. That its court action and action on arrears was victimising/abusing her and she wanted the name of the officer responsible – Its review of the evidence confirmed its employee, in taking the action it did, acted in accordance with its policy as a result of her not paying the debt and relaying the facts to the court as they stood at that time. This was not abuse or victimisation by the employee and as a result it would not provide their name.
3. It reiterated its offer of support to facilitate a new DHP application/advice on UC and to liaise with her support worker. As Stage 2 of its complaints process was concluded it signposted the resident to this Service.
On 2 November 2020 the local authority informed the resident DHP would not be renewed as there was insufficient evidence of her having engaged with the landlord to find more affordable accommodation and she had also failed to provide her previous two months bank statements. It outlined her right to request a review.
On 18 November 2020 the resident told the landlord that she had offered a friend her spare room and asked the landlord to adjust her rent “to take off the bedroom tax.” The landlord advised that she tell the council’s housing benefit team as they would make a deduction for the extra bedroom and she could make up the shortfall by charging her friend rent if she wished.
Further enquiry: On 16 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive and on 7 January 2021 its head of income recovery responded, saying that although it had already investigated and responded to her points in its previous complaint responses it could reconfirm the following:
1. Rent arrears – Her £1295.41 arrears included £325 court costs. Her monthly rent was £572.17. She had paid £420 for December 2020 and it had received £80.10 in DHP, leaving an underpayment of £72.07 for that month and with no payment towards arrears.
2. Bedroom tax (under occupation) – As she lived alone in a two bedroom property she was classified as ‘under occupying’ as she had more bedrooms than she needed and her UC housing element would not cover the full amount of rent for the spare room.
3. Assured shorthold agreement / Affordable rent – Her tenancy agreement was an affordable rent tenancy agreement as her affordable rent agreement was granted as a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy.
4. Affordable rents are 80% of the local market rent and, when introduced on the relet of a property, that meant some people would pay more rent than their neighbours. The rent being charged was correct and it wanted to help her agree an affordable payment arrangement for rent and arrears.
Between January and March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that its staff were threatening eviction when she ought not to have been charged bedroom tax since November 2020 as she had had someone occupying the second room and that the landlord was refusing to give her the registration number of the property to show it was an affordable rent property. The landlord responded to say her complaint had exhausted its complaints process.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service and between February – April 2021 she emailed to explain she wanted to complain about her rent, that she wanted the bedroom tax removed and a full investigation into whether she was on affordable rent. During this time the local authority told the resident that although she was no longer subject to a bedroom tax as her spare room was now occupied, the deduction that had been made from her UC for under occupation had now been replaced by a non-dependent deduction. It appears the resident was of the view that the landlord should reduce her rent as the bedroom tax no longer applied. The local authority explained the rent remained as charged but what she received in benefit towards her rent would change dependent on circumstances at the time.
The landlord also asked the resident’s support worker if he could help the resident reapply for DHP and advised any shortfall caused by the UC deduction could be made up by the resident with the rent she received from the lodger.
In May and June 2021 the landlord raised with the support worker the fact that the resident was not making up the shortfall in monthly rent and that she was still required to pay towards arrears.

Assessment and findings

As has already been explained, the issue of the level of the resident’s rent and its increase (complaint 1(c)) does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As the landlord has explained, if the resident believes her rent is incorrect and has been inappropriately increased she is free to refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal for determination.
The Ombudsman is, however, able to consider the resident’s complaint that the landlord had failed to provide her with proof that she was on an affordable rent tenancy. It might be helpful to explain that an affordable rent tenancy is not a separate form of tenure but is for a rent which is calculated at 80% of the market rent, a limit which is set by the regulator of social housing.
Firstly, it is evident from the tenancy agreement the resident signed in 2017 that the resident’s tenancy was an affordable rent tenancy and the landlord explained that in its responses to her. [This tenancy agreement was a legally binding contract between the resident and the landlord and includes her obligation to pay rent (whether through UC or her own contribution.] It appears some confusion arose for the resident when this affordable rent ‘starter’ tenancy later automatically converted to an affordable rent ‘assured’ tenancy. [This automatic conversion from starter to assured tenancy after 12 months is outlined in the guide the landlord provides to its new tenants.] But despite this change, the fundamental fact of it being an affordable rent tenancy remained the same.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this evidence, together with the explanations the landlord provided not only in response to the resident’s queries and this particular complaint but also previously under case reference: 201815841, made clear the fact that the resident’s tenancy agreement was an affordable rent one. The Ombudsman acknowledges the term ‘affordable’ can be an ambiguous one in terms of how the rent is calculated when compared to a social rent, and that is where the uncertainty for the resident appears to have arisen. It appears that when she became aware neighbours in similar properties were paying less rent she considered this unfair and the result of a mistake on the part of the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord sought reasonably and appropriately to clarify the position for her in its response in May 2019 and particularly in January 2021, with its explanation as to how affordable rents were calculated and why there is disparity with social rents.
The landlord has appropriately recognised the fact that in seeking to clarify the position for the resident it overlooked the fact that she had – albeit mistakenly – been repeatedly seeking proof in the form of a registration number for the property to ‘prove’ it was an affordable rent one. As is clear, no registration number exists, not because the property was not being let on an affordable rent basis, but the fact that no such register was or is kept. The landlord appropriately addressed this in its Stage 2 review when it explained that fact.
The landlord accepts it ought to have specifically addressed and clarified this point sooner than it did. That said, in the Ombudsman’s view, this oversight was not a significant failure and the fact that the resident continued to seek evidence of the property’s registration after this point indicates the landlord’s delay in responding to her request for its registration number was of no ultimate detriment to her because, when it did respond, its explanation failed to reassure her. The fact that the resident does not accept the landlord’s explanation, however, is not evidence of the explanation being either unclear or incorrect.
Turning now to the remaining aspect of the resident’s complaint which falls to the Ombudsman to consider, namely that the landlord had responded unreasonably to her rent arrears. It is important to explain that the Ombudsman’s remit here is a necessary limited one and that is on account of the action taken by the landlord which resulted in possession proceedings and a court order. Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concerns matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
Clearly, therefore, the matters raised by the resident in connection with those possession proceedings are not matters on which the Ombudsman could intervene. This includes the fact raised by the resident that she was not at the hearing in question. This is because the listing of court dates is the responsibility of the court, not the landlord, and the evidence indicates when she told the landlord she would be unable to attend it appropriately advised her to raise it with the court. The listing date aside, in the Ombudsman’s view all the resident’s observations on her case, including her rent and arrears account; the landlord’s submission; her claim of a fraudulent signature on her tenancy agreement; and her disagreement with the inclusion of the landlord’s costs in the court order were all matters on which the resident had been given an opportunity to raise – either in advance of the court hearing or during – as part of the possession proceedings. Consequently, they do not fall to the Ombudsman to further consider here.
It is the landlord’s actions with regard to the resident’s rent and arrears, subsequent to those proceedings, which the Ombudsman has considered here. The resident’s obligation to make regular rent payments is set out in her tenancy agreement and does not appear to be disputed. The Ombudsman has reviewed the email exchanges between the landlord, the resident, her support worker and the local authority on the issue and has seen no evidence of the victimisation claimed by the resident. Furthermore, the actions taken by the landlord were not down to one particular individual and therefore it was reasonable that it did not provide the resident with the name of any specific officer in response to her request for such.
In making its finding the Ombudsman does not seek to diminish what is evidently for the resident a very upsetting situation, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate that that situation or the stress described by the resident is the result of, or exacerbated by any service failure on the part of the landlord.
To the contrary, the evidence indicates the landlord has proactively and appropriately liaised with the local authority and the resident’s support worker with regard to securing her financial assistance through an award of DHP. It has also explained her option to downsize or how she might look to address any UC shortfall now that she has someone living with her. The Ombudsman recognises that for a recipient the operation and interrelation of benefits can be complex and confusing and this fact appears equally recognised by the landlord through its offer of advice and offer to check she was in receipt of the correct rate of UC.
None of this, however, alters the fact that the resident’s UC award was not sufficient to cover her rent of the two bedroom property, hence her increasing arrears. The composition and payment of UC is not the responsibility of the landlord. Nor is the fact that the resident’s UC award included a deduction for her second bedroom and later a non-dependent deduction. These facts, however, are not the result of a failure on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for proof that she had an affordable rent tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 23(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint that the landlord had unreasonably increased her rent is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord explained for the resident on a number of occasions the basis of her affordable rent tenancy. It confirmed why it considered her to be on an affordable rent tenancy, the evidence it was relying on for that, how it was calculated and why it might be different to the rent paid by her neighbours. It was slow to respond to her request for a registration number for the property, but this oversight was of no ultimate detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s action with respect to possession proceedings and the court order are not for the Ombudsman to consider. Its actions following this, however, indicate it was taking all reasonable and appropriate steps to assist and support the resident in meeting her obligation to pay rent and her arrears, was duly sensitive to the situation in which she found herself, and worked with both the local authority and her support worker to ensure she received any financial support to which she was entitled.
The issue of the resident’s level of rent or its increase do not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for consideration.