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

Harrow Churches Housing Association (202014585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014585

Harrow Churches Housing Association

8 June 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 complaint is regarding:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a member of staff had taken over £3000 from her bank account without her consent. 
    2. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account, its decision to issue a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) and its handling of that process.
    3. Staff conduct when dealing with disputed rent arrears.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a member of staff had taken over £3000 from her bank account without her consent. 
    2. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account, its decision to issue a Notice of Seeking Possession and its handling of that process.
    3. Staff conduct when dealing with disputed rent arrears.
  3. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are about “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”. Information available to this Service shows that the landlord took tenancy enforcement action against the resident for non-payment of rent, which resulted in it being granted a Possession Order by the courts in January 2022. It is noted that, in correspondence with this Service, the resident contested this date and stated the Court hearing took place on 1 February 2022.
  4. It is noted that the resident disputes that she had rent arrears and alleges money was taken from her bank account without her consent by the landlord, the Ombudsman is satisfied she would have had the opportunity to raise these issues during Court proceedings and a Judge would have been able to take them into consideration before reaching a judgement. This Service will not re–investigate a matter which has already been determined in a Court of Law.
  5. While the resident also raised concerns over the conduct of the landlord’s staff and this Service will, where possible, seek to investigate how a landlord acts when carrying out its obligations and actions, it is noted that the crux of the resident’s dissatisfaction appears to relate to how staff handled her rent account, pursued rent arrears and the decision to serve a NOSP. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this aspect of the complaint is ultimately inseparable from the above issues and has therefore also been determined as being outside of our jurisdiction in accordance with Paragraph 39(h).
  6. The remaining complaint, which is about the landlord’s complaint handling, is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. She has resided in a studio flat on a sheltered housing scheme since 2016.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. It advises it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and issue a response at Stage One within 10 working days. If a resident wishes to escalate the complaint to the next stage of the procedure, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days before issuing a Stage Two response within 20 working days.  

Summary of Events

  1. On 5 March 2021, the resident contacted this Service by phone to raise concerns about a situation she was having with the landlord. She stated the following:
    1. The landlord had raised her Direct Debit payments (relating to her rent) without her consent.
    2. A scheme warden had taken over £3,000 from her bank account without her consent. After raising this with the landlord, she stated that the money had been returned but then taken again, causing her to use her overdraft.
    3. As a result of this, she had had meetings with the Police and contact from her bank’s Fraud Team, who subsequently placed restrictions on her account.
    4. She disputed that she owed the landlord any money regarding her rent and made further allegations about the conduct of staff who were pursuing the debt. She advised that the landlord had served her with a NOSP, and the matter was due to reach Court. Records show that this Service advised the resident that it could not investigate matters which were subject to legal proceedings.
    5. She advised that she had made a complaint to the landlord but had not received a response.
  2. This Service wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 to request it engaged its complaints procedure, if it had not already done so, and provide the resident with a response. Records show that the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 March 2021 to acknowledge the complaint and noted that it had not received a formal complaint from her previously regarding the issues raised.
  3. The landlord then issued the resident with its Stage One complaint response on 23 March 2021. Its response addressed the issues which fall outside of this Service’s jurisdiction and clarified its position to the resident. The landlord also briefly addressed the concerns raised about its complaint handling, advising the resident that the letter constituted its “formal response to the issues raised”. It also stated it considered its staff had “at all times” been professional and the actions taken regarding “the payment of rent and arrears management” had been in line with its policies.
  4. On 29 March 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise that she had received the landlord’s Stage One response and was unhappy with its contents. She was provided with advice on how to escalate the complaint. Records show she then wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2021 to advise that she “did not accept (the landlord’s) outcomes” in its Stage One response and stated that it contained inaccurate information. The resident also outlined how she was experiencing various difficulties due to the current Covid-19 related lockdowns and that, to resolve the complaint, the landlord should “refund” her £3000.
  5. The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 11 May 2021. It advised it had reviewed its Stage One response and determined the resident’s complaint would not be upheld. Regarding its handling of the complaint, the landlord advised it was satisfied that it had appropriately addressed all the concerns she had raised, and it had provided her with a “detailed” response at Stage One in March 2021. It confirmed that it would not be refunding the resident any money as it was satisfied “there are no monies owed”.
  6. After receiving the landlord’s Stage Two response, the resident contacted this Service on 17 May 2021 and advised that she remained unhappy with the response, stated that she did not owe the landlord any money and outlined that her desired outcome was to be refunded the £3,000 she believed she was owed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Records show that the resident contacted this Service on 5 March 2021 to outline concerns she had with the landlord, which included the disputed rent arrears, that the landlord had taken £3,000 from her bank account and that it had decided to serve her with a NOSP. She also advised that she had made a complaint to the landlord directly but had not received a response.
  2. Following contact from the resident, this Service got in touch with the landlord to request that it engaged its complaints procedure, if it had not done so already, and provide the resident with a response. Records show it did so promptly, first writing to her to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and then, in accordance with the timescale states in its complaint procedures, providing a response on 23 March 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was comprehensive and contained a good deal of detail when addressing the issues the resident had raised. It also stated its positions regarding the disputed arrears and associated enforcement action clearly.
  3. From the information available to this investigation, there is no evidence that the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord prior to contacting this Service. While there was evidence of correspondence between the resident, and representatives acting on her behalf, and the landlord, regarding the rent account, disputed arrears and serving of a NOSP, this Service has not seen anything that the landlord should have considered to be a formal complaint. There is therefore no evidence of service failure in this regard and the landlord appears to have responded to the resident appropriately, and in a timely fashion, following her contact with this Service.  
  4. However, while the landlord’s Stage One response advised the resident she could contact it to “ask about the next steps in our complaints process”, or that she could download its complaints policy from its website, it did not provide further information in the letter regarding how to escalate the complaint or provide any timescales for doing so. This was not appropriate and in the interest of transparency and being fair to its residents, this Service would expect the landlord to include this information within its responses, rather than put the onus on a resident to contact it, or to seek advice from this Service or online. A recommendation has been made regarding this at the end of the report.
  5. The resident subsequently contacted this Service to advise she wished to escalate the complaint. Records show she also wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2021, after which it provided a Stage Two response on 11 May 2021. The response was issued one day outside of the 20–working day response timeframe stated in its complaints procedure. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a very minor delay and there is no indication it caused the resident any specific detriment or inconvenience.
  6. However, it is again noted that while the landlord provided a considered and detailed response, it did not provide the resident with details of her right to escalate the complaint to this Service, instead again advising her she could contact it if she remained unhappy and could “ask about possible next steps”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s wording is vague and, by referring to “possible next steps” while otherwise advising that its response is final, it is likely to cause confusion to residents as to whether the complaints procedure has ended or not. This is not appropriate, and the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should instead use clearer language to clarify that residents have the right to escalate complaints to this Service if they remain unhappy once its complaint procedure has been exhausted.
  7. It was reasonable, however, that the landlord provided this Service’s details within its response letters and the resident was subsequently able to contact this Service for advice. Following this, her complaint was responded to and progressed appropriately by the landlord, so she does not appear to have been caused greater detriment or inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. 
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following aspects of the complaint have been determined as being outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a member of staff had taken over £3000 from her bank account without her consent. 
    2. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account, its decision to issue a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) and its handling of that process.
    3. Staff conduct when dealing with disputed rent arrears.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at Stages 1 and 2 did not give clear advice regarding her rights to escalate her complaint and/or refer her complaint to this Service. However, the information available does not indicate that this caused any identified detriment and its complaint handling and overall response to the complaint was otherwise appropriate.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, review the wording of its complaint response letters to ensure it appropriately includes details of how residents can escalate their complaint through its procedures and how they can refer their case to this Service once the procedures have been exhausted. It should provide training to relevant staff regarding this where necessary.
  2. The landlord should confirm to this Service when this review has been completed.