Orbit Group Limited (202202137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202137

Orbit Group Limited

4 November 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 about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Its communication with the resident regarding her rent arrears.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is in a shared ownership tenancy with the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the property, namely, the resident suffers with her mental health.
3. On 3 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that due to both her and her partner being self-employed, the household income had reduced as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the national lockdowns.
4. Between 12 May 2020 and June 2021, the landlord called the resident on at least 18 occasions, some of which were returned calls due to no answer or disconnection. The landlord emailed the resident on at least 8 occasions, with some of these emails informing the resident of missed calls and requests to call back.
5. The resident complained on 10 June 2021. The resident stated that she had received poor service from the landlord, and a lack of support given her circumstances. The resident felt that during phone calls with the landlord, the tone of the call and the communication was “intimidating and distressing” leading her to feel “bullied” by the landlord. The resident felt that the landlord had not considered her openness about her situation and her mental health in its communication with her.
6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 August 2021. It apologised for the delayed response to the resident’s complaint, but this was due to liaising with other senior members of staff. The landlord apologised for the way the resident was made to feel, and feedback had been given to staff members along with mental health awareness training to support residents. It offered the resident £100 compensation comprised of £75 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for the delayed complaint response.
7. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 4 May 2022. The resident remained unhappy with how she had been treated by the landlord and the lack of support provided. She felt that the landlord’s communication was intimidating and distressing to herself. As a resolution, the resident would like the landlord to train staff to follow its policies, provide her the £500 compensation she was offered and additional compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

8. As per the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, a standard breathing space is available to anyone with problem debt. This provides legal protection from creditors for up to 60 days. This includes pausing most enforcement action and contact from creditors.
9. As per the landlord’s debt, service charge & other arrears policy the landlord states it will, establish early contact with residents to resolve outstanding debts before they escalate. It will ensure that bad debt levels are minimised through early and proactive contact and enforcement.
10. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days.
11. As per the complaints policy, the landlord will not review a complaint if the resident does not ask for a review within 20 working days from the date of its response letter, unless there are valid reasons as to why the issue was not raised sooner. Where it refuses to complete a review of a complaint, the landlord will write to the resident to advise why this has been refused and what the next steps are.

Scope of investigation.

12. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s communication about her rent arrears has impacted her mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that has been caused to the resident.

Communication regarding rent arrears

13. Whilst this Service appreciates the impact the pandemic and financial situation had on and the resident’s mental health, the landlord’s arrears policy states it will establish early contact with residents to minimise debt levels. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable to contact the resident on multiple occasions in 2021 as it is obligated to ensure that resident’s do not fall into arrears or continue to accrue debt on rent accounts.
14. Furthermore, the landlord provided the resident with the 60 days breathing space as per the legislation that was applicable during this period. This ensured that for 60 days the landlord did not escalate any of the debt, and allowed the resident to consider her financial options prior to any further action. Therefore, the landlord acted in-line with the Debt Respite Scheme Regulations.
15. Furthermore, whilst this Service appreciates the situation was distressing to the resident, when the landlord and resident mutually agreed to a repayment plan, on more than one occasion the resident did not pay the agreed amount prompting further debt on the account. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to contact the resident in an attempt to seek payment towards the arrears as per the agreed repayment plan and set up any new payment plans required to account for the additional debt accrued by the missed payments.
16. The Ombudsman is mindful of how distressing any correspondence regarding the arrears on an account can be, especially in consideration that the resident stated she had not been in arrears before. However, the communication surrounding the recovery of these arrears, including potential legal action, possession notices and the landlord’s plan to seek payment from her mortgage company, does not appear heavy handed or threatening, but instead informative of the next actions that would be taken. It is also important to consider that the landlord is obligated to inform the resident of these consequences. Therefore, there is no evidence that the emails sent to the resident were intended to cause alarm or distress, but rather set out the position.
17. However, the resident did report that an operative stated “other self-employed people have still paid rent” during a phone conversation. The landlord did not investigate this as a part of its complaint response to the resident and therefore, it remains unclear if these comments did occur. However, the landlord apologised to the resident for any distress caused in consideration of the comments that were allegedly made. It also assured the resident that her complaint had been fed back to the staff. This demonstrated that the landlord tried to put things right with an apology and assure the resident that appropriate feedback had been provided to its staff.
18. In addition, the landlord stated that it had provided all staff members additional mental health awareness training in light of the complaint by the resident. This was appropriate for the landlord to do, as the resident’s complaint surrounded the effect on her mental health and how the landlord could have handled the circumstances in a more sensitive and appropriate way.
19. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its communication with the resident. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £50 to £100 for cases where the Ombudsman has found service failure by the landlord resulting in minimal impact on the complainant. We recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
20. In regard to the compensatory amount, the resident has referred to being offered £500 compensation. However, in evidence provided to this Service it is established that only an offer of £100 compensation overall was offered to the resident at stage two of the process. Therefore, the landlord is only obliged to pay the resident £100 compensation, as per its offer.

Complaint Handling.

21. The resident raised a complaint on 10 June 2021, but did not receive a response until 18 August 2021, which was 38 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy. However, as per the communication the landlord was attempting to resolve the complaint with the resident before formally logging the complaint on 1 July 2021, so the resident did have communication with the landlord during this delayed period. Therefore, although it is acknowledged there was a delay in the complaint response, the impact on the resident was limited. Furthermore, the landlord compensated the resident £25 for this delay which was reasonable given communication with the resident continued .
22. In her referral to this Service the resident believed that the landlord had ‘backdated’ the stage one response, and it was not provided to her on 18 August 2021. However, the stage one response does state it was sent on 18 August 2021 and after considering internal emails from the landlord, this further supports that the response was sent on 18 August 2021. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord ‘backdated’ its stage one response.
23. The resident stated that she was not provided the opportunity to escalate her complaint. However, in the landlord’s stage one response on 18 August 2021 it stated that the resident had 20 days to escalate her complaint. Therefore, the landlord did provide the resident an opportunity to escalate her complaint, as per its complaints policy.
24. However, it did not receive such a request until 18 May 2022. As per the landlord’s complaint policy (see scope of investigation) it does not have to escalate the complaint, if this was not requested within 20 working days. As the resident did not do this, the landlord acted as per its complaints policy in not escalating the complaint. Furthermore, the landlord provided the resident with the next steps to take in escalating her complaint which was in-line with its complaint policy.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s rent account satisfactorily.
26. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £100 compensation offered, if it has not done so already.