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

Beyond Housing Limited (202118761)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118761

Beyond Housing Limited

9 August 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 enquiries concerning the resident’s contents insurance policy.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, ‘the resident’ also refers to the resident’s representative.
  2. In April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord, explaining that she wished to pay for her contents insurance policy in one large sum, rather than monthly. She asked to know the amount left to pay on the policy and the amount she had already paid. The landlord told the resident in its reply in May 2021, that “within the rent account the contents insurance… is now included” and attached a statement of the rent account for the resident. The resident contacted the landlord again, as she said that she found the statement inaccessible. She reiterated her previous questions and additionally asked for the insurance policy start date. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s communication. However, it did send further account statements through the post. These arrived without additional guidance or explanation.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in June 2021, as she felt that the information provided by her landlord had not answered her query. She had found the statements sent by the landlord to be unhelpful, without a cover letter to explain the sums provided. She also complained about the initial delay in the landlord’s response to her query and its failure to respond to her last email requesting information in May 2021.
  4. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the initial delay in replying to the resident’s enquiry. It stated that it would discuss this matter with the relevant team and emphasise the importance of prompt responses. It explained how the resident’s insurance policy worked and gave a breakdown of the current charges. It also explained that due to staff working from home it had been unable to provide a cover letter explaining the statements it had sent out. The landlord offered its apologies. The resident escalated her complaint in August 2021, as she felt that the landlord had not addressed each of her points sufficiently. She wanted compensation, a further apology and for the information she initially requested to be provided.
  5. The landlord responded, apologising for the inconvenience of any missed answers. It acknowledged that the statement the resident had received in May 2021 lacked sufficient information, and clarified that she had now been provided with a more accessible version. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had not received a reply to her last email in May 2021 and that the answers she had received had not been specific enough in its stage one response. The landlord provided the policy start date, as well as a breakdown of the figures paid into the account. It apologised again for any mistakes made. The landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss any further questions she may have.
  6. In her complaint to this Service the resident has said she would like an apology, the relevant information to be provided, for the landlord to consider staff training and £50 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that the delays have caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that the circumstances of her complaint caused her and her family considerable anxiety, distress, and affected their health and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, and such matters are more appropriately considered as a personal injury legal claim against the landlord. They are not in the Ombudsman’s remit to consider.
  2. The resident has also expressed that the landlord has a previous history of complaint mishandling. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that we can adjudicate on at this stage. Therefore, this assessment will be confined to evaluating the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry regarding her insurance policy.

The landlord’s handling of enquiries concerning the resident’s contents insurance policy

  1. A landlord would be expected to respond to a resident’s query in clear language. In this case, the landlord’s response was vague, and it did not specifically address the resident’s questions. Once the resident had communicated that the information, she had received was not sufficient to answer her queries, the landlord should have taken the time to explain the policy to her in more detail and to endeavour to answer the questions she had posed. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s follow up email, and that its initial reply was delayed. However, the landlord has used its complaint procedure appropriately to suitably address the resident’s concerns, and to answer her questions in full.
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the initial delay in answering her query and explained that the pandemic had caused an increased workload for its team. It took steps to mitigate this by promising to highlight the importance of prompt responses with its team. It addressed her initial query, providing information, and a breakdown of the amounts being paid.
  3. Once the resident communicated in her escalation that she wanted more specific responses to her queries, and that she felt some aspects of her initial complaint had not been addressed, the landlord took steps to answer each part of her complaint in full. It apologised for having not made the information clearer in its first response, and additionally acknowledged that it had failed to respond to her follow-up in May 2021. It also acknowledged that it had failed to provide an adequate explanation of the charges in its initial response to her query. The landlord provided the start date for the policy, and explained how much the resident had paid that year. It also broke down the costs further still. The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident but offered its sincere apologies. It is clear that it took her complaint seriously, and went further to remedy the issue by offering to meet with her to discuss any more issues or questions that she may have.
  4. It is important to appreciate that there are multiple ways in which a landlord can remedy its service failings. Compensation is not the only one, and others, such as improving its processes in light of the complaint, are equally, if not more important in some cases. As part of her complaint the resident sought compensation from the landlord for its mistakes. Compensation can be awarded if it is not possible to put things right for a resident. However, while the resident and her family understandably experienced frustration and inconvenience, there appears to have been no material or long lasting impact from the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord was able to put things right by providing the information requested, apologising, and inviting her to meet for further discussion. In the circumstances, this was a proportionate, appropriate and reasonable remedy in itself.
  5. Although the landlord failed to initially address the resident’s queries, it used its complaint procedure to provide a sufficient remedy to the resident’s complaint. In its response, it apologised, acknowledged its failings and provided the resident with the information requested. Its response was proportionate and fair, and aimed to put things right with the resident. If the resident remains unsure about her policy, it would be appropriate for her to take up the landlord on its offer to discuss the matter face-to-face.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (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 satisfactorily.