Southwark Council (202113518)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113518

Southwark Council

13 June 2023

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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the disconnection of a satellite dish.
3. The handling of the resident’s complaints and the timeliness of responses.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, occupying a one-bedroom third floor flat within a block of flats. Her tenancy commenced on 7 October 2013.
The landlord has advised that its records show that the resident is vulnerable. In her contact with this Service the resident has made us aware of her communication requirements and advised that she has mobility issues.
The purpose of this report is to consider two complaints that the resident raised with her landlord in January 2021. These cover two distinct areas relating to her tenancy with the landlord and her home. This report will set out the background to each complaint. Within the assessment section of this report it will also consider the landlord’s overall handling of the complaints.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenant’s handbook contains information about the services it offers, and further details relating to the obligations of each party.
In relation to rent, it states that the resident is responsible to pay “rent and other charges on time and in advance.”
Part five of the tenant’s handbook covers “looking after your home and estate”. Under the section relating to home improvements it states:

“We will not give you permission to put aerials or satellite dishes on walls, roofs or windows because of the damage that they could cause. We will charge you for any damage you cause with dishes or aerials. If you have put up an aerial or dish and we need to put up some scaffolding you will be responsible for removing it, as we will not accept liability for any damage”.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy is published on its website and is available to all residents. This defines a complaint as “Any expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response.”
The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. Complaints raised at the first “complaint stage” should be responded to within 15 working days. If a resident remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint they can escalate this to the “review stage” for which the policy sets a target of 25 working days.
The response times set out within the landlord’s procedure are outside those recommended by the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This difference is acknowledged in the landlord’s self-assessment provided to this Service, where it states that “given the number of complaints it receives and that its policy covers its non-landlord functions, it believes these timescales are reasonable.”

Rent income and arrears procedure

The landlord’s rent income and arrears procedure for secure tenants states:

“Rent is a condition of the tenancy. When a tenant accepts a tenancy they agree to pay a charge for occupying the property.”

This procedure sets out the landlord’s process for the recovery of rental payments and establishes an escalation process towards legal action, should a resident fail to make their payments.
The first step of this escalation process is an automated letter to notify a resident that their account has fallen into arrears. This is generated when the arrears level “is set at a minimum of £50 or one week’s rent.”
This document sets an expectation that consideration should be given to a resident’s vulnerabilities and that support should be offered to those in receipt of universal credit.
The landlord has a guidance leaflet entitled “managed payments and housing costs to landlords.” This sets out how universal credit make payments to landlords through the “third party payments deductions process”.
The guidance explains that the landlord expects to receive a payment every 28 days once direct payments have been set up; with the first payment expected within six weeks. As the assessment period for universal credit is based on a calendar month, the landlord will receive 12 payments per year. This conflicts with the landlord’s own 28 day cycle which requires 13 payments in each 52 week year.
As a consequence of the two different payment cycles a resident whose rent is paid directly to their landlord through universal credit will appear at one point each year to be in arrears with their rent. The landlord’s guidance expresses this as “Consequently there will always be one 28 day cycle each year that does not align with the assessment of deductions from universal credit.”

Summary of events

Rent account

The resident has made three separate complaints around the management of her rent account. These were each recorded and actioned by her landlord. The date the complaints were raised are shown below, with the complaints referenced in order as complaint A, B and C:
1. Complaint A – raised on 21 May 2019; stage two response issued on 22 October 2019. This complaint was not referred to the Ombudsman.
2. Complaint B – raised on 21 July 2020; stage two response issued on 13 August 2020.
3. Complaint C– raised on 12 January 2021; stage two response issued on 22 June 2021.
In approaching this Service the resident asked that we consider two of her complaints about the management of her rent account – Complaint B and C. We considered Complaint B in 2021 and determined that the matter fell outside of our jurisdiction (HOS case reference: 202119989). However, it is pertinent to note that in providing its responses to Complaint C, the landlord referred to its Complaint A and B responses, and enclosed copies of these letters for the resident to refer to. As such, for the purposes of this report, reference will be made to the complaint responses that were issued in relation to Complaint A and B and the handling of the resident’s rent account.
All three of the resident’s complaints have focused on communication from the landlord in regard to arrears of rent.
On 12 January 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint (Complaint C) as she had received a letter from the landlord advising her that she was in arrears of rent. The resident’s rent is paid directly to the landlord from her universal credit. In her complaint to the landlord, she said she did not believe that she was in arrears. She added that “this happens every year and I have to complain each time.”
The landlord issued the stage one response to Complaint C on 22 January 2021. The landlord:
1. Confirmed that universal credit payments were made in arrears. As a result, during the month the resident’s account would fall into arrears.
2. Explained that the letter she had received was an automated notification of arrears and it had been generated due to the timing of universal credit payments.
3. Confirmed that this will happen every year as it had explained in its previous letters dated 7 June 2019 and 21 July 2020.
4. Advised that it had no control over universal credit payments and when these were received. It advised the resident to speak directly to the universal credit department.
The resident responded by email on 22 January 2021 to request an escalation of her complaint as she was unhappy with the response and the tone of the letter. The resident followed up her request to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process with a telephone call to the landlord on 26 January 2021.
The complaint was passed to stage two on 13 May 2021, following internal communication between the landlord’s staff. The stage two response to Complaint C was provided on 22 June 2021. This letter set out three areas of complaint:
1. That the resident was unhappy with the tone of the stage one response.
2. That the income operations section unfairly sent her an arrears letter.
3. That she had not received a letter from the income operations section dated 20 July 2020.
In response to the resident’s complaints, the landlord said:
1. It disputed that the stage one letter had a bad tone. It quoted specific sentences from the letter. These had:
  1. thanked her for her call to the complaints team.
  2. apologised that she was dissatisfied with the level of service.
  3. stated that “her complaint has been taken seriously.”
2. It had informed the resident that universal credit is paid in arrears and as a result during the month an account will fall into arrears.
3. It advised that the resident had been told of how payments were made on 7 June 2019.
4. It reinforced that it was not liable for this method of payment and that this was the reason why the arrears letter had been sent.
5. It advised the resident to contact the income operations section to reach an agreement to bring the account into credit.
The response did not address the resident’s concerns about not receiving a letter dated 20 July 2020.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to look into the matter further. The resident has also expressed concern about her account as she believes that she may still be in arrears.

Disconnection of a satellite dish

On 14 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint about a workman cutting wires outside her flat and the workman’s behaviour towards her.
The landlord followed up her complaint with a telephone call to her on the same day. It then provided a written stage one response by email on 22 January 2021. In this the landlord advised:
1. It had reviewed the security footage provided, and confirmed the identity of the contractor carrying out the work.
2. The cables that were being cut were redundant cables. These had been left after satellite dishes had been removed from the outside of the building. The cables were the property of the satellite company who installed their dishes to the side of the building without permission.
3. The cables had been gathered together and tied up prior their removal, which followed the conclusion of major works to the building.
4. Having reviewed the footage provided it saw no evidence that the workman had been rude, but offered an apology. It confirmed that it had spoken with the workman, who advised he had not intended to appear discourteous.
The resident replied on 22 January 2021 and requested her complaint be escalated. She said that:
1. She did not feel that the wires were in the way and that they did not need to be cut.
2. She wished to know the identity of the company who undertook the work.
3. As she had explained on the telephone, the satellite dish had been in place when she moved in to her home in 2013, having been installed by a previous tenant.
4. She had been previously informed in 2013, that any replacement of the wiring and connection to the dish would be at her own cost.
5. She had been granted “implicit permission” and was therefore seeking reimbursement of subscription costs until her contract with Sky had come to an end.
The resident called the landlord’s complaint line on 26 July 2021 as she had not received a response to her complaint. A stage two response was provided on 14 September 2021. Within this, the landlord reconfirmed its position as set out in the stage one response, and provided the details of the company who undertook the work.
In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement, the landlord said “Regarding your claim for reimbursement, all residents were given months of notice that the dishes would be removed and ample time to make arrangements with their providers.”
The letter did not address the resident’s claim that she had permission for the satellite dish.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She believes that the landlord had given it’s permission for the dish to remain as it was in place when she moved into her home. She has also advised that a dish remains on the building for use by other residents and this is unfair.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the rent account

The landlord has provided this Service with a full statement of the resident’s rent account covering the period 6 January 2014 to 12 February 2023. This statement was sent to the resident on 15 February 2023. This statement shows that the resident’s account began to build up arrears of rent following the move from housing benefit direct payments to universal credit. The last payment from housing benefit was received on 24 April 2017. Direct payments from universal credit to the landlord commenced on 14 December 2017, covering the calendar monthly rent charge, together with a contribution towards the arrears that had built up on the account between April and December 2017.
Direct payments continued to be received regularly by the landlord from universal credit, and stopped on 9 January 2020 as the debt on the resident’s account had been cleared. The frequency of payments from universal credit, being based on a calendar month, paid in arrears, does mean that the resident’s account will on occasion still show as being in debt. This is explained in the landlord’s guidance leaflet, managed payments and housing costs to landlords, referenced above.
When the landlord responded to Complaint A in 2019, it explained the conflict in the payment cycles and provided a copy of its guidance leaflet. In response to Complaint B on 21 July 2020 the landlord advised:

“I have updated the notes on your rent account which explains that Universal Credit (UC) is in payment and that the arrears were caused by the No Payment Schedule. I have mentioned that when UC make payment, the arrears will reduce and eventually the rent account will go back into credit, therefore, we should not contact you but continue to monitor the rent account.”

A review of the rent statement provided to this service shows that the resident’s account was in credit at the beginning of February 2023, and that it was in credit at the time that she lodged her complaint on 12 January 2021. It appears that the arrears letter that she received reflected the position of her account at the end of December 2020, when her direct payments appear to have fallen outside the four weekly payment cycle.
In responding to her complaint in January 2021 the landlord advised that the letter received was an automated notification of arrears. While the explanation was correct, the landlord failed to take into consideration the previous advice that it had provided to the resident. As detailed above, when responding to Complaint B, the landlord had informed the resident that a note would be placed on her account to prevent future letters being sent. Given that the landlord referred to its previous complaint responses to explain its position, it is unclear why it failed to acknowledge the agreement that it had previously made.
Furthermore, the landlord did not inform the resident that her account was up to date and that it was continuing to receive regular payments from universal credit. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide this explanation, and to provide the resident with some reassurance. Instead, the resident was advised to contact the landlord’s income operations section to make an agreement to bring her account into credit or to speak directly with universal credit. This was a cause of confusion and further inconvenience to the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has an obligation to monitor rent payments and ensure that residents are made aware of any arrears so that they may be appropriately managed. In this case the landlord has followed its arrears policy by sending out the automated letter. However, it has not acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress that she was clearly caused by repeated notifications that she was in arrears. It has also not followed through on its earlier commitment to make a note on the account and prevent further automated notifications.
As such, in the circumstances, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account was inappropriate. The landlord should now take steps to acknowledge its failings, and to put things right with the resident.

Rent account – complaint handling

As detailed above, the resident initially raised her complaint on 12 January 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 January 2021. This was appropriate and in line with its timescales. The resident was unhappy with the response, and requested the escalation of the complaint on 22 January 2021. The resident reiterated her request during a telephone call with landlord’s staff on 26 January 2021.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 13 May 2021. The internal correspondence provided indicates that the delay was due to a backlog of cases with the complaints team. The stage two response was then issued on 22 June 2021.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides a target of 25 working days for responding to complaints at stage two. There was a significant delay in both escalating and responding to the residents complaint at this stage.
The response letter fails to acknowledge the delay, or that the resident’s initial request to escalate the complaint was made on 22 January 2021. No apology was made for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. Given the extent of the delay it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to offer an apology on this occasion.
In addition to failing to meet the timescales detailed within its policy, the landlord’s response was lacking in detail. The stage one letter offers a brief review of the resident’s complaint, referring her back to previous complaint responses for a full explanation. It does not include an apology for the letter being sent, despite previously advising that action would be taken to prevent such letters, or provide any information as to the current balance on her account.
The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the tone of the letter. The stage two response denies that the letter has a bad tone and presents sentences from the letter to demonstrate this point of view. While it is understood that the landlord considered the tone of its letter to be appropriate, it failed to acknowledge how the correspondence had been perceived by the resident. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and it would have been appropriate for it to acknowledge the potential impact of its correspondence on the resident.
The letter further fails to acknowledge the possible distress caused to the resident by receiving an arrears letter. There is also no update on the current position on the resident’s account despite the five month delay in providing the reply.
In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord has failed to put things right and there is a missed opportunity here to rebuild the relationship with the resident. The complaint responses could have been written in a more considerate and understanding tone, offering a genuine apology, an explanation of why the arrears letter had been sent despite previous advice to the contrary and an offer of support to the resident around her account going forward.

Disconnection of a satellite dish

The tenant’s handbook sets out that residents will not be given permission to put up aerials or satellite dishes, owing to the damage that they can cause. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised that it had informed residents that satellite dishes would be removed from the building as part of the major works.
The landlord has provided this Service with copies of the consultation letters that were sent to residents ahead of the proposed major works for the block. It is understood that these works included brick and concrete repairs, alongside other external works, including the installation of external lighting. These works were completed in or around December 2020.
This Service has been provided with copies of four consultation letters sent to residents inviting them to consultation meetings and providing updates on the progress of planning for the major works. These letters cover a period from February 2018 to November 2019.
In the final consultation letter dated 28 November 2019, residents were advised that satellite dishes attached to the outside of the building would be relocated to the scaffolding for the duration of the works. On completion of the works the dishes were to be handed back to the residents. This was reconfirmed to residents by letter on 21 October 2020.
The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of communication with the resident dated 1 April 2020. In response to a wider complaint, this acknowledged the resident’s queries around the removal and relocation of the satellite dish during the major works. This letter advised that “when the scaffold is removed the satellite dish will not be re-fixed to the structure of the building and any satellite dishes will be handed back to residents.”
The evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that consultation with residents occurred over an extended period.
In escalating her complaint, the resident referred to a telephone conversation she had with it when she first raised her complaint in January 2021. No formal record of this conversation has been provided as evidence to this Service.
She stated her belief that as the satellite dish was in place when she moved into her home in 2013 and she was advised that connection to the dish would be at her cost not the landlord’s, that she had received implied permission for the dish to remain.
In contact with this Service the resident has advised that she had a two year contract with Sky. It is not however clear what period this relates to. The resident also believes that the landlord agreed to compensate those residents who had been given permission.
The landlord has failed to address the resident’s claim that she had permission to have a satellite dish. However, the landlord’s stated position on the fixing of satellite dishes to its building is clear. It has also presented evidence that significant notice of its intension to remove the satellite dishes was given to residents, and its conclusion during the complaints procedure that residents had ample time to make arrangements with providers was therefore reasonable.

Satellite dish – complaint handling

The resident’s complaint was raised on 14 January 2021. This related to the cutting of cables, and the conduct of an operative. This was responded to on 22 January 2021. This was within the prescribed timescale. Escalation of the complaint was requested on 22 January 2021, with a greater focus within the resident’s complaint on the removal of her satellite dish. The resident had to chase the escalation of her complaint in a call to the landlord’s complaints line on 26 July 2021. The stage two reply was provided on 14 September 2021. This was a significant departure from the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay when it issued its response, and it would have been reasonable for it to do so in the circumstances.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to address the resident’s main concern. The resident asked to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy that the dish had been removed, and that she had incurred costs paying for a Sky package that she was unable to use. The stage one response did not address this element of the resident’s complaint, focusing instead on the removal of cables from outside the resident’s home and the behaviour of the operative.
The landlord failed to address this within its stage two response, and simply reiterated the comments that it had provided at stage one. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide clarification regarding the situation, and to ensure that the resident had been provided with a response to her specific concerns. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the Satellite dish.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed in its communication with the resident to offer appropriate support and advice in regard to the arrears letter she had received. The landlord’s communication did not take into account the resident’s concerns, or its previous undertaking in relation to placing a note on her rent account. In addition, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident to contact the income operations section, and failed to identify that her account was not in arrears at the time of its correspondence.
The landlord consulted over a period of two years with residents around the major works planned to the block. In its communication over the last year of this it informed residents of the actions that it would be taking in regard to their satellite dishes and that these would not be refixed to the building. This is a decision which appears to be fully within the remit of the landlord to take and the Ombudsman considers that appropriate notice was given of its plan.
The landlord failed to escalate both of the resident’s complaints in line with its policy. As a result, its responses were significantly delayed. Furthermore, the complaint responses were lacking in detail, and the landlord did not identify failings and shortcomings in the service it had provided.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £460 compensation, comprising:

(i) £310 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the rent account (this includes a payment for £160 which was offered in 2019).

(ii) £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.

Contact the resident to offer an apology for the failings identified, together with an explanation of the current position of the resident’s rent account.
Confirm that it has added a note to the resident’s account to detail the resident’s vulnerabilities and any communication adaptations the resident requires. The resident has advised this Service that she prefers to be contacted by telephone.
Confirm that it has added a note to the resident’s account which explains that the resident pays rent via universal credit and the arrears was caused by the No Payment Schedule.
Undertake an investigation of the resident’s claim that the landlord gave permission for the satellite dish and further consider the resident’s claim for compensation. In particular, as far as is reasonably possible, given the passage of time, the landlord should consider if the resident was advised by it that she could pay to have the satellite wiring replaced when it was cut in 2013.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, it is recommended that the landlord:
1. Consider providing the resident with a single point of contact. This is to ensure that the resident receives clear and consistent advice and appropriate support when required. This will help to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.
2. Consider implementing a vulnerable person policy with a particular focus on identifying situations where the resident may benefit from adaptations. The landlord should review the BSI’s consumer vulnerability standard: ‘Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service’ (BS ISO 22458).
3. Confirm its position in relation to satellite dishes being installed on the building and note what actions it may take to ensure compliance.