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

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202206340)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206340

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

15 July 2022

Amended 23 January 2023

Reissued 23 July 2023

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about

a)     the resident’s request for the landlord to reduce the level of rent to the level they were originally quoted when receiving an offer letter for the property.

b)     the landlords offer of compensation to resolve this complaint.

c)     the decorative condition of the property at the time it was let.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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, I have determined that complaint point (1a) and (1c) as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide;’’.
  2. This Service understands that the resident is in a difficult situation financially and that the increase in the level of rent would cause stress. However, when considering whether we can accept a complaint for investigation, we have to consider whether we can provide the outcome that the resident is seeking.
  3. In this case, the resident is seeking for the landlord to lower the level of rent. Disputes about whether a tenancy agreement sets an unfair level of rent require a binding decision from a court or other tribunal service.
  4. I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme, complaint point (1a) is not one which the Ombudsman can investigate further.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that this is likely to be disappointing for the resident. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to help them assess and clarify this issue.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has also raised concerns about redecorating the property; however, this complaint point was not raised by the resident until after the landlord issued its formal responses to the complaint that the Ombudsman is considering.
  7. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure” .
  8. I am therefore also satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, complaint point (1c) is not one which the Ombudsman can investigate further. If the resident remains dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, they can refer your complaint to this Service.
  9. Based on the above, the Ombudsman’s assessment in this case has focused on complaint point (1b).

Summary of events

  1. On 25 November 2021, the resident received an offer letter for the property which quoted the weekly rent to be £87.77.
  2. The offer letter also set out the following: 

a)     The Council had accepted the full homeless duty to the resident and was to secure suitable accommodation until they were offered settled accommodation to bring this duty to an end. 

b)     The offer of settled accommodation was final and considered suitable for the resident and their household and, therefore, reasonable for them to accept. 

c)     The consequence of refusing the offer would be that the Council would no longer have a duty to the resident under the homelessness legislation, including providing temporary accommodation.

d)     If the resident were to refuse the accommodation offered, they had the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodations, and if the review was successful, the Council would still be under a duty to provide the resident with an offer of suitable settled accommodation.

  1.  In December 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the previously quoted amount of £87.77 was incorrect and the correct weekly amount was £97.63. The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to subsequently increase the level of rent to £97.63, and requested it reduce the level of rent. The resident also made an additional complaint in March 2022 after discovering that the level of rent would increase from £97.63 to £103.17 in April 2022. He contended that whilst he was aware that the rent was due to increase in April 2022, the increase should have been based on the rent he was quoted at the property in November 2021 (£87.77) and not the rent that he signed the tenancy for (£97.63).
  2. The landlord issued a final response to the resident’s complaint on 21 April 2022. The landlord explained that the rent for the property was due to increase at the time the offer letter was sent, in line with the Government’s rent policy. It advised that due to an administrative error, the increased level of rent was not reflected in the offer letter. The landlord states this was explained to the resident during the pre-tenancy assessment on 17 December 2021, and that the resident subsequently signed for the tenancy on 17 March 2022. The landlord apologised for the mistake in the offer letter and offered £30 a gesture of goodwill. However, it advised that the resident had the opportunity to withdraw following the pre-tenancy assessment and that it would not be reducing the level of rent.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 28 June 2022 to advise they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to their complaint. They explained that the increase in rent had caused extra financial pressure and that as an outcome, they were seeking for the landlord to reduce the level of rent to the original offer. The resident later added that they were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not in dispute that the landlord made an administrative error in its offer letter dated 25 November 2021. The rent for the property was advertised to be £87.77, including water charges and other service charges.
  2. The landlord has explained this was because when the property became empty, the rent was increased in line with the Government’s Rent Policy. The rent increased from £69.94 to £79.80, making the total charge for the property £97.63 per week. However, due to the change in rent occurring at the same time as the property becoming empty, the weekly rent for the property was incorrectly quoted to be £69.94 (total charge £87.77).
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that when the resident initially accepted the landlord’s offer, they believed they would be paying rent at £87.77. However, fair consideration must be given to the fact that only a month later in December 2021, the resident was informed of the correct rent rate of £97.63 during the pre assessment stage and passed the necessary affordability checks.
  4. The resident asserts that they could not reject the landlord’s offer in December 2021 because of the risk of making themselves homeless. However, the offer letter dated 25 November 2021 clearly stated that any applicant offered suitable accommodation under section 193 duty had a right to accept the tenancy, move in, and still seek a review regarding its suitability. Considering this, while the resident was concerned about homelessness, the landlord correctly detailed the review process in its offer letter. Therefore, if the resident believed the property was unaffordable, they could have requested a review of its suitability while living in the property; however, they did not do so.
  5. Further, the resident’s tenancy agreement was not signed until March 2022, so there was a reasonable period in which a review could have been requested. Also, once the resident signed the tenancy agreement, they accepted and agreed to pay any stipulated rent and future annual increases.
  6. The resident’s tenancy agreement included the new total charge for the property from April 2022 (£103.17). Unfortunately, they were not informed of the annual rent increase before signing their agreement because residents usually receive letters in February of every year detailing the April rent increases. However, in February 2022, the resident’s tenancy agreement was not live; as such, the new rents were included in the tenancy agreement rather than in a letter.
  7.  As part of this investigation the Ombudsman has reviewed the resident’s signed agreement and is satisfied that the information the landlord gave in response to the complaint was appropriate and reflected the tenancy agreement.
  8. The Ombudsman understands that the resident accepted that the rent was always going to increase in April 2022 in line with the terms and conditions of his signed tenancy agreement. However, it is noted that in light of the circumstances of this complaint, the resident feels it would be fair for the landlord to base the rent increase on the figures they were provided in the offer letter (25 November 2022).
  9. The Ombudsman would not order such action as it is not in line with our impartial approach. In all cases when a landlord makes an error, the expectation is for the affected resident to be put back in the position they would have been in had the error not occurred. If the landlord agreed with the resident’s request it would have meant the resident benefitted from the landlord’s administrative error, which potentially would have been unfair to other residents. The landlord is responsible for ensuring rent rates remain competitive and fair amongst all its residents.
  10. Where a landlord has admitted failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered, puts things right and resolves the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. When making this assessment, the Ombudsman will consider its Dispute Resolution Principles and Remedies guidance (published on our website) alongside a landlord’s relevant policies.
  11. It is clear that the landlord’s administrative error caused avoidable distress to the resident, however the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord identified its administrative error before the resident signed the tenancy agreement and offered £30 as a gesture of goodwill. After identifying failings as part of its own complaints process, it was important for the landlord to resolve the complaint before the Ombudsman’s involvement. In doing this, the landlord took responsibility for putting matters right and attempted to draw a line under the complaint.
  12. It is extremely important to note that the Ombudsman does not order punitive awards against landlords. The landlord’s apology was sufficient in this case, and I consider the £30 gesture of goodwill reasonable. When coming to a conclusion we have considered how quickly the resident was informed of the error and the fact that rent was always going to increase in April 2022, a month after they moved in. To be clear, compensation will not be increased solely because the Ombudsman has had to investigate a complaint., we will always consider what a landlord has done to put things right during its internal complaint’s procedure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide’, the complaint about the level of rent is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure’, the complaint about the condition of the property when let, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to offer of compensation to resolve the resident substantive  complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with the details of how it can support him if he is struggling to pay the rent and if necessary, refer him to third party organisations that might be able to assist.