Wandle Housing Association Limited (202207924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207924

Wandle Housing Association Limited

5 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The tenancy sign-up procedure and the alleged rent discrepancy in the tenancy agreement.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies the property as an assured shorthold tenant. This is a starter tenancy. The property is a flat.
3. The resident signed his tenancy agreement on 27 April 2022. The tenancy start date was altered with the agreement of both parties. This allowed the landlord to carry out repairs to the property whilst it was empty. On 18 May 2022 the resident moved into the property. On 7 June 2022, the landlord told the resident that the weekly rental charge of £136 in his signed tenancy agreement was a mistake. The correct level of weekly rent required for the property was £193.85. It apologised, but stated the resident would be aware that this was the amount it had advertised for the property. The resident refused to sign the new tenancy agreement. He also refused to pay the extra £57.85 in weekly rent and made a complaint to the landlord during this time.
4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response included an apology for its mistake within the original tenancy agreement. It informed the resident that both the advertisement and the offer letter had the level of rent documented at £193.85. The landlord’s expectation was that the resident would accept the correct weekly rent at £193.85. The resident escalated the complaint stating that he believed the landlord had committed fraud by adding his signature to the amended tenancy agreement. He also disputed the correct start date recorded on the new tenancy agreement.
5. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process it informed the resident that there was no evidence of fraud in relation to his signature on the tenancy agreement. It provided £50 compensation for its service failure, in recognition of putting both the wrong tenancy start date and rental charges on the resident’s tenancy agreement. It stated that due to the resident not paying the full amount of rent, he was in arrears to the amount of £1906.76. It expected the resident to clear this balance within 14 days.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 August 2022, stating his desired outcome was for the landlord to acknowledge its mistakes and that additional compensation be paid to him.

Assessment and findings

7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
8. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policy and Procedures

9. Section 4.0 of the landlord’s tenure policy states that where a resident or prospective resident is unhappy with the landlord’s approach to any part of the tenancy process, they can make a complaint via its complaint’s process.
10. The tenancy agreement at under section B.6 states that the landlord will seek to arrange for a resident to pay any debt owed to it by installments.

Scope of investigation

11. The resident reported that the landlord committed fraud by putting his signature on the amended version of his tenancy agreement. It is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination or comment on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to an act of fraud. The Ombudsman is aware that the police service has informed the resident that this is a civil, rather than a criminal matter. The resident therefore, may wish to seek independent advice on the allegation of fraud. Whilst this service cannot consider the fraud allegation, consideration has been given to the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The tenancy sign-up procedure and the alleged rent discrepancy in the tenancy agreement.

12. The tenancy started on 16 May 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 June 2022 to inform him that the rent stipulated in the tenancy agreement was incorrect. It explained that the correct rent should be £210 a week. The landlord’s email dated 9 June 2022 explained that having reviewed the matter it had found that the property was advertised at £193.85 and it would therefore honour this rent amount (and not require the resident to pay £210 a week).
13. The landlord was right to contact the resident at the earliest opportunity, once it identified its own mistake. It was appropriate for it to apologise for providing inaccurate information within the resident’s tenancy agreement. It is unclear why the landlord sought to charge the resident the weekly rental charge of £210, an amount which was different to and higher than the amount it had initially proposed in its original advert / offer letter. This action by the landlord caused the resident to be suspicious, as well as feeling distressed in the way the landlord had communicated with him over its mistake. The landlord sent the resident a copy of the amended tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has refused to sign the updated tenancy agreement.
14. The landlord’s stage one complaint response included an explanation to the resident that it had taken legal advice and explained that the incorrect charge in the tenancy agreement was a genuine mistake. It provided information to the resident that it had relied upon, and included the offer letter which documented the weekly rent as being £193.85. The landlord pointed out that the resident was aware of what the correct amount should have been.
15. The tenancy agreement is a contract between the resident and the landlord. It affords certain rights to both the resident and the landlord and means the resident can live in the property as long as they pay rent and follow the rules. The key terms of the tenancy should be detailed within the agreement, this includes the rent amount. A tenancy agreement is legally binding on both parties and can normally only be changed if both the resident and the landlord agree.
16. On this occasion, the property was advertised with a weekly rent of £193.85. The resident bid for the property with the rent at this level and the offer letter dated 7 April 2022 detailed the same amount. However, an error occurred with the tenancy agreement that the resident signed and this stipulated that the weekly rent was only £136. There is no evidence to show that the landlord intended to mislead the resident or was dishonest in making this error. Instead, this appears to be an honest mistake on the landlord’s part when arranging the tenancy.
17. The available evidence confirms that both parties intended and understood the rent to be £193.85 a week prior to the resident signing the tenancy agreement. However, when signing a legal document, the resident would expect the rent quoted in the agreement to be the correct amount and it is reasonable for them to rely on this. However, once the resident was informed of the error and the correct rent amount on 9 June 2022, the Ombudsman’s view is that it is reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to pay the correct amount of £193.85. The resident’s refusal to sign an amended tenancy agreement does not invalidate this.
18. For that reason, it is appropriate for the rent amount of £193.85 to be applicable from 9 June 2022. This means that the landlord is entitled to expect the resident to pay the arrears on their rent account. However, it also means the landlord should not charge the full rent for the period prior to 9 June 2022. The resident should therefore be compensated for the additional weekly amount of £57.85 for the three-week period 16 May 2022 to 9 June 2022. This is a total of £173.55. This means that for this three-week period the resident’s rent will be charged at £136 instead of £193.85.
19. Moreover, the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s allegation that the landlord had fraudulently added his signature to the new tenancy agreement. It was fair that the landlord sought legal advice in relation to it altering the new tenancy agreement and to then explained to the resident that it had done so. This Service is unable to determine whether or not the landlord fraudulently added the resident’s signature to a new agreement. It was fair, nonetheless, that the landlord explained that although the resident had allegedly not signed the updated agreement, he was a resident by virtue of his occupation of the property.
20. As such, in consideration of all of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s handling of this issue is reflective of service failure. This is because the landlord should have acknowledged that, in the interests of fairness, it was reasonable for the resident to pay the rent amount noted in the tenancy agreement until they were advised of the correct amount. There is evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part and although it made an offer of compensation of £50, this offer was not quite proportionate to the failings identified. However, the landlord is not responsible for the rent arrears that the resident has accrued following their decision not to pay the full rent amount.

The associated complaint.

21. The landlord provided both its stage one and stage two complaint responses within the timescales specified within its complaints policy of ten and 20 days respectively. It acknowledged and apologised for its mistake within the tenancy agreement. It did not provide comment or identify its inappropriate use of language towards the resident in the letter dated 15 July 2022 as referred to above within this report.
22. In between the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint process it wrote to the resident on 15 July 2022. The contents of this letter were personal remarks to the resident that were both unprofessional and emotional. These comments include the following:
    1. “I accommodated you by delaying the start of the tenancy for my colleague to sort out the complaints from you but maybe, I should have started your tenancy on that date and let you fight with the landlord to return the money.”
    2. “I ignored most things that you said but for you to deny signing the tenancy agreement is beyond a joke and I refused to be called a lair and a fraudster.”
    3. “I have attached the other form you signed same day and is the same signature unless you want to say that I signed that one too.”
    4. “To me this has gone on too far and you seem to be wasting so many hours of everyone stating the same things over and over knowing that you know the truth.”
23. These unprofessional remarks would have been damaging to the landlord/tenant relationship. The use of condemning language here was contrary to what this service would consider a customer focussed approach, and would have hindered the landlord’s ability to work with the resident to arrive at an agreeable resolution.
24. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it informed the resident that as he was not paying the full amount of rent, he was in arrears to the value of £1906.76. The landlord gave the resident 14 days to clear this balance. This was a significant sum of money for the resident to find within 14 days. It might have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided options for the for the resident to pay the arrears, including setting up an instalment plan. The landlord states that it assists residents with instalment plans for debts owed within the tenancy agreement. It did not do that in this instance.
25. The landlord failed to address the complaint fully in its response to the resident. It also failed to acknowledge the poor level of unprofessional communication within its final response. It offered no remedy for its use of emotional and personal language towards the resident. This language would no doubt have made the resident feel distressed. This has impacted the resident, who states that he is very suspicious and has been caused distress by how the landlord managed his complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for the reasons set out above and considering the impact on the resident,  an award of £200 compensation should be made to reflect the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the tenancy sign up procedure and the alleged rent discrepancy in the tenancy agreement.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £173.55 in compensation for its handling of the resident’s tenancy sign-up procedure (this amount includes the £50 already paid to the resident’s rent account).
    2. Pay the resident £200 in compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Provide a written apology to the resident for its unprofessional communication.
29. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with these orders within 28 calendar days of the date of determination. Payments should be made directly to the resident as opposed to offsetting any rental arrears.

Recommendations

30. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website).
31. The landlord should consider whether the resident is due compensation for the loss of an amenity (due to boiler repair) for the period 16 May 2022 to 16 June 2022.