Clarion Housing Association Limited (202113849)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113849

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 September 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 the landlord’s response to:

The resident’s concerns about accessing its online resident portal;
The resident’s request to change to a sole tenancy;
The resident’s concerns about information sent to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP);
The resident’s reports of a data breach.

This report will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint is about the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a data breach.

During the course of the complaint, the resident expressed concern that the landlord had changed some of her data on her online resident portal account, without her consent and the resident advised that she wished for the situation to be treated as a data breach.
The matter was considered through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, during which the landlord stated in its stage two complaint that it had liaised with its Data Protection Team but that it was unable to ‘reach an outcome’. However, the landlord went onto explain that the information on individual resident portal accounts could only be changed by the account holder (the resident).
The resident subsequently contacted this service as she was unhappy with the response she had received from the landlord. While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. It follows that, if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns about its data breach, and the actions that it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly. While we have not investigated the matters relating to the data breach, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom house as an assured non-shorthold tenant. Her tenancy began in June 2010
The resident holds a joint-tenancy with her ex-husband, who she divorced in 2019 and who she reported in February 2021 had not been living in the property for seven years.

Legal and Policy Framework

The Government website states that, “an ‘untidy tenancy’ is one in which a joint tenant has left the property and is not paying rent, if for example, a relationship has broken down, but the landlord is unable to remove them from the tenancy for legal reasons. Universal Credit (UC) would normally divide the rental liability equally among joint tenants when calculating housing costs. UC provisions can sometimes allow a claimant to be treated as liable for rent, which they do not have a formal liability to pay. In such ‘untidy tenancy’ cases, this provision can be used to allow the housing costs to be calculated based on the full rent, despite a claimant having shared liability for the rent under a joint tenancy.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is not to assign the tenancy except, “in furtherance of a Court Order made (for example) under the Family Law Act 1996”. The Family Law Act 1996 gives married couples the right to apply for an occupation order of the matrimonial home. It also allows the courts (County Court or High Court) to order a transfer of liabilities in respect of a matrimonial home rented solely by one of the spouses and order a transfer of tenancy from one spouse to the other.
The landlord’s Changes to Tenancy & Assignment Policy states that will not unreasonably withhold permission for changing a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy but it should be noted that the arrangements for completing these will vary according to the type of tenancy. Whenever a change of tenancy is requested, it is up to the tenant to provide the required documents and evidence before any changes can be made. The landlord adds that it will not normally allow changes to tenancy if there are rent arrears.
At the time the resident made her complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints process; however, no specific timescale was attached to either stage. Since 17 June 2022, the timescale for responding to a stage one complaint is 20 working days. For a stage two complaint, which the landlord refers to as a ‘Peer Review’, the response time is 40 working days.
The landlord has a compensation procedure for when it has identified service failures. This pays between £50 and £250 for service failures that have had an impact on the complainant, such as repeated failure to reply to letters or phone calls. Compensation of £250 to £700 is given in cases where the landlord has found considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. The landlord will pay over £700 where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.

Summary of events

The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September, 18 November 2020 and 15 December 2020 about her rent. The resident told it that she had been furloughed and was struggling to pay her rent, and was looking to claim for Universal Credit (UC).
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2020 to say that she was unable to claim UC but had put in a claim for Housing Benefit. She said she would also apply to the council for a discretionary housing payment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 January 2021 to say she had spoken to its Rent Department, “regarding verification of my rent account to make an application for UC”. She had been advised that, since her separation from her husband, the rent account details had not changed and that she needed to provide her decree absolute as evidence of her divorce and name change. The resident said she was keen to resolve her rent issues and that it would be, “unhelpful for UC to make a final assessment based on inaccurate information”.
The landlord responded on 21 January 2021 to state that, as the tenancy was a joint tenancy and it was unable to confirm who was or was not living at the property, it had advised the DWP correctly. It stated that the resident’s UC claim only mentioned her and not that she had a joint tenancy.
The resident called the landlord on 26 February 2021 to say that nobody had called her back. The landlord said it had tried to contact her on the number it held, but it was not in service. The resident reiterated that the joint tenant had not been in the property for seven years and that they were divorced. The landlord agreed a payment plan with the resident and followed this up with a letter and rent statement.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 22 April 2021 and stated:

She had received an End of Tenancy Form with no other information attached.
The landlord had not provided any advice regarding her position as a sole tenant and confirmed she did not want to surrender her tenancy.
The landlord had told the DWP that two people were liable for the rent but, “prior to this my tenancy had been changed to an untidy tenancy and I was entitled to the full rent element”.
She added that, “this mistake has meant that I am only entitled to half the rent element despite being legally responsible for the entire rent”.
She had signed into her rent account and could see that the other tenant had been added back to her account but with her national insurance number.
She was unsure why the landlord had not issued a new tenancy or given her advice on how she could change her tenancy.
She was experiencing severe financial hardship and that, because the DWP withdrew her rent component from her UC, she was not entitled to any financial support. She asked the landlord to tell the DWP that her tenancy was untidy because she would not be able to pay her rent until the error was corrected.

On 27 April 2021, the resident called the landlord to register a stage one complaint, in which she stated:

When she spoke to the landlord on 5 May 2021, she explained that her husband had left the home in 2013/2014, and had notified it that he was no longer living at the property. However, her tenancy was not changed at this time and she had set up an online account to allow her access to the resident portal.
In January 2021, she made a UC claim but, as her contact telephone number was incorrect, nobody had made contact with her. When she updated her contact details and spoke with someone at the DWP, they explained that landlord had advised them there were two residents at the property.
The resident explained that she wanted the landlord to confirm she was the only tenant at the property. However, the landlord told her that it had no record that she was the only person living there. The resident said that, between 2014 and 2019, she had been recorded as a single claimant but the landlord told the DWP that there were two residents at the property.
In March 2021, the resident had logged into her online account, which was showing in her name; however, when she accessed it, in April 2021, the account was showing in her ex-husband’s name, with her national insurance number. When she contacted the landlord to say her information was incorrect, it deleted her account and said only the primary tenant is able to have an online account. The landlord told her she could not have online access.
Since 14 April 2021, she had been unable to keep up to date with her rent account and that not having access to the resident account had made it difficult for her to make payments. She said she had been forced into arrears because the account information was incorrect and the DWP were unable to make a correct assessment of her claim.
She confirmed she had been the primary tenant since 2013. The resident said she wanted the landlord to set up the resident account in her name and for it to tell the DWP that there was only one tenant in the property.

The landlord sent the resident its stage one response, which stated:

The resident’s account would remain as a joint tenancy until a succession could be considered and once she cleared her rent arrears.
It had sent an email to the DWP on 20 May 2021, informing it about the untidy tenancy and asking for the resident to be considered for full Housing Benefit eligibility.
Due to the limitations set by its system, only the primary tenant could register and manage an account on its website. It explained that, if the existing primary tenant was removed, this would remove access for that tenant.
When a tenant was removed from the system, the database automatically updated to determine who was eligible for an online account. It explained that an account was set up under the primary tenant’s details using the resident’s email address and, due to data protection concerns, it had suspended access on 29 April 2021.
It had raised the resident’s concerns about a data breach with its Data Protection team.
It had declined a request to amend the online account in April 2021 due to rent arrears and sent a letter to the resident explaining this.
The resident had told it in person, on 5 September 2014, that her “marriage had broken down and wished” for her “husband to be out of the house”. It explained it had to take an unbiased view of relationship breakdowns regarding joint tenancies and advised the resident to seek legal advice though the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. It told the resident that it could not remove her husband from the tenancy without a court order and she had told it she would seek legal advice.
In order for her ex-husband to be removed from the tenancy, the resident would need to clear her rent arrears, and the landlord would need a signed letter from both parties requesting removal of the joint tenant. It added that, if it was not possible for both tenants to send the request in writing, the resident would need to seek legal advice.
Its investigation was unable to identify a service failure but it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and said it would arrange for £50 to be paid into her rent account.

The landlord called the resident on 23 June 2021 to check if she was ready to proceed with a change of tenancy. She told it that she wanted to know who was changing the information on her account and how her data got deleted. She said she would not proceed with a change of tenancy until she was satisfied she had received an adequate response to her concerns about a data breach. The resident said she was happy for the landlord to send a confirmation letter saying she would be granted a new tenancy if she terminated her existing one
On 8 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident again to discuss a tenancy change. She said she and her ex-husband had given the landlord signed letters in 2013/14 to say they wished her ex-husband to be removed from the tenancy. The landlord said that it could not find any record of this but that it could bring her existing tenancy to an end and grant her a new sole tenancy. The resident stated that she did not trust the landlord and would not do this unless she received written confirmation that she would be granted a new tenancy despite her rent arrears. The landlord explained that that tenancy change had already been approved. The resident stated that, once the landlord had resolved her complaint and she received confirmation her tenancy was safe, she would end her current tenancy.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 July 2021 and said that it was in breach of Section 4 of The Landlord and Tenant act 1985, which stated that, “where a tenant has a right to occupy premises as a residence in consideration of a rent payable weekly, the landlord shall provide a rent book or other similar document for use in respect of the premises”. The landlord stated that it appreciated the restrictions of not having access to the resident portal but that she was able to request a rent statement.
On 14 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she was not satisfied with its response and wanted to escalate her complaint. She stated:

That the landlord did not have the right to delete her account and added that the online portal had always been set up in her name, and under her email address.
The landlord provided incorrect information to the DWP and that this was maladministration. She said she was in rent arears and had suffered ‘several months of severe anxiety’ as a result of the landlord’s service failures.
She did not feel the landlord had properly investigated and addressed the notice to surrender tenancy.
The landlord’s reply was ‘misleading and inaccurate’. The landlord claimed in January 2021 it did not know her ex-husband had left the property but, in its stage one response, it said it was aware he had left.
Her data was correct between January and April 2021 but someone had changed her name to her ex-husband’s name and changed her ex-husband’s date of birth. She said that, instead of addressing her complaint, the landlord deleted her information and she was still waiting for a response regarding a data breach. The landlord had given her several explanations of why it deleted her account but none as to why the details on her account were changed beforehand.
After it had deleted her account, the landlord sent her a notice to surrender her tenancy but nobody had contacted her, explained the process or asked if she wanted to change her tenancy.
The landlord had made the decision to decline a sole tenancy due to her rent arrears, which had built up due to the incorrect information it gave to the DWP.
The landlord’s statement that, on 5 September 2014, she told it in person that her marriage had broken down was incorrect. She stated that, in September 2014, he had been out of the property for nearly a year and she asked that the landlord verify its information.
The landlord was giving her conflicting information. It did not advise her that her account would remain a joint tenancy until succession could be considered once she cleared her arrears.
Her complaint was not about changing her tenancy but about the way her data had been handled, and that the landlord had given the DWP incorrect information, which means she had no access to rent statements, information on her arrears or the ability to raise repairs.
The landlord was not respecting her legal rights as a tenant and that sending her a notice to surrender her tenancy and then refusing to issue a new tenancy was ‘wholly inappropriate’. She said that she could have been left homeless.
She said she would like to be able to access information about her rent and be able to raise repairs. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge its service failures, to be given financial redress for the data breach and for her time, trouble and distress. She also asked for a full response to her complaint about the data breach component of her complaint.

The landlord sent the resident its stage two response on 27 July 2021, which stated:

It was not its responsibility to confirm those in occupation of a given property and that this was, “individual to the residents claim for UC and the requirements from the DWP”.
Although the resident may have informed it that the joint tenant had moved out, it did not result in their removal from the tenancy. The landlord explained that there was a due process to follow, which required both parties giving proof and for there to be no rental arrears on the account.
The information it gave about the portal was correct and that access was limited to the lead tenant. It explained that, although it worked to enable access for both parties of a tenancy, it had acted correctly. As the tenancy was still formally held in joint names. It stated there was no reason for it not to allow secondary tenant access.
The account was £1,005.33 in arrears and it was unable to make and changes to the tenancy until the arrears were cleared. The landlord advised the resident to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
It had held a meeting with its Data Protection team but was unable to reach an outcome with regard to the resident’s data breach concerns. It said that the resident had set up an online account using her former partner’s account number, which she would have access to from letters sent to her address. It added that she would have noticed, when opening the account, that the details were for the joint tenant. It added that the only way the information on the online portal could be changed was by the resident.
It wished to offer the resident £50 for the delay and inconvenience caused but did not clarify whether this was in addition to the £50 it had offered in its stage one complaint.

The landlord called the resident on 29 July 2021. The resident explained that she had lost track of her rental payments as she had been in hospital and had not been able to access the resident portal. The landlord offered to refer her to its Welfare Benefit Support service but the resident declined.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 18 August 2021, informing her that it had closed her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint refers to events from 2013, a timeframe of around eight years before the resident made the complaint that she subsequently escalated to the Ombudsman. While this investigation understands the resident has longstanding dissatisfaction with the landlord, formal complaints are normally expected to be made to a landlord within six months of when an issue occurs. This is reflected in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
This investigation therefore mainly focuses on events from September 2020 to July 2021; the timeframe of the most recent complaints from the resident. However, the Ombudsman has considered this complaint within the context of the history of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s approach.
The resident has also raised concerns regarding her Universal Credit (UC) entitlement and how this was calculated. As the landlord is not responsible for managing benefit applications, these matters are outside the scope of this investigation.

The resident’s concerns about accessing its online resident portal

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident has suffered significant distress and inconvenience as a result of difficulties accessing online information about her rent and the problems she has experienced as a result.
The landlord’s website states that, “anyone can have problems paying rent from time to time but, with the right support, it’s usually possible to find a solution. If necessary, we can agree a payment plan to manage your payments. If you cannot pay your rent, or you’re having financial difficulties; for example, if you’ve been unable to work or have been made redundant, you should find out how we can help”.
The landlord acted appropriately in agreeing payment plans to help the resident clear her rent arrears. However, it is incumbent on landlords to use all reasonable options available to them to support residents who are struggling with their rental payments. Although it is reasonable that a landlord cannot change a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy without the agreement of all parties or a court order, there is no evidence of such a requirement with regard to granting access to the landlord’s online resident portal.
When the resident told the landlord that her inability to access the online information about her rent payments was contributing to her rent arrears, the landlord failed to take a resident centred approach or to properly recognise the impact this difficulty was having on her. The landlord was inflexible in its response to the resident’s request to have access to the portal and failed to exercise its discretion or make any effort to veer from its standard policy. There is no evidence the landlord was prepared to remove the barriers she had identified in order to help make it as easy for her as possible to be able to manage her rental account.
It is unclear why the landlord could not have given the resident primary user access so she could access the portal. The records show that the only reason it gave was that this was due to the technical limitations of its system. There is no evidence of any legal requirement for the landlord to limit access to the portal to a resident if they are not listed as the ‘primary tenant’.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore how it could give the resident access to its resident portal or provide her with a similar alternative so her rent information was easily accessible. It could have tried to reach out to the joint tenant to inform them that the resident would be given primary access and for them to make contact if they wished to discuss this. If it was not able to make contact with the joint tenant, it could have made a note on its system that explained the circumstances in the case, which it could have then explained to the joint tenant if they made contact at a future date.
There is no indication the landlord made any attempts to resolve the issue. Despite the evidence the resident provided, which should have been sufficient to enable her to access the resident portal, the landlord took an entrenched approach. This was contrary to its commitment on its website to “offer you the right help and guidance”. The landlord’s handling of the matter was inappropriate in the circumstances.

The resident’s request to change to a sole tenancy

The landlord’s suggestion that the resident should apply for a court order in order to transfer the tenancy to her sole name was reasonable. A landlord is not entitled to or legally able to ‘remove’ a tenant from, or end, a tenancy without court proceedings.
There are good policy reasons for referring the resident to the court. The landlord would have to take care as to not appear to take sides or to influence residents’ decisions. In many situations, the landlord cannot make a decision as to who out of the joint tenants should retain the tenancy. However, the landlord should not apply its policy strictly and should consider any exceptional circumstances. This is a matter of law in relation to a public body, as well as the Ombudsman’s expectation.
In its stage one response, the landlord stated that the resident’s, “account will remain as a joint tenancy until a succession can be considered, once the account is cleared of any arrears”. This advice was in accordance with its policy. However, the evidence shows that, following the response, telephone discussions took place where the landlord discussed the alternative to making a court application, which would involve the resident bringing her tenancy to an end and applying for a new sole tenancy. When the resident asked that she received written confirmation that a new tenancy would be granted, despite her rent arrears, the records show that the landlord told her it had already approved the tenancy change.
Despite the assurances the landlord gave, it then stated in its stage two response that it would be unable to make changes to the resident’s tenancy until her arrears were cleared. It added that the resident should seek independent legal advice.
The landlord acted inappropriately by giving mixed messages and confusing information about whether or not it would grant the resident a new tenancy, even if she had rent arrears. It did not provide sufficient advice on the risks of her ending her tenancy or the implications this may have had on her, including making her homeless. This indicates a failure by the landlord to follow its duty of care towards the resident or to provide proper advice to enable her to make an informed decision.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord sent the resident an End of Tenancy Form, without any supporting information and without giving the resident any prior advice as to the implications of ending her tenancy. This would have further confused the resident as to where she stood in relation to whether or not it was safe to end her tenancy as a way of becoming a sole tenant.
The landlord was not consistent in the advice it gave to the resident. The poor communication and lack of consistent messaging would only have served to add to the resident’s anxieties and uncertainty over her tenancy. The landlord’s failure to communicate properly was service failure on its part.

Information to DWP

The landlord’s website states: “if you’re having problems with universal credit or your benefits, please contact us. We’ll discuss your financial problems and any rent arrears. You should be as detailed and honest as possible about your situation, so we can offer you the right help and guidance. Depending on your situation, we may refer you to one of our specialist teams”. It also states that, “our Welfare Benefits Advisory Service is made up of expert advisers who can help you get to grips with your benefits”.
There is no evidence the landlord provided incorrect information to the DWP and it was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the DWP and the council in order to assist the resident with her benefit claims. In addition, the landlord acted appropriately when it supported the resident to claim full Housing Benefit. However, it is noted that the landlord did not offer to refer the resident to its Welfare Benefits Advisory Service until after it had responded to her stage two complaint. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the service, which the resident declined, it is unclear why it did not offer this at an earlier stage.
It was clear from the resident’s communication that she was having difficulties with her UC application, and the offer of support would have been appropriate when the resident informed the landlord of her intention to claim the benefit around the end of 2020. Although there is evidence the landlord tried to contact the resident in February 2021 to discuss the ‘untidy tenancy’, it could have been more proactive in offering support to help the resident ‘get to grips’ with her benefits or to offer the ‘right help and guidance’. That fact the landlord was not proactive in this way was a failing in this case, and a missed opportunity to try to assist the resident.

Complaint Handling

The landlord took nearly two months to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint. It acted appropriately in apologising for the delay and offering £50 compensation in recognition of this failure. However, there is no evidence the landlord sent any holding replies during this period, gave any explanation of why its response was delayed or that it agreed any new timescales with the resident. This is contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that states that, “landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide”.
It its stage two response, the landlord addressed the resident’s data protection concerns by stating that, “at present we are unable to conclude an outcome”. There is no indication that the landlord had followed this up, or that it later gave her any further details or an outcome of its investigation. Its statement that it was unable to reach an outcome ‘at present’ was therefore misleading.
The landlord was at fault for not properly advising the resident how she can escalate her concerns and for not signposting her to the ICO, which could have considered her concerns about a data breach. The failure of the landlord to provide an adequate response or to give her the correct information on how she could escalate the matter was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about accessing its online resident portal.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change to a sole tenancy.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that it sent incorrect information to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
In accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a data breach was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was inflexible when dealing with the resident’s requests to access the resident portal. It failed to take proper account of the impact her inability to use the portal was having on her. It also failed to exercise its discretion or explore ways of giving the resident access to online services so she could manage her rent account and raise repairs.
Although the landlord gave the resident correct advice that it could not change the tenancy without written permission by the joint tenant or a court order, it gave confusing information with regard to ending the tenancy and applying for a new one as a sole tenant. This left the resident with the uncertainty of whether or not the landlord would grant a new tenancy if she still had rent arrears. In addition, the landlord failed to give the resident proper advice on the risks of ending her tenancy.
Although the landlord could have referred the resident to its Welfare Benefits Advisory Service sooner, there is no evidence the landlord had supplied incorrect information either to the DWP or the council to support the resident’s benefit claims.
Although the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to its stage one complaint and offered compensation, it did not send any holding replies or agree any new timescales during the period of the delay. In addition, the landlord failed to follow up on its investigation into the resident’s complaint about a data breach, or to signpost the resident to the ICO in its stage two response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £700 comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused when it failed to give adequate support to the resident to access her online rent information.
  2. £200 for its poor communication regarding whether or not the resident would be able to end her tenancy and apply for a new sole tenancy.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

The abovementioned compensation should be paid in addition to the £100 compensation the landlord has already offered in its stage one and stage two responses.

Explore ways it can give the resident access to the resident portal so she is able to manage her rent account or to discuss an alternative way of providing this information that is equally convenient to the resident and that she is in agreement with.
Provide written confirmation to the resident as to whether it will grant her a new sole tenancy if she still had rent arrears and to apologise for providing confusing information regarding this.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Provide complaint training to staff with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delay in responding to complaints. The training should also include signposting residents to the correct escalation pathway if they wish to escalate their complaints.
2. Ensure it refers residents to the correct support services as soon as it is made aware they are struggling to pay their rent or are having trouble applying for Universal Credit, Housing Benefit or discretionary payments.