Aster Group Limited (202233448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233448

Central and Cecil Housing Trust

25 January 2024

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 the resident’s request for:
   1. Quarterly rent statements.
   2. Her account to be reviewed for fraudulent activity.
2. The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 22 November 2000 with a previous landlord that has since merged with the current landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom property, and the resident lives on her own.
4. On 14 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received her usual quarterly rent statement which she had been receiving since her tenancy began. The resident emailed the landlord the following day, requested the same and stated the landlord’s treatment of her had impacted her health. The resident further stated that the landlord had failed to address her previous complaint about fraud on her account. There is evidence that the resident complained about fraud on her account in 2020.
5. An internal email suggests that the landlord sent the requested rent statement to the resident’s solicitor, who was her nominated contact, on 15 November 2022. However, on 21 November 2022, the resident stated the landlord had not provided her with the statement. The resident advised she had been to the Local Authority benefit service to get account information, as the landlord had failed to provide what she said it was “legally duty bound to provide”. She wanted to confirm the local authority had been paying her housing benefit to the landlord and made specific reference to 4 payments of housing benefit paid to the landlord from August through to November 2022.
6. In its stage 1 response, the landlord defines the complaint to be about the resident not receiving quarterly rent statements and about 4 benefit payments not showing on the resident’s account. The landlord stated it had no legal requirement to provide statements to residents; and that residents can request these from the “service hub”. The landlord further confirmed that all benefit payments referred to by the resident, were showing on her rent statements. It did not uphold the complaint.
7. On 29 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident rent statements covering the previous 12 months. On the same date, the resident advised the landlord it had failed to address the fraud on her account within its stage 1 response and asked the landlord to formally address this. On 2 December 2022, the resident advised she had first complained about this on 13 and 17 November 2020 and had sent the landlord 5 emails in relation to this; the Ombudsman was not provided with copies of these emails.
8. On the same date, she further requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process as she had not received a notification of a change to the landlord’s policy in terms of receiving and obtaining rent statements. The resident said she was unable to find the information on how to request statements on the landlord’s website.
9. After requesting escalation to stage 2 the landlord advised, on 6 December 2022, that the resident must explain the outcome she was dissatisfied with for her complaint to be escalated. It asked the resident to provide the legal obligation advised or affirmed by the Local Authority to substantiate and escalate her response. The resident asked the landlord why she was not informed of a change of policy. The resident wanted to check the accuracy of her account. With regards to the fraud, the landlord said it usually only investigated complaints made within 6 months of the event becoming evident. The resident, in reply, stated that the last email she had sent about fraud on her account had been in October 2022; 2 months previous.
10. The landlord informed the resident, on 30 December 2022, that it would not be able to respond to her complaint by 3 January 2023 due to staff holidays. It advised it would respond by 17 January 2023 and apologised for this delay.
11. The landlord sent the resident rent statements covering the previous 6 months on both the 4 and 12 January 2023.
12. In its stage 2 response, on 16 January 2023, the landlord confirmed it had no legal obligation to send quarterly rent statements to residents. It acknowledged, however, that it was their policy until October 2022 when the policy was superseded by another, due to a merger with another landlord. The landlord apologised that this had not been communicated to residents at the time. The landlord assured the resident that statements could be requested at any time, and they would contact the resident if her account was to fall into arrears. The landlord acknowledged a service failure stating that they would learn from it.
13. The landlord further advised that it could find no evidence of fraudulent activity on the resident’s account. It noted that the resident was in substantial credit and to contact it if she wanted to obtain a refund. It further advised the resident that a standing order she had been making was not required and therefore encouraged the resident to cancel this.
14. In referring to this Service, the resident stated she did not accept the apology given by the landlord and asked the landlord to stop forcing other policies on her that are not the landlord’s. The resident advised she still had not received the requested rent statements.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out what we can and cannot investigate. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident, in this case informed this Service that she raised the issue of fraud on her account in November 2020. While the resident raised this complaint with the Ombudsman at the time, it had not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and there is no evidence that this was pursued. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence following such a delay, this investigation has not considered any specific events prior to October 2022, when the resident raised these issues again.

Rent Statements

16. The resident requested that the quarterly rent statements be sent 4 separate times: 14, 15, 16 and 21 November 2022. Internal emails show the landlord saw this communication. It was reasonable that the landlord responded on 22 November 2022, within 5 working days, when it acknowledged the communication as a formal complaint.
17. In the stage 1 response, it explained there was no legal requirement to send quarterly rent statements and advised the resident how to request them going forward. Further, on the same date it sent the resident a rent statement covering the previous 12 months. It was appropriate for the landlord to send the rent statement given the nature of the complaint and it was reasonable to explain how to obtain the statements going forward.
18. Following communication from the resident, which suggested she had not yet received the requested rent statements, the landlord sent the statement for the previous 6 months on 4 January 2023 and again on 12 January 2023. This was reasonable and appropriate given the resident had said she was yet to receive them.
19. In requesting escalation to stage 2, the resident said she had not been informed of any changes to the landlord’s policy with regards to rent statements. It is good practice for landlords to involve residents in policy changes and to communicate any changes prior to the change. Secondly the landlord had an opportunity, which it missed, to send the updated policy to the resident when the concern was first raised and only acknowledged the change in policy at stage 2 of the complaint process.
20. Given, as in this case, some residents had been tenants for a long time and had been receiving quarterly rent statements for over 21 years, it would have been appropriate to communicate such a change at the earliest opportunity and appropriate to have shared the change in approach to rent statements in its stage 1 investigation.
21. Overall, while the landlord is not required by legislation to provide the statements quarterly, it would have been reasonable to communicate this policy change to residents. However, it did send the rent statements to the resident when requested. Further, it accepted in its stage 2 response that it should have informed residents of the policy change and agreed it would issue communication to its residents to that affect.
22. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the president’s request for rent statements.

Fraudulent Activity

23. The resident raised that the landlord had failed to acknowledge her complaints about fraudulent activity on her rent account. She advised she had raised this 5 times prior to the stage 1 response and that she had first mentioned this in 2020 and then again in October 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence in relation to the communication aside from that in the complaint from 14 November 2022. The resident believed this issue had been raised on numerous occasions. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to consider either way if that was the case; However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the issue of fraud when it was originally raised. Further, if it had done so at the time, it should have reminded the resident of the conclusion of any investigation previously completed.
24. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have good communication with residents, and to put the resident at the heart of its complaint handling. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed the fraud concerns raised by the resident to understand her concerns. While it did investigate the fraud, failing to discuss the basis of the concerns with the resident was not appropriate. It denied the resident the opportunity of voicing her concerns and meant the landlord may not have correctly understood the nature of the concern. It was a missed opportunity to build the landlord and resident relationship and to show the resident it was listening to all her concerns.
25. Further, while the Ombudsman cannot comment on any complaint raised in 2020 and has not seen any evidence in relation to any investigation done at that time, applying the principles of dispute resolution, it would have been reasonable to evidence that it had looked back to 2020 to fully alleviate the resident’s latest concerns. Or, if it had previously addressed the issue in 2020, it should have reminded the resident of its findings at that time.
26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations of a landlord in relation to complaints handling including the importance of investigating complaints through a 2 stage complaints procedure. While the landlord did investigate this during its stage 2 investigation, it would have been more appropriate for it to process this as a new complaint. This would have given the resident the opportunity for the fraud to be fully investigated at both stage 1 and if necessary, stage 2. By not investigating this element as a stage 1 complaint, the landlord missed an opportunity for early resolution and failed in its complaint handling.
27. By failing to give the resident the opportunity to discuss her concerns about fraud and the delay in dealing with this matter caused undue distress and inconvenience to the resident. The time spent, by the resident, in chasing a response was unreasonable.
28. The landlord investigated the resident’s account and confirmed it could see no fraud on her account. In reviewing the resident accounts for fraud, the landlord highlighted that the resident was in significant credit and advised the resident she could obtain a refund. This was appropriate and showed a commitment to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
29. Furthermore, it advised the resident that a standing order she was making was not required and encouraged the resident to cancel this. Again, this was appropriate and is evidence the landlord had, appropriately, reviewed the residents account.
30. Overall, while the landlord did conduct an investigation into fraud on the residents account, by failing to discuss the fraud directly with the resident it failed to listen and understand her concerns. Further, it denied her to opportunity for it to be investigated as part of a 2 stage complaints procedure.
31. Therefore, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her account to be investigated for fraudulent activity.

Complaint’s Handling

32. The resident put in a formal complaint on 21 November 2022, which the landlord, appropriately, acknowledged the same date advising it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord responded within 5 working days, on 29 November 2022. This is in line with its complaint handling policy and the Code.
33. The resident requested escalation to stage 2, on 2 December 2022, which the landlord acknowledged. The landlord wrote to the resident advising it needed more time to respond due to staff shortages, which was reasonable. This is in line with both its own policy and the Code.
34. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 January 2023: within the communicated timescales; This was a reasonable response.
35. Overall, while there was a delay in the stage 2 response, the landlord communicated this with the resident to manage her expectations and provided her with a clear timescale as to when it expected to respond. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rent statements.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her account to be reviewed for fraudulent activity.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation of £100 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the landlord’s handling of her request for her account to be investigated for fraudulent activity.
40. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

41. Provide the resident with a breakdown of her rent account and arrange to discuss this with her, should she agree, to alleviate her concerns with regards to fraud.