The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Community Gateway Association Limited (202209378)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209378

Community Gateway Association Limited

15 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:
    1. Decision to increase the property’s rent.
    2. The landlord’s communications with the resident.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman 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, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s decision to increase the property’s rent.
  3. Under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The amount of rent charged and the increase in rent, fall properly within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident was advised by the landlord and the Ombudsman to contact the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) regarding these matters.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and her tenancy began in November 2020. She has some mental health conditions that mean she has difficulty processing complex information. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities from the outset of the tenancy.
  2. The landlord reviews the rent annually. Residents are notified of any changes in writing at the start of each financial year. The resident was notified about rent changes on 5 April 2021 and 4 April 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 May 2022. She disputed the changes to her rent charge. She said the landlord could not increase her rent “as and when” it wanted. In addition, when she accepted the tenancy, she was not told the rent was subject to review.
  4. The parities exchanged emails on the same day. During the exchange the landlord acknowledged the complaint and asked the resident to clarify her concerns. It set out the tenancy conditions and directed her to the section marked rent. It gave the resident some information about rent tribunals and provided a link to the housing tribunal’s website.
  5. The resident highlighted her vulnerabilities and said she felt the landlord was making it difficult to complain. She asked it to forward the complaint to the correct team.
  6. There was further correspondence between the parties on 9 May 2022. The landlord said it had been unable to contact the resident by phone. Further, it wanted to understand the best way to communicate with her. It offered to refer the resident to its support services.
  7. The resident reiterated her previous request. She said the landlord should have told her the rent could increase when she signed for the tenancy. However, she was only told it could decrease, or stay the same. She asked the landlord to revert to its original rent charge. She became upset about the language used by the landlord, particularly as she felt it had implied she could not read. She asked for her complaint to include the landlord’s communication.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 June 2022. It detailed the following:
    1. The tenancy agreement contained terms regarding rent and service charges. It will review the rent once a year. The review can result in the rent being increased or decreased.
    2. Though they were previously sent to the resident, the relevant tenancy terms were included for ease of reference.
    3. Information regarding the Independent Tribunal appointed to resolve rent disputes.
    4. The landlord did not uphold the complaint in relation to the rent increase. It felt it acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement when applying the rent increase.
    5. The landlord investigated the resident’s communication concerns. Having reviewed the correspondence, it was satisfied it had sought to establish the best method of communicating with the resident. It accepted that the wording “could have been different” and apologised for any upset caused.
  9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on the 16 June 2022. She repeated her previous concerns about the rent increase. She reiterated she felt the landlord said she could not read.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2022. She said:
    1. She was not given time to read the contract when she signed for her tenancy.
    2. She had a reading difficulty.
    3. A contract can be oral and she felt misled as the landlord told her the rent may decrease, but not that it may increase.
    4. The landlord should provide clear information. This was especially important for people with disabilities.
    5. The landlord treated her unfairly.
    6. There was no rent decrease letter sent in February 2021.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 July 2022. The new points were:
    1. It had explained, during a telephone conversation with the resident, that the rent was reviewed every year in line with government guidance.
    2. Residents received written notification of any changes at least 4 weeks’ in advance. This was documented within the terms of the tenancy agreement that the resident signed.
    3. It sent the relevant sections from the tenancy agreement by email on 6 May 2022 and in the stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2022.
    4. Its records showed that a copy of the tenancy agreement was sent to the resident by email the day before she signed for the property. The landlord felt this gave her sufficient time to review the conditions.
    5. Its officers reported that the terms and conditions of the tenancy were discussed verbally during the sign up meeting.
    6. The rent would not decrease regardless of the resident’s circumstances, as the rent is set at the notified rate. It suggested that there may have been a misunderstanding due to some uncertainty about the resident’s employment. There were furlough regulations at the time and there may have been a discussion around Universal Credit. If the resident was claiming housing benefit or Universal Credit to help with payment of all or part of her rent and her income reduced, she may have received more benefit towards her rent. This would mean the amount she would need to pay would reduce.
    7. It stressed that reduced payments would be as a result of more benefit being paid. Not because of a change in the amount of rent charged.
    8. It attached copies of the letters sent regarding the change to rent. These were dated 22 February 2021 and 21 February 2022. It confirmed that there was no ‘rent decrease’ letter, as the letter issued is a rent change letter.
    9. The resident had contacted the landlord on 21 April 2021 to advise she was not happy with the rent increase. It confirmed the resident’s rent had increased, and the resident advised she had updated her Universal Credit journal.
    10. It referred to correspondence from the resident saying its employee contacted her when she asked it not to. It explained that it may contact the resident if she is not paying enough to cover her rent. This was to discuss any problems, offer support and advice, and provide options moving forward.
    11. It asked the resident to increase her monthly payment. It detailed the amount the resident needed to pay to ensure the full rent was covered.
    12. It acknowledged that any increase in bills was difficult and offered the resident tenancy support and a free welfare benefit check.
    13. It acknowledged that the wording used in one of the emails sent to the resident could cause upset. It confirmed its employee did not mean to cause offence. It was trying to establish the resident’s preferred communication method to assist her with the complaints process. It offered an apology for any upset this may have caused.
    14. The resident had advised she would like further action to be taken against the landlord. She said the landlord had discriminated against her previously. The landlord asked for further details of the incidents where she felt it had discriminated against her. As it had no response from the resident the landlord determined it was unable progress this further.
    15. The landlord decided not to uphold the complaint.
  12. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on the same day and asked for us to consider her complaint. The resident sent a further email to the Ombudsman on 29 November 2022. This email gave an overview of the complaints referred to above.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s communications with the resident

  1. The resident’s complaint concerning how the landlord communicated with her regarding the charges has been considered by the Ombudsman in this case.
  2. The tenancy agreement states: “We may change the amount of rent you pay for your home, but we will give you at least 4 weeks’ notice in writing before we do. We usually review your rent once a year and this is normally at the start of the financial year. We will write to you to tell you the new rent and give you the chance to end your tenancy before changes take place.” The landlord gave copies of the tenancy conditions to the resident before she signed her tenancy. This was an appropriate course of action to take.
  3. The landlord made reasonable enquiries with the resident before she started her tenancy. She was asked to provide information regarding her vulnerabilities at the point of application and before signing for her tenancy. The landlord knew about her disabilities and difficulty understanding complex information. Although the resident has said she did not understand that the rent would be subject to review each year, the Ombudsman does not have sufficient evidence to show that the landlord did not explain this correctly.
  4. When the resident questioned the increase in rent, the landlord made reasonable efforts to explain the conditions to her. It sent rent review letters, copies of the tenancy conditions and tried to call her and explain these conditions. It provided advice on how to seek a review of its decision through the First-tier Tribunal. The landlord did this because the resident said she had difficulty understanding complex information. The landlord sort to make reasonable adjustments when answering the resident’s complaint at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process. It signposted her to relevant support services early in its responses.
  5. The records show the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s complaint handling procedures. This was broadly in response to the landlord’s efforts to clarify the details of the complaint. The landlord’s responses were each sent in time with its policy and procedures. Its attempts to understand the details of the complaint were reasonable. It was clear why it was asking for information. The signposts it made to support and the efforts made to speak to the resident were reasonable.
  6. The resident said she felt the landlord’s communication with her was offensive at times. This was acknowledged by the landlord in both stage 1 and 2 of its complaint responses. It apologised to the resident and spent time with the officers to learn from the outcomes. It was right to recognise the reports and its apology was a reasonable means of redress in the circumstances.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its communication with the resident. The evidence shows the landlord provided information about the rent increase at the start of the tenancy. The landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries within a reasonable time. The handling of complaints was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s decision to increase the property’s rent is outside of this service’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its communication with the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its sign up procedures to ensure that risk and vulnerability are considered when interviewing applicants for housing. Adjustments should be made to ensure that all residents understand the terms and conditions of the tenancy.