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

Darlington Borough Council (202206642)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206642

Darlington Borough Council

30 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of an application for help with water rates, including its communication.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy dated 20 July 2020. The resident’s local water company offers a scheme to help residents on low incomes meet the costs of their water bills. The landlord administers the scheme on behalf of the water company for all council residents.
  2. In 2021–22 the resident’s local water company could award a reduction of up to 50% of a resident’s water bill if 1 of the 3 following criteria were satisfied:
    1. The resident’s household income was less than £16,385 and their annual water bill was more than 3% of their net household income (criteria 1).
    2. The resident received pension credit, and their annual water bill was more than 3% of their net household income (criteria 2).
    3. The resident’s income was not enough to cover the household’s essential bills following an assessment by an independent debt advice organisation (criteria 3).
  3. The resident contacted his landlord in January 2021 to ask about applying to access the discretionary scheme. The resident believed that as he qualified for this in 2020 and his circumstances had not changed, he would qualify again in 2021. The landlord agreed to apply to the scheme in 2021 on behalf of the resident.
  4. On 29 April 2021 the resident provided his landlord with details of his income and outgoings after it requested these. The landlord sought clarification from the resident on his income and rent expenditure to enable it to apply. On 5 May 2021, the resident told his landlord that he had a “surplus” of £31.39 each month.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 13 August 2021 that it had applied for the discretionary payment. It made this application on 26 May 2021. It informed the resident on 1 November 2021 that his water company had refused his application.
  6. The resident expected to receive 50% off his water bill for 2021 and had budgeted accordingly. The landlord told the resident it applied in 2020 based on him being a single–person household. However, the landlord explained to the resident that it submitted his application for 2021 on the basis that he had a change of circumstances, namely the resident’s two children were now living with him.
  7. The landlord also explained to the resident that it applied in 2021 based on the figures the resident provided on 5 May 2021. The landlord had applied criteria 3. The resident requested that his landlord reconsider its decision under criteria 1 as he maintained his income was below the threshold.
  8. The landlord resubmitted a fresh application to the resident’s water company on 5 November 2021 as it noted the resident’s income changed in October 2021. This resulted in the water company awarding the resident a 10% reduction in his water bill for the period 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022. The resident explained that his expenses had gone up since he provided financial information in May 2021.
  9. On 22 December 2021 the resident complained to his landlord stating:
    1. He understood from it in January 2021 that he would qualify for a 50% reduction in his water bill for 2021.
    2. The landlord incorrectly applied in 2021 based on criteria 3 rather than criteria 1.
    3. His landlord only told him on 1 November 2021 that his water company had refused his application despite the water company having informed the landlord of this outcome in September 2021.
    4. The landlord had not informed him of the criteria it used to apply for assistance the second time in November 2021.
    5. The landlord, in his opinion, had not acknowledged it had wrongly concluded there was a change in his income. He alleged his landlord erroneously provided his water company with incorrect financial information.
    6. The landlord had refused to address his concerns by directing him to an advice agency for assistance.
    7. The landlord had not acknowledged the delays in applying to the water company.
  10. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 December 2021 stating:
    1. The water company changed the eligibility criteria for considering applications for the year 2021–22. The water company only allowed a nominal amount for any debts rather than the full value.
    2. On 29 April 2021 it told the resident that as his income was more than £16,385 per year it could not consider him under criteria 1.
    3. For it to have considered the resident’s application under criteria 3 it would have needed further financial information. It applied to the water company on 26 May 2021 using the figures the resident provided on 5 May 2021.
    4. On 3 September 2021 the water company told it the resident was not eligible for assistance. It made a fresh application on 5 November 2021, and the water company awarded the resident a 10% reduction for six months.
    5. It could not uphold his complaint about the outcome of the award as it had no authority to decide or change the decision.
    6. It could not uphold his complaint about it signposting the resident to an advice agency because this was an appropriate act.
    7. It upheld the resident’s complaint about poor communication as it accepted that it failed to respond to the resident promptly. It also acknowledged it could have better explained the water company’s criteria.
    8. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture.
    9. It had asked for a review of its internal processes around processing discretionary awards on behalf of the water company and how it communicates with residents about these. It also said it would look to see if it could give residents clarification over response times to communications.
  11. On 27 January 2022 the resident responded to his landlord that he agreed that it was appropriate to signpost him to an advice agency. The resident alleged his landlord had applied using an incorrect criterion, incorrect figures, and the incorrect understanding that his circumstances had changed. Although the resident accepted the £100 offer, he requested his landlord escalate his complaint on 2 February 2022.
  12. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 28 April 2022 stating.
    1. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted it had not responded promptly but did not accept that it processed his application incorrectly. This is because it said that it used the figures the resident provided after it sought clarification.
    2. The resident’s circumstances had changed since his last application in 2020 as he now had two children living with him.
    3. It functioned as an agent of the water company in processing applications and cannot influence the outcome.
    4. It correctly advised the resident that he could see an advice agency as he told it he was struggling financially.
    5. It offered £100 as a goodwill gesture and informed him that he could refer his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  13. The resident asked us to investigate as they alleged that they were around £200 out of pocket. The resident also stated that he had experienced stress and inconvenience due to alleged poor communication and delays.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the application for help with water rates

  1. The landlord undertook a responsibility to submit applications on behalf of its residents. The landlord had a responsibility to act in good faith, and without negligence when doing so.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord requested information about the resident’s finances in April 2021. It sought clarification from the resident on his income and outgoings on 29 April 2021 and 4 May 2021. This was appropriate because the landlord required this information to see if the resident qualified for assistance.
  3. The resident’s complaint to his landlord in December 2021 claimed that his landlord told him in May 2021 that it would need to apply under criteria 3. This was because the landlord is alleged to have said the resident’s income was above the £16,385 limit set by the water company. This would have ruled out consideration of his application under criteria 1. The resident was not in receipt of pension credit so criteria 2 would be irrelevant.
  4. The resident stated in December 2021 that he disputed the landlord’s decision to apply under criteria 3. He asserted that he told his landlord in May 2021 that his income was below the £16,385 so it should apply under criteria 1. Despite this, the evidence shows the landlord applied under criteria 3 and wanted further financial information. This indicated the landlord had assessed the resident’s household income was more than the criteria 1 threshold of £16,385.
  5. The resident would only be eligible under criteria 3 if he could show, after a financial assessment by an external agency, that he could not meet his essential household bills. However, as the resident told his landlord he had a monthly surplus of £31.39 it would follow that criteria 3 could not apply. This is because having a monthly surplus would be inconsistent with the resident not having enough money to pay essential bills. It is therefore unclear the reason the landlord applied in May 2021 based on criteria 3.
  6. There was clearly a disagreement between the landlord and resident about which criteria the landlord should have used to apply. Whilst it was for the landlord to apply it was important for it to explain the basis of its decision and address the disagreement before submission. Its failure to do this led to the landlord treating the resident unfairly.
  7. Overall, there was therefore a lack of transparency and clarity over the landlord’s decision. There was also no evidence that the landlord followed its procedure in obtaining an independent financial assessment. This was a requirement of the landlord’s internal processes about criteria 3 applications. The landlord’s failure to follow its procedure was unfair and amounted to maladministration.

The landlord’s communication

  1. The landlord applied for assistance on 29 April 2021 and received an outcome from the water company on 3 September 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord made any attempts to contact the water company between these dates. This was a service failure as it would have been appropriate to do so, especially as the resident had asked for updates on 20 April 2021, 4 May 2021, and 12 August 2021.
  2. The landlord failed to inform the resident that the water company had refused his application until 1 November 2021, and only after he contacted the landlord. The Ombudsman considers the delay of two months was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord made a second application to the water company on 5 November 2021 after the resident provided it with revised income figures.
  4. The landlord acted promptly to submit a second application and offered advice to the resident on 22 November 2021 which was good practice. However, it failed to tell the resident it had done this until 19 November 2022 which caused frustration and demonstrated poor communication.
  5. Crucially the landlord failed to answer the resident’s question relating to the criteria it used when it submitted the second application. This was likely to have added to the resident’s sense of distress and frustration.
  6. Whilst the landlord communicated to the resident the outcome of the second application for assistance it failed to explain to the resident the reasons for the reduction of only 10%.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded at stage 1 within the timescale it promised, and it accepted that it had failed to deal with his application in the best way.
  2. It also accepted there had been delays in communication and that there had been failures in how it communicated its decision. It offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture to help put things right. The landlord explained what action it would take to learn from the complaint. This included reviewing how it processes and how it communicates with residents about applications.
  3. The landlord did not accept that it was responsible for the water company’s decision or that it was wrong to signpost the resident to an external advice agency.
  4. The Ombudsman considers the landlord showed that it wanted to put things right as it offered compensation and promised to improve, these actions are in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  5. The resident accepted that the landlord’s decision to signpost to an external advice agency was appropriate, and we have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. However, the landlord’s response failed to consider the resident’s concerns that it had misapplied the information he gave or how its delay in processing the complaint had impacted him.
  6. The Ombudsman considers that whilst the landlord had neither the autonomy nor authority to make decisions it did provide information to the water company. It was aware that the information provided would inform the water company’s decision. There was a failure of the landlord to explain its decision to apply under Criteria 3 when the resident was consistently of the view that he was eligible under Criteria 1 and said he had a monthly surplus. There was a failure in its complaint responses because it insufficiently explained how it calculated the resident’s income.
  7. The Ombudsman considers that whilst it was appropriate of the landlord to offer compensation the amount of redress offered was insufficient considering the level of failure. The Ombudsman is also mindful of the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response, it said that it hoped to provide this within 30 working days of 2 February 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 28 April 2022. It also incorrectly referred the resident to the wrong Ombudsman service which delayed the Service being able to consider the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the application to the water company for help with water rates.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. By 12 January 2024, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £250 (inclusive of any compensation already paid) comprised of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his application for assistance, including poor communication.
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing this complaint and the landlord’s failures in complaint handling.