Incommunities Limited (202128086)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128086

Incommunities Limited

21 December 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 that:
1. She has been overcharged rent.
2. She has been charged grounds maintenance for services not received.
3. Her signature was forged on her tenancy agreements.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. Since 2003, she has held 3 tenancies with the landlord. The landlord took over the council’s housing stock in 2003 which included the resident’s property she was living in at the time.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 6 July 2021. She felt that she had been incorrectly charged rent since 1999 and reported paying for grounds maintenance which she did not receive.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The grounds maintenance charges cover the cost of the landlord maintaining communal open spaces in the local areas. It noted that this might not be immediately outside of the resident’s property, but the cost was split amongst all properties in the area.
2. It provided copies of all rent statements to the resident for tenancies she held from February 2003 when it became the resident’s landlord.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a further response as the resident had continued to contact the landlord about the matter. In summary it said:
1. It had provided escalation details to the resident, but had not received an escalation request.
2. The landlord had reviewed the tenancy records and found no evidence of discrepancies.
On 24 March 2022, the Ombudsman received contact from the resident who advised she had not received a formal response to her complaint. The Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 28 March 2022 and the resident informed it of the reasons she remained dissatisfied. She reported that the signatures on the tenancy agreement were not hers, that there were no rent charges on her tenancy agreements, and that the property was recorded as a flat when it was a house. She wanted the landlord to review her rent charges.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 27 April 2022. In summary it said:
1. It had contacted the resident and forwarded her its previous responses.
2. It provided a breakdown of all the resident’s tenancies including the dates they were held.
3. The landlord issued a new tenancy in 2003 due to a stock transfer from the Council. Dates on its system confirmed the tenancy began in 1999.
4. The rent charge was listed on the first page of the agreement.
5. In 2000, the resident reverted to her previous surname. At this time, surnames were changed by the landlord.
6. The paragraph in her tenancy relating to flats was generic across all tenancy agreements.
7. The landlord noticed an admin error where a tenancy showed a start date of 2003, when it was supposed to be 2004. However, it confirmed that records on the resident’s rent statement were correct.
8. There was no evidence to suggest the signatures on the resident’s tenancy agreements were not hers. No issues were raised about this at the time of the tenancies commencing.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 March 2023. She believes that she has been overcharged rent, and that the landlord forged her signature on the tenancy agreement. She reports she was incorrectly charged for grounds maintenance. As a resolution she wants the landlord to refund the rent she believes was overcharged.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to consider complaints about the level of the rent or service charge including any yearly increases. These disputes are matters for a more appropriate body to consider such as the First Tier Tribunal, as it is within its remit to consider disputes about rent and service charge increases. Therefore, these matters will not be considered as part of this assessment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she has been overcharged rent.

In response to the resident raising concerns about rent overpayments, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate the circumstances of the alleged overpayments and explain its position.
The resident did not provide the landlord with specific dates when she believed she was overcharged rent. Despite this, the landlord completed a review of all the resident’s rent statements dating from when it became the resident’s landlord. Following this, it informed the resident it had carefully checked all records and found no errors in the rent charged. Further, it provided the resident with copies of her rent statements and tenancy agreements from 2003. The Ombudsman considers this to be an appropriate response to her concerns.
Following its stage 1 response, the resident continued raising concerns to the landlord. To further reassure the resident, the landlord provided a breakdown of each tenancy including the rent periods.
The landlord repeated its position in its stage 2 response and answered additional concerns raised by the resident. It confirmed where rent information was recorded on the tenancy agreement and advised that a paragraph about flats was generic to all tenancy agreements and did not mean she was living in a flat. The landlord evidenced good practice by responding to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
When the landlord reviewed the tenancy agreements, it identified that one of the resident’s tenancy agreements had been incorrectly dated as starting in 2003 rather than 2004. The landlord apologised for the admin error during the time of the property transfer and informed the resident that her tenancy start date remained accurate on her rent statement and on the landlord’s system. The resident was not disadvantaged by the landlord’s error, and it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that this had not affected her rent charges for that period.
The landlord answered further queries about the resident’s rent payments. It confirmed the weekly amount of rent she was charged, including what portion was contributed from her universal credit payments. It confirmed that universal credit was paid 4–weekly. This was reasonable to help explain the breakdown of the resident’s rent charges.
Since the landlord’s final response, the resident has sent the Ombudsman specific dates where she felt she was overcharged rent. However, these details were not passed to the landlord as part of her complaint. The Service will therefore not be able to make specific reference to these. However, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about rent charged across all her tenancies in its complaint responses.
In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and provided detailed responses which confirmed that the rent charged had been reviewed and was correct. The landlord responded appropriately to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore not identified any maladministration in relation to its response to the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she has been charged grounds maintenance for services not received.

As part of the investigation, as mentioned above it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide the appropriate level and amount of service charges, or whether they were reasonably incurred. However, we can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised.
The landlord’s policy on service charges outlines that the types of charges which can be applied includes ground maintenance charges. This relates to the provision of maintaining land around the neighbourhood where residents live.
In July 2021, the resident raised concerns about the grounds maintenance part of her service charge. She reported that she did not think she should be subject to this charge as she did her own gardening. The landlord responded that the charge was to cover the cost for maintaining communal open spaces. It clarified that this area may not be directly outside of the resident’s property but that the cost was split between all properties in the area. The Ombudsman considers this response to be appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 28 April 2022 the resident enquired what the extra charges on her rent account comprised of. The landlord responded on the same day that she was charged £1.07 per week for grounds maintenance and 35p per week for management charges. This shows that the landlord was responsive and provided further clarity about her service charges.
Overall, the landlord clearly communicated with the resident about the grounds maintenance charges and responded to her in a timely manner. Its response is viewed as fair, and the grounds maintenance charge is in line with its policy. As such, no maladministration has been identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that her signature was forged on her tenancy agreements.

The resident reported that she did not recall signing her tenancy agreements and believed that the landlord had forged her signature. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether forgery occurred. However, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the concern raised and whether this was reasonable.
The resident reported to the landlord that her surname had been written over by the landlord for her tenancy agreement dated 1999. Given the lapse of time since this tenancy agreement, the Ombudsman would expect the resident to have raised this matter with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe of it arising.
The Ombudsman notes that at the time the resident’s surname was changed, there was no landlord-tenant relationship as the landlord did not take over the property until 2003. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have responded to this aspect of the complaint.
However, the landlord investigated this matter and found that the resident informed its landlord in 2000 that she was reverting to her maiden name. As such, systems were updated to reflect this. The landlord advised that her name being written over on the tenancy agreement was standard practice at the time. Although the landlord would not be expected to respond to this matter, its response was reasonable and provided clarity.
The resident raised further concerns that her signature on her other tenancy agreements had been forged by the landlord, as she did not recall signing them. The landlord responded that it had no evidence to suggest any forged signatures or fraudulent activity. It continued that the matter was not raised at the time the tenancies commenced which suggested that it was not an issue at the time. This was an appropriate response. Further, the Ombudsman has not identified any detriment caused to the resident. It is evident that her tenancies were active during this time.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she has been overcharged rent.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she has been charged grounds maintenance for services not received.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that her signature was forged on her tenancy agreements.