Mansfield District Council (202220640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220640

Mansfield District Council

29 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
2. Conduct of the landlord’s staff.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority. The tenancy started on 23 October 2019.
The resident has medical conditions for which she is receiving treatment.
The resident has informed this Service that her husband passed away in December 2023. During the complaint process, the resident and her husband communicated with the landlord. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation, the resident will be referred to as ‘Resident A’ and her husband as ‘Resident B’.

Policies

The landlord’s tenancy agreement stated that the rent and other charges must be paid on time. The resident is responsible for completing and sending in the housing benefit form to the Housing Benefit Service. The resident must pay the rent even if housing benefit is claimed.
The tenancy agreement also states that legal action can be taken to evict the resident from the property if the rent is not paid on time. It informs the resident that if they have difficulty paying rent, assistance could be obtained from it, Shelter or the Citizens Advice Bureau.
The landlord’s rent arrears control policy and procedure states that:
1. Housing benefit issues should be resolved before taking court action or applying for eviction.
2. The circumstances of individual groups will be considered when implementing the procedures.
3. Managed payments should be applied for at the earliest opportunity for residents in receipt of Universal Credit.
4. At the tenancy sign up, the charges should be explained as well as the different payment methods. The resident should inform the income officer if they have financial difficulties.
5. A housing benefit form should be completed during the sign up of the tenancy if the resident is entitled to Universal Credit, otherwise the completion of the form is not required.
6. The resident should be advised to move into the property and that housing benefit will be paid from the date they move in.
7. The Notice of Seeking Possession should be handed to the resident when possible as this gives an opportunity to speak to them to make a payment arrangement. If the resident is not at home, the Notice of Seeking Possession can be served by posting it through the letterbox.
8. Payment arrangements should consist of the rent payment plus an amount to reduce the arrears. Regard should be had to the resident’s income and outgoings.
The landlord’s complaint procedure has 2 stages. Complaints will be answered within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the final stage.

Summary of events

Following the commencement of the tenancy on 23 October 2019, the resident called the landlord to report a blockage to the driveway. The landlord undertook a post tenancy visit on 6 November 2019 and the resident made another report on 12 November 2019 that the garden needed cutting/clearing.
On 12 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the rent liability was £83.02 and the rent account was in arrears of £308.36. The landlord requested that the resident clear the arrears. It also advised that if they were experiencing difficulty, they should make contact as it could offer advice or refer them to its financial inclusion officer.
In response, the resident rang the landlord on 15 November 2019 to advise that a claim for housing benefit had been made and she wanted to know why it was not in payment. The landlord’s records show that the resident was referred to the council’s revenue service.
Three days later on 18 November 2019, the resident called to advise that the claim for housing benefit had been declined and a claim for Universal Credit had been made.
The landlord’s internal notes show that on 21 November 2019, it recorded that the claim for Universal Credit had been made. However, the resident had not moved into the property, therefore, the Universal Credit payment would not be backdated and the resident remained liable for the rent arrears. It noted that Citizens Advice was assisting the resident.
Resident B wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2019 to advise that the problems with Universal Credit had been resolved as his pay information had been provided. The residents had moved into the property on 1 December 2019 as the eviction notice for a previous address ended on 31 January 2020.
On 21 January 2020, the resident’s arrears stood at £972.52. Resident A communicated with the landlord stating that incorrect information was given when she signed for the tenancy regarding the entitlement to housing benefit. The first payment of Universal Credit was received on 24 December 2020. Resident A stated that she was unhappy that the landlord had contacted her to discuss the rent arrears and requested that the landlord provide more time for the arrears to be cleared. The landlord explained that due to the amount of rent arrears owed, it should have already served a Notice of Seeking Possession. In response, Resident B stated that they were confused about their entitlement to benefit and their health problems had added to the confusion. It was agreed that the residents would be referred to the financial inclusion officer.
On the same day (21 January 2020), the landlord applied to Universal Credit for managed payments for the resident. The residents were referred to the financial inclusion officer.
The residents wrote on 2 March 2020 to request for the housing benefit to be backdated to the start of the tenancy. The residents stated that when they attended to sign for the tenancy, they were not informed to apply for Universal Credit. It took 5 weeks before they were aware that they needed to do so.
On 4 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the residents to advise that the arrears on the rent account were £821.64. It advised that it was a breach of the tenancy conditions not to make regular rent payments and it was considering serving a Notice of Seeking Possession. It requested that the residents attend an interview to discuss the available options to clear the arrears.
Resident A rang the landlord on 9 March 2020 to advise that Citizens Advice were no longer assisting them. An appointment was arranged for 13 March 2020 to discuss the rent arrears.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord interviewed the residents at their offices and discussed applying for managed payments from Universal Credit to clear the arrears. It advised that the payments were made 6-8 weeks in arrears and the payments would need to increase. Also, the residents were subject to the under-occupation charge and were informed that they would have to pay any difference between the managed payment and the due rent. In addition, they would have to make a payment towards the arrears. The financial inclusion officer would work with them to help them manage their debts.
The landlord applied for managed payments on 25 March 2020.
There is a gap in communication between the landlord and Resident A until early September 2020. On 3 September 2020, Resident A rang to request that the landlord reduce the amount taken by managed payments. The landlord agreed but informed Resident A that they were responsible for paying the rent and making an additional payment towards the rent arrears.
The landlord wrote to the residents on 9 September 2020. It advised that the account period ran from 18th of each month until the 17th of each month. It advised that a payment was due from Universal Credit which would leave a technical balance of £55.44. It informed the resident that it could make monthly direct debit payments on the 28th day of each month of £359.16 which would include the two-week free periods. It provided a rent statement.
The income officer rang and spoke to Resident A on 11 November 2020. During the conversation, Resident A stated that she was being harassed and bullied by the landlord. In addition, she did not agree with the contents of the recent letter and that she had spoken to Universal Credit who had told her not to pay the rent for the property. Resident A requested a refund of her rent payments as the landlord had failed to give her the correct information when she had signed for the tenancy.
On 16 November 2020, the landlord rang and spoke to Resident B regarding the rent payments. The landlord confirmed that it was no longer receiving managed payments at the residents’ request. The landlord was informed that the residents had other creditors contacting them and that Step Change was involved.
The same day (16 November 2020), the landlord noted that it had assisted the residents with their request for Discretionary Housing Payments.
The landlord communicated with the residents between 4 December 2020 to 10 December 2020. It advised that the rent arrears stood at £1,078.56 and that since the payments from Universal Credit had stopped, it had not received any further payments. Resident B stated that Step Change had submitted an application for Discretionary Housing Payments and that a second claim for Universal Credit had been made on 27 November 2020. The resident maintained that the landlord had deducted payments for the arrears from their Universal Credit without their permission. Resident A later contacted the landlord to advise that Resident B was unwell. In response, the landlord reminded Resident A that rent was considered a priority debt and to consider reapplying for managed payments as it was potentially taking legal action regarding the rent arrears.
The application for Discretionary Housing Payments was made to the council on 31 December 2020.
On 6 February 2021, the council’s revenue service advised the residents that they were not entitled to the Discretionary Housing Payment as their income was too high. If they disagreed with the decision, they could apply for it to be reconsidered.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 19 February 2021, requesting that it reconsider its decision not to change the tenancy date. Though they had signed for the tenancy in October 2019, they had not moved in until January 2020. Though they did not have a lavish lifestyle, they were borrowing money from family and friends, which they never had to do before. Also, they may need to consider moving to smaller accommodation.
The landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession through the residents’ letter box on 11 March 2021. The notice advised that the arrears balance was £1,151.58 and that while it recognised the residents were going through a challenging time, the entire rent was not being paid on time. The last payment received was on 5 March 2021, however the account remained in arrears. It advised the residents to make contact so it could offer support, including referral to its financial inclusion officer.
On the same day (11 March 2021), the landlord spoke to Resident A who advised that she had not paid the rent for several months as Universal Credit had told her not to. She advised that she would contact Universal Credit to obtain an advance payment to reduce the arrears.
Between June 2021 to March 2022, the landlord’s records show that the rent account was monitored. The rent arrears were reducing until November 2021. On 11 January 2022 and 15 March 2022, the landlord rang the residents to discuss the rent account and there was no answer.
The landlord spoke to the residents on 15 March 2022, who advised that they had health conditions and were having difficulty making the payments. Step Change was working with them. The landlord advised that it was minded to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession. The residents responded that they would try and make the monthly payment. The landlord agreed to assist with an application for the Discretionary Housing Payment and a referral to its financial inclusion officer.
Two day later on 17 March 2022, the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession, advising that the arrears on the account stood at £1,632.92. It advised that the notice was active from 18 April 2022 and that possession could be prevented by clearing all the arrears or making a payment arrangement.
The landlord completed the Discretionary Housing Payment form on 22 March 2022.
The landlord spoke to Resident A the following day (23 March 2022). It advised that it had assessed that the residents had sufficient disposal income, therefore it was unlikely they would qualify for the Discretionary Housing Payment. However, the residents could make their own application to the council for this. Resident A explained that their income included Personal Independence Payment and that until she received the outcome from the council on the Discretionary Housing Payment, she was not prepared to pay the weekly rent. In response, the landlord informed Resident A that she was responsible for making payment of the full rent plus a payment towards the arrears otherwise it would progress to court action. The resident stated that the landlord did not understand the situation and had not tried to help them.
Later that day (23 March 2022), the resident agreed to pay £220.18 fortnightly otherwise court action would commence.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the residents referencing the conversations held on 23 March 2022. It stated that it did not accept the reasons given by the resident for the arrears and believed that the resident had given preference to other expenditure rather than paying the rent. The rent account had been checked and the rent payment made was for £220 which was not the agreed amount. The letter went on to say that it hoped future payment was in line with the agreement. Also, as the annual rent increase would commence in April 2022, the resident should increase the fortnightly payment by £20 to reduce the arrears. If the agreement was broken, it would progress to court action without verbal or written warning and this could include court courts of £424.50.
The landlord was informed on 15 July 2022 that Resident B had been discharged from hospital which meant bedding had to be purchased. This had been discussed with the occupational therapist who had advised that the landlord would understand the necessity for the expenditure. In response, the landlord advised that other services could not make agreements regarding the resident’s rent payments and that the payment of rent must be the resident’s main priority. The resident stated that she felt bullied by the landlord and agreed to pay three weeks’ rent the following week and then make the agreed fortnightly payments.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 18 August 2022 regarding the conduct of its staff involved in the management of the rent account. It stated that the contact had been necessary as there were arrears on the rent account. The main findings were:
1. Agreed payment arrangements had been broken. However, on 1 April 2022, it had agreed an extended period for the arrears to be cleared.
2. Its officers had made contact on 6 July 2022 when the expected amount had not been received and no communication was received from the resident.
3. It confirmed that the managed payments that had been collected from Universal Credit had been with the resident’s agreements. Once the managed payments had been cancelled, it had not received payment from the resident which caused the arrears to increase.
4. It explained that Discretionary Housing Payments are used for short term shortfalls in benefit entitlement and not to clear rent arrears.
5. It explained that it had assessed that it was unlikely that the residents would be awarded the Discretionary Housing Payment as the household income was too high. Therefore, it had not made the application on their behalf.
6. It confirmed that during the Covid 19 pandemic, it had not served an eviction warrant. It had served a Notice of Seeking Possession giving the resident an opportunity to clear the arrears.
7. A payment arrangement was in place giving the resident a longer period to clear the arrears. It was not intending to take further action once this was complied with.
8. It had received payment of £116.33 which was lower than the agreed amount.
9. It concluded that it had contacted the resident as the rent paid was not in line with the tenancy agreement and had not found any evidence that its staff had harassed the resident. If their circumstances had changed, contact should be made for this to be reviewed. Finally, the residents should stop making rude and offensive comments when communicating with its staff.
The residents contacted the landlord on 30 August 2022 to advise that they were unhappy with the complaint response.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 September 2020 regarding the complaint response. The resident explained their circumstances, the difficulty they were facing and that Step Change were still involved regarding their finances. The resident stated that the Personal Independence Payments were used to clear their arrears and that when they signed for the tenancy, they were informed that they would receive full housing benefit. In addition, the Notice of Seeking Possession was hand delivered but the officer did not knock on the door. Their neighbours had asked the reason for the visit by the officer and this had caused them stress.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 22 September 2022. It acknowledged that the residents were not disputing that the rent account was in arrears but how they had been spoken to by its officers. It apologised for the distress caused but advised that it had to make contact with residents who had rent arrears in order to prevent the debt escalating. The main findings were:
1. Staff conduct.
  1. It stated that the residents had alleged that its officer had said “I will speak to you how I want as you owe us money”. It acknowledged that the resident was upset by the remark and that it had spoken to the officer who had disputed the resident’s account of the events. It stated that there were two officers on the telephone call at the time and that the conversation had been difficult. It apologised if the conversation had upset the resident and acknowledged the resident’s health conditions.
2. Personal finances.
  1. It acknowledged that Step Change was working with the resident to manage the outstanding rent arrears.
  2. It confirmed that it was usual for deductions to be made from Universal Credit payments to reduce rent arrears.
  3. It stated that the cancellation of the managed payments had contributed to the rent arrears increasing.
  4. It explained that the Notice of Seeking Possession can be hand delivered. It stated that the officer did not knock on the door as she did not need to speak with the resident. Also, as the resident was unwell, it was better not to risk the potential of infection by its officer speaking on the doorstep. It apologised if this had caused upset to the resident.
3. Housing benefit
  1. It apologised if there was a misunderstanding at the start of the tenancy regarding the resident’s entitlement to housing benefit.
  2. It explained that the residents would not be entitled to housing benefit for the period that they were not living at the property. It stated that the residents had decided to undertake decoration works before moving in.

Events after the complaint process

After the complaint process had been exhausted, the following occurred:
1. The resident asked the landlord to review the rent account back to the start of the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that it had followed its processes and it was satisfied with the management of the rent account.
2. The landlord visited the resident on 1 November 2022 with the financial inclusion officer. A payment agreement had been made on 23 March 2022. The resident was informed that if irregular payments continued and the arrears did not reduce, it may serve a Notice of Seeking Possession.
3. The landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession on 23 January 2023 as the arrears outstanding were £1,480.66. The arrears were cleared on 26 January 2023.
4. It is noted that irregular rent payments continued to be made.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

During the course of this investigation, Resident A informed this Service that her husband had passed away. This Service recognises the distress this caused the resident and we have offered our condolences.
The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process and to assess how the landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it followed proper procedure. The available evidence has been considered and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.

The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for paying the rent on time even if housing benefit is claimed to assist with the rent liability. The resident was subject to the under-occupation charge which is payable by social tenants who were born after 1951.
Resident A maintains that the landlord gave inappropriate advice regarding their entitlement to the payment of housing benefit. The resident states that she was led to believe that she would be entitled to full housing benefit. However, the forms completed at the sign up of the tenancy show that the residents completed the form to claim housing benefit and that they were aware that an under-occupancy charge was payable for the property.
While the landlord’s staff can provide their view on the resident’s entitlement to housing benefit, decisions about awards of housing benefit are the responsibility of the council. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to assess the actions of the council in its role as a local authority, including its handling of housing benefit or Universal Credit claims. However, while the applications for housing benefit and Universal Credit were being processed, the residents did not make any payments to the rent account which they were obliged to pay.
The tenancy started on 23 October 2019 and the residents moved into the property on 1 December 2019. This was around 5 weeks after the tenancy started. Though the residents advised that this was due to the eviction notice for their previous property ending on 31 January 2020, they nevertheless remained liable for the rent and there was no obligation for the landlord to waive the rent for this period.
The landlord has evidenced that it took meaningful actions in the management of the rent account. Within 3 weeks of the tenancy commencing, the landlord wrote to the residents to advise that the rent account was in arrears and that these needed to reduce. It also arranged an interview with the residents to discuss the shortfall on the rent account with its financial inclusion officer. Furthermore, it arranged for managed payments from the residents’ Universal Credit and assisted with the application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord to confirm the obligations of the residents and assist with reducing the shortfall.
The landlord acknowledged that the residents had difficulty in managing their finances. Therefore, it was appropriate to signpost them to its financial inclusion officer to assist with identifying their priority and non-priority debts. It also noted that the resident was supported by Citizens Advice and Step Change to help them manage their finances.
Discretionary Housing Payments are administered by the council. The landlord assisted the residents with their claim for the Payment and the council assessed in February 2021 that the resident’s income was too high therefore they did not qualify for the payment. The following year, in March 2022, the landlord helped the residents to complete another application for the Discretionary Housing Payment. This demonstrated that the landlord remained willing to assist in securing the residents any help that was available.
The landlord discussed with the resident before applying for managed payments from their Universal Credit to assist with the payment of their rent and the reduction of the arears. This was a reasonable action by the landlord. While the managed payments were in place, the arrears on the resident’s rent account appeared to reduce. Once the managed payment ceased, the resident’s arrears increased. This indicates that it was appropriate and of assistance for the landlord to use the recourse of managed payments.
The resident stated that she was advised by Universal Credit not to make payments to her rent. This Service has not seen evidence of such advice and it is noted that elements of Universal Credit related to the residents’ housing costs. Furthermore, Step Change was supporting the residents regarding the management of their finances and would usually make clients aware of their priority debts (of which rent payment is one). It is not within the remit of this Service to assess the actions of other organisations in how they have advised the resident about responsibilities for rent payment.
The landlord discussed different payment methods with the resident. It suggested that she could set up a direct debit mandate after the Universal Credit was received to assist the residents with their rent payments. The suggestion was not accepted by the resident.
The resident requested that the landlord change the tenancy date to the date that they moved in. The landlord in its complaint response stated that the residents had not moved into the tenancy immediately as they were carrying out decoration to the property. Based on evidence seen by this Service, following the acceptance of the tenancy, the resident was in contact with the landlord regarding repairs required to the property. The resident did not give any reasons at this point that indicated the landlord was expected to change the start date of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord decision to retain the original tenancy start date was reasonable.
The landlord has served Notices of Seeking Possession to the resident regarding the level of rent arrears. The resident stated that the landlord’s staff did not knock on the door when the notice was hand delivered in March 2021. The landlord’s rent arrears control policy and procedure states that when the Notice of Seeking Possession is served, this should be an opportunity to speak to the resident to make an arrangement to pay. The landlord in its final complaint response acknowledged that the Notice of Seeking Possession was posted through the letter box. It explained it did so as the landlord was aware that the resident was unwell and did not want him speaking with the officer on the doorstep. The landlord also referenced the restrictions bought in by the COVID-19 pandemic.
At that time, in March 2021, the government had introduced contact restrictions advising that in the main people should stay at home. Other restrictions applied with regard to the amount people allowed in open spaces. It is noted that Resident B was also unwell at the time and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider his health and minimise contact when it served the Notice of Seeking Possession.

Conduct of the landlord’s staff

The landlord’s code of conduct states that its staff are expected to act professionally.
The resident has complained that she was misinformed by the landlord about her entitlement to housing benefit when she signed for the tenancy. She alleged that this advice caused her to be in rent arrears. The landlord’s evidence submission to this Service, does not specifically set out the actual advice given to the resident; however, its role was to ensure that the resident was aware that housing benefit could be claimed.
The council assessed that the resident’s income was too high to qualify for the benefit and they were signposted to make a claim for Universal Credit. The landlord, in its role of providing general welfare advice to residents taking up a new tenancy, acted reasonably as it cannot make a determination on a resident’s entitlement to benefit.
The resident stated that she had found the landlord’s contact with her about the arrears to constitute bullying and harassment. The evidence shows contact by letter and phone to inform the residents that the rent account was in arrears. There is no evidence to show that the landlord made contact to the residents outside of these circumstances or that it unnecessarily chased them for payment.
The landlord arranged for managed payments to pay the residents’ rent from Universal Credit and to make a contribution towards the arrears for nine months between January 2020 and September 2020. The arrangement was discontinued following discussion with the resident on the understanding that she would take responsibility for the ongoing rent payment. This action was reasonable.
The landlord was aware that financial advice was being provided to the residents by Step Change. It also discussed the resident’s financial arrangement at an office interview in March 2020. The landlord explained that it had assessed that the residents’ disposable income meant that they would not qualify for the Discretionary Housing Payment. In doing so, the landlord relied on the previous assessment of the resident’s circumstances which was reasonable.
The landlord informed the resident that they remained responsible for the under-occupation charge and the outstanding rent arrears. These were reasonable actions to ensure that the residents were informed about their rental liability and options available to them. The landlord also recognised that the residents were receiving advice from Step Change and so reasonably understood that they were receiving appropriate financial advice.
However, the landlord’s communication displayed a lack of sensitivity when it became aware that Resident A had purchased bedding following the hospitalisation of Resident B. The landlord stated that Resident A should not have relied on the information from Occupational Therapist and reminded her that her rent was a priority debt. Additionally, its letter of 1 April 2022 advised the resident that as there was a 18p shortfall on the payment arrangement, it would proceed without notice to legal action if the situation reoccurred. This showed a lack of consideration of Resident B’s health condition as he had recently been hospitalised and it did not evidence that it checked the extent of the Occupational Therapist involvement. The letter appeared to be heavy handed and did not show the empathy or discretion that it had available to it.
Through the complaints process, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about a specific telephone conversation. It stated that it had spoken to the officer complained about but it did not listen to the call recording which would have ascertained the content of the actual conversation complained about. While it offered its apology to the resident for the distress caused, it did not take the opportunity to review all the correspondence sent to the resident regarding the management of the rent account.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the conduct of its staff.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it managed the resident’s rent account appropriately. Once arrears had accrued, it communicated with the resident to agree the managed payment to reduce the rent arrears. It acted appropriately to ensure that the resident was aware of the amount of arrears outstanding on the account and took steps to work with her to address this.
Overall, the landlord’s staff communicated effectively with the resident. However, on occasion, its communication did display a lack of sensitivity and it missed an opportunity to listen to the call recording of a conversation between the resident and its staff. Further, it did not review the written communication sent to the resident following a small shortfall in the rent paid to the account.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the services failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its communication failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.