Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202200206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200206

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

13 July 2022

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 resident’s receipt of arrears letters from the landlord, regarding payments to his service charge accounts.

Background

2. The resident’s complaint concerns his service charge accounts for two properties, for which he is the leaseholder.
3. On 6 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to ask why he had received arrears letters relating to his service charge accounts, as he said his online accounts showed he had no outstanding balances. In response, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s accounts were up-to-date, but that it had not received his payments for them until 2 December 2021, and as they were due the previous day, this had caused the letters to be automatically generated.
4. On 16 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that his bank had told him that his standing order payments had been made from his account on 1 December, despite the landlord saying it did not receive the payments until the following day. It asked the landlord to make further investigations into who was responsible for the delayed payments, and to raise the matter as a formal complaint.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 24 December 2021. It explained that the system responsible for producing the letters should allow a three to five-day tolerance for payments to be processed, but as this was not working as intended, it caused the letters to be generated sooner. It said it had undertaken actions to ensure the resident would not receive such letters going forward, and apologised for the distress caused. It offered the resident £25 compensation for the time and trouble he had been put to in pursing the matter.
6. On the 27 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and said he was dissatisfied with its stage one response. The resident’s main concern was that he believed the landlord had made “a false allegation” by saying that his payments were not received until 02 December, as he believed the landlord should have received these the previous day. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord received this correspondence. The landlord’s records noted that the resident escalated his complaint in a telephone conversation in January 2021 due to receiving another notice of arrears dated 5 January 2022, despite his accounts being up-to-date and despite being told in the stage one response that he would not receive such letters again.
7. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 February 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had received further arrears letters in January and February 2022.  The landlord said that it had misadvised the resident in its stage one response by telling him he would receive no further letters. It said this was because the resident’s account could not be permanently placed on hold to prevent arrear letters being sent out, and that the reason for the arrears letter being sent in February was because the resident’s “cheque” was not applied to his account until 2 February 2021. It advised the resident to set up a direct debit for the 31st or 1st of every month, or to send his cheque sooner to allow it to be processed on time, in order to prevent the issue occurring going forward. It offered the resident £35 compensation; £25 for time and trouble and £10 for poor complaint handling.
8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said he had been misinformed about the dates the landlord had received his payments, and believed the landlord’s response did not address this. He was unhappy that the landlord had referred to him making payment by cheque, as he said he did not pay his account in this way, and also remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation that the landlord offered.
9. After enquiries with this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident in May 2021 and revised its offer of compensation to £150. It awarded £100 for time and trouble, and £50 for its complaint handling due to poor communication and for delivering its complaints responses outside of its usual timeframes.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord has a compensation policy which awards compensation for time and trouble between £51 and £150, for matters that have a medium impact. For poor complaint handling, the resolution starts with an apology but doesn’t specify any specific compensation amounts.
11. A significant part of the resident’s complaint was his dissatisfaction with being sent the arrears letters. He believed his payments were made from his account on time and therefore believed the letters should not have been generated. It is apparent that the landlord was of the position that the resident’s payments were not received or processed until the day after they were due, which caused the system to generate said letters. However, the landlord gave the resident incomplete and inconsistent information regarding his choice of payment method, in response to his complaint, which understandably would have added confusion to the situation.
12. It should first be noted that a bank telling a customer that it made a transfer payment on a certain day does not necessarily mean that the payment was received and processed by its intended recipient on that same day. Transfers can sometimes take longer than a day to be completed, for entirely normal reasons.
13. When discussing receipt of the resident’s payments with him, the landlord used the terms ‘received’ and ‘processed’ interchangeably, but these terms each have implied differences. Processing times can differ for different payments methods, and depending on the specific method, a payment being ‘received’ on a certain day does not necessarily mean it is ‘processed’ on said day. As noted by the landlord during its internal investigations, it said the issue would reoccur unless the resident “makes a payment… in a method that clears and is added to his account before/on the 1st of each month.” It noted that the resident paid his accounts by cheque which “can take a number of days to clear and so there is often a delay in this showing on the account.” In light of this, the landlord would be reasonably expected to provide the resident with correct information about the different payment processing times for different payment methods, with particular focus on the resident’s regular method of payment.
14. The landlord somewhat addressed this in its final response when it recommended that the resident “set up a direct debit for the 31st /1st of each month or send [his] cheque sooner to allow time for it to be processed.” However, the resident explained in his initial complaint that he paid his accounts via standing order (with no mention of paying by cheque), which the landlord did not dispute. It is unclear if the landlord had confused standing orders with cheques in its stage two investigations and response, or whether its investigations showed the resident had sent it a physical cheque at any point. Nonetheless, considering that cheques and standing orders are two distinct payment methods, and given the resident’s complaint clearly concerned his standing order, the landlord’s advice to the resident to send his cheque in sooner, would have understandably caused the resident frustration and a lack of confidence in its response.  The landlord also mentioned payment via cheque, in sole reference to the arrears letter the resident received in February. It did not clarify whether the resident’s choice of payment method had also affected the processing times for payments he made in December 2021 and January 2022. Therefore, the landlord failed to fully address the resident’s concerns in its final response.
15. The £150 compensation the landlord offered the resident was reasonable and proportionate to the complaint handling failures identified by the landlord and by this investigation. The amount is broadly in line with its compensation policy, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint that has had some impact on the complainant which could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Nonetheless, in light of the incomplete and inconsistent information the landlord provided in its final response, further orders have been made to the landlord, which are set out below.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

17. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident with a clear and accurate explanation of how and when his service charge payments were received and processed between December 2021 and February 2022, and provide clear guidance on its policies regarding service charge payments in regard to how long the resident should allow for his payments to be received and processed. The landlord should also apologise for its inconsistent and incomplete responses to the resident’s complaint and enquiries. A copy should be provided to this Service as evidence of compliance with this order.
18. If it has not already done so the landlord should also now pay to the resident the £150 it previously offered. The findings in this report are partly based on the landlord doing so.