Midland Heart Limited (202011784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011784

Midland Heart Limited

21 December 2021

 


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.

Complaint

  1. The resident has complained about:
    1. An overpayment of Housing Benefit (HB).
    2. The landlord’s handling of the administration of his tenancy agreement (TA).
    3. The landlord’s handling of his associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

 

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

 

  1. An overpayment of HB.

 

  1. The resident raised a complaint about a £25,000 overpayment of HB after the final response from the landlord on 5 January 2021, this is a matter for the Housing Benefit service at the Council in the first instance. The resident may be able to appeal an overpayment at the first-tier tribunal. Complaints about the handling of housing benefit claims may also fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, any complaint elements that relate to the HB overpayment are outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman and will not be addressed in this report.

 

  1. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further, he would in the first instance need to refer these matters to the relevant bodies or the LGSCO. Any reference to the overpayment issue in this report is for context only.

 

  1. This report will therefore only address and determine the remaining complaints about the landlord’s handling of the administration of his tenancy agreement and its handling of his associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Matrix indicates that for administrative failure, based upon impact to a resident, the landlord should award between £35 and £70. The Matrix states that there is a maximum of £100 payable if service error causes upset and inconvenience.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 March 1986 the resident signed a sole TA with Midland Heart Limited (the landlord) of which we have been provided with a copy. This document does not reference any other tenant and is not a joint tenancy. 
  2. On 23 June 2020, according to the resident’s complaint form under the internal complaints policy (ICP), the resident requested that the landlord provide him with a copy of an alleged joint secure TA, as he had been informed previously that he was a joint tenant with his brother. According to the landlord’s evidence in its investigation report, on 26 June 2020 there was telephonic contact between the resident and the landlord’s customer ‘hub’, during which the resident explained that due to a relationship – breakdown his brother would vacate the property where he resided with his brother.
  3. The landlord was informed on 8 July 2020 that the resident’s brother had moved out of the property, thereby leaving the resident as the sole occupant.
  4. On 23 July a Notice Seeking Possession (NoSP) was issued to both the resident and his brother however the NoSP was subsequently withdrawn.
  5. The TA in the resident’s sole name was sent in a letter dated 28 July 2020., The landlord admitted it had been in error to consider him a joint tenant previously. According to the landlord’s evidence in its investigation report, between 15 and 28 July, this TA was being checked by the landlord’s staff so as to ensure the landlord could ‘accept it’. During this period the resident made at least two attempts by telephone to ascertain the status of his enquiry regarding the TA that he was yet to receive. Only once the TA was found acceptable to the landlord’s staff was it then sent to the resident on 28 July.
  6. On 31 July 2020 the resident requested that the landlord discuss or explain its TA error; he also wished to reach some sort of agreement: at this stage rent arrears were accumulating due to a housing benefit reduction resulting from his brother no longer being in residence at the property.
  7. At this date the resident also requested a referral to the landlord’s money advice service (‘Money Wise’).
  8. When the resident spoke on 4 August 2020 with the landlord’s staff as to his request for a referral to Money Wise, he referred to his rent arrears issue, the TA error, and the fact that he had been informed that he was or would be no longer eligible for full / sufficient benefits to cover the full rent.
  9. When the resident on 8 September 2020 attended for an appointment with Money Wise, he stated that he was unwilling to sign or submit any statement which would have recognised his brother as ever having been a joint tenant.
  10. An appointment that the resident booked for the following day was missed by the landlord’s staff.
  11. On 9 September 2020 the landlord’s Money Wise service wrote to the resident regarding the need to complete a change of circumstances form regarding his benefit entitlement now his brother had left the property, but the resident refused to do so until the issues with the errors relating to his TA had been resolved.
  12. On 11 September 2020 a solicitor from Shelter wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf regarding the error with his TA and the NoSP, issued on 23 July 2020. The letter referred to outstanding arrears on the resident’s rent account amounting to of £355.44. 
  13. On 16 September 2020 the landlord emailed a link to its Complaints Handling Policy (CHP) to the resident and on 28 September the resident contacted the landlord requesting a copy of the CHP via email or post. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 October 2020 including contact details for the third-party provider who produces paper copies of the CHP advising him that £10.00 postage was payable for a paper copy of the policy. 
  14. On 30 September the landlord noted again that the issue with his tenancy agreement was due to human error, as the resident and his brothers’ details had been input into its electronic database which resulted in his records showing as a joint TA not sole, and that this had now been amended. The landlord also noted that the NoSP should be re-served to the resident solely, this was actioned on 20 November 2020. The landlord recorded the resident’s arrears at that time as £1015.28 with a 4-weekly shortfall of £199.00.
  15. On 9 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord regarding their initial letter to him regarding the error with the TA dated 28 July 2020, the resident also referred to the landlord’s failure to arrange an appointment for him with Money Wise that had been previously promised and delaying in progressing his concerns since 7 September 2020. On 19 October 2020 the resident completed a change of circumstances form. The Housing Benefit service then asserted that the resident had received an overpayment of approximately £25,000 of HB in respect of the period April 2006 and June 2020. The resident refers to this matter in his complaint to the Ombudsman. 
  16. On 2 November 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord listing his complaint points. The landlord accepted the resident’s complaint and on 3 November 2020 its investigation began, and a final response was issue to the resident on 27 November 2020 upholding that complaint. The resident challenged the outcome of the first stage complaint on 9 December 2020 listing the key areas where he felt there had not been any resolution. These points included failing to identify the manual input error regarding his TA showing the resident as a joint tenant rather than sole, delay in issuing a copy of their CHP and the negative impact the resident said the manual input error had on his benefit entitlement resulting in an overpayment of HB. 
  17. On 5 January 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s escalated complaint supporting their original decision to uphold the complaint and offer £140.00 compensation. The compensation was for the error on the NSP – £35.00, the admin error on internal systems- £70.00 and delays in receiving the complaints policy £35.00.
  18. The resident submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 March 2021 with a further follow up submission on 17 March 2021. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to fully investigate his complaint regarding the manual input error on his TA, that the landlord had unduly delayed in providing him with a copy of their CHP, and that their poor handling of his case had resulted in what he says was a significant overpayment of HB. 
  19. On 13 May 2021 Money Wise acting on behalf of the landlord wrote to the benefit service regarding the £25,000 overpayment of HB on the resident’s behalf and asked that any recovery action be stalled until an appeal outcome was forthcoming. This overpayment and any action taken or not taken by the benefit service is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.  

Assessment and findings

Administration of the resident’s TA

  1. The landlord fully accepts that there was an error when the resident’s TA details were manually input in that he had been marked as a joint tenant with his brother, when in fact he is a sole tenant. Following the residents’ complaint to the landlord on 26 June 2020 that error was corrected on 23 July 2020, and a copy of his original tenancy agreement was issued to him at that time. I am satisfied that the landlord took swift action to resolve the error once it had been identified.  
  2. In both the landlords first and second investigation response (issued to the resident on 27 November 2020 and 5 January 2021 respectively) they acknowledged human error when manually inputting details of his TA, and had since been corrected, and that this formed part of the overall compensation awarded to the resident amounting to £140.00 (£70.00 of this overall figure was awarded for the manual input error regarding the residents’ TA). As stated above, the error was addressed quickly, and a copy of his original TA showing his correct status as a sole tenant was issued, appropriate compensation was also offered in both responses to the resident’s complaint – except by reference to the considerable inconvenience, frustration, and distress that the resident suffered.
  3. Moving on to the residents’ allegation that the error caused him financial detriment in that an HB overpayment of £25,000 occurred which was identified once he had completed a change of circumstances for the housing benefit service. Although the overpayment itself and how it came about is outside of the scope of this investigation, the landlord via its Money Wise service did prompt the resident to complete a change of circumstances form regarding his current HB entitlement and following his appeal they also wrote on his behalf on 13 May 2021 asking that recovery action be stalled.

The handling of the residents associated complaint

  1. The Landlord sent the resident a link to its CHP online on 16 September 2020, however he requested a copy of the CHP again on 28 September via email or in paper form due to the resident being unable to access the link provided in the landlord’s previous email sent on 16 September. The landlord initially advised the resident to contact its provider who would send a hard copy of the complaints policy and he would be required to pay £10 postage. The landlord subsequently sent the policy to the resident via email.  The landlord explained that as its policy is freely available on-line it charges residents when it has to send a copy by post.
  2. Not all residents have access to a computer or are able to access a policy online therefore the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable for a landlord to charge a resident £10 postage for a copy of its CHP. Although in this case it seems the resident was sent a copy via email and therefore no charge was made, I recommend the landlord reviews its practice of charging postage to residents who may not have access to a computer and may be on a limited income. 
  3. The landlord acknowledged that there was some delay in issuing a copy of the CHP to the resident and £35.00 was awarded for that element of the complaint, which is reasonable redress.
  4. The landlord fully accepts that the NoSP issued in both the resident and his brother’s name on 23 July 2020 was an error, and it was withdrawn.  The error did have a significant impact on the resident. The NosP issued 21 July 2020 served 23 July 2020 was withdrawn only after a challenge from the resident’s legal advisors on 11 September 2020 when the landlord was informed it had not acted in accordance with the TA. The landlord’s offer of compensation in its complaint responses dated 27 November 2020 and 5 January 2021 of £35.00 alone did not have regard to distress, frustration and inconvenience that the resident suffered cumulatively. 
  5. Although it is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to escalate his complaint to formal review stage in its final response dated 5 January 2021, following his escalation request on 9 December 2020, I am satisfied that the landlord properly considered the resident’s complaint before concluding that the outcome would not alter at formal review stage, and chose not to escalate the matter further. 
  6. The landlord concluded that the error with the TA had been amended and the other points of complaint raised in the resident’s correspondence had been fully addressed and resolved. The matter of the overpayment was being considered by the housing benefit service at the Council. Whilst the resident’s disappointment is evident, I am satisfied the landlord acted reasonably by reviewing the complaint, addressing the issues, and offering reasonable redress for its service failings – apart from with respect to the absence of any recognition of the distress, frustration, and inconvenience that the resident suffered as aforementioned.
  7. A separate award for distress and inconvenience is appropriate, having regard to both the Ombudsman Remedies Guidance and the Landlord’s own compensation matrix, which provides that an award of up to £100 is appropriate. In the circumstances described above the Ombudsman finds that there was no reasonable redress with respect to the absence of any award for distress and inconvenience and an order will be made in line with this.

Determination (decision)

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the administration of the resident’s tenancy agreement (TA).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. Whilst the landlord identified the error with the residents TA fairly swiftly after it was brought to its attention by the resident upon learning of it in May / June 2020, the compensation offered did not reasonably consider the inconvenience, distress and frustration caused by the issuing of the NoSP.

 

  1. The landlord apologised for any delay in issuing a copy of the CHP to the resident and fully explained its reasons as to why it chose not to escalate the resident’s complaint to the third, formal review stage given.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay:
    1. £140 as offered in its final response

 

  1. £100.00 for distress, frustration and inconvenience arising cumulatively from the service failure identified above.
  1. The landlord should make payment within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:

 

  1. The Landlord, if it has not already done so, amend its records / documents in the manner in which the Landlord asserted it had already done in its letter of 28 July 2020, to which it also refers in explicit terms in its stage 1 outcome letter dated 27 November 2020.

 

  1. The Landlord considers updating its Compensation Matrix and considers formulating a Compensation Policy document so that both it and residents may readily inform themselves as to the Landlord’s current compensation criteria.