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

Moat Housing Group Limited (202001648)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001648

Moat Housing Group Limited

27 January 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 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 regarding:

  • administration of the rent account
  • staff conduct
  • cutting trees, branches and vegetation

Jurisdiction

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.

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

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding cutting trees, branches and vegetation

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that:

 

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’

 

As no evidence has been provided that these complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, they are not ones this Service can investigate. The complaint about the administration of the rent account is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of an housing association.
  2. The lease outlines the obligations for the landlord and leaseholder, including the obligation for the leaseholder to make payments in advance on the first day of each month, and to make payments in accordance with clauses 4(2) and 3(4).
  3. The landlord’s Income Collection Policy defines arrears as “debts owed to us by a leaseholder when payments have not been made under the terms of the lease.” The policy outlines the steps it takes if it considers action for arrears is necessary. Formal judgements as to breach of lease for arrears are only after a prior process and as a last resort.
  4. Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 outlines a leaseholder’s right for summaries of service charge accounts for accounting years to be certified by qualified accountants.
  5. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure after an informal ‘Quick Resolution’ stage. At Stage 1, response is within 28 days, and complaints can be escalated within 28 days, for Stage 2 response within 21 days.
  6. The landlord’s Compensation Policy outlines the circumstances in which it awards compensation, such as for service failure and time and trouble in relation to a service failure.

Summary of events

  1. In February 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about the landlord’s accounting practices and annual statement of account, including an error in the resident’s name.
  2. It is not disputed that on 4 March 2020 the landlord issued its Stage 1 response:
    • It apologised for a name error on the statement and amended records.
    • It provided a statement in the correct name, and provided a ‘statement of account’ from 2011 to the present.
    • It explained the term “arrears” show on the annual statement where debits were applied when the account had insufficient credit to be at zero balance or above. It noted the account was generally brought into credit by the 6th of each month but suggested payment options to ensure at time of debits the account was at zero balance or in credit.
    • It referred to the lease obligation to make payments in advance on the first day of each month.
    • It stated its accounts are accurate and does not consider it uses the term “arrears” incorrectly or unlawfully.
  3. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord the same day. He complained about errors in the ‘statement of account’ dating from 2011, including missing credits from insurers during insurance claim periods. He requested an independently verified set of accounts. He queried the period required for payment.
  4. On 9 March 2020 the landlord provided a follow up to its Stage 1.
    • It explained once an insurance claim is underway, debits are adjusted to only show the part of the debit the resident is responsible for paying. On resolution of an insurance claim the full debit is applied again to reflect what the resident is then responsible for paying. It explained it had not removed monies from the account but simply amended the debit to clarify what the resident was responsible for paying.
    • It explained that ideally, when making payments the resident should allow sufficient time for the landlord to receive payments and apply them to the resident’s account for the first day of the month. It explained if this was not possible, the account would show in arrears and letters would be issued chasing outstanding amounts.
    • It restated previous payment options and also suggested setup of a Direct Debit, which would ensure payment is requested in a suitable amount of time and processed onto the account on the first of the month.
  5. Following this, on 27 April 2020 the resident requested escalation of the complaint. He claimed irregularities and missing monies relating to periods when there were insurance incidents. He also complained about accounts not being signed off by an independent chartered accountant.
  6. On 27 May 2020 the landlord issued its final response:
    • It explained all correspondence was reviewed and it was unable to address new matters.
    • It noted the resident rejected the landlord’s response to his complaint but only detailed dissatisfaction with the account and statements, so it would address those points.
    • It stated there was no obligation for individual customer accounts to be signed off, or to show insurer payments that had been made.
    • It clarified rent was due on or before the first day of every month and noted payment options had been offered.
  7. In June 2020 the resident’s representative complained, in response to which the landlord referred to its May 2020 response. In November 2020, the resident complained again. He complained about payments labelled as arrears in a ‘Statement of Account’ dated 31 October 2020. He complained he made payments in line with lease and that for the period July to November 2020, the landlord’s bank received payments up to two days before the first date of the month. The landlord concluded that although new accounting periods were mentioned, they were the same issues responded to in its 27 May 2020 response, now being reviewed by this Service.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman from June 2020 and in further correspondence in December 2020, the resident asked this Service to investigate all complaints from 2015 to date, to assess the landlord’s complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by its Scheme. This includes that it only investigates complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, and also does not investigate complaints brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than twelve months after. The Ombudsman encourages residents to use their landlord’s complaints procedure for each complaint and if they exhaust this they can ask this Service to investigate. If a resident has difficulty progressing a specific complaint, they can contact the Ombudsman and the Service can consider if it needs to intervene.
  2. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as an arrears breach in the same way as the courts, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and the lease agreement, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
  3. In regards to the landlord’s response to claimed missing payments, it explained only payments for which the resident is responsible for are shown, and there was no obligation to show certain payments made to the landlord. This Service has not seen evidence or reasons to support that this response is unreasonable.
  4. The landlord explained its use of the label “arrears.” There is no evidence the landlord acts out of line with the law, lease or policies in its internal administrative approach to process service charge payments. It is reasonable the landlord may require time to process some payments, which the landlord says it does “in a timely manner from receipt of the payment.” The landlord provided options to the resident, and set his expectations about being subject to chasing correspondence up until the account is updated, although there has been no mention such correspondence is received or of significant adverse effect.
  5. The landlord’s response was reasonable for a request for a statement of account to be certified by an independent chartered accountant. While this can be a requirement for periodic accounts, there is no evidence this is a requirement for individual customer statements here.
  6. The resident raises further points of dissatisfaction following the landlord’s final response, which this Service is unable to consider as its investigation is limited to the period up until the final response in May 2020. If the landlord’s complaint responses posed further questions, the resident has the right to submit new enquiries, along with supporting evidence about how he is disadvantaged if he feels this is the case. The resident then has the right to submit a complaint to the landlord if he is dissatisfied with its response.
  7. Overall, this Service has not seen sufficient evidence or reasons to support that the landlord’s response to the complaint was unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding administration of the rent account

Reasons

The landlord has appropriately responded to the resident’s complaints. In addition, there is no evidence to support the resident’s position that the landlord’s administration of the rent account is unreasonable.