Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Network Homes Limited (202203034)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203034

Network Homes Limited

February 2023

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries concerning her rent payments.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, since February 2009. Her daughter, who is nominated as her lasting power of attorney for finances and property, has been acting on her mother’s behalf during the landlord’s complaint procedure and the referral of the complaint to this Service.
  2. In December 2021, the resident reported that she had informed the landlord that she believed she had been making incorrect payments towards her rent, as she was in receipt of full housing benefit. The resident had been paying £57 a month towards the service charges which were not eligible to be covered by her housing benefit payments. Her rent account was in credit of £1,156.49 as of 4 January 2022.
  3. During January 2022, the resident requested a refund from the landlord, of the credit that was in the rent account, and was dissatisfied when it informed her it would retain a week’s rent in the rent account, as per its policies. She requested evidence of this policy, which the landlord provided, but she disputed the legality of this. It informed her that refunds can take up to six weeks to process, but that it would start the process and the matter would be dealt with urgently.
  4. The resident chased the landlord on 1 March 2022, as it had been more than 30 days since the landlord had reportedly pledged to refund her the amount of £1,156.49. She further expressed that she wished to formally complain, that the landlord was “keeping her money” despite it informing her on 7 January 2022 that the money would be refunded within 30 days. The landlord apologised for the delay of its response and explained it had needed to communicate with other departments. The landlord further explained that following the cancellation of her £57 a month standing charge to cover service charges, she would need to pay £14.39 a month to cover these service charges. It also reiterated that, as stated in its policy, it would withhold one week’s rent from its refund.
  5. On 17 March 2022, the landlord provided a response to a complaint that the resident had made outside of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 8 March 2022. It apologised for the delays, and any inconvenience caused to her. It confirmed it would only withhold the amount of a week’s rent, due to her vulnerabilities and good payment history, despite the fact that that it would usually retain the amount of a full month’s rent in a rent account. It apologised that it had taken three months to solve the matter. The landlord also signposted her to its formal complaint procedure and informed her she would need to make a formal complaint before approaching this Service.
  6. In the resident’s stage one complaint of 17 March 2022, she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not yet refunded her, and that it would be withholding a week’s rent from the refund amount. She reported that she had “been lied to” by the landlord, as she believed the money was in the process of being refunded during this time.
  7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 1 April 2022 confirmed her standing order of £57 a month had been cancelled as of 6 December 2021, and a new standing order of £3.32 a week had been set up to cover service charges. It apologised for any confusion that it had caused, but assured the resident that all payments on her rent account were accounted for and provided the resident with statements of her full rent account since March 2010.
  8. The landlord also confirmed that a payment of £749.31 had been submitted on 7 March 2022, to be paid into the resident’s bank account, but that this would take approximately 30 working days to process, as checks needed to be carried out, to ensure there was no overpayment. The landlord also confirmed that there was a housing benefit over-payment of £129.48 showing in the resident’s rent account, as an explanation of why it was not refunding this amount to her.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 1 April 2022, and questioned “where are all the £57 payments that [I] ha[ve] been making”. She further said that there had been an “extreme underestimate of the amount [the landlord] say[s] is due as a refund”. She also said that she had raised this complaint to the police and to her member of parliament.
  10. Prior to the landlord providing the resident with a final stage response, it provided her with a full rent summary of the previous five years and confirmed that the refund of £749.31 had been processed. She confirmed that she had received this on 7 April 2022. She further stated that she had paid £9,943.88 to the landlord since 31 March 2010, but had paid more as her tenancy had started in February 2009. She disagreed with the conclusion of the landlord’s calculations regarding its refund to her.
  11. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 10 May 2022 maintained that all payments were accounted for, and that the refund of £749.31 was correct, as £129.48 of the money in her rent account has a housing benefit over-payment. It also confirmed it had withheld £251.14, which was approximately one week’s rent, in line with its policies. It stated it had been as transparent as possible and invited the resident to contact it, to review any specific errors she identified in the rent statements.
  12. On 12 May 2022 the resident’s member of parliament referred her complaint to this Service. The resident had previously complained to her member of parliament on 10 April 2022 regarding the refund and had specified that she had bank statements showing a payment of £9,943.88 to the landlord since 31 March 2010, which she wanted assistance in retrieving from the landlord.
  13. The resident provided this Service with lasting power of attorney evidence on 5 July 2022. She further complained on 4 August 2022 that she was dissatisfied that the landlord was still receiving her direct debit of £3.32 a week, as the illegible service charge that she was required to pay, had been removed on 4 April 2022.

Reasons

  1. Under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge.
  2. The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of her complaint regarding the amount of rent she has paid in subsidiary of her housing benefit payments, since she succeeded her tenancy in 2009, and her request to be refunded £9,943.88 as a result of her reportedly overpaying during this time. However, complaints concerning the level of rent and service charge, fall properly within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to independent legal advice in relation to how to proceed with a case. For this reason, the complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.