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

One Manchester Limited (202216041)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216041

One Manchester Limited

31 August 2023

 

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 landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a court warning letter for rent owed, it’s member of staff’s conduct, and its response to the request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom house.
  2. On 10 March 2022 the landlord served a notice of seeking possession (NSP) on the resident for the arrears on her rent account. It was explained to the resident that this was due to a shortfall in her universal credit payments.
  3. On 19 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she was applying for an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA). On 30 May 2022 and 6 June 2022, she asked her landlord if it had received notification from her IVA company. This service can see that the IVA company made contact with the landlord on 9 June 2022 and the following day, asked the landlord to complete its proof of debt form. The form was completed on the same day.
  4. On 10 August 2022 the landlord sent the resident a court warning letter, giving her three days to sort out her rent arrears. Dissatisfied with this, she complained to the landlord on 12 August 2022 and 15 August 2022. She explained that she had found the letter to be unprofessional and that her circumstances were not being properly handled. She further stated that she felt harassed and bullied and therefore sought compensation for the trauma and anxiety caused to her.
  5. On 24 August 2022 the landlord sent its stage one response. It apologised for its service failures in sending the court warning letter, its lack of communication within its income team and the unprofessional behaviour of its staff member. It pledged to change its IT system so that IVAs would be identified correctly so that letters would not be sent incorrectly in the future. It also stated that system changes would take place to make IVAs visible to all its staff and it would arrange for staff training.
  6. On 16 September 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. She requested that it meets all the proposals set out in its stage one response and offer her compensation of £1,612.62 as redress. The landlord provided its stage two response to her on 21 October 2022. It stated that it would fulfil the promises it made in its stage one response. Also that it would allow the resident to accumulate the five-year waiting period on her housing application, and it offered £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She has advised this service that she seeks an increased compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident had explained in her complaint that the situation caused her trauma and anxiety. While this service does not doubt that this could have been troubling for the resident, it is beyond the remit of this service to establish whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of matters and the resident’s health being adversely impacted. This would be better dealt with by the courts which would be able to rely on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a court warning letter for rent owed, it’s member of staff’s conduct, and its response to the request for compensation.

  1. The landlord’s income recovery policy states that it will initiate the appropriate legal action without undue delay against tenants whose arrears are escalating and who are not engaging with it with due consideration to the Court’s Protocol.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will fully investigate all complaints made about its services and staff. Also that complaints will be acknowledged, recorded, and monitored.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make a payment for inconvenience and distress where it is responsible for a service failure.
  4. Although the landlord had stated that it had been added to the IVA as an additional creditor on 16 August 2022, in this services opinion it should still have not sent the court warning letter to the resident prior to this. This is as there was no reason for the landlord to pursue the resident with an IVA in place. The evidence shows that the resident had made considerable effort to notify it about her application for an IVA, as a way to deal with her rent arrears. The resident had first informed the landlord she was applying for an IVA on 19 May 2022. She chased it again on 30 May 2022 and 6 June 2022 to confirm that she had entered into an IVA. Moreover, her IVA company also contacted the landlord on 9 and 10 June 2022 to confirm the details of the agreement.
  5. Despite all these actions though, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the correspondence or update its internal records. This was unreasonable of the landlord as it led to it sending the court warning letter in error. The resident had clearly made repeated attempts to engage with it so that she could avoid any legal action taken against her. She stated that the letter caused her trauma and anxiety. It was clear that she would have been caused distress and inconvenience from receiving the court warning letter because it threatened her with eviction. It is noted that the landlord did not have a specific process for dealing with IVA’s at this time, however the situation could have been avoided and only arose because it failed to update its records. It acted inappropriately in the circumstances.
  6. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged its failings, stating that the resident should not have been issued a court warning letter due to the IVA that was in place. As this service would expect, the landlord subsequently took steps to ‘put things right’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’. It stated that it had learned from its service failure and would implement changes to prevent a repeat of the situation from arising in the future. It would seek to do this by:
    1. requiring a change in its IT system, specifically for IVAs requested, so that they would be identified correctly and letters not sent.
    2. carrying out a full process review on how to deal with IVAs.
  7. The landlord’s response was appropriate, as it demonstrated that it had learned from its mistakes and made changes to prevent future recurrence. Also, it took appropriate action by setting up an IVA sub-account and transferring the resident’s rent arrears balance to it on 8 September 2022, to reflect the agreement that was in place. It had appropriately recognised the negative impact that the letter had on the resident and acted to prevent this reoccurring.
  8. The resident had additionally complained about the landlord’s member of staff, stating that they had not been professional. She had requested that her case be dealt with by a different member of staff and for the landlord to communicate her situation to the whole of its income team. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised in its stage one response. It stated that it had arranged for the training required across its whole team to update everyone’s understanding of IVAs and how to professionally deal with customer enquiries. These proactive actions demonstrate that the landlord had learned lessons from this case and had tried to put things right. However, the landlord should have provided a specific answer to the resident’s request to have another member of staff deal with her case. It should have demonstrated in clearer terms how it had investigated the allegation made against its staff member and then communicated the findings to the resident. This would have been a more appropriate action.
  9. The resident has requested £1,612.62 compensation for the landlord’s failings. The landlord responded to this request by offering the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture in its final response. This service’s remedies guidance sets out amounts of £50 to £100 for minimal failings of short duration and as such, does not agree that the landlord has proportionately compensated the resident. Although the failings may have had minimal impact on the resident, both the distress and inconvenience she was caused, and the time and trouble she took to contact the landlord was not taken into account. The landlord did not adequately investigate or address her concerns regarding its member of staff, or her compensation request. Taking into account all of the above, a finding of service failure has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its decision to issue the resident with a court warning letter for rent owed, it’s member of staff’s conduct, and its response to the request for compensation.

Orders

  1. The landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in addition to the £100 already offered.
    2. provide the resident with a formal apology in writing for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above, within four weeks of receiving this determination.