Pine Court Housing Association Limited (202001625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001625

Pine Court Housing Association Limited

23 February 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.

The complaint

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
2. The level of advice and support provided by the landlord to the resident while problems with his rent account were resolved.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He received housing benefit, and, subsequently, universal credit (UC).
In a chronology prepared by the landlord for the resident, it explained that the resident’s claim for Housing Benefit ended in March 2019 and his claim for UC began in April 2019. This switch and the subsequent delay in paying rent resulted in the resident falling into rent arrears. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) made several extra payments to the landlord each month to gradually reduce the arrears. These extra payments appear to have been taken from the resident’s universal credit allowance.
In September 2019 the landlord did not receive any payment (DWP confirmed this was a “skipped payment”). Payments then resumed In October, November and December. During these months two separate payments were made, one to cover the rent (£387.96) and another to contribute towards the arrears (£31.78). From January 2020 onwards, the extra payment that went towards the arrears increased to £63.56 and then £60.65 in February and March. In February the rent and arrears payment were made twice. In April £48.15 extra was paid. The resident’s rent account then went into credit for £238.47 in April 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to contact the resident on 17 April 2020 to advise him to cancel the arrears payment with the DWP, as the arrears had been cleared. The landlord could not reach him so left a voicemail. The landlord left further voicemails on 22 April and 5 May.
On 4 May 2020 the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord. This email was titled “official complaint”. The solicitor said that the deductions taken by the landlord from the resident’s personal allowance had caused him “significant hardship”. The solicitor asked for these deductions to end, and for a refund of the money that had been taken incorrectly.
On 5 May 2020 the landlord responded to the solicitor’s email. It explained that it had requested a refund for the resident. It also said that it would contact the resident to inform him to contact DWP to stop the deductions. It had tried to stop the deductions itself online, by email and by phone, but was unsuccessful.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 May 2020 it contacted the DWP again. It asked for the rent arrears reduction payment to stop. It was advised to inform the resident that DWP would contact him to confirm this request. DWP said that the resident would be contacted through his “journal” (an online record of an individual’s UC claim where you can communicate with DWP and check payments).
On 7 May 2020, the resident received correspondence from the DWP. They told him that they were unable to end the “rent arrears as your landlord initially requested we pay them direct”. They advised the resident to let his landlord know that it needed to give its authority to end the payment.
On 21 May 2020 the resident received the refund that had been agreed by the landlord on 5 May, for £238.47.
On 8 June 2020 the DWP confirmed with the resident that they had “stopped paying rent or service charge arrears”.
On 8 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that another arrears payment had been taken for £75.77. The resident said that this was the landlord’s fault as it had not asked for the payments to be stopped in writing. The landlord said that it was not asked to do this in its conversation with the DWP on 6 May.
On 17 June 2020 the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord. He advised the landlord that the £75.77 that had been deducted as rent arrears in June had caused the resident “further significant hardship”. It asked for a payment to be made to the resident “as a matter of urgency”. It also asked the landlord to provide a breakdown of how it had calculated the previous refund of £238.47.
On 19 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s solicitor. It explained the conversation it had had with the DWP on 6 May. It asked whether the resident had confirmed the request to stop the deductions on his journal. The landlord believed that the DWP were at fault and recommended that the resident contact them to resolve the matter. It also said that it would refund the £75.77 once the payment had cleared on the rent account. It advised that this would take “no longer” than two weeks to process.
The landlord acknowledged the solicitor’s comments about the resident suffering hardship from the issues arising with rent arrears. It said that the resident could utilise its independent welfare rights service where he could seek benefit and debt advice. It also said that it could arrange a referral to a local food bank to help ease his hardship.
It explained how it had calculated the original refund sum of £238.47. According to the landlord this was the amount the “account was in credit in at the time of the issue of the refund”. It had recently sent the resident a statement and said that it could send out another if needed.
On 29 June 2020 the landlord contacted the resident following the involvement of this Service. It explained what had happened since the resident had asked for the rent deductions to stop in May. It advised the resident to confirm on his journal that he wanted the deductions to stop, if he had not done so already. The landlord also sent the resident a copy of his rent statement.
On 8 July 2020 the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord asking for the refund of £75.77 which had been agreed on 19 June. The solicitor said that it had been longer than two weeks and the refund had still not been received.
The solicitor asked to escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaint procedure and for the refund to be paid “immediately”.
The solicitor said that according to DWP UC guidelines, the landlord is responsible for arranging payment adjustments, not the resident. The solicitor also calculated that the landlord’s original refund sum of £238.47 was wrong. The solicitor said that the landlord in fact had owed the resident a total of £452.56. This meant that the landlord still owed the resident £214.09.
On 10 July 2020 the landlord replied to the resident’s solicitor. It explained what it had been told to do by DWP following their conversation in May. However, due to data protection rules it was unable to check whether the resident had confirmed with DWP on his journal that he wanted the rent deductions to stop.
It clarified that on 19 June it had said that it would issue the refund once the payment cleared and was on the rent account. This refund was subsequently made on 29 June, and so was within the two the week deadline.
It offered to go through the resident’s rent statement with him on a video call to help clarify matters. It also said that the rent arrears issue had not previously been raised as a complaint.
When the landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 16 July 2020, it also advised the resident about its tenant complaint advocates. It said that they could help the resident explain his complaint or “just be someone to have a chat with”.
On 20 July 2020 the resident confirmed that £140.03 had been credited into his account.
On 22 July 2020 the landlord contacted the DWP. They confirmed that the arrears payments had been cancelled.
On 29 July 2020 the landlord organised a meeting with the resident.
On 4 August 2020 the landlord held a meeting with the resident. The resident raised concerns, several of which do not form part of this investigation. The resident also said that there had been a lack of communication with the landlord about the arrears deductions. The landlord said that it would need to extend the complaint deadline to September.
On 4 September 2020 the landlord held another meeting with the resident. According to the meeting notes, it was agreed that the landlord owed the resident £113.69. The landlord explained the resident’s rent statements. The resident reiterated that there had been a lack of support from the landlord.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said that from the resident’s complaint it had identified how it could improve its handling of such cases in the future. It said it would conduct staff training to address it.
It also explained that his rent account had been explained in prior correspondence. It confirmed that another £133.69 would be refunded to the resident which was “as a result of the reconciliation of rent charged and payments received” in August 2020. It confirmed that the resident’s rent account was “in order” and that the arrears direct payments had “ceased”.
It apologised that the resident felt he had not been supported by the landlord during this period and things were not explained clearly. However, it maintained that “support and advice was provided”.
The landlord advised the resident that he could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if he was not satisfied with this outcome.
On 16 September 2020 the resident escalated his complaint to stage two. He asked: why he had “been refunded over £500”, why the deductions were taken from him, why he never received any support or advice, and why he had not had any answers to his concerns.
When the landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint it again offered advocate support.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It explained the resident’s rent account activity for the preceding 18 months, and how he had become £238.47 in credit. It said that the resident had been refunded because the arrears payments continued even after the arrears had been cleared, which meant the account built up a credit balance.
The landlord explained that these deductions had been requested as the resident had fallen into arrears after a period of no rent being paid. It said that it was the DWP’s decision whether to allow these payments, and to determine the amount. It said that it had provided support and advice for the resident. According to the landlord, “at least five” members of its staff had been involved in providing advice and support when required.
It said that the purpose of this stage two response had been to provide him with answers to his concerns. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

It is clear and understandable that this situation was distressing and confusing for the resident. There was a difference of opinion between the resident and landlord regarding whether the landlord acted appropriately when handling his rent account once it had gone into credit. It is evident that despite contact with DWP in May, further deductions were taken from the resident which put his rent account into credit, and left him in a difficult situation personally. The reason for these further deductions is not clear, and this investigation focusses only on assessing whether the landlord acted reasonably when handling the adjustments of the rent account once the arrears had cleared in April.
Once the landlord knew that the resident’s arrears had been cleared in April 2020 it tried to notify him of this. It could not reach him and left voicemails. Then after being contacted by the resident’s solicitor, it contacted DWP itself to ask them to stop the deductions. The landlord was told that its request had been acknowledged and that the next step would be for the resident to confirm this on his journal. The landlord took immediate action once contacted by the resident’s solicitor in an attempt to resolve the situation. No evidence has been provided for this investigation indicating that there was any other specific action that the landlord could have taken at this stage to ensure the payments stopped. It is reasonable that the landlord acted on the advice of DWP. The landlord notified the resident of the conversation it had with DWP, and advised him to be aware that DWP may contact him to confirm the end of the deductions. The resident’s solicitor later provided the landlord with evidence to indicate that it was responsible for advising DWP of any payment adjustments. The landlord acknowledged what the solicitor had said but maintained that it had contacted DWP and done as instructed.
No other action would have been expected by the landlord at this point to ensure the deductions stopped. As explained by the landlord to the solicitor, due to data protection rules it was unable to check whether the resident had confirmed that it wanted deductions to stop on his journal. Even though there were subsequent deductions after the landlord contacted DWP, the evidence shows this was not a direct result of any inaction by the landlord. Overall, the the landlord acted proportionately and promptly to attempt to resolve the payments problems. It was reasonable for it to be guided in its actions by the advice it received from the DWP.

The level of support and advice provided by the landlord

When the resident’s solicitor first contacted the landlord on 4 May 2020, he made the landlord aware that the deductions had caused the resident “significant hardship”. In the landlord’s response it did not acknowledge this comment but advised the solicitor that it would action the refund as requested. It then took immediate action on 5 and 6 May to address the issue underlying the resident’s situation i.e. the incorrect deductions, by promptly contacting DWP again.
In the landlord’s acknowledgement for his stage one and two complaint, it advised the resident of its tenant advocates who were there to offer advice and support through the complaint procedure. Also, on 19 June 2020, the landlord replied to an email from the resident’s solicitor. It acknowledged that the resident was suffering hardship as a result of the deductions. The landlord suggested that the resident contact its welfare rights service for benefit and debt advice. It also said that it could arrange a referral to a local food bank for the resident. Once the resident made his formal complaint the landlord held three meetings with him to discuss and resolve his concerns.
In light of the above it is evident that the landlord took reasonable and supportive steps to assist the resident, both with the substantive problem, and with the effect it was having on his day-to-day life.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the level of advice and support provided by the landlord.