South Liverpool Homes Limited (202221149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221149

South Liverpool Homes Limited

28 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s succession of her mother’s tenancy and associated rent arrears.
2. Handling of the resident’s benefit support needs.
3. Handling of the boiler inspection at the property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold starter tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is aware of health vulnerabilities for the resident, her autistic son, and her father who also lives at the address.
The rent for the property was £95.68 per week with an additional service charge of £4.25 per week for a lift at the property. The resident informed this Service that the landlord was not including the service charge due to ongoing repair needs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Its policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and send its complaint response within 10 working days. If a resident is not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, the complaint can be escalated to its stage 2 complaints review panel. At this stage the landlord will provide a full response to the resident within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that when a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. When it would unreasonably delay the response, the issues raised will be logged as a new complaint.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets guidelines for discretionary compensation. The policy states that £50 to £100 can be considered for a customer who has been worried, distressed and / or inconvenienced due to the landlord’s service or policy failure.
The landlord’s compliance policy states whilst completing a gas safety check if the registered engineer discovers an appliance is faulty or in need of a repair it would rectify if practicable to do so. Otherwise it would make safe. This could include isolating a faulty appliance or the incoming gas feed. The engineer would arrange a follow up appointment whilst at the resident’s home.
The landlord’s compliance policy also states that the landlord will install carbon monoxide alarms (CO) to all properties and will test those alarms during the annual gas safety check and replace if defective.
The landlord’s income management procedure explains its arrears recovery process. It has a four stage arrears process where its communication requirements and letters will escalate depending on the level of rent owed by a resident. Rent arrears of under £400 can expect to receive a notice of seeking possession (NSP). The landlord will issue a NSP by hand to ensure the resident knows the reason the NSP had been served and try to reach an agreement to reduce the arrears.
The landlord’s income management policy details its free and confidential welfare advice service available to residents. It states that this service is particularly promoted to residents who have fallen into arrears. The purpose of this advice service is to support residents to improve their financial situation and maximise their income.
The landlord’s succession procedure states that following a death notification of a tenancy holder, it will aim to visit an occupant at the property who has requested to succeed the tenancy within 24 hours. The landlord will request supporting documents from the occupant to commence the succession investigation. This will include a copy of death certificate, proof of income and proof of residency. The procedure also states that the landlord will explain the need to claim benefits or make a payment arrangement to cover the charges for the property. At this stage this is known as damages for trespass or use and occupation rather than rent.
The landlord’s succession and assignment procedures says how it manages rent arrears. It says that if the successor was not a joint tenant, then the landlord will advise that other successors to clear any outstanding arrears from the deceased’s estate.

Summary of events

On 27 July 2022 the resident’s mother died. Her mother was the tenancy holder for the property.
On 3 August 2022 the resident gave the landlord a copy of the death certificate.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident. The resident said that she wished to succeed the tenancy. The landlord explained that it was required to complete some paperwork and that a visit could wait until after the funeral but it would be better to visit to start the paperwork as soon as possible. It made reference that benefits would need to be reviewed as housing benefit entitlement covering the rent charge ended on the death of the resident’s mother. In agreement with the resident an appointment was arranged for 8 August 2022. The landlord advised it would refer her to its in house benefits advice team.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord visited the property as arranged. It recorded that:
1. It had provided advice to the resident about its “left in occupation” procedure.
2. It explained that its officer had been allowed into the property but not upstairs.
3. It explained the need for the resident to claim benefits now that her mother’s housing benefit had stopped. It advised the resident of the monthly charge.
4. It advised that a Universal Credit (UC) benefit claim may be reduced by £50 per month [due to her father living at the property].
5. That a call had been made by its benefits advice team who completed a benefit entitlement calculation for the resident. It arranged to contact her again on 10 August 2022 to help claim UC. The resident advised that this day was most convenient for her due to funeral arrangements.
On 10 August 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident as arranged to help claim UC. It explained that there would be a 5 to 6 week wait for the first UC payment. The landlord advised the resident that “as the tenancy was not in her name, she would have to ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) if it was willing to pay the rent within her UC claim…” She would also need to make a request to the DWP for the payments to be backdated. The landlord recorded that the resident was concerned that her existing benefits would stop immediately and leave her with no money. After further discussion, it was agreed that the landlord would call the resident after her mother’s funeral to enable her to receive further payments from tax credits and income support.
On 11 August 2022 the landlord hand delivered a Notice to Quit (NTQ) to the property to end the tenancy of the resident’s deceased mother. The notice required possession of the premises “on or before Monday 12 September 2022 or at the expiry of the tenancy next after the end of 4 weeks from the service of the notice…” The copy of the notice provided to this Service was not signed by the landlord.
On 12 August 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. The MP advised that she was aware that the resident wished to succeed her mother’s tenancy but had received a NTQ. The landlord replied to the MP the same day and explained that it was a legal formality to end her mother’s tenancy. It advised that it had called the resident to reassure her. The landlord apologised to the resident if the letter caused concern. It explained that it was a procedural process and she should not be worried about it.
On 17 August 2022 the landlord recorded an unsuccessful attempt to contact the resident to help her claim UC.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that its succession report had been completed and it was happy for the succession to take place. The landlord advised an outstanding document was required to complete the process and arranged to collect the paperwork that afternoon. During the call the landlord advised it would need to arrange another appointment to sign the tenancy and advised the resident that she would need to make a new claim for UC housing costs or housing benefit.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and offered to help claim UC. It recorded that she would need to request a backdate for rent from the start of the tenancy. It advised that there was no guarantee that the DWP would agree to this as her benefit claim was after her tenancy start date. It recorded that the resident advised that she would make a new benefit UC claim on 2 September 2022 after she had signed the tenancy and it was in her name.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord terminated the tenancy of the resident’s deceased mother.
On the same day the landlord met with the resident to sign the new tenancy documents and granted her succession of the tenancy. After the meeting the landlord identified that it considered that it had put the incorrect tenancy start date of 1 September 2022 on the paperwork. The landlord considered that it should have started the tenancy from 1 August 2022 which was the Monday following the death of the resident’s mother. The landlord revisited the resident the same day with new paperwork and explained the error. The landlord ripped up the first tenancy documents in the presence of the resident and asked the resident to sign the new document. The resident informed this Service that she did not sign the amended tenancy or agree to the backdated tenancy start date.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord helped the resident claim UC. It recorded that it added a note to her online UC claim journal to request a back date of rent [housing costs] due to her “use and occupation” of the property prior to her UC claim. The landlord used the 1 August 2022 as the resident’s tenancy start date.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord’s benefit advice team recorded that the resident had received notification from UC that there would be a shortfall in her housing costs. Her benefit award was affected due to another family member residing at the property. The DWP also did not backdate the residents UC housing costs. It considered that the claim for a tenancy starting on 1 August 2022 should have been made earlier.
Between 20 September 2022 to 6 February 2023 the landlord’s benefits advice team recorded multiple communications with the resident and the DWP on her behalf. It spoke to the resident to support her with current and prospective benefit claims. It wrote notes on the resident’s online UC journal to request a backdate of UC to cover her rent from the 1 August 2022. The landlord recorded that the DWP refused this request until the resident supplied medical evidence to show why she had been unable to make the claim sooner. The landlord attempted to explain the necessary process to the resident.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord served the resident with a notice of intention to begin court proceedings for possession. This was due to increasing rent arrears for the property from 1 August 2022.
On 6 October 2022 the resident received a number of letters from the landlord regarding her rent arrears. The resident felt that these letters from various dates in September 2022 had all been sent out together. She considered that she had received no warning or information regarding the situation. The resident advised this Service that the landlord had written that she owed rent arrears of £574.08 for the period 1 August 2022 to 12 September 2022. This was exactly 6 weeks rent at £95.68 per week. The resident explained that she reluctantly paid the landlord £414 which was the equivalent of a month’s rent in fear of losing the property. She informed this Service that she disputed owing this money and paid it to avoid court proceedings.
On 7 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. Her dissatisfaction was:
1. How the landlord had managed her tenancy succession.
2. That she was unable to claim UC as she did not have a tenancy agreement.
3. That the landlords benefit advice team had made errors with her UC claim.
4. That she had received a NSP due to rent arrears which she considered was a result of the delays with the landlord’s processes.
5. That there were errors with her mother’s rent account and a direct debt had been taken after her death.
Within the resident’s emailed complaint she explained that she had been having difficulties with her mental health and her memory. She advised that there may be things that she had missed.
On 10 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She raised an additional issue of being sent a gas safety certificate. She believed that the boiler still had a fault and she should not have received a safety certificate. She asked for this to be added to her complaint. On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s original complaint and advised that she would receive a response on 21 October 2022. The landlord also confirmed by a separate email that it would include the resident’s boiler issues.
On 17 to 19 October 2022 the landlord’s internal records showed that it was investigating the resident’s complaint. It communicated with its legal experts to ensure that its processes and decision to allow the resident to succeed the tenancy were correct. The landlord said that it “struggled with its succession and assignment procedures as the policies are contradictory…” The solicitor confirmed that the landlord had used the correct process and advised that the tenancy date could be whatever date it is offered, or “with the agreement of the successor, could be backdated to the date of death.”
On 24 October 2022 the landlord recognised that it had failed to include the resident’s boiler concerns within its complaint investigation. It said that as the complaint response had already been extended [and agreed with the resident] due to staff annual leave, it considered it appropriate to respond to it as a separate complaint point. The landlord called the resident the same day and apologised for the oversight. During the call the landlord recorded that the issues to be addressed were as follows:
1. The resident informed the landlord that she was concerned that its contractor had sent the gas safety certificate without fixing the boiler faults.
2. The resident had explained that there was often no hot water and a leak was causing damage to the bedroom floor. The landlord had assessed the property and advised that the damaged floor needed replacing in the bedroom where the boiler was located and the pipework needed to be checked.
3. The resident believed that the CO alarm had not been working.
4. The resident’s expectation of making the complaint was for all issues to be addressed so that other residents did not experience the same concerns.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response.
1. It was sorry that the resident had been dissatisfied with its service.
2. It explained the importance of completing a succession investigation quickly. It explained this was to ensure that decisions and advice about the tenancy were made and did not leave her in an uncertain position for any time longer than necessary.
3. It explained that it had offered to meet after her mother’s funeral but explained sooner was better.
4. It explained why it was legally obligated to complete the visit, property inspection and succession investigation and the importance of collating the necessary evidence.
5. It apologised if the resident considered the process intrusive and that the process was not clearly explained. It was however satisfied that it had conducted its processes appropriately.
6. It was confident that the resident was informed that she was liable for ‘use and occupation’ charges during the period between her mother’s passing and her signing the tenancy paperwork. It advised that in succession cases the potential successor becomes liable for the weekly charges from the Monday after the death of the tenant. In the resident’s case this was from 1 August 2022.
7. It set out how it had explained the need to claim benefits and offered help. It was satisfied that it had correctly advised of the terms “use and occupation” and “damages for trespass.” However it agreed that it should have confirmed this information in writing. It apologised and said this would be used as a learning outcome from this complaint to avoid this happening again in the future.
8. It acknowledged that the date was incorrect on the tenancy document signed on 1 September 2022. It apologised for the confusion and distress caused. It assured her that it had corrected the error and her tenancy rights were not affected.
9. It had listened to telephone recordings regarding the help given to make her claim for UC. It was satisfied with the way it had completed the process.
10. It addressed the resident’s concerns that she was served a NSP. It provided evidence of the dates that rent arrears warning letters were generated and printed. It was unable to explain why her post was delayed.
11. It acknowledged the reasons why the resident delayed her claim for benefits but was satisfied that it had tried to impress the importance of making a claim for UC. It considered the delay had caused the increased arrears on the rent account.
12. It had identified that housing benefit had not paid her mother’s account correctly. It had informed housing benefit and this would be resolved.
13. Upon reviewing her complaint, the landlord felt there were things it “could and should have done better.” It apologised for the distress that this matter may have caused. An offer of £100 compensation was made for any distress the mistakes during the tenancy sign up process caused.
On the same day the housing benefit department informed the landlord that a final benefit payment of £194.54 was due to be paid to the resident’s deceased mother’s rent account. This was to cover the period 18 to 31 July 2022.
On 26 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that:
1. She was “insulted” to have been offered £100 compensation. She advised that the complaint was never about money but how she considered she had been treated during a difficult time.
2. She would like her boiler complaint added to her original complaint. She advised that she would like all issues dealt with at the same time.
3. She considered that she had not been told the correct information about rent and UC. This had resulted in her rent arrears.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord emailed its gas contractor. It asked it to consider the resident’s complaint points and asked it to investigate. The contractor responded the same day and advised:
1. That the boiler safety check was completed.
2. That the visiting engineer had called in the fault after carrying out the safety check.
3. That the issue was an untraceable water drip underneath the boiler. This did not prevent the completion of the safety inspection.
4. That the fault was noted and a repair engineer completed the job on 30 September 2022.
5. That it had replaced the CO alarm as there had been no installation dates recorded on it.
6. That the CO alarm had passed the safety check. It advised that it had sent the engineer back to recheck. The engineer confirmed that it was working.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord issued a separate response to the resident’s boiler complaint issues. The landlord advised:
1. That following the resident’s complaint it had visited to check the CO alarm on 27 October 2022. The alarm was working but as there was no renewal date on the detector it was replaced.
2. That it had checked its records and was satisfied that the CO alarm had been checked on 30 November 2021 and during the visit on 28 September 2022. The alarm had passed the necessary checks on both occasions.
3. That a gas safety check was completed on 28 September 2022 that produced a valid gas safety certificate.
4. That an engineer attended on 30 September 2002 and a repair to resolve the leak was completed. It noted that the laminate flooring was due to be replaced. It recommended that the floor was lifted at that time to check the pipework underneath as a precaution.
5. It was satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed.
On 10 November 2022 internal communication showed the landlord arranging new laminate flooring for the resident’s property. It requested that the floorboards were lifted to allow the pipe work to be inspected as per the gas engineer’s recommendation in September 2022.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord recorded her reasons as follows:
1. Her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to her succession.
2. Dissatisfaction that incorrect information was provided in relation to ‘damages for trespass’ or ‘use and occupation charges’ which resulted in her accruing rent arrears.
3. Dissatisfaction with the landlord regarding her status as a carer being incorrectly added to her UC claim.
4. Dissatisfaction that that letters sent regarding rent arrears were delayed due to postal strikes.
5. Belief that money was owed on mother’s rent account.
6. The impact that the complaint was having on the mental health of herself and her household members.
The landlord recorded that the resident’s expectations were:
1. That the landlord would change its processes so other residents did not experience a similar service.
2. For her rent arrears to be cleared from her account.
On 23 November 2022 the resident attended a stage 2 review meeting. The landlord summarised this meeting in its stage 2 final response letter dated 7 December 2022. It said its panel decision was as follows:
1. The landlord found that the correct procedures had been followed in the handling of the complaint and the stage 1 investigation had been thorough and was appropriate.
2. It agreed that whilst [a tenancy succession] was a legal and difficult process it could have handled this better.
3. It agreed as a learning outcome that it would review its process for when a resident dies and how it could make its communications clearer.
4. It recommended that training should be available to staff dealing with difficult and sensitive issues.
5. The panel offered the resident a single point of point of contact for her to raise any ongoing concerns.
6. It advised that its offer of £100 at stage remained which could be added to her rent account. It recognised that the resident had mentioned that she would like this paid to a charity. The landlord asked for her to advise of details for it to facilitate this. This information was not supplied.
7. The panel confirmed that evidence taken to support the tenancy was taken on a work mobile telephone, and that this evidence had been deleted from the mobile telephone.
8. In summary, the panel upheld the outcome of stage 1 of the resident’s complaint. It appreciated and understood this was a difficult time for her and were sympathetic to her concerns. However it felt it could have provided better information to her, in writing, which explained the process.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord’s internal communication confirmed that no possession proceedings had been started against the resident because of her rent arrears. It was awaiting the decision about whether the resident would receive backdated UC payments from the DWP.
On 7 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She thanked it for all of its help and advice but felt that she needed to leave the benefit appeal, focus on her health recovery and continue with her complaint via this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is evident that the resident considered that the landlord’s handling of her tenancy succession had had a detrimental impact on her mental health. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. This Service has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. This Service is unable to give legal advice and cannot comment on this matter further.
Our awards recognise the fact that the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident is unique to them. This might be due to particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. We cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s physical and/or mental health and we therefore cannot directly quantify this. However, where appropriate, this Service will seek to recognise these circumstances in the remedies we set out.

Handling of the resident’s succession of her mother’s tenancy and associated rent arrears

During the investigation the landlord’s policies and procedures regarding tenancy succession were considered and the email and telephone call evidence supplied reviewed. Overall, this Service was satisfied that the landlord completed its investigation in a timely manner to ensure the resident secured the tenancy.
However, the legal process of a tenancy succession is complex. It is therefore important that a landlord communicates information to a resident accurately and clearly. It is also beneficial to ensure that this information is provided in writing. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of anything it gave to the resident to explain this complex process.
Furthermore, terminology used within tenancy management can also be complex and housing organisations often require the support of solicitors to ensure documents are correct. Having reviewed the evidence and listened to the telephone calls supplied, this Service clearly identified the landlord’s use of terms such as “use and occupation,” “left in occupation” and “damage for trespass” when communicating with the resident. However the landlord did not specifically take time to explain these terms or implications thoroughly to the resident. The terms were often used as part of the wider conversation and, as set out above, the landlord did not provide written explanations of the terms or the processes. It was not reasonable to expect the resident to understand the meaning of these terms without help from the landlord.
Written explanations not only provide an opportunity to ensure a resident understands processes but gives them an opportunity to ask questions or ask for help if things remain unclear. Given that the resident had recently been bereaved and had advised the landlord that she was experiencing difficulties with her own mental health and memory, a letter would have provided her with such an opportunity. The landlord acknowledged to the resident that it should and could have done things differently and also advised in its stage 2 response that it would make improvements to its communications.
During its investigation of the resident’s complaint the landlord took legal advice about how it had awarded the resident a succession. It referred to its own policies and procedures as being “contradictory” and “hoped to get the issue ironed out once and for all to ensure it was acting correctly moving forward…” Given the landlord’s own identified concerns regarding its processes, it is unclear why the landlord did not clarify its procedures and decision making with a solicitor prior to making its succession decision.
Although awarding the resident a succession was correct, the process adopted by the landlord was unclear. It had accepted that the resident’s mother had held a protected assured tenancy and issued a NTQ on 11 August 2022. The notice required possession of the property “on or before Monday 12 September 2022 or at the expiry of the tenancy next after the end of 4 weeks from the service of the notice…” This would give the resident a reasonable expectation that her tenancy would not start until the NTQ had expired. When the resident queried this matter, the landlord replied to the MP the same day and explained that it was a legal formality to end her mother’s tenancy. Therefore the resident could not legally become the tenant of the property until the notice period had expired.
The succession was a contractual succession coming into effect after the NTQ and had expired on 12 September 2022 as stated on the notice. Therefore any reference to liability of rent between 1 August 2022 to 11 September 2022 would at this stage have remained with the estate of the resident’s deceased mother and not the resident. This is stated in the landlord’s succession and assignment procedures.
The solicitor advised the landlord that a tenancy start date could “with the agreement of the successor, be backdated to the date of death.” The resident disputes agreeing to backdating her tenancy start date and disputes that she signed the amended tenancy documents. The Ombudsman takes issue with this matter because legally a tenancy cannot be backdated. The landlord’s actions to backdate the tenancy start date to 1 August 2022 immediately put her in rent arrears. This was unreasonable.
The landlord completed a contractual succession and as the NTQ for the resident’s mother was still live until 12 September 2022 the resident was not responsible for the rent arrears for this period. The estate of the resident’s deceased mother should have resolved this. If there was insufficient money in the estate of the deceased to cover the arrears, the landlord could not recover them.
Although it would ordinarily be appropriate for the landlord to serve a NSP on a resident due to rent arrears exceeding £400 the resident was not responsible for the arrears. Indeed when the landlord communicated with the resident in the period before the tenancy was backdated the landlord referred to her liability as “damages for trespass” or “charge for use and occupation.” That was in recognition that no tenancy existed for the resident at the time. It is therefore unfair for the landlord to backdate the tenancy and now say it was in existence at that time.
Although the landlord may have used the term left in occupation with the resident and was aware that she had not made a new claim for benefits, she would not have become liable for a charge or rent until the NTQ had expired. Therefore it was not reasonable that the landlord said that she owed rent arrears of £574.08 for the period 1 August 2022 to 12 September 2022.
Where there are acknowledged failings by a landlord as there is here the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, identified learning and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord recognised that it could have done things differently with its communication about the succession process. The landlord acted fairly in recognising this and offered the resident an apology.
Following the stage 2 complaint’s panel investigation the landlord identified opportunities to provide training to its staff to better handle difficult and sensitive issues. It also said it would review its process of managing successions when it received notification that a tenant had died. This demonstrated that the landlord was prepared to learn from the identified outcomes within the resident’s complaint.
Within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy succession there was maladministration. The landlord partially identified this during its complaint handling process and offered the resident £100 compensation. Although this figure was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy when a resident has been worried, distressed and / or inconvenienced due to its service or policy failure, it did not recognise its failures regarding its decision to backdate the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord’s action caused the resident distress and she was in fear that she would lose the property as a result of being told that she owed £574.06. The resident was not liable for this debt of exactly 6 weeks rent for the reasons given above. The resident was incorrectly pursued for arrears and made payments to the landlord for a period of time that she was not legally required to do so. Therefore an order has been made to ensure that the landlord offers redress to put things right.

Handling of the resident’s benefit support needs

The welfare benefit system is complicated. As such, it requires trained specialists to understand and explain entitlements and the implications of any changes. However, it is the legal responsibility of an individual claiming benefits to notify the local authority or appropriate benefit departments of a relevant change in their circumstances. Therefore it was the responsibility of the resident to inform the relevant benefit departments and make the appropriate benefit claims.
Although there is evidence that the landlord advised the resident on more than one occasion that a new claim for benefits would be required its advice was based on it believing she was liable for rent from 1 August 2022. The reason why this is not the case has been set out above.
It was clear that the landlord’s benefit advice team made follow up phone calls to the resident and made attempts to help her make a new claim for benefits. This was reasonable as it was attempting to offer the resident support. However there was no evidence of a clear discussion or explanation with her about the future liability for rent and it was done under the mistaken belief that the resident was responsible for rent from 1 August 2022. Therefore the need to claim UC and request a backdate of housing costs to 1 August 2022 from the DWP was incorrect. She was not liable for a use and occupation charge and did not need to produce medical evidence to appeal the DWP’s decision not to backdate her claim.
Had the landlord not completed its succession investigation or reached a decision to award the tenancy to the resident before the NTQ expired, the resident should have been considered left in occupation from 12 September 2022. The resident would then have been required to make a new claim for UC and needing to request housing costs from the DWP to cover a charge equivalent to the weekly rent. In this situation the benefit claim would not immediately award housing costs as there would have been no tenancy. The landlord would have needed to inform the DWP via its UC landlord portal that it had granted the resident use and occupation and any backdating requests made at this time. There is no evidence that the landlord explained this eventuality to the resident as it had simply based its support on it backdating her tenancy start date to 1 August 2022.
UC by design pays the benefit claimant monthly in arrears. Unlike housing benefit that pays a landlord direct and more frequently. This means the resident would have had to wait 5 weeks for her first payment. This payment would then only cover the first 4 weeks of her rent/charge. This is called a monthly assessment period. Therefore the resident through no fault of her own would have fallen into rent arrears simply due to the design of UC. It was important for the landlord to have explained this at this stage. This was not done.
The landlord’s communication was at times unclear and failed to explain the importance of a timely benefit claims and the implications of not doing so. Furthermore, messages were at times not precise. Benefits are a complex matter but have specific criteria and legislation that sets out the entitlement rules and procedures. The landlord did not convey this information to the resident accurately or in sufficient detail.
Given that the landlord knew of the resident’s difficulties with her mental health and memory, it would have been beneficial to have provided her with a written explanation of the complex terminology used and how it linked to the need for a new benefit claim.
There were communication failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s benefit support. This was not recognised or addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses. Therefore based on the communication failures and compensation the landlord has already acknowledged for its handling of the tenancy succession, redress of an additional £100 is appropriate.

Handling of the boiler inspection

The resident raised concerns regarding a gas safety certificate. She was aware that the boiler had displayed a fault and was concerned this certificate should not have been issued. However the evidence supplied shows that this certificate was issued appropriately. The landlord’s gas engineer completed the safety check and reported the required follow on work to identify the untraceable water drip. An appointment to complete these works was completed two days later. The identified leak fault did not require the gas engineer to cap the supply and the boiler was therefore working safely. This did not prevent the landlord completing the safety check, or checking the CO alarm and a gas safety certificate was issued in line with its compliance policy.
Having reviewed the evidence and listened to the specific telephone call relating to the boiler complaint issue, this Service is satisfied that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handing of the boiler inspection.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided recordings of telephone conversations with the resident during the complaint process. During the complaint investigation and response discussions the landlord displayed compassion for the resident and a desire to reassure her that her tenancy was secure.
The resident’s original complaint was made on 7 October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged on 10 October 2022 that it would include the complaint about the gas safety check in its response. This did not happen. However the landlord identified its oversight and contacted the resident to apologise.
The landlord responded to the original complaint on 25 October 2022. Although this was 2 working days beyond its compliant response timescales, the landlord acted appropriately. The extended response date was agreed with the resident during a telephone call on 18 October 2022. The landlord advised of annual leave and asked if a delayed written response would inconvenience the resident. The resident was happy with the minor delay and a response date was agreed.
It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to include the resident’s gas safety complaint raised on 10 October 2022 within its stage 1 response. The landlord’s policy states that additional complaints raised during the investigation should be included at stage 1 unless it would unreasonably delay its written response.
However the landlord called the resident on 24 October 2022 to apologise that it had missed the gas safety complaint from the response that it was due to send her on 25 October 2022. It apologised for this oversight. It informed the resident that it would provide a separate written formal response to the resident within 10 working days. It explained that this would prevent any further delay to her other complaint points that it had now investigated.
The landlord could have raised the resident’s additional gas certificate complaint as a new separate complaint on 10 October 2022. This would have been reasonable if the landlord had believed that it would unreasonably delay its ability to provide a response in line with its policy. However it was not reasonable to simply start the resident’s compliant again from 24 October 2022 when it failed to include it within its response. The landlord’s oversight had caused the service failure and a response was not provided until 2 November 2022. There was 17 working days between October 2022 to 7 November 2022. Therefore the landlord’s response to this compliant point was 7 working days beyond its 10 working day timescale. This was not recognised or acknowledged by the landlord during its stage 2 review.
Although the landlord referred to the resident’s complaint being escalated on 14 November 2022 the resident first made attempts to escalate her complaint on 26 October 2022 when she clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response in an email to the landlord. Therefore the stage 2 response on 7 December 2022 was issued after 30 working days. 10 working days beyond the landlord’s 20 working day response timescale. It is noted that the landlord’s investigation and communication was generally particularly good. However this was not in line with its policy and therefore a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s succession of her mother’s tenancy and associated rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s benefit support needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the boiler inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord backdated the resident’s tenancy and charged her 6 weeks rent totalling £574.08 that she was not liable. Although it acknowledged that it did not provide written explanations and could have improved its communication, its offer of £100 compensation did not offer proportionate redress for the distress caused by its actions that put her in rent arrears.
The landlord was supportive when offering help to the resident to claim benefits. However, it failed to explain benefit processes clearly or accurately. Furthermore it did not provide anything in writing that may have helped the resident understand the complexities of her housing situation and benefit needs. It failed to identify that it was seeking to claim benefits for a period where no tenancy could exist in the resident’s name due to a live NTQ.
The landlord followed its compliance policy and appropriately checked the resident’s boiler and CO alarm. The gas safety certificate was correctly issued.
The landlord’s acknowledged oversight meant the resident had to wait an extended time for her gas safety certificate concern to be considered. The landlord’s stage two response was beyond its compliant handling response time scales. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 26 October 2022 after receiving the stage 1 response. However the landlord did not escalate her complaint until 14 November 202.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,049.08. This comprises:
  1. £100 offered at stage 1 if not already paid.
  2. £574.08 to reimburse the resident for the 6 weeks rent arrears charged between 1 August 2022 to 12 September 2022.
  3. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s succession of her mother’s tenancy, associated rent arrears and service of the NSP.
  4. A further £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s benefit support needs.
  5. A further £75 for any time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should advise this Service what actions have or are being taken to ensure that its succession and assignment procedures are understood by its staff. This should include what has or is taking place to ensure that it is “acting correctly moving forward” as referenced in its conversation with its legal experts in October 2022.
If the landlord has not already done so, it should review the communication changes identified in its final response on 23 November 2022. This included how it will communicate complex terminology such as use and occupation, left in occupation, and damages for trespass. If it has already done so provide this Service with a copy of the review undertaken and any changes implemented.
If the landlord has not already done so, it should review the training that it felt should be available to staff dealing with difficult and sensitive issues. If it has already done so provide this Service with a summary of what has been provided to its staff or specific teams.