South Tyneside Homes (202005951)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005951

South Tyneside Homes

8 March 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
2. The resident’s concern in relation to receiving invoices from the local authority’s Housing Benefit service.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concern in relation to receiving invoices from the local authority’s Housing Benefit service

Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body”.

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to receiving invoices from the local authority’s Housing Benefit team despite his account being in credit. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to the actions of the local authority in relation to benefits. Complaints about the actions of the local authority are better suited to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Please note, before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, there will need to have been made a complaint to the local authority first.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by his representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and his representative as “the resident.”
The resident is in receipt of Housing Benefits. He has stated that the landlord had provided different amounts in relation to the amount of rent he needed to pay to his daughter whilst he had been hospitalised, which had caused inconvenience and confusion.
The resident called the landlord on 25 May 2020 to raise a complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of his rent account. The landlord’s internal computer system crashed, and the information was lost. The resident agreed to raise a complaint online instead.
On 28 June 2020 the resident raised two requests on the landlord’s website which were registered to two separate addresses. These were registered as queries rather than complaints.
The resident communicated with the landlord on 6 July 2020 and stated that he had been sent an invoice despite having overpaid into his rent account. The resident also expressed concern that he could not access his rent statements. He raised concern that he had not received an acknowledgement for his previous complaints. He advised that following his hospitalisation in March 2020, his daughter had taken responsibility for his rent account. She had no access to his property during the lockdown restrictions and was unable to access information in relation to the April rent increase, so increased the payment amount slightly. She was then informed that the new rent amount was higher than she had anticipated which led to the resident’s rent account falling into arrears. On 7 July 2020 the landlord escalated the resident’s query to a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 July 2020 and stated the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident was unaware of the rent increase and had increased his payment to an amount he believed to be adequate. He was later informed that the rent amount was higher than the amount he had been paying and again increased his payment. The resident had been made aware of arears on the account in April 2020 which were then paid. At this stage he was made aware of the weekly rent figure. In June 2020 the resident was made aware that his rent amount had increased once more. He had queried the invoices for overpaid housing benefit which were sent whilst his rent account was in credit.
2. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had not been acknowledged when it was first raised via its website. The landlord attributed this to an issue with its website and apologised for its lack of acknowledgement. It stated that it was looking into this matter to prevent these issues moving forward.
3. In relation to the resident’s rent account, the landlord explained that there had been issues with the resident’s housing benefit which had affected the amount of rent, depending on when the adjustments were made. It confirmed that a letter had been sent to the resident from the local authority’s housing benefit service on 11 February 2020 requesting his proof of income and a response was not received until 12 March 2020. The resident’s housing benefit was suspended during this time and reinstated on 8 April 2020. By this point the resident’s pension credits had increased and his housing benefit was adjusted accordingly. His housing benefit was further adjusted when the resident’s pension increased again.
4. It noted that the resident’s rent had not increased in line with the rent increases in April 2020. It explained that this was a technical issue due to the number of changes made around the ‘end of year’ period. This had now been identified and the landlord advised that the resident’s rent and housing benefit should be accurate from 13 July 2020. It apologised that this had not been identified and rectified earlier. It advised that it would print a statement and hand deliver this the following week.
5. It provided contact details should the resident need a further explanation from Housing Benefit service and stated that if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process.
The landlord’s records show that the complaint was escalated to stage two of its internal complaints process on 9 July 2020. The complaint was escalated because: the resident experienced issues raising the complaint and had received an acknowledgement letter after the stage one response; the landlord had not contacted the resident when arrears began to accrue on the account; the resident had received invoices in relation to his Housing Benefit claim despite the rent account being in credit; the resident was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the landlord’s stage one response and did not feel he had received an apology for the distress caused.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 August 2020 and apologised for the delay in providing its stage two complaint response. It issued its response the same day and stated the following:
1. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced when attempting to raise a complaint. It noted that the resident had called the landlord on 25 June 2020 to raise a complaint; however, the landlord was experiencing system issues as a result of home working. The resident then attempted to raise a complaint via the landlord’s website. The landlord stated that this fell below its service standards and the details of the telephone call should have been recorded and input into the system once the issues had been resolved.
2. The landlord noted that the stage one acknowledgement letter arrived after its stage one response. It acknowledged that this was poor service and that the issue was currently being addressed. It was working on adding additional fields to its website which would ensure that future acknowledgement letters are sent in a timely manner.
3. The landlord noted that it had not been in touch with the resident in relation to his rent account or any arrears that had built-up. It stated that this was because the arrears occurred as a result of a benefits review and that any housing benefit would be reinstated. It explained that its staff were working from home due to the impact of Covid-19 and its staff numbers were reduced. It confirmed that it would have expected its staff to act in line with its policies and procedures and attempt to make contact regarding the account. It apologised that the resident had received incorrect information in relation to the rent account and acknowledged the distress this may have caused.
4. It stated that it could not influence the way the local authority’s benefit team worked and acknowledged that the invoices from that team, despite the resident’s account being in credit, may have caused further distress. It stated it would be unable to address these concerns further and advised the resident to contact the Housing Benefit team directly.
5. It noted that the resident had expressed concern about the way the complaint was handled at stage one of its process. It noted that there had been some discrepancy in the dates that had been provided and apologised for its mistake.
6. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience this matter had caused and stated that the level of service it had delivered was not up to standard. It stated that it would take steps to ensure that its website work was completed so that acknowledgement letters are sent in a timely manner. It stated it would discuss the resident’s feedback with the staff members involved and undertake training to ensure that correct information is given in relation to its resident’s rent accounts in future.
7. It stated that if the resident remained dissatisfied, the complaint could be escalated to stage three of its internal complaints process.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate the complaint on 8 August 2020. He stated that the landlord had not listened to the call recordings or addressed his concerns and wished for this to be investigated at stage three.
The landlord issued its stage three complaint response to the resident on 4 September 2020 and stated the following:
1. It had reviewed the call recordings on its system to better understand the resident’s experience. It noted that during the first three calls, the representative had not been authorised to discuss the rent account. On 23 June 2020 authorisation had been given and the resident was advised to speak to the landlord’s income team as he was concerned that the rent increase was substantial. The call was transferred, and the call recording ended. The landlord was unable to review further call recordings as these calls were with a separate department.
2. It noted that the resident called the following day and stated that since April 2020 there had been three separate rent figures. The resident believed that the issues in relation to the rent account were because the landlord had failed to provide the Housing Benefit service the correct rent figure. On 25 June 2020 the resident had called to raise a complaint, although the landlord’s system crashed, and the resident agreed to raise the complaint online. The landlord stated that it had apologised for this in its stage two complaint response and added a further apology.
3. It apologised that it had not sent an acknowledgment letter in relation to the complaint within its three working day timescale. It explained that this was due to the complaint initially being raised as a query, under two separate addresses. The landlord was unable to check whether permissions were on the system for the representative to handle the account and it had needed to seek further information prior to this being raised as a formal complaint.
4. It noted that the final call on its system was on 13 July 2020 where the resident called to discuss the complaint at stage two. The resident had a message to call back a specific member of staff and there had been a discrepancy about which staff member was responsible. The resident had requested for responses to be via letter and became annoyed that the landlord had ignored this request. The landlord apologised that the member of staff had not left their full name which had caused confusion for the resident when escalating the complaint. It also stated that its customer service operative should have been able to review the system and determine who the resident should have been transferred to, although this did not happen, the landlord offered a further apology for this.
5. In relation to the resident’s comments regarding the rent charges, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been given false information. The landlord provided a timeline of events and explained why the resident had been misinformed. It stated that a portion of the resident’s rent charge was covered by his Housing Benefit. Housing Benefit also contributed to the warden charge at the resident’s property. In April 2020 the resident’s rent increased by 90p. As his Housing Benefit was suspended, and with the warden charge not being paid, this amount showed as an additional rent increase totaling £10.57.
6. The resident’s Housing Benefit was reinstated in April 2020 and as the resident’s pension credits had increased, this had an impact on his Housing Benefit and therefore the rent which would need to be paid. The warden charge support was also reinstated which had a further effect on the amount of rent the resident would need to pay. The Housing Benefit team had made an adjustment on 25 June 2020 to amend the charges.
7. The landlord explained that the number of adjustments made to the resident’s rent account contributed to the confusion and was the reason the resident had been given several different rent amounts. It also acknowledged that there had been a system error which further complicated matters and the landlord was not aware of this issue until the time of complaint. It stated it was now attempting to remedy this issue to ensure it did not happen in the future.
8. The landlord stated that there should have been more contact with the resident during this period which may have identified the issue sooner and may have led to less confusion about the amount of rent due. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset this may have caused and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and time spent resolving the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to his rent account

The landlord’s Rent Arrears Policy states: it will provide tenants regular and accessible information on rent and service charges. It notes that the responsibility for calculating rent and service charges, is a task that remains the responsibility of the local authority. The actual collection of rent and responsibility for collecting arrears has been delegated to landlord. The landlord would be responsible for arrears recovery and contacting a resident should their rent account fall into arrears. The policy states that it may be necessary to postpone recovery action when confirmation has been received that a current housing benefit claim has been made and the resident has continued to make payments in line with estimated benefit level of a previous arrangement.
In this case, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures it had identified. The resident had raised concern that three separate rent figures had been provided and there was increased uncertainty about the amount which needed to be paid. The landlord would need to rely on information provided by the local authority when determining the amount of rent a resident would need to pay as the local authority would be responsible for calculating any benefits and rent charges.
It is not disputed that the landlord had offered multiple rent figures. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why differing figures were provided and attributed this issue to changes in the resident’s housing benefit and pension credits which meant his rental figure needed to be recalculated multiple times. Since there had been multiple changes to the benefits the resident had received, it was reasonable that the landlord would only be able to provide the information it had at the time. Any further changes would likely be outside of the landlord’s control. It is clear that the landlord has taken steps to identify the issues and explain these to the resident in its complaint responses.
The resident also expressed concern that the landlord had not contacted him when his benefits had been suspended and his account began to fall into arrears. In its stage two response, the landlord explained that this was because the arrears occurred as a result of a benefits review and that any housing benefit would be reinstated. It was reasonable that the landlord did not begin any arrears recovery contact with the resident as payments continued to be paid into the account in line with the previous arrangement. Despite not being obliged to contact the resident at this stage, the landlord has identified that it would have expected its staff to attempt to make contact regarding the account, and that it should have contacted the resident at more regular intervals and taken steps to identify the issue sooner to prevent further uncertainty which is reasonable.
The landlord has taken reasonable steps to rectify a previously unknown system issue in relation to the implementation of the yearly rent increase to prevent these issues in the future. It has also provided feedback to its staff members in relation to the complaint and has undertaken staff training to ensure that correct information is given in relation to its resident’s rent accounts in future. In view of the service failures it had identified, the landlord has apologised and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and time taken to pursue the complaint. In this case, the offer of £100 is proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident. This offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that payments in this range are suitable where the service failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a three-stage complaint process. A stage one complaint should be responded to within ten working days. At stage two, a written response must be sent within 15 working days. At stage three, a written response must be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be any delay in meeting these timescales, a holding letter must be sent, apologising for the delay and giving the customer a new target date for a response.
The resident first attempted to raise the complaint on 25 June 2020. Due to issues with its internal system, the landlord was unable to raise the complaint on this date. The resident then submitted two queries online on 28 June 2020 which were not identified as complaints straight away. The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 July 2020 which is within its ten working day timescale. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two on 13 July 2020, and the landlord issued its stage two response on 3 August 2020. This response was issued 6 working days outside of its 15 working day timescale. The landlord offered its apologies for this delay at the time. The resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage three on 8 August 2020, and the landlord provided its stage three response on 4 September 2020, which was seven working days outside of its 20-working day timescale.
In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord complied with its Complaint Policy by providing a holding letter when a timescale was unlikely to be met or provided the resident with a satisfactory explanation of these delays. Although the landlord had offered its apologies for any delayed complaint response at the time. The resident had experienced some issues when initially raising the complaint with the landlord. The landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord has also taken appropriate steps to investigate the matter and correct the website issue to prevent these problems in the future. It is noted that the resident may have been inconvenienced by the issues in relation to raising the complaint, although the landlord has responded to the resident’s initial complaint within its 10 working day timescale, and therefore the resident was not significantly disadvantaged.
The resident expressed further concern that the landlord has ignored the request that all correspondence be in writing. The landlord has not acted reasonably as it would be expected to cater to a resident’s preferred method of contact where possible. The landlord has not satisfactorily acknowledged this request or addressed this in any of its complaint responses.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, the details of the resident’s requests for escalation were unclear. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
Whilst the complaint responses were not significantly delayed, this factor, combined with the issues the resident experienced raising the complaint and the landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s request for all correspondence to be in writing, is likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience and uncertainty. In view of this, the landlord should offer an additional award of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s rent account, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The Landlord has fully investigated what went wrong in its handling and communication with the resident in relation to the rent account. It is noted that there were a number of changes to the resident’s rent figure as a result of the suspension of his housing benefit payments, changes to his pension credits and errors applying the yearly rent increase. The landlord has acknowledged that the information it had provided may have been confusing for the resident. It has apologised for its service failure in relation to providing multiple rent figures and the time spent pursuing the complaint and offered £100 compensation which is proportionate to the inconvenience caused in this case.
Whilst the complaint responses were not significantly delayed, this factor, combined with the issues the resident experienced raising the complaint and the landlord’s failure to recognise the residents request for all correspondence to be in writing, is likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience and uncertainty. The landlord has offered its apologies for the delays; however, in view of these further inconveniences, the landlord should offer an additional award of compensation.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident and his representative to provide an accurate rent figure along with the amount he is liable to pay considering the Housing Benefit he receives.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident £200, comprised of:
  1. £100 as previously offered, in recognition of the inconvenience and time taken to pursue the rent account issues.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused as a result of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints. This should provide details of when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its Complaints Policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code – The Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord believes strongly it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment.