Trident Housing Association Limited (202109500)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109500

Trident Housing Association Limited

23 November 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of toilet repairs at the property.
   2. The landlord’s communication regarding rent payments.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, complaint a as detailed above falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
5. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that the landlord delayed in repairing a toilet at the property and missed scheduled appointments towards the end of 2019. She has explained that she ended up having to use annual leave so that access could be provided, and subsequently took unpaid leave so that the repairs could be completed.
6. While the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of her toilet repairs are acknowledged, this is not a matter that the Ombudsman can investigate. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
7. Evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident did raise a complaint about missed appointments in 2020. The landlord’s response to the complaint, dated 20 February 2020, referred to a missed gas service appointment. Towards the end of the letter, the landlord referenced the toilet repair, but on the basis that the resident had withheld rent payment owing to dissatisfaction with how it was handled. The landlord did not comment on the repair itself, but advised the resident to contact her locality officer in relation to the rent payment.
8. It follows that the landlord has not investigated the resident’s concerns about the repair being delayed, and her subsequent loss of income. While the resident’s concerns relating to the toilet repair are acknowledged, given paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, as detailed above, this is therefore not a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate as part of this complaint. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communication relating to the rent payment; however, matters relating to the toilet repair have been referenced for context.

Background and summary of events

9. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a three-bedroom house.
10. At the end of 2019, the resident reported that a toilet at the property was not working. The repair was subsequently completed at the beginning of February 2020, and the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February to make a complaint. Within her correspondence, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the repair had been handled, and added that a then recent gas safety check had also been cancelled after she had already taken the day off work. The resident said that as a result of the inconvenience she had been caused and loss of wages, she had not made the full payment of rent for that month – withholding £150 – and that a named member of staff was aware of the situation.
11. The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 February 2020 and said that it had been upheld. It said that the gas safety check appointment had been cancelled owing to “unforeseen circumstances”; however, a further appointment had successfully been arranged so that the check could be completed. In relation to the toilet repair, the landlord said that it understood that the resident had withheld £150 from her rent payment and asked her to contact her locality officer to “make arrangement for this to be reviewed”. Towards the end of the letter, the landlord explained that the resident had 20 working days to appeal the decision.
12. It is not clear what transpired following this. However, at the beginning of October 2020, the resident was engaged in discussion with the landlord’s Income Officer (the officer) about arrears on the rent account. In an email dated 8 October, the officer explained that the named member of staff had not been advised to deduct any amount off the rent account following the resident’s complaint. However, she asked the resident to forward a copy of the complaint letter she had received, so that she could follow the matter up accordingly.
13. By the end of October, the officer asked the resident to complete a complaint form, and to return it for further consideration. On 5 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to a complaint that was received on 31 January 2021. It said that the resident’s concerns related to outstanding bathroom work and a draught coming from the back door. The landlord explained that it had reviewed its records, and could see that it had failed to rectify these issues. It had therefore raised a new job, an provided a date for the repairs. The letter did not comment on the situation regarding the resident’s withheld rent. 
14. The resident responded to the landlord’s letter and sent a further email on 6 April – the resident also copied in the officer. Within her email, the resident explained that she had yet to receive a response to her rent situation. She added that it had been agreed that £200 would be “wiped off” the rent account as a result of missed appointments.
15. The officer replied the next day and informed the resident that she only dealt with the rent account, and she could only advise her to put a formal complaint in writing in relation to the missed appointments. She added that it was “not a good idea” to withhold rent in a bid to resolve the situation. The landlord’s repairs manager also responded the next day and confirmed that he had chased the contractor and was hoping to get a completion date for the works. The evidence suggests that the resident subsequently submitted a further complaint about the rent – and this was received by the landlord towards the end of April.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 May and said that it was sorry to note that the resident did not feel that her complaint had been fully investigated, and that she felt the need to escalate her concerns. However, as the resident had not reverted to the complaints department within 20 working days of its letter of 20 February 2020, it could not escalate her complaint. The landlord said that as the “appeal” and request for £200 compensation was not received within the timescale for an appeal, it had not been upheld. The landlord also informed the resident that she could refer her complaint to this Service if she was dissatisfied with the outcome. 
17. The resident responded on the same day and said that the matter had been ongoing since September 2020. A further email was sent in July 2021 after the resident discussed her rent situation with another member of staff. The resident said that she had yet to receive a response to her previous email and she was unhappy with the situation. The resident added that she was advised that the £200 would be taken off her rent account as contractors had failed to turn up and that she would not be paying that money as a result. She said that she considered the issue had been dealt with at the time; however, the situation was raised again following a change of staff.
18. In response, the landlord reiterated that the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint.
19. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that it was agreed with a named member of staff in the maintenance department that she would not need to pay £200 of her rent. She says that she asked for confirmation of this in writing, but it was never received; however, she had considered the matter as dealt with. The resident says that following a change in staff in October 2020, she began to receive requests for rent payments which included the £200.
20. After the complaint was referred to this Service, we queried whether the landlord would be willing to participate in mediation, and advised that the resident was seeking £200 compensation as resolution to the dispute. The landlord agreed to consider the request; however, it later informed this Service that it had reviewed its system and found that appointments had been made, but “carded out” as the resident was not at home to provide access. It said that owing to the information on its system, it was not willing to offer the compensation that had been requested by the resident. It added that it would be happy to carry out any outstanding repairs within the property; however, the resident would need to report these to the repairs team as necessary.

Assessment and findings

21. Section 3(2) of the tenancy agreement states that “the tenant agrees to pay the rent and service charge weekly in advance by direct debit”. By withholding rent, the resident is failing to comply with the terms she had agreed to when the tenancy began. While it is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with how the toilet repair had been handled, the matter should have been dealt with by way of a formal complaint, and compensation requested accordingly.
22. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that it had been agreed that the resident could withhold rent in the circumstances. The resident’s comments that the agreement had been made over the telephone are acknowledged. If the time and date of this conversation had been provided to the landlord, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to try to retrieve any recording as necessary. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident confirmed such details with the landlord as part of her complaint.
23. Nevertheless, agreeing to a reduction or variation of rent is not an appropriate way of compensating a resident in the event of service failure. The landlord’s compensation policy states – “there may be times when things go wrong and customers may suffer some disadvantage, inconvenience or loss as a result of our actions or mistakes and that in some instances compensation may be appropriate. When this happens, employees must do all they can to investigate and solve the problem as quickly as possible”. As such, the landlord has a formal process for considering whether compensation payments are warranted – as opposed to individual members of staff agreeing that rent may be withheld in certain circumstances. It therefore follows that there was no service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding the withheld rent, and its request that the resident pay her rent in full.
24. When the resident raised her complaint in February 2020, she explained that she was dissatisfied that a recent gas safety check appointment had been missed and mentioned her dissatisfaction with how the toilet repairs had been handled. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it referred to the missed gas safety check appointment and only referred to the toilet repair with regards to the resident’s decision to withhold rent. On receipt of the landlord’s complaint response, the resident did not raise concerns that the toilet repairs had not been addressed within the correspondence. Rather, the focus turned to the situation regarding the rent payments. As such, the landlord was not made aware that the resident remained dissatisfied with the handling of the toilet repairs at the property, and believed that a compensation payment – in the form of a rent deduction – was warranted.
25. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification from the resident about her concerns, and to investigate the matter by referring to its records and establishing whether it had failed to comply with its repair service standards. Such an investigation would have also enabled the landlord to determine whether the resident was due any compensation. It is acknowledged that the landlord did subsequently investigate how the toilet repairs were handled after the resident referred her complaint to this Service. It concluded that based on the information in its records, it was not prepared to compensate the resident the £200 which she had requested. The landlord should reasonably share the outcome of its investigation with the resident now.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s communication regarding rent payments.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

27. The landlord acted appropriately in informing the resident that her rent needed to be paid in full. Although the resident’s dissatisfaction with how the toilet repairs at her property were handled, it would have been appropriate for this – and any compensation – to be considered through the complaints procedure.
28. The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns about how the toilet repairs were handled. While the landlord took steps to do this after the resident contacted the Ombudsman, it would have been appropriate for this action to have been taken when the complaint was initially raised in 2020.

Orders and recommendations

29. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failure identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the complaint handling failure. The landlord may credit this amount to the resident’s rent account if it is in arrears at the time of this determination.
    3. Write to the resident with the outcome of its internal investigation into the handling of the toilet repairs.
    4. Confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with.