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

Vivid Housing Limited (202008502)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008502

Vivid Housing Limited

14 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s key return at the end of the tenancy.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB; and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s key return at the end of the tenancy.
  2. These matters have not been considered under the landlord’s formal complaints procedure and therefore will not be considered as part of this investigation. It is open to the resident to make a formal complaint to the landlord about these issues. This report will consider the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in April 2019. Both the resident and his wife corresponded with the landlord during the period of the complaint. For reasons of clarity, both he and his wife are collectively referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  1. Section 1(1) of the tenancy agreement concerns rent payments and says that the resident must make a payment to the landlord in return for being entitled to live in the property. Rent must be paid by direct debit. The total rent for the property at the start of the tenancy was £1,200 a month. The resident signed the tenancy agreement agreeing to be bound by these terms.
  1. Paragraph 1.40 of the landlord’s compensation guidance framework concerns payments made by the landlord for service failure, and states as follows:

“Where a financial recognition payment is considered appropriate by us, the degree of service failure and the extent of hardship suffered by the customer will be considered when deciding the amount of compensation. Financial recognition payments can be awarded up to a maximum of £50 per service failure and at our discretion.”

Summary of events

  1. On 1 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had set up a monthly direct debit of £276.73 for rent and that the first payment would be taken on 1 June 2019 and then on the first of each subsequent month.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 29 May 2019 and asked it to change the direct debit date to the 15th of every month. The landlord did so.
  3. On 14 June 2019 the resident called the landlord to query his rent account that was in arrears. The landlord said it would raise the issue with its finance team and then get back in touch.
  4. On 26 July 2019 the landlord noted that the direct debit had been incorrectly set up to charge the weekly rent amount of £276.73, not the monthly rent amount of £1,200. This had resulted in the resident’s rent account going into arrears.
  5. On 31 July 2019 the landlord explained to the resident that it had received two payments from him of £1,200 prior to the direct debit being set up but it had not set up the direct debit correctly. It said it would contact him the following day to set up a new direct debit to clear the arrears. 
  6. On 1 August 2019 the landlord left a voicemail for the resident. On 22 August 2019 it wrote to him to advise that it had been attempting to call him to discuss his rent account.
  7. On 28 August 2019 the landlord sent a letter to the resident informing him that from 15 September 2019 the direct debit amount would be £1,200 a month. It wrote to him again on 16 September 2019 and said it had been unable to contact him to discuss his rent arrears and asked if he would be happy to pay an additional £150 per month.
  8. The resident replied on 17 September 2019 saying he did not wish to make any additional payments to clear the arrears. He said he was taking legal advice and would contact the landlord again.
  9. On 3 October 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident agreed for the landlord to try to resolve the matter informally and it said it would raise the issue with a manager.
  10. On 14 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that, after discussing the matter with a manager, it had raised a formal complaint and aimed to provide a response within ten working days.
  11. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 October 2019. The main points were:
    1. The landlord apologised for setting up the monthly direct debit incorrectly and acknowledged it should have noticed the error during the call from the resident on 14 June 2019.
    2. It had failed to act on this error on more than occasion and apologised that it had not corrected it sooner.
    3. It offered a goodwill gesture of £100.
  12. The landlord requested that the resident contact it to make arrangements to clear the rent arrears and explained how he could escalate the complaint.
  13. In an internal email dated 23 October 2019 the landlord confirmed that it had added an extra step during the void process to ensure any mistake in setting up a direct debit in the future should be identified and corrected by its lettings team.
  14. On 4 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord declining its compensation offer and said he would be taking other action.
  15. On 3 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident asking him to either clear the arrears in full or to contact it to agree a monthly payment to pay back the arrears.
  16. Following a telephone call with the resident on 10 December 2019, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two. It noted the resident was seeking more compensation.
  17. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 2 January 2020. The landlord apologised that its error was not uncovered between May 2019 and July 2019 and informed him that it had put additional checks in place within the process to prevent that from happening again. The landlord highlighted that, despite its error, the resident was still obliged to pay rent. It said he could pay back the arrears over a 12-month period. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £370, which was 10% of the rent arrears and would be credited to his rent account. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  18. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps involved to bring his complaint to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord did not act appropriately in setting up the monthly direct debit incorrectly. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged its initial mistake and its delay in putting matters right. It also took steps to try to ensure that this mistake would not happen again the future.
  2. In the stage one complaint response, the landlord offered compensation of £100 in line with its compensation policy recognising it had made an initial error and then had delayed putting matters right (paragraph 7). In its stage two response, the landlord increased the amount of compensation offered to the resident to £370.
  3. When there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
  1. The landlord’s offer of compensation of £370 was above the range of amounts for goodwill gestures set out in its compensation policy for service failures deemed to be high (that is, persistent failure over a protracted time). This offer demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance.
  1. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure over a period of time to correct mistakes made in relation to rent payments.
  2. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its administration of the resident’s rent account.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its initial error and its delay in resolving matters. It took steps to prevent this error happening again. It apologised to the resident and offered compensation which was proportionate to the impact caused to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the sum of £370 to the resident, if it has not already been paid.