Watford Community Housing Trust (202211914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211914

Watford Community Housing Trust

21 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents rent account.
2. The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1976. The landlord is a housing trust. The resident’s daughter acted as representative in this complaint and will be referred to throughout this report as ‘the resident.’
4. In April 2021, the landlord provided the housing benefit department with a rent increase letter in relation to the resident’s tenancy. The landlord made a mistake in the rent increase letter resulting in a shortfall in the housing benefit award that was paid to the landlord on behalf of the resident.
5. In January 2022, the resident became aware of an arrear accruing on her rent account and notified the landlord. The landlord said it would investigate the matter.
6. In March 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint stating the matter had not been resolved, the arrear was increasing, and the matter was causing worry and concern.
7. In April 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident and acknowledged the matter was challenging. It informed the resident it had asked its finance team to draft a corrected rent letter which it would send to the housing benefit department, and it would request a backdated payment.
8. The landlord acknowledged the matter had not been fully resolved and informed the resident that it would contact the resident to discuss things further with the aim of bringing the matter to a full and final conclusion.
9. The landlord offered the resident a £25 shopping voucher in recognition of the issues.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the offer of the shopping voucher. She said the arrear had not been cleared from the account and on 22 April requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
11. On 3 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and reassured her that the arrear would be cleared by the housing benefit department after it had reassessed the information and declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It said it would provide feedback to the teams involved and advised the resident of her right to escalate to this service.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this service in September 2022.

13. On 26 October 2022, the Housing benefit department informed the landlord   it would not backdate the payment to cover the shortfall in housing benefit. As a result of this, in November 2022, the landlord applied a credit to the residents rent account that cleared the arrear.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the residents rent account.

14. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord had included the use of a  garage since 1976. The housing benefit department historically treated the weekly cost of the garage as an eligible service charge and included the garage cost in its housing benefit award to the resident.

15. In 2021 the landlord outsourced the management of the resident’s garage to a managing agent. This meant the garage managing agent became responsible for collection of rent for the garage and the landlord remained responsible for the collection of rent for the tenancy.
16. In implementing these changes, the landlord sent a notification of the resident’s rent to the housing benefit department but mistakenly provided the incorrect rent figures. This resulted in a shortfall in the amount of housing benefit paid to the landlord on behalf of the resident.
17. Consequently, from the beginning of April 2021, an arrear began to accrue on the residents rent account. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss this.
18. In this case, the arrear had been increasing for 10 months with no action taken by the landlord. As a result of this, when the resident checked her on-line rent account in January 2022, she discovered an arrear of £364. This caused the resident to experience an unpleasant shock and worry about the situation.
19. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the landlord’s rent account management policy, however, considers it was a failing of the landlord that for 10 months it did not notify the resident of the increasing arrear.
20. The Ombudsman considers the landlord should notify its residents at the earliest possible stage of an arrear. This means the resident and the landlord will be able to understand and take steps to address issues in a timely manner.
21. In January 2022 ,the resident contacted the landlord to raise her concern about the arrear. The landlord said it would investigate the issue. Between January and March 2022, the documents provided show the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions trying to establish the cause of the arrear. The landlord advised that the creation of 2 separate accounts, 1 for the garage and 1 for the tenancy was the suspected cause of the issue.
22. When the resident contacted the landlord, it returned calls, responded to emails promptly, and offered reassurances it was looking into the issue. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that it provided the resident with definitive information about when it would resolve the issue. The situation caused the resident frustration and upset.
23. On 15 March 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint that the matter had not been resolved and the arrear was increasing.
24. On 28 March, the landlord informed the resident it needed a 10 day extension to provide its complaint response as it was still investigating the issue. In the circumstances this was reasonable and appropriate.
25. On 12 April 2022, the landlord provided its complaint response. It apologised for its delayed response and informed the resident it had sent the correct information to the housing benefit department and requested the housing benefit department backdate the award. It offered the resident a £25 shopping voucher in recognition of the distress caused.
26. The resident was dissatisfied with the time taken by the landlord to resolve the issue and requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
27. The landlord responded on 3 May 2022 and declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been considered later in this report).
28.  It considered it had resolved the issue by sending the correct information to the housing benefit department and stated it would reinstate the original  arrangement of collecting the garage rent as an allowable service charge payable by housing benefit.  It again provided reassurances to the resident that the arrear would be cleared by a housing benefit payment in due course.
29. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord followed up the matter with the housing benefit department after April 2022. The records provided show the landlord did not contact the housing benefit department again until 6 months later in October 2022.
30. The landlord’s 6 month delay in following up the matter with the housing benefit department was not a fair or reasonable approach in the circumstances. During this time, the resident experienced uncertainty and worry for longer than was necessary.
31. On 26 October 2022, the housing benefit department informed the landlord it would not backdate the underpaid amount. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of this. On 15 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had credited the rent account to clear the arrear.
32. It took the landlord 10 months to resolve the issue for the resident. For 6 of these months the landlord failed to communicate with the housing benefit department which caused avoidable delays meaning the matter went on longer than was necessary.
33. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s decision to outsource the management of the garage failed to consider the impact on the residents housing benefit entitlement and eligibility for the garage to be treated as an eligible service charge going forward.
34. The landlord’s approach resulted in an arrear on the resident’s rent account. The situation caused worry, uncertainty, and inconvenience for the resident for 10 months.
35. When the resident first brought the arrear to the landlord’s attention the resident was passed between different departments for several weeks without any resolution. It was only when the resident made a formal complaint, the landlord carried out an investigation into the cause of the arrear.
36. As a result of its complaint investigation the landlord provided the housing benefit department with new information but did not follow this up for 6 months. This was an unreasonable delay.
37. Additionally, the landlord assumed the housing benefit department would clear the arrear that had been created by its mistake and provided premature reassurances to the resident about this. This was not a fair or reasonable approach.
38. The Ombudsman’s view is that for 10 months the landlord failed to inform the resident of an arrear on the rent account. The resident then had to spend an unreasonable amount of time in email communication, telephone conversations, contacting the housing benefit department, and engaged in the landlord’s complaints process to get the matter resolved.
39. The Ombudsman considers the amount of time the resident had to spend on the issue amounted to more than mere inconvenience and finds there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents rent account.
40. The landlord’s compensation policy states ‘We take into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as any other relevant factors’  The amount of compensation that we decide does not reflect a definitive loss, as we are not able to quantity this, but it is a recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by the particular circumstances.
41. The Ombudsman considers the £25 shopping voucher offered by the landlord during its complaint process did not go far enough in recognising the length of time taken by the landlord to address the issue or the overall inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
42. Additionally, the landlord did not resolve the issue for the resident until November 2022 which was 7 months after it declined to escalate the residents complaint to stage 2, and given the premature reassurances it had provided to the resident throughout the complaints process were not delivered, the Ombudsman’s view is that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether any further compensation was due to the resident. This may have prevented an escalation of the complaint to this service.
43. The Ombudsman has considered the compensation amounts contained in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where maladministration exists and considers a remedy of £250 would be more appropriate to reflect the delay, level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

44. The landlord’s complaints policy states ‘We take personal responsibility for complaints at the time they’re first reported and work with customers to put things right quickly and fairly’.
45. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. The policy states a resident can escalate their complaint to stage 2 in the following circumstances:  
    1. Our Initial Investigation has been concluded but you’re unhappy with the outcome.
    2. Our initial investigation has not been concluded but more than ten working days (or a longer timescale we agreed with you) has passed and you’re unhappy with progress.
46. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident in April 2022. It stated, ‘because this is a partial conclusion of the complaint, I will be contacting you to discuss this further with the aim of bringing this to a full and final conclusion’. However, it did not say when it would do this which meant the resident remained unclear about when the matter would be resolved.
47. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response in that no tangible information or timescales for a resolution had been provided and requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2.
48. Specifically, the resident stated, ‘ As far as I can see no action has been taken, no refunds, no resolution’ and ‘Given that we don’t appear to have made any progress and we are no further forward I regret it looks like I will be going to stage 2’.
49. The Ombudsman considers the resident’s escalation request was reasonable in the circumstances because while the stage 1 response explained what it intended to do, it failed to provide any indication of when the matter would be resolved.
50. Additionally, point 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, ‘Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.’ The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord did this.
51. The landlord denied the residents stage 2 escalation request on the grounds that the resident had not provided any new evidence and that it considered its policies, procedures and regulatory requirements had been followed in full in relation to the matter.
52. The Ombudsman finds the landlords refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 was unfair and heavy handed and did not align with its complaints escalation policy.
53. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s escalation request was a contributing factor to the landlord’s lack of urgency in following up on the actions it had promised in its stage 1 response.
54. No evidence has been provided that the landlord assigned an individual to take responsibility for making enquiries with the housing benefit department about its backdating request or providing regular updates to the resident.
55. The Ombudsman has considered the impact of the issues on the resident. These are the landlord’s failure to provide a timeline for resolution in its stage 1 complaint, its failure to follow up on the actions it took at stage 1, and its unfair and heavy-handed approach in handling the resident’s escalation request that did not align with its policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
56. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s complaints process did not work effectively and provided the resident with a frustrating and unsatisfactory experience which caused inconvenience and distress.
57. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents rent account.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

60. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should apologise for its handling of the rent account and its complaint handling.
61. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £450 in compensation. This comprises:
    1. £250 for the delay, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlords handling of the rent account.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
62. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.