Your Housing Group Limited (202121482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121482

Your Housing Group Limited

31 May 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears and mutual exchange request.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s records state that the resident has no recorded vulnerabilities. In contrast, the information shows that that the resident suffers from bipolar and borderline personality disorder.
The resident’s complaint relates to separate tenancies held at two different properties owned by the landlord. These will be referred to as “property 1” and “property 2” for the purpose of this report. Both properties were occupied on an assured tenancy. The tenancy for property 1 began on 1 November 2019 and the tenancy for property 2 began on 16 July 2020.
Both tenancy agreements state that:
1. the rent is payable weekly in advance
2. “unless there are good reasons why”, the tenant will pay the rent direct from a bank account via a direct debit, whether they are in receipt of housing benefit or not
3. the landlord can offset any money the tenant owes the landlord against any money the landlord owes the tenant. This means if the landlord is liable to pay the tenant compensation, the landlord can deduct any money the tenant owes.
The landlord has a former tenant arrears policy which states that on the termination of their tenancy agreement, it will advise residents of any debt outstanding. It says that it will use a range of contact methods to engage with customers.
The landlord operates a three stage complaint policy:
1. ‘put things right’ informal stage for a quick and effective response to complaints that can be resolved within two working days
2. ‘investigation’ formal stage one, where complaints are aimed to be resolved within ten working days
3. ‘escalation’ formal stage two, where complaints are aimed to be resolved within fifteen working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises that it will consider goodwill gestures on a discretionary basis, where there has been inconvenience or hardship.
On 3 March 2020, the resident contacted the universal credit (UC) service and asked that her rent be paid directly to her landlord. They UC replied that the request should be made through the landlord.
On 24 March 2020, the resident told the landlord she had been made redundant and so it would get no UC and only part of her wage. The landlord amended her direct debit, and asked to be notified of further changes.
On 15 May 2020, the landlord tried to contact the resident by phone, leaving a message to advise her of arrears on the account. It followed this up with an email asking for urgent contact. An agreement was made on 5 June 2020 with the resident to cover payment towards her arrears.
In June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been a serious incident that had taken place at property 1 whereby she was sexually assaulted. In response to this incident, the landlord’s records demonstrate that it:
1. arranged for a lock change, and made a referral to the safeguarding team
2. contacted the police, who confirmed that she was in touch with her mental health team to assist with trauma support
3. discussed a move with the resident. She expressed she wanted to move to a three bedroom property as she lived with her daughter, and had a carer since May 2019
4. confirmed that the resident was being supported by victim support
5. made several attempts to contact the resident’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) to discuss concerns the resident raised that she was suicidal.
On 14 July 2020, the resident returned to property 1 to collect some belongings. She reported that two neighbours approached the car and dragged her daughter out, hitting and kicking her. The police were contacted but made no arrests. In response to this incident, the landlord’s records demonstrate that it:
1. was investigating another incident involving broken windows at the property that had taken place around the same time
2. due to “ongoing threats” it would arrange for an immediate decant to a hotel for four nights. An emergency move property was being arranged in the meantime
3. it had made contact with the police to see what actions would be taken
4. a safeguarding referral was made to partner agencies.
Records show there was a further incident that occurred where the resident was assaulted by her partner. The police attended and arrested him. The landlord arranged for additional locks to be added to the property, and referred the case to its local multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). The resident moved, and commenced her new tenancy at property 2 on 16 July 2020.
The landlord’s rents team tried to make contact with the resident to discuss increasing arrears on five occasions in July 2020. On 24 July 2020, the resident agreed to pay £50 a month towards them.
On 31 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord’s income officer and advised that she had asked for her housing payments to be paid directly to the landlord from May. However when she called the housing department, she was told that this had not happened.
The landlord’s income officer responded the same day and said:
1. “don’t worry about it, every problem has a solution”
2. direct payments had been requested that afternoon, and should get granted straight away. If there were any problems with this, he would let her know
3. in the meantime, if she was to receive any direct payments, then she could contact him and he could arrange for payment to be taken over the phone.
On 5 August 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident to see if it could set up a direct debit for her rent arrears. The resident advised she was “not in a good place right now” and asked if someone could contact her the following week to discuss it further.
On 14 August 2020, the landlord’s income officer advised the resident that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had approved direct payments to the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 September 2020 and advised that:
1. it had now received the first payment from UC, however there remained an outstanding arrears balance on the account
2. it would wait until the next payment from UC was received to see if it “evened out” the arrears. If it did not, then a payment plan would need to be arranged
3. the resident should not worry, as it would work with her to set up something that was affordable for her.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord asked the resident to check her UC payments. It explained there had been some changes on her account, and wanted to ensure that housing was still part of her claim.
The landlord’s income officer contacted the resident again on 28 October 2020. He advised:
1. he was sorry to keep bothering her with regards to her claim, however a payment from UC had not been made
2. he needed her to confirm the exact figure that had supposedly been paid to the landlord so that the payment could be tracked
3. he required both the rent payment and the arrears payment details.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it had received her application to mutually exchange. It would make arrangements to conduct an inspection at the property and contact the other tenant to obtain further details. The mutual exchange was later declined because there were rent arrears on the resident’s account.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord’s income officer wrote to the resident and asked her to make contact with regards to her rent account. He explained there had been some discrepancies with the payments, and they needed to discuss the “best way forward”.
On 29 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that her direct housing payment (DHP) application had not been successful, and an alternative payment arrangement (APA) had not been arranged. The landlord advised it would do this right away. The notes from the officer stated he had never advised that the DHP would be guaranteed.
On 7 April 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord and advised that:
1. she had been told by the income officer there was “no cause for concern” about her rent arrears, which had accrued since December 2020
2. she had been promised that she would receive a discretionary housing payment (DHP)
3. she was placed in hotel accommodation due to anti-social behaviour at property 1. She could not recall the dates she was in the hotel, but was unhappy that she continued to be charged rent for her former property during that time. Whilst at the hotel, she had to fund her meal expenses as there were no cooking facilities in the room
4. payments going to her former account for property 1 had given her a false arrears balance on property 2, and had prevented her from moving via mutual exchange.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord issued an informal complaint response. It said that:
1. it had tried to contact her by telephone without success. It wanted to write further to her recent contact about the management of her rent arrears, and how this had affected a mutual exchange
2. it was sorry for any misunderstanding that took place during a telephone conversation held on 29 March 2021
3. it had noted that her tenancy had ended on 16 July 2020. Evidence on file confirmed she had contacted the income team on 24 July 2020 with the intention to pay £50 a month to clear the account. However this was not done and an outstanding arrears balance remained. It was sorry if it was not clear on what her arrears were, but felt she had already accepted liability by agreeing to pay the £50 a month
4. a member of the housing management team would be in contact with her directly with regards to her request for a reduction of rent whilst she was in hotel accommodation, and a contribution towards her meal expenses
5. it wanted to apologise for her mutual exchange experience. It was confident future UC payments would be allocated to her current account
6. to date, it had received four payments, which had stopped from December 2020 onwards. It asked that she revisit her bank statements, as she had advised she was in receipt of direct payments. It had cancelled a recent request for third party deductions in good faith that she would make the payments owed by the first week of May
7. it was unable to pass her case onto another manager as she had requested. To reduce frequency of contact from her case manager, a repayment plan could be put in place. It asked that she made contact with a member of the income team as soon as possible to do this
8. it considered her complaint closed, however if she remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the matter to a formal stage.
On 18 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised she wanted a reduction in her arrears, which she felt were as a result of the poor advice she had been given. The landlord responded the same day and advised she could expect a response by 2 June 2021.
On 18 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that:
1. she was first made aware of arrears in “early November” when she made an application to move home which was later denied. She had paid the rent every month and had been promised that there was “nothing for her to be worried about” and her arrears would be written off
2. she lost her “perfect house exchange” to an area near family, friends and support, and remained isolated as a result of not being able to move
3. she had been told she would be able to move by February. She wanted to know what arrears existed that prevented her from doing this
4. until her complaint was resolved, she did not want the landlord to contact her by phone. If she was liable for any rent arrears, she would set up a payment plan.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it had received the additional points she wished it to consider. The matter was still under investigation, and it was sorry for the delay. It advised it would write again “as soon as possible”.
On 29 July and 11 August 2021 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. She said that nobody was getting back to her, and her mental health was deteriorating. She wanted her arrears to be “wiped” to allow her to move from her current address.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It said that:
1. it was sorry for the amount of time it had taken to investigate her complaint
2. there were arrears on both of her rent accounts. In relation to property 1:
  1. the tenancy commenced on 1 November 2019. It could see that her account was well managed up until March 2020 when there was a gap of payments until June 2020
  2. attempts at contact were made on 24 March and 15 May 2020 to discuss the matter. It could see that she made a payment of £1000 on 5 June 2020, but it did not cover the full arrears balance
  3. an income officer made an agreement with the resident to set up a direct debit to cover the outstanding costs. The direct debit was never paid, but additional sums were paid by the resident. The amounts she paid did not cover the arrears in full, and she remained with debit balance at the end of her tenancy on 19 July 2020. It had sent her a letter detailing the outstanding balance in August 2020.
3. in relation to property 2:
  1. the tenancy started on 16 July 2020. The resident’s application notes said she would be paying rent in full herself, by direct debit. On 24 July 2020, she informed the landlord she had moved back onto UC, and queried if the correct information had been sent to the DWP. It was confirmed to the resident at the time, the figures that it had provided the DWP were correct.
  2. the income officer agreed with the resident that the landlord would apply for an APA once the UC was in place. The first payment was received in August 2020, but the subsequent two months of payments were incorrectly credited to her former account at property 1
  3. the error was noted and corrected after it received a reference request from the resident’s new landlord for a proposed move via mutual exchange. Despite the readjustment on the account, there were still arrears from the start of the tenancy that were not related to the missing UC payments
4. it had calculated the total arrears for property 1 and 2 as £900.77. The amount of arrears across both accounts, were not as a result of missing UC payments, and would have prevented the resident from moving
5. no evidence had been found that it had suggested to her at any time that it would write her arrears off. In any event, this is not something that it would offer, as it was deemed inappropriate
6. it accepted that there had been some inconvenience caused in the way the payments had been managed, and that the resident had been advised that the arrears on property 2 were higher than they truly were. This was a result of the allocation of payments to her former tenancy at property 1. It apologised and said, in future, further checks would be done before contacting residents
7. it was not responsible for the arrears on both accounts, or preventing her mutual exchange. However, it did feel that compensation was appropriate and broke down the amount as:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the handling of the UC payments
  2. £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint. Both amounts would be credited to the remaining balance on the rent account
8. it considered the complaint closed, however the resident could request a review if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day and advised that “no arrears at all” had been brought to her attention until the day of the home visit for her mutual exchange. She stated “you’ve caused me serious illness, suicidal attempts and being in a property that I am now isolated”. The landlord responded to the resident and advised that her complaint had been escalated. It also raised a concern for welfare on its system, and requested that a welfare check be arranged with a specific member of staff. The safeguarding report was closed on 1 September 2021.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord issued a stage two complaint response. It advised that it had recently spoken to her and had sought to understand what elements of the complaint she remained dissatisfied with. The landlord said that:
1. based on the findings outlined in its stage one response, it felt that it was clear that she had been kept informed of her arrears balance, and that she was in contact with its income officer at the time
2. in relation to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had provided incorrect information related to the DHP it said that:
  1. due to working from home during the pandemic, calls were not being recorded. It could therefore not confirm what information the officer dealing with her query provided
  2. the nature of DHP being discretionary meant that it could in no way be guaranteed, and that the decision whether to apply it was down to the local authority, based on the merits of the claim. It could not obtain the call to prove exactly what was said between the resident and the income officer, but he had said he did not advise of any guarantee of the payment
  3. there was no evidence that a guarantee of the payment was discussed over the various emails that had gone between the income officer and the resident. If the resident had evidence to demonstrate otherwise, then the matter could be reconsidered
3. with regards to her complaint that it had incorrectly allocated her UC payments, it said it had noted there was an error on the system which resulted in it giving her an inflated arrears balance. There were still significant arrears on the account, but they were lower than the figure it had given her. It apologised for this and said controls would be put in place to ensure it did not happen again
4. with regards to the length of time it had taken for the landlord to handle her complaint, it said that:
  1. the stage one complaint response offered compensation for the delay in a response, but it had noted it had not explained why it was overdue
  2. the delay occurred because the member of staff dealing with the complaint left the company, leaving the response outstanding. It recognised this was not acceptable and control measures would be put in place to ensure that this did not happen again
5. with regards to the resident’s request to write off the full arrears balance as a result of her complaint:
  1. it was not in position to consider that, as the arrears balance had increased due to payments not being made on the account, and not due to any fault of the landlord
  2. it would be willing to offer a further £100 to the amount offered in its stage one response. This was £50 to reflect the additional delay and £50 for the upset it had caused her
  3. due to the outstanding arrears, the amount would be deducted from her rent account. It broke down the amount still owed on both properties.
6. it had noted that the resident had been willing to enter into a repayment plan to reduce the outstanding arrears, and it would arrange for an income officer to contact her about this
7. with the resident’s permission, the landlord could refer her to its money advice team
8. it wanted to apologise for the inconvenience the resident had experienced, and thanked her for her patience. It advised if she remained dissatisfied, she could contact the Ombudsman.
Records show that the landlord continued to engage with the resident throughout 2022 after it served her with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) for arrears. The landlord’s notes recorded:
1. the resident had said the reason no payment had made towards her rent was because it had been paid direct to her, and she had spent it
2. it had a conversation with the resident and established her vulnerabilities as having bipolar, high performing borderline personality disorder and ADHD. It made contact with the mental health recovery team to request additional support
3. it tried to establish all that she was eligible for, taking into account the benefits she received and her household make up
4. the resident had attempted suicide and wanted to move, but this was not possible due to the rent arrears
5. it had engaged with DWP to see if the resident was due any more payments. It had referred her to the housing support fund, but the resident did not engage and so the claim was closed. The fund was no longer accepting new referrals due to high demand
6. it had explored the possibility of a “mental health breathing space agreement” to pay the rent arrears and referred her to a member of staff trained to deal with vulnerable residents
7. it had spoken to adult social care and the resident confirmed that a care package had been put in place.
On 7 July 2022 a multi-agency meeting was held. It noted that it had been established the resident had capacity, and enough income to be reducing her rent arrears. It would be advising the resident that she had three options:
1. to set up a direct debit for an agreed amount
2. the landlord could set up third party deductions
3. the landlord would apply for a possession order.
The following week, a meeting took place with the resident, her support officer and a money advice representative. It explained:
1. it had been established she had capacity to manage and sustain her tenancy but can go through period of poor mental health that affects her ability to comprehend certain things
2. an advocate was being arranged, specifically to assist the resident in understanding her rent arrears and payment plan
3. the three options available to her discussed in the multi-agency meeting.
On 21 July 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was refusing an advocate and any further support from the landlord. The landlord made an arrangement to pay for third party deductions and referred her to the citizens advice bureau. It noted it was taking this step to safeguard the resident from further legal action.
On 7 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised she would be clearing her account in full, however she wanted a full rent statement and confirmation that all the UC payments had been taken into consideration. The landlord provided her with the information the same day.
On 8 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that the amount had been cleared, and she could now pursue a mutual exchange. It requested that the DWP cancel the arrears payments.
The DWP cleared the rent payments, but at the same time, cancelled the direct debit for the rent. The landlord informed the resident of this on 29 September 2022 and asked that she get in contact.
On 30 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and provided a full breakdown of her rent account, and an explanation of how the DWP cancelling the rent payment meant she would be getting the amount directly, and this needed to go to the landlord. It said if she did this, then her move would not be impacted.
The landlord arranged a meeting to discuss the account with the resident on 5 October 2022 which she cancelled. It followed it up with an email and explained, the importance of making the rental payments direct to the landlord. It explained it had contacted the DWP to set up monthly payments again, but in the meantime, she needed to ensure that the money she had received directly, went onto her rent account. It arranged access for her to view her rent account online.
The following day, the landlord contacted the resident again and advised that it was successful in setting up direct payments from the DWP, but that she still needed to make the payment for the month of September. It referred her to the online portal to be able to do this, or she could contact the landlord by phone.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the September payment had still not been made, and this would impact a request for a move to another property if not paid. The resident replied and said:
1. “how dare you email me in this tone, you do not deserve to be employed, let alone be a manager. You and your teams actions are disgusting”
2. she would not allow the landlord to steal more money from her and try to cover it up
3. the landlord was providing her with a “fake rent balance”, and she would make sure everyone who has failed her is dealt with.
The landlord responded to the resident and apologised that she felt that way. All it wanted to do was to ensure she was in a position to move as she had wanted. It would arrange for a full rent statement to be sent to the resident. Call notes show that later that day, the resident contacted the landlord by phone, was “abusive and shouting” before making the September rent payment.
In contact with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that:
1. arrears were only mentioned after an exchange had been approved and when inspections at her property were due to take place in November 2020
2. her income officer had promised a discretionary housing payment to clear her arrears, or the landlord would clear them due to her “bad treatment”
3. the outstanding balance was over £1000 less than what she had been told prior to her mutual exchange. If she had been given the correct figure, she could have paid it, and she could have moved
4. she lost out on her ideal home as a result of the move and it left her feeling suicidal
5. her complaint was ignored for months and she was never referred to the money advice team, or asked to set up on a repayment plan.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears and mutual exchange request.

Landlord’s records show that it was in regular contact with the resident about her rent from May 2020. During initial discussions with the resident, the landlord’s income officer was empathetic to the resident’s situation, telling her not to worry and that “every problem has a solution”. This response was appropriate and provided the resident with reassurance that it was willing to work with her to address her rent arrears. He appropriately offered to set up a repayment plan that she could afford.
By advising the resident “not to worry” it is clear that the intention of the income officer was to alleviate any anxiety the resident had about the management of her rent account. He did not at any point suggest that she should not worry about her rent account to the extent that she did not need to take any further action, as the resident alluded to within her complaint. No evidence was seen that the landlord advised her at any point that her arrears would be “written off”.
In being sympathetic to the resident’s situation, the income officer appropriately signposted the resident to explore the possibility of a DHP. Though the resident has advised that she felt that the landlord “promised” this payment, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. The landlord’s response on this point was explained clearly and sensitively within its complaint responses.
From the evidence seen, it is clear that the resident was aware that there were issues relating to her rent account prior to November 2020. Several attempts at contact were made by the landlord between May and October 2020 to work with the resident to ensure that her UC payments were set up correctly and to address arrears that were being accrued. In July 2020, she agreed to an overpayment of £50 a month to clear her account, thus accepting that there were arrears on the account that needed to be addressed at the time. These payments were not consistently made, resulting in further rent arrears.
The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its rent collection policy by making regular contact with the resident to address her arrears at the earliest opportunity. It also informed her of the rent arrears at the end of her tenancy at property 1, in accordance with its former tenant arrears policy.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for the payment of her rent, whether in receipt of housing benefit or not. The complication with regards to arrears occurred as a result of her having two rent accounts with the landlord (for her former tenancy at property 1, and her current tenancy at property 2).
The landlord was not responsible for the errors made by the DWP in cancelling direct payments. It appropriately informed the resident in a timely manner when this occurred, so that she could take steps to redirect the payments that had gone directly to her in error. The landlord liaised promptly with the DWP to restore the regular payments onto her rent account. However evidence suggests that the resident did not make the appropriate missing contributions, causing the arrears.
At the point the resident applied for a mutual exchange in November 2020, it was identified her more recent UC payments were being made to her former account relating to property 1, rather than property 2. This resulted in her being advised that the arrears on the account relating to property 2 were higher than they were. The landlord apologised for this miscommunication. The accrual of true arrears are evidenced in the rent statements for both properties, seen by the Ombudsman. In essence, whichever account the UC was credited to, both the former and current tenancies had arrears on the account which impacted her ability to move via a mutual exchange.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps to explain to the resident how her arrears have accrued. It is clear from the evidence seen, that the resident has complex vulnerabilities which have impacted her ability to engage with the landlord to address her rent arrears fully. The landlord has appropriately recognised these and has been sensitive to her situation, both in its communication and in trying to find a solution with appropriate partner agencies. However, the landlord informed this Service that there were no vulnerability flags on the system for the resident, a recommendation has therefore been made in this regard.
The landlord has made referrals to specialist support agencies to assist the resident in managing her money, and where the resident has expressed that she is in severe distress, has made appropriate safeguarding referrals. It also arranged for her to have appropriate specialist tenancy related support. Records demonstrate that the resident has not consistently engaged with the support offered to her, refusing the assistance of an advocate and further support from the money advice service. Despite this, the landlord has demonstrated that it has continued to try to support the resident through regular liaison with partnership agencies, and in 2022 it applied for third party deductions to safeguard her from further legal action.
The landlord was not responsible for her inability to move via mutual exchange due to the total arrears noted on both her former and current rent account. However, there was a service failure by the landlord in informing the resident of an incorrect arrears figure on property 2. The landlord recognised this and took steps to put matters right. It appropriately apologised and compensated the resident for the error.
The landlord has been empathetic to the resident’s vulnerabilities, and has worked with appropriate agencies to provide her with support. It has been able to evidence that it has continued to support the resident after its final complaint response, and more recently has advised this Service it has supported her with a management move.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident advised the landlord that she was not happy with the way that her rent account had been administered, and that she had not been paid meal expenses during her temporary decant in her correspondence dated 7 April 2021. The landlord treated this query as a service request, rather than a formal complaint. This was not appropriate given that not all elements of her complaint could be concluded within the two day timeframe the landlord had given for it to be resolved in accordance with its policy.
Though the landlord’s response about the rent arrears were clear, it had to refer her concerns about payments for meal expenses to a different team for a further response. No information was seen to show this was ultimately paid. It was not appropriate therefore to have closed the case and put the onus on the resident to decide whether her complaint was taken to a formal stage.
The landlord made assurances that it would respond to her formal complaint by 2 June 2021, however the resident had to chase it three times before a response followed 71 working days later. This was significantly outside of the timescale that could be expected within its complaint policy, and the resident experienced time and trouble in pursuing a response. However, the landlord recognised this and made an appropriate apology and offer of compensation that was reflective of the delay in resolving her complaint.
The stage one complaint response was comprehensive, and set out how her arrears had accrued, and how the way the UC payments had been made had caused an inflated arrears figure on her current rent account. It appropriately apologised for this, and offered her compensation reflective of its miscommunication. Further, it explained to her what the true rent arrears were across both accounts which was appropriate.
In recognising that the resident was not happy with the explanation given, the landlord made contact with her prior to issuing its stage two response. This was appropriate, as it allowed the landlord an opportunity to understand all that the resident remained dissatisfied with. Its response was issued within the appropriate timescale in accordance with its complaint policy.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should acknowledge where things have gone wrong, and take appropriate steps to put matters right. The landlord acted appropriately in this case, it acknowledged that its stage one response did not fully explain the reasons for its delays, and offered an increased goodwill gesture for the upset it had caused her.
The landlord’s response was thorough and addressed each element it had established the resident was dissatisfied with. It offered the resident appropriate money advice and support post-complaint. It signposted her appropriately to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord’s complaint responses were clear, empathetic in their tone and demonstrated that it had a clear understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident experienced delays where her complaint was treated as a service request. She experienced further delays in receiving the landlord’s stage one response. However, the landlord recognised its initial service failures and ultimately awarded proportionate compensation for this

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation its handling of the resident’s rent arrears and mutual exchange request which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord attempted to engage with the resident about rent arrears from July 2020. Its correspondence with the resident was considerate of her vulnerabilities. It was empathetic and referred her to appropriate support. It recognised that there was a miscommunication in explaining why UC payments were showing on the wrong rent account. The landlord appropriately apologised and compensated for this administration error. In any event, arrears accrued as a result of the resident not making appropriate payments onto her account, and not as a result of any maladministration by the landlord.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, and it missed an opportunity to address her concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier stage. However the landlord appropriately recognised this, made a sincere apology and appropriately compensated her for the time and inconvenience it had caused her.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident with a view to ensuring its records accurately reflect her vulnerabilities.
The landlord to check its records to ensure that the resident’s meal allowance concerns were addressed.