Your Housing Limited (202303228)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303228

Your Housing Limited

30 September 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about the following:
1. The landlord’s handling of his reports of misinformation about his rent payments and the possibility of it being deducted from his benefits.
2. The landlord’s handling of his reports about a key safe removal without prior notice.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom property. The tenancy began in December 2022.
The resident has Huntington’s disease which can cause a wide range of symptoms, including problems with mental health, behaviour, movement and communication. Symptoms of Huntington’s disease can include difficulty in concentrating and memory lapses.
For the purpose of providing context on this case, the resident has informed this Service that eviction proceedings had previously taken place in 2017 and during this he was required to evidence how his disabilities impacted his behaviour. The resident explained that following the proceedings, it was recommended for the landlord to assign the resident with an advocate, however, this did not materialise.
The resident was referred by the landlord’s income team to its money advice team on 1 February 2023 due to previous rent arrears.
On 10 February 2023, the resident sent a message via social media to the landlord and called the landlord explaining that he was informed during sign up that payment for his rent could be taken directly from his benefits, however, he had since been told this was not possible by the money advice team. The resident explained that he had difficulties making payment via the automated service and stated he was unlikely to be able to remember to make payments on time via a debit card due to his health condition. He clearly expressed that he wished for his ‘bedroom tax’ deduction to be taken directly from his benefits as all his other bills were taken via the same method. The resident explained that during sign up, he was reassured by a member of staff that this would not be a problem and he stated that he would not have accepted the property if this was an issue.
A formal written complaint was raised about the matter on 17 February 2023.
Internal email trails between the landlord and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show that the landlord was advised the tax deduction could not be taken through benefits, however, the resident could apply for an exemption if he was eligible.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 2 March 2023. The landlord stated that as the resident had moved to a two bedroom property, this meant that he was required to pay a shortfall in rent due to the additional bedroom. The landlord acknowledged that it had misunderstood the resident’s request during sign up for all his rent to be taken via his benefits. It noted that instead of asking the resident to make direct debit payments, it should have gained consent from the resident to make contact with DWP on his behalf to come up with a solution.
The complaint was formally escalated to stage 2 on 22 March 2023.
As part of his escalation request, the resident also raised concerns about a key safe removal without his consent. The resident informed the landlord that the key safe outside his property had been removed and a key to his property along with it.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident informing him that it had arranged for a new key safe to be installed. However, the resident responded to the landlord telling it not to “bother”.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 April 2023. The landlord apologised for a misunderstanding by its staff member and confirmed that it had had further communication from the housing benefit team who had confirmed that they would be paying all rent directly to the landlord backdating to when the resident moved in.
With regards to the key safe removal, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to communicate with the resident when the key safe was being removed and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord stated that an operator would attend on 19 April 2023 to change the locks and provide a new set of keys.
As a resolution, the landlord offered £200 compensation made up of the following:
1. £100 – For misunderstanding about how the under-occupancy charge could be paid from the resident’s benefit entitlements.
2. £100 – For the failure to advise the resident of when the key safe to his home would be removed.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 16 June 2023, he explained that he felt his complaint had not been fully addressed by the landlord, especially in relation to the specific staff member who he communicated with during sign up.
The resident also explained to this Service that he felt he should have had an advocate present to deal with the sign up process and rent account as he is not capable of dealing with money due to his disabilities. The resident would like for the landlord to acknowledge and recognise his disabilities in full and his need for an advocate. The resident confirmed that the locks to his property were changed following the key safe removal.
The resident and the landlord have both updated this Service to confirm that a professional advocate has now been assigned to the resident and meetings have taken place to discuss outstanding issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of misinformation about his rent payments and the possibility of it being deducted from his benefits.

The landlord’s income collection policy states that it will provide a wide and varied range of payment options for its services including direct debit, debit or credit card, its online portal, telephone, online, allpay card, internet banking, standing order or cheque.
The landlord’s policy also states that it would provide a free of charge money advice service to assist residents who may have been struggling with rent arrears/debts and/or benefit concerns. The landlord will refer residents to the service if their discussions determine that it is needed. The landlord states it will ‘sensitively explore’ its customers’ circumstances to ensure it has enough information upon which to offer advice and make decisions.
Examples of customer vulnerability includes those with physical and mental health conditions.
The policy states where residents receive benefits from housing benefit or universal credit, the landlord would ensure that any housing costs are paid directly to it in line with regulations. It would do this before taking legal action.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.
The resident informed the landlord on 10 February 2023 that he was told during sign up in December 2022 that all his rent would be taken via benefits, however he had since been told he needed to set up a direct debit for the bedroom tax. Once the landlord was notified of the issue, it made enquiries with DWP to confirm whether a rent shortfall could be taken directly from the resident’s benefit entitlement.
The landlord was advised that a deduction for under occupancy under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, known colloquially as the bedroom tax deduction, could not be taken via benefits, however, the resident could apply for an exemption on the grounds of the second bedroom being required for overnight care. If the resident wished to apply for an exemption he would need to apply in writing directly to the housing benefits team and carers would also need to confirm in writing that they provide overnight care. The landlord relayed this information to the resident on 2 March 2023 in its stage 1 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek advice at this stage from the relevant organisation to ensure that it had the correct information to relay to the resident regarding the matter.
In a telephone call to the landlord’s money advice team on 10 February 2023, the resident reiterated to the landlord that his health condition meant he was unable to deal with money and pay bills in the same way as others who may not suffer from Huntington’s disease. Therefore, paying the rent shortfall via direct debit was not a suitable option for him. The landlord’s income collection policy states that residents with physical and mental health conditions would be recognised as vulnerable residents. Thus, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to give due consideration to the Equality Act 2010 and arrange for any reasonable adjustments which could have made the landlord’s services more accessible for the resident. The landlord could have considered assigning an advocate at this stage. This may have helped to improve the deteriorating landlord and tenant relationship.
It is evident from the information available that the resident had vulnerabilities which the landlord was aware of. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence why there was a delay in arranging for a suitable advocate to assist with its communication with the resident. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate that it acted with due regard to its responsibilities under the Act in that it properly considered the implementations of reasonable adjustments.
The landlord has since confirmed that an advocate has now been appointed and while this is a positive step towards rebuilding the landlord and tenant relationship and resolving outstanding issues, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay is evident.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that there was failure in its service when it requested the resident to make direct debit payments during sign up. It acknowledged that the appropriate course of action it should have taken was to make inquiries with DWP at that stage. The landlord also offered a home visit and direct contact with DWP in its stage 1 response, this was a reasonable step to try and resolve the issue for the resident. Albeit the resident did not consent for the landlord to act on his behalf, the landlord was still proactive in making contact with DWP to try and resolve the matter without acting as a representative for the resident.
Following the stage 1 response, the resident received a letter from DWP which incorrectly advised that the landlord must make contact with DWP about the details of housing costs in order for the costs to be deducted from his benefits. This inevitably frustrated the resident as he was being given conflicting information by DWP and the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to clarify the misunderstanding by DWP with the resident, however, due to the resident’s distrust of the landlord this was not a productive conversation. As the resident refused consent for the landlord to make contact with DWP or the housing benefit team on his behalf, the landlord was limited in what it could do next to resolve the matter without cooperation from the resident.
On 17 April 2023, the resident made contact with the landlord and provided a copy of a letter from the local authority housing benefit team which stated that he had housing benefit payment in full. Following further communication from the housing benefit team, the landlord confirmed to the resident that full rent would be paid by housing benefit, backdated to when the resident moved in and there was no shortfall to pay off. Therefore, no further action was required from the resident. It is unclear from the evidence provided, what actions led to the housing benefit team agreeing to pay the rent in full to the landlord directly, however, the matter now appears to be resolved.
The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to correctly understand how the resident’s under occupancy charge could be paid from his benefit entitlements. It compensated the resident £100 for its misunderstanding. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and how the impact of the landlord’s failure was likely to have been greater on the resident than on an individual who did not share the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord also missed an opportunity to identify the need for reasonable adjustments in consideration of the Equality Act 2010 and therefore missed an opportunity to improve its relationship with the resident. Due to this, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about misinformation in relation to his rent deductions from his benefits. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation to the £100 offered in recognition of the failures identified.
This Service notes that since this complaint, the landlord has a new ‘vulnerability policy’ in its draft stages which is a positive step and shows that the landlord is taking away learning from complaints to improve its service for other vulnerable residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the removal of a key safe without notice

While escalating his complaint to stage 2 the resident informed the landlord that when it removed a key safe from outside his property without notifying him, the landlord also removed a key to his property which was in the key safe. In response to this, the landlord arranged for a new key safe to be installed and the lock to be changed. This was a reasonable solution offered to rectify the reported issue, however, the resident refused this offer due to his distrust of the landlord.
Given the safety concern, the landlord should have made effort to replace the lock within a reasonable time frame. The loss of a key to his property is likely to have distressed and concerned the resident about the security of his property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it may adjust response times and increase its service offering on a case by case basis in relation to vulnerable residents. Where residents may require additional assistance, ‘every attempt’ will be made to identify any individual circumstances at first point of contact to ensure reasonable adjustment can be made for the works to take place. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have taken into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to the resident. As mentioned previously, the resident is likely to have benefitted from an advocate in situations such as this, where his increasing distrust of the landlord made it difficult for him to co-operate with the landlord.
The resident informed this Service that the locks to his property were changed, however, he could not confirm what date this was done.
In its stage 2 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing in relation to not notifying the resident about the key safe removal before it occurred and the impact this would have had. Had the resident been notified, it would have allowed him time to remove the key in the safe and prevented him from making a formal complaint. This was a failure acknowledged by the landlord and compensation of £100 was offered to recognise the failure.
This was an appropriate offer of compensation as it is commensurate with the award the Ombudsman would order for a service failure determination and the amount is consistent with our Remedies Guidance. Had this not been offered the Ombudsman would have made a finding of service failure and ordered a similar amount to be paid to the resident. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a key safe removal without prior notice.
It is worthy to note that in its stage 2 response which was dated 21 April 2023, the landlord stated that an appointment to replace the key safe and change the locks would take place on 19 April 2023. This date was prior to the date of the final response. It is important for the landlord to ensure that dates are correctly noted and typos are avoided within its complaint responses to prevent confusion, especially in the case of vulnerable residents.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of misinformation in relation to his rent deductions from his benefits.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the removal of a key safe without prior notice.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay £150 compensation for the service failure identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of misinformation about rent deductions from his benefits. This is in addition to the £200 offered in its stage 2 response which the landlord should ensure it has paid if this has not already been done.
3. Ensure that the resident’s vulnerabilities and any agreed reasonable adjustments are appropriately recorded by the landlord in its systems if the resident consents to this.

Recommendations

It is recommended for the landlord to provide staff training to its staff who deal with residents on how to deal with vulnerable residents and appropriately identify where reasonable adjustments may be required.