Housing For Women (202309026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309026

Housing For Women

31 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The resident lives in the property with her children. The resident’s tenancy began on 25 April 2016. The landlord is a housing association landlord. It notes on its website that it provides housing for women and children escaping domestic abuse, survivors of trafficking, women leaving prison, and older women. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 November 2022 to inform her that she owed £10,223.13 in rent arrears. The resident phoned the landlord on 17 November 2022 to advise that she had made rent payments that were not reflected in her rent account.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 27 November 2022. It stated she was in rent arrears of £1963.81 and the resident had not paid rent in August 2022 or October 2022. The resident responded and advised she had paid rent in August 2022, she had not paid in October 2022 but, due to overpayments on previous months, she should be in credit. The resident noted that the following payments appeared to be missing from her rent account and provided the landlord with bank statements showing the payments:
1. £500 paid on 7 July 2021. The rent due was £499.47.
2. £500 paid on 14 April 2022. The rent due was £450.03.
3. £606.96 on 7 July 2022. The rent due was £506.96.

The resident also asked the landlord to provide her access to her online rent portal account.

The landlord contacted the resident again on 28 November 2022, it advised it did not believe that there was any payments missing from the resident’s account. It confirmed it would post a rent statement to the resident so she could check again. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 30 November 2022, it stated:
1. It had not heard from the resident so it would start legal proceedings to recover the debt.
2. If the resident did not attend a phone interview on 19 December 2022, it would serve a notice of seeking possession.
3. The resident would need to pay £355 in legal costs.
On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not received the rent statement in the post and asked for one to be emailed instead. The landlord confirmed it would email a copy to the resident and post a copy as well. The resident asked the landlord to confirm it had emailed the rent statement as she had not received it.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 December 2022 to advise she had received a notice of seeking possession. The resident reiterated that there was payments missing from her account and she did not believe she was in rent arrears. The resident expressed confusion about the alleged amount of rent arrears and asked the landlord to confirm how it had reached this figure. The resident stated that she was “struggling to cope” and that this situation was taking a toll on her mental health. The resident reiterated her request that the landlord provide her with the information she has requested and that all correspondence is by email.
The resident received her rent statement for 2022 but not 2021 on 5 January 2023, she asked the landlord to send the 2021 statement as she believed payments were missing from it. The resident asked again for access to her online portal account so she could see the statements in full.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 January 2023 to explain she had reviewed the 2022 statement and that there were payments missing. The resident provided bank statements to show the payment to the landlord’s account. The resident also asked the landlord to confirm the amount it believed the rent arrears to be, as the amount did not match any of the payments the landlord asserted were missing. The resident also asked if the possession order was on hold and when she would be able to access her online portal account. The resident stated she felt it was unfair to proceed with the possession order whilst she was still waiting for the landlord to provide information to resolve the issue.
A notice seeking possession of the property was served on 23 January 2023. The accompanying letter from the landlord stated the resident had not reduced the rent arrears in a “satisfactory way”.
The resident complained on 8 February 2023. The resident stated she had contacted the landlord several times about the alleged missing payments and had provided evidence to show payments she had made were not reflected in the rent statements. The resident requested the landlord investigate where the missing payments were, allow her access to her online portal account, and to confirm if the possession order was on hold. The resident asked the landlord to be empathetic because she was finding the situation “overwhelming” and it was impacting her mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 March 2023 to ask when her complaint would be responded to. The resident first contacted this Service on 13 June 2023 because she had not received a response from the landlord. This Service wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2023 and 27 July 2023 to request it respond to the resident’s complaint. This Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord on 7 August 2023 because no complaint response had been provided. Due to non-compliance with the CHFO, this Service informed the landlord on 15 August 2023 that it would treat the matter as having exhausted the landlord’s complaint process (ICP).
On 15 August 2023, the landlord contacted this Service to advise it had sent a complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023 outlining that had located the missing payments and legal proceedings had been withdrawn. The landlord stated it did not receive a response from the resident so closed the matter. The resident confirmed to this Service that she did not receive the complaint response. The resident stated she was not happy with the support from the landlord and felt it lacked empathy in its approach. The resident stated the issue had caused an eczema flare up and she had sought counselling as a result of the impact on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement provides the obligation to pay rent to the landlord on time.
The landlord’s arrears prevention and recovery policy outlines that it will look to prevent formal action being taking against tenants for rent arrears by intervening at an early stage. It states it will provide tenants with the information, support, and advice they need.
The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it requires more than 10 working days, it can extend by a further 10 days and will communicate this to the resident. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where more time is needed, the landlord may extend its timeframe by a further 10 working days and will not exceed this without good reason.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that up to £100 will be awarded where the impact of a failure on the resident is minor. £51 to £500 will be awarded where the impact is assessed as moderate. Failures with a severe impact on a resident will be compensated from £501 to £1500, this is reserved for failures that cause “severe distress” to residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

The landlord initially contacted the resident to alert her she had rent arrears of £10,223.12, it later provided that the amount was £1963.81. Upon receiving these letters, the resident contacted the landlord to alert them that she believed this was a mistake. The resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions between November 2022 and February 2023 to state she believed there was an error on her account and payments she had made were missing. Despite this contact from the resident, the landlord proceeded with issuing a notice seeking possession to the resident.
Whilst the resident has an obligation to pay her rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to manage her rent account effectively and to have appropriate systems in place to enable it to do so. Therefore, when the resident raised an issue with the missing payments made to the rent account, the landlord’s first objective should have been to investigate the circumstances of the missing payments and clearly confirm its position in that regard. That it did not, is a failure. Its failure to act in the first instance caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
There is no available evidence to suggest that the landlord considered or investigated the resident’s claims that there was rent payments missing. On 28 November 2022, the landlord told the resident it had checked her account and nothing was missing. The landlord did not provide any explanation for this statement and continued to pursue the resident for payment despite her assertions. The resident states she provided the landlord with bank statements on at least 2 occasions, which showed payments made to the landlord’s account which were not reflected on her rent statement. The landlord should have taken the resident’s claims seriously and investigated thoroughly. It failed to do this which is maladministration.
The resident was informed by the landlord that it was planning to seek possession of her property on 27 December 2022 and was served with a notice of seeking possession of her property on 23 January 2023. During this time period, the resident continued to maintain and evidence that she had paid her rent. The landlord’s decision to pursue legal action whilst the resident’s claims were overlooked was inappropriate. This was evidently distressing for the resident, particularly considering that she disagreed with the landlord’s assertion of rent arrears.
The landlord’s actions demonstrate a failure to act fairly and reasonably. In its complaint response dated 13 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that payments had been missed from the resident’s account and that legal action had been discontinued. The landlord pursued the resident for rent arrears for 6 months before the error was identified and corrected, despite the insistence of the resident. The landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, amount to maladministration.
On receipt of the notice of rent arrears, the resident asked the landlord to confirm how it had reached the figure that it provided. It had stated she was £10,223.13 in rent arrears but then changed this to £1963.81. The resident expressed her confusion over the amount as it did not seem to match up with the payments the landlord claimed were missing. The landlord did not clarify the amount owed or how this figure had been realised. This was an inappropriate response which caused further distress to the resident.
The resident notes she spent a considerable amount of time collecting bank statements and proof of payments in order to show she was not in rent arrears. This caused great inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time which could have been avoided if the landlord had taken the resident’s first contact about the rent account seriously.
The resident asked the landlord to provide her with her log in details for her online rent portal on 5 occasions between 27 November 2022 and 8 February 2023. On 6 January 2023 the landlord advised it would speak to its IT team, there is no record of this happening or of the resident being contacted. The resident had asked for access to the online portal so she could see more information about the rent she had paid in order to try to resolve the issue. As of 22 August 2023, the resident did not have access to her online portal. An order has been made below to reflect this.
The evidence suggests that there was confusion between the landlord’s employees about whether the resident had been contacted to connect her to her portal account. On one occasion, employee 1 stated that employee 2 had said she had contacted the resident, but employee 2 denies being asked to do so. The landlord’s call log shows a call the resident on 13 April 2023 to help her access the portal but there was no answer. The landlord noted it would call the resident again later that day but there is no record that this happened. The resident asserts she did not receive a call from the landlord.
The fact that the landlord did not provide the resident with her log in details for the portal was an inappropriate response. The resident had stated she needed access to be able to view her full rent statements to be able to resolve the matter quickly. The landlord’s inaction caused further confusion and upset to the resident. Whilst the landlord states it tried to call the resident, the resident had previously told the landlord to only contact her via email to help her cope with the situation. Not adhering to the resident’s request is a further failure.
The resident was clearly very distressed by the landlord’s actions. Upon receiving the notice of seeking possession, the resident told the landlord she was “struggling to cope” and that the situation was taking a toll on her mental health. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated “please be empathetic, by placing yourself in my circumstance. This is overwhelming and, as made clear in previous emails, has given me anxiety, and has affected my mental health.” The resident feared she would be made homeless with her children.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to offer information, support, and advice as per its arrears prevention and recovery policy. The resident’s distress was evident and clearly aggravated by the landlord’s failure to consider the evidence she had provided. This was significant failure given the sensitive nature of the matter and the vulnerabilities of the resident, who had informed the landlord that she was “struggling” and that the matter was taking a toll on her mental health. Furthermore, it is evident that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of vulnerable residents when providing its services.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences”, it resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation.
The tone of the landlord’s communication lacked empathy for the resident’s situation. The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s evidence and showed no regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident repeatedly told the landlord she was struggling to cope and it offered no reassurance or support. The landlord continued to communicate with the resident in a heavy handed, unsympathetic, and inappropriate manner throughout the process. It was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and continued pursuing legal action when there was evidence to suggest it had made a mistake. This is particularly concerning given that the landlord primarily provides homes for vulnerable residents.
In its complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £25 as a gesture of goodwill for the “confusion” caused. The use of “confusion” and “gesture of good will” was inappropriate as it undermined and trivialised the resident’s experience.
The landlord also noted that compensation would be off-set against the resident’s arrears to reduce the debt owed. This was inappropriate as the resident had asserted she was not in rent arrears and had asked the landlord to confirm this or to confirm how much money she owed if she was in arrears. It failed to be explicit on the state of the resident’s rent account and did not confirm how much (if anything) the resident owed. An order has been made to reflect this.
The landlord’s actions overall represent a serious failing and the Ombudsman considers that £25 is not sufficient to redress the failings identified for the following reasons:
1. The persistent disregard for the resident’s evidence of rent payments.
2. Failure to investigate the missing payments in a reasonable time frame.
3. The decision to pursue legal action against the resident despite evidence of an error by the landlord.
4. The severe distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. The landlord’s disregard for the resident’s vulnerabilities or its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
6. Failure to provide the resident with access to her online rent portal account.
7. Failure to be explicit with the resident regarding its calculation of the rent arrears and the current state of the rent account.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines £501-£1500 compensation should be offered for “serious or prolonged service failure” which results in “severe distress.” The evidence suggests that there was a persistent and severe failure of service which caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, including the resident believing she would be made homeless with her children. The landlord failed to follow its own compensation policy when making the award.
The landlord has not demonstrated sufficient learning or reflection in its complaint response or correspondence with this Service and the resident. It has also demonstrated poor record keeping in relation to the resident’s rent account. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide the resident with a good service, and demonstrated a failure to put things right and learn from outcomes. This had a clear detrimental impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account. This Service’s remedies guidance shows a starting point of £1000 compensation for stress and inconvenience in severe maladministration cases. Given the effects the resident has described on her and her family’s mental health over a prolonged period of time, an order of £2000 compensation is made to reflect the detriment on the resident.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, was dismissive of the resident’s experience, and took too long. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident about the complaint or the delay.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 March 2023 to ask when she would receive a response to her complaint but received no response. This was inappropriate from the landlord and caused distress to the resident.
The landlord asserts it responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 13 April 2023 and closed the matter as it did not receive a response from the resident. The resident is adamant she did not receive this complaint response, this is reflected in her later contact with this Service. It is not possible for this service to determine whether or not the response was sent. If it was sent, there are several possible reasons why the resident may have not received it including a technical issue or the email accidentally being flagged as spam.
While it is not possible to determine if the resident received the response, the complaint response is dated 13 April 2023 which is 45 working days after the resident made her complaint. The landlord did not contact the resident to explain that it needed more time to respond or give reasons for the delay.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This response amounts to maladministration.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 June 2023 to seek assistance because she had not received a response to her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 4 occasions, including the issue of a CHFO, before the landlord responded. This was inappropriate and unnecessarily delayed the resident being able to escalate her complaint to this Service. This also meant that the resident was unaware that the landlord had stopped pursing its notice of seeking possession for several months which caused distress. The landlord demonstrated disregard for the resident’s situation by failing to respond to this Service and the resident.
The landlord missed its opportunity to review the matter when it was first alerted by this Service that the resident remained unhappy. The landlord should have taken this opportunity to reconsider the resident’s experience and its complaint handling. That it did not, is a failure.
The tone of the landlord’s complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s lived experience. The complaint response noted that there had been an error with the resident’s rent account, but did not offer any sympathy or understanding for the distress caused to the resident. There is no evidence of learning or reflection from the landlord which is particularly concerning.
In its complaint response, the landlord offered £25 for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It did not review compensation further in light of this Service’s intervention. This sum is not sufficient to redress the complaint handling failures identified for the following reasons:
1. The failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint or her chasing email.
2. The delay in providing a stage 1 response.
3. The failure to provide a stage 2 response despite the resident continuing to pursue the matter.
4. The failure to provide proper explanation to the resident of how the rent had been lost.
5. The failure to take the opportunity to reconsider the matter as a whole on receipt of this Service’s intervention.
6. The failure to be sympathetic or understanding in its complaint response.
7. The lack of demonstrated learning or reflection in relation to its complaint handling.
8. The landlord’s dismissal of the resident and this Service’s attempts to facilitate communication.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with a copy of the stage 1 response on request which is a record keeping failure.
The complaint handling failures had a detrimental impact on the resident, including the inconvenience of not receiving a complaint response and fearing she would lose her home.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman awards £500 compensation to redress the failures identified.

Wider Orders

The Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account. The Ombudsman is concerned by the persistent and detrimental failures, and the lack of ownership and learnings that the landlord has shown. The landlord has offered no reassurance that it has taken steps to ensure the same issue does not happen again or to other residents.
The Ombudsman is also concerned by the heavy-handed and unsympathetic way it communicated with the resident, despite being told repeatedly that she was vulnerable and struggling to cope. The landlord has failed to consider its communication in its responses and offers no reassurance that it will not communicate with other residents in the same style.
We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Case specific orders

The Chief Executive Officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident, in person and in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £2500. £50 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £2000 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the management of the resident’s rent account.
2. £500 in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must review the resident’s rent account and write to the resident to confirm its position in regard to whether there is any rent arrears. The landlord must clearly set out what payments are missing, if any.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must contact the resident to provide her log in details for her online portal rent account. The landlord must confirm with the resident that she has been able to access the account and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Wider orders

Within 12 weeks of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its handling of vulnerable residents and rent arrears. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for a period from January 2020 to present.
3. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. Communicate with vulnerable residents appropriately and empathetically, taking due consideration for their individual circumstances and lived experiences.
  2. Investigate residents’ concerns thoroughly and effectively, and act in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
  3. Issue possession orders as a last resort, with clear evidence, and only after all other steps to resolve the rent arrears have been taken.
  4. Respond to formal complaints appropriately and understand the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes.
  5. Ensure all relevant officers respond to complaints in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  6. Understand the landlords duties under the Equality Act 2010.
4. A review of its record-keeping practices of rent payments to ensure appropriate recording and handling. Consider, if it has not already done so, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
Also within 12 weeks, following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation proportionate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review.
The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 12 weeks to confirm it has complied with the above orders.