Brighton and Hove City Council (202441528)

Background

1. The resident has lived in a 1-bedroom senior housing scheme flat since November 2020. He is entitled to a contribution towards his rent from universal credit (UC), which was previously called housing benefit (HB). The remainder of his rent payment is topped up from his income, which fluctuates when a change of income is reported.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords:
   1. Administration of the resident’s rent account.
   2. Complaint Handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord took a reasonable approach to the resident’s complaint regarding the administration of the rent account. It identified where it had made mistakes, apologised and offered compensation.
   2. The landlord explained consistently since October 2023, that the resident remained responsible for the payment of rent arrears as per the terms of his tenancy agreement.
   3. The landlord has offered the resident support, advice, guidance, and an affordable payment plan, which was in line with the landlord’s rent recovery policy and procedure.
   4. There was service failure in the landlords complaint handling. Although the landlord acknowledged a failure in the stage 2 complaint process, it did not identify the same failing within the stage 1 complaint process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident has not contested that he is aware that a change to his pension payments often means a change to his HB or UC payment. The resident notified the landlord of the change to his income but said he was unaware that the landlord had not amended the direct debit accordingly. Nonetheless, the tenancy agreement clearly sets out the resident’s responsibility to pay the rent due.
7. The landlord accepted that it was responsible for amending the direct debit. While it offered no explanation why it had not done so in June 2023, it informed the resident of the arrears by telephone on 4 October 2023, and by letter on 12 October 2023. It apologised for the error but confirmed the debt could not be written off and proceeded to increase the direct debit accordingly. This showed that the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the situation.
8. The landlord explained that the rent arrears had accrued because of the resident’s increase in income, which had reduced the amount of HB for which he was eligible. The evidence shows that the landlord has consistently provided this information since October 2023 via emails and letters and more recently to the resident’s MP. The landlord has acted reasonably in communicating the information to the resident.
9. The resident said that he remained confused regarding the transition from HB to UC because of mismatched figures. The landlord told the resident that the transition to UC was beyond its control. Nonetheless, it explained to the resident and his MP that UC was paid in arrears and paid monthly, but that the resident’s rent is due weekly and in advance. It agreed that this could cause confusion. It was appropriate of the landlord to explain the fluctuating figures where it could.
10. Further, the landlord provided advice and guidance to the resident about where he could seek further support with managing his finances. It offered to make a referral to a money advice agency who offered face to face appointments and was a free and impartial service. The landlord demonstrated that it made appropriate efforts to direct the resident to agencies which could have offered further support and assisted with his concerns.
11. In August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to check the arrears with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The landlord did so and confirmed on 3 September 2024 that the figures were correct and the arrears remained payable. The landlord regularly reminded the resident about his rent obligations. It also gave advice on what amount should be paid to avoid further arrears along with a suggested amount to contribute to the arrears in the form of a payment plan, this was reasonable of the landlord.
12. The resident said a further delay by the landlord to amend the direct debit occurred in April 2024. The evidence regarding this is not clear, however, the landlord’s records show that it attempted to raise the direct debit, but the resident requested that it remained at the lower amount. Further, in November 2024 the resident’s MP requested that due to fluctuating figures the direct debit should remain on hold. The landlord continued to provide advice to the resident and the MP that the existing direct debit amount was not enough to cover the rent payment obligation and would result in further arrears. It was right of the landlord to advise the resident accordingly, and there is no evidence that the landlord did not attempt to amend the direct debit in or around April 2024.
13. The resident said that he felt disrespected by the landlord because correspondence from him was “ignored” and he was sent an email that did not include his title. The landlord agreed that the email should have been acknowledged. It explained that an email was sent via an automated customer feedback system, which did not pick up the resident’s title. It was reasonable of the landlord to apologise to the resident within the complaints process.
14. The landlord admitted some failings and offered £100 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
15. It is understandable that the resident felt a degree of frustration regarding the landlord’s error regarding the direct debit in October 2023. However, his request for the arrears to be written off is not proportionate given the steps taken by the landlord and the resident’s tenancy agreement which states he is liable for his rent. We note that the resident disagrees, but the landlord provided a clear explanation and offered advice and support in its attempt to recover the arrears via an affordable payment plan.
16. Considering the above, we find reasonable redress based on the landlord’s compensation offer of £100. A recommendation has been made to pay the compensation as offered within the stage 1 complaint response.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
18. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, on 19 November 2024, this was 7 days late. This was not in line with its policy.
19. The resident experienced the same delay with regards to his stage 2 complaint. The complaint response was provided 15 days late. On this occasion, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation for a complaint handling failure.
20. The delay to both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint process, was unlikely to have any significant impact on the resident. However, the landlord failed to provide the same level of redress at stage 1 as it did for the delay at stage 2. Further, it did not learn from the failure at stage 1 as it repeated the same failing at stage 2. This was inappropriate. We have made a finding of service failure and order the landlord to apologise and pay £100 in total for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. There was a failing with regards to the landlord’s record keeping because it did not administer a change to the resident’s direct debit, which resulted in an overpayment. The landlord should consider how this happened and any learning to prevent this from happening again.
22. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. It missed a failure at stage 1 and further it made the same failure at stage 2, this was inappropriate. The landlord should consider how it can prevent this from happening again.