Clarion Housing Association Limited (202304724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304724

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2025

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:
1. The resident’s queries about his former rent account, and its decision to instruct a debt recovery agency.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 29 June 2017 until 29 November 2020. The resident has a mental health condition and is in recovery from a heart attack.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord received a notice to quit from the resident. On 28 October 2020, it wrote to remind him he had to give 4 weeks’ notice. As the earliest date the notice period could start was 2 November 2020, the 4 weeks would end on 29 November 2020. It said “the projected balance” on his rent account by the end of the tenancy would be £584.28. Any debt after the end of the tenancy would be passed to a debt recovery agency.
On 9 November 2020, the resident asked the landlord if he owed any rent. It told him there were rent arrears of £423.40, but as the weekly rent was £80.37, he should call back at the end of the tenancy for a true balance.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord asked the resident for payment of arrears of £584.28 within 14 days. On 26 November 2021, the resident contacted it to query this. He said that he had been told to cancel his direct debt as his rent account was in credit. He asked for a copy of the rent statement so he could compare this to his bank statements. The landlord sent the rent statement on 26 November 2021.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord asked the resident to pay the £584.28 within 14 days. It said if he did not pay, it might take court action or pass the debt to a debt recovery agency.
On 6 January 2022, the resident told the landlord he would pay any amount owed, but wanted an explanation of how the £584.28 was owed. He said he was in credit in April 2019 and had always paid on time. He told the landlord he was in recovery from a near fatal heart attack. He was upset about the 9 December 2021 letter as he thought the matter had been put on hold as a result of contact with the landlord in November 2021.
On 8 March 2022, the landlord told him it would investigate his former rent account and get back to him within a few days.
On 7 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that a debt recovery agency had contacted him about the rent arrears. He was unhappy as the landlord had not got back to him, and he thought the matter was on hold. The landlord sent copies of rent statements and explained that the resident’s last rent payment had been in September 2020, but the tenancy did not end until 29 November 2020. Therefore, the credit on the rent account had been used up and a debt arose.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 April 2022. He said:
1. After the end of the tenancy, he did not hear from the landlord until October 2021, so he assumed there were no rent arrears.
2. Although the person he spoke to at that time was helpful and explained the situation, the spreadsheets they sent were not easy to understand.
3. The landlord’s 9 December 2021 letter was disrespectful and threatening.
4. He was unhappy that the debt had been passed to a debt recovery agency as:
  1. He had made clear he was willing to pay any money owed.
  2. He thought the matter was on hold.
  3. The landlord did not get back to him after he asked for an explanation in January 2022.
  4. The landlord knew about his mental health disability and heart attack.
5. He wanted the landlord to investigate, apologise, and remove any credit agency records relating to him.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 May 2022 explained how the rent arrears had arisen, and a rent statement was attached. It explained it used a private enforcement agency to manage its former accounts, but this would not affect the resident’s credit score / credit rating. The resident must pay the money owed to the agency, as the landlord was no longer able to take the payment from him. It acknowledged it should have contacted the resident sooner about the outstanding balance and that it delayed responding to his initial enquiry. It apologised for this service failure and offered £100 compensation.
On 17 May 2022 the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. On 26 May 2022, he made this request in writing. He said:
1. The landlord telephoned him on 17 May 2022, even though he had asked for written communication only. It refused to escalate the complaint, and the telephone call was distressing.
2. The landlord’s letter dated 28 October 2020 was confusing, as it referred to a projected balance on his rent account. The resident thought the term “balance” suggested a credit rather than a debt.
3. It was not reasonable for the landlord to have referred to the debt recovery agency given his health issues, and as the landlord had admitted “serious failures,” including telling him on 17 May 2022 that there was a fault on its system meaning that incoming correspondence got lost.
4. He had suffered emotional and physical harm, spent time trying to resolve the matter, and was worried about negative impact on his credit rating and damage to his reputation.
5. He wanted the landlord to apologise, remove any credit agency records relating to him, and accept payment of the debt directly from him.
Following intervention from this Service on 4 July 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 11 July 2023. It said it was satisfied that the resident should reasonably have known about the rent arrears when the tenancy ended, but admitted and apologised for the following failings:
1. It had delayed responding to his contact in January 2022, and did not get back to him after its March 2022 email.
2. It should have told him it had referred the debt to the debt recovery agency but did not.
3. It did not log his May 2022 request for email and postal contact only, as a reasonable adjustment.
4. There was a severe delay escalating his complaint.
As part of the stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to withdraw his case from the debt recovery agency and accept payment directly from the resident. It reassured him there would be no impact on his credit rating or reputation. It offered an additional £350 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. Delay escalating the complaint – £250.
2. Failure to keep the resident updated and provide information – £50.
3. Failure to adhere to resident’s communication preference – £50.
The £350, plus the £100 compensation from stage 1, were paid onto the rent account, leaving £135.28 left to pay.

Assessment and findings

Rent arrears

We acknowledge the resident’s position that the use of the word “balance,” in the landlord’s 27 October 2020 letter was misleading. However, the letter explicitly asked the resident to clear any rent arrears before the end of the tenancy, and said if this was not done, the landlord would pass the debt to its debt recovery agency. The landlord’s records show it explained to the resident on the telephone, on 9 November 2020, that there were rent arrears of £423.40 at that date, and this figure would go up before the end of the tenancy if he did not make a payment. Therefore, the landlord’s communication was reasonably clear that there were rent arrears, and it would involve a debt recovery agency if these were not paid by the end of the tenancy.
However, it is not disputed by the landlord that it was unreasonable to delay in contacting the resident again about the rent arrears until 23 November 2021. This was not in line with the landlord’s arrears policy, which said it would “maintain contact with our customers insofar as possible throughout the period that they have arrears on their accounts.”
The resident acknowledges that the person he spoke to on 26 November 2021 was helpful and “explained the situation,” but says the rent statements they sent (in the form of spreadsheets) were not easy to understand. As the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the spreadsheets sent it is not possible to say whether or not these were sufficiently clear. However, it was appropriate that these were sent on the same day as the resident’s telephone query, and the email to which they were attached invited the resident to contact the landlord if he had any further questions.
As the resident did not contact the landlord to ask any further questions, it was reasonable for it to write to him on 9 December 2021 asking him to pay the rent arrears within 14 days. It was appropriate that this letter invited the resident to let the landlord know if he was unable to pay, “as we have a number of different options to help you.” It was appropriate that it warned the resident that the landlord might take court action or involve a debt recovery agency to recover the debt.
The landlord accepts that it failed by not responding to the resident’s 6 January 2022 request for an explanation of how the arrears were owed, and that it should have contacted the resident to tell him it had referred the debt to a debt recovery agency. Within the landlord’s internal correspondence, the individual responsible for responding to the resident said they referred to the debt recovery agency “due to some original confusion,” and they did not know the resident was waiting for a response. It was clearly distressing for the resident to receive contact from a debt recovery agency when he had made clear he was willing to pay any amount owed and was waiting for further information from the landlord.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 7 April 2022, after being contacted by the debt recovery agency. The landlord’s records show it explained to him “because his last payment was in September [2020] and the account didn’t close down until 29 November 2020, the credit was used up and then went into debt.” Together with the rent statements that it sent to the resident following this telephone conversation, the landlord provided a reasonably clear explanation of why the rent arrears were owed.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 May 2022:
1. Gave a detailed account of events leading up to the resident’s complaint, acknowledged his reasons for complaining, and the outcome he wanted.
2. Explained “the last payment you made to your rent account was on 1 September 2020, but your rent was charged until 29 November 2020 in line with your Tenancy Agreement and Termination Period,” and attached a rent statement.
3. Explained it used a private enforcement agency to manage its former accounts, but this would not affect the resident’s credit score / credit rating.
4. Acknowledged its service had failed, in that it should have contacted the resident sooner about the outstanding balance and delayed responding to his initial enquiry. It appropriately apologised for this.
However, the landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the referral to the debt recovery agency was made “due to confusion,” and in ignorance of the resident’s 6 January 2022 email. While the stage 1 response acknowledged that there was a delay in responding to his 6 January 2022 request, as “our system does not send out notifications when documents are attached,” it did not acknowledge that the referral to the debt recovery agency had been made in error. That said, while it was not necessary for the landlord to have instructed the agency, as it had already done so, it was reasonable for it to ask the resident to make payment through this process, given that it had reassured him his credit rating would not be affected.
The landlord’s rent arrears policy said it would “adapt its service delivery where applicable to cater for the needs of vulnerable customers.” The resident’s complaint highlighted his vulnerability due to mental health disability. He said he needed “a more practical and easier to understand breakdown of monies.” However, while the landlord repeated its explanation of how the rent arrears built up, it would have been helpful for it to check with the resident in what format it could present the information that would be more accessible for him.
While it would generally be good practice to telephone a complainant to discuss the response before sending the response in writing, the landlord accepts it should not have telephoned the resident on 17 May 2022, as he had already asked for contact by email and letter only as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord’s records show it did not update its records to show the reasonable adjustment until 4 July 2023. This was too late and caused distress to the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 response:
1. Gave a detailed account of events leading up to the resident’s complaint, acknowledged his reasons for escalating the complaint, and the outcome he wanted.
2. Gave a detailed account of the investigation carried out into the complaint. It acknowledged and apologised for service failure, in that it:
  1. Delayed in responding to the resident’s 21 January 2022 communication.
  2. Did not get back to him after its 8 March 2022 email.
  3. Did not notify him that his case had been referred to the debt recovery agency.
  4. Placed the email he sent requesting written contact only on a household member’s account, and therefore did not update its records with his request for a reasonable adjustment.
3. Told the resident it would withdraw his case from the debt recovery agency.
4. Reassured him it kept his credit information confidential and the involvement of the debt recovery agency would not affect his credit scoring or make any negative impact on his credit rating.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the matter overall, the following failures have been identified.
1. There was an unreasonable delay between the end of the tenancy and it contacting the resident again about the rent arrears on 23 November 2021.
2. It did not respond to the resident’s 6 January 2022 request for an explanation of how the arrears were owed.
3. It made the referral to the debt recovery agency in error.
4. It delayed recording the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
As a result of the landlord’s failures, the resident experienced inconvenience and distress, and expended time and effort pursuing the matter over a 19-month period. However, the landlord took steps as part of its complaints process to clearly explain how the rent arrears arose, and to acknowledge and apologise for its failings. It provided feedback to relevant staff where mistakes had been made. It ultimately withdrew the case from the debt recovery agency, in recognition of the fact that its involvement caused the resident distress. It paid a total of £200 compensation in recognition of its failings and the impact on the resident.
These actions show that the landlord took its failures seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. As the steps taken by the landlord were in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered in the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. As we have seen evidence that the compensation has been paid onto the resident’s rent account, no further action is necessary.
This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the matter, or the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, but it has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint’s policy current at the time said it would log and acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt. It would respond in full within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. The second stage of the complaints procedure was a right to request a peer review. The landlord would log and acknowledge requests for peer review within 10 working days and provide a full response within 40 working days. If this was not possible it would contact the complainant to explain the delay and provide an approximate timescale for its response.
The policy, which was an interim policy in place following a cybersecurity incident, said “where a customer requests an escalation due to the cyber incident, we will apologise for the delay and explain that the incident was beyond our control. If the customer remains dissatisfied, the complaint will be closed at stage one and the customer advised of their right to go directly to the Ombudsman.”
Although the landlord’s complaints policy was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time, it has since updated its policy. This is now in line with the current Code.
The resident made his initial complaint on 25 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 8 working days later, which was not in line with its policy or the Code current at the time. However, the stage 1 response was provided 7 days later, within the policy and Code timescale.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 during a telephone conversation with the landlord on 17 May 2022. However, the complaint was not logged and acknowledged at stage 2. The landlord has accepted that this was not in line with its policy, or good practice. Its stage 2 response said it had provided feedback to appropriate staff and reminded them that escalation requests can be taken over the phone.
On 26 May 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord asking to escalate to stage 2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2022 and 4 April 2023 to request a stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not contact the resident to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 until 4 July 2023, after it had been contacted by us. This was over 13 months after the resident’s initial request to escalate. The stage 2 response was provided on 11 July 2023.
This was very poor complaint handling, and frustrating for the resident, who expended time and trouble pursuing the matter. The landlord has acknowledged its failings here. Within the stage 2 response it explained:
1. While actioning the resident’s escalation request, it suffered a cyber-security incident and so lost all access to its systems until November 2022.
2. As it did not have access to its systems it sent correspondence to the resident to an incorrect address. It later reported this to its data protection team.
3. As it did not receive a response to its correspondence it closed the complaint.
4. It did not respond to the resident’s contact in April 2023 due to a training issue within its contact centre. It provided appropriate feedback to its staff on the correct way of logging complaints.
The landlord showed empathy within the stage 2 response, acknowledging the impact on the resident of the original matter complained about, and the poor handling of the complaint. It also showed learning from the complaint. This was appropriate.
As identified above, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, it has taken steps to redress matters by acknowledging and apologising for its failures. The landlord also paid £250 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This was an appropriate amount.
These actions show that the landlord took the complaint-handling failures seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this part of the complaint. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s complaint handling, or the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, but it has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s former rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.