Yorkshire Housing Limited (202338174)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the rent arrears accrued following a move to a new property. She felt the landlord had made errors in relation to the transition and it had not responded to her emails sent regarding the issue. She said this caused her stress and she wanted the landlord to put things right.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s rent account.
   2. The resident’s move.
   3. Communication with the resident regarding her rent account.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move is outside of our jurisdiction.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident regarding her rent account.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s rent account

4. Our Scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. As this part of the complaint relates to matters which we have already addressed in a previous determination, we will not consider them again.

Handling of the move

5. As above, our Scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which seeks to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. As this part of the complaint relates to matters which we have already addressed in a previous determination, we will not consider them again.

Handling of communication with the resident regarding her rent account

6. The landlord reasonably outlined how it had handled the resident’s communication in line with its obligations.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

8. We have already considered the resident’s complaint as part of a separate investigation which was determined on 31 October 2025. As such, we would not consider it again. Case reference 202336964 outlines our findings on the matter.

9. We have already considered the resident’s complaint as part of a separate investigation which was determined on 31 October 2025. As such, we would not consider it again. Case reference 202336964 outlines our findings on the matter.

10. In her formal complaint, the resident said she had received no communication about the rent issue from the income officer, the rent account manager, or any other landlord staff. She felt the situation was not her fault but had caused her significant stress.
11. We acknowledge that we have previously determined the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account. However, we have identified the resident’s concerns about a lack of communication associated with their rent account was not appropriately considered in our previous determination. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication during its handling of that issue.
12. When a resident raises concerns about individual staff members, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the evidence available to it. For example, we would generally expect the landlord to show it spoke to the staff members in question and gathered evidence to make an informed decision.
13. The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns and showed how it had investigated them and reached its conclusion. Its stage 1 response confirmed it had spoken to the named staff members and reviewed the email correspondence from them. It said there was no evidence they did not respond to her emails.
14. It was reasonable following the stage 2 escalation to ask the resident for specific evidence of where it had not responded so it could investigate that further. The stage 2 response appropriately outlined all the email correspondence it had for each staff member and where it found it had responded to them. It confirmed the email dated 3 August 2023 which the resident had sent as evidence did receive a response from the income officer. It said they informed the resident and her representative that their email had been forwarded to its complaints team.
15. Our review of the emails supports the landlord’s position that it responded on each occasion. We did note a discrepancy which was that a further email from the resident’s representative on 3 August 2023 did not appear to receive a reply. The representative’s email thanked them for forwarding on their email but also queried if they were in the same team. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown consideration to the second email sent that day. However, the income officer had already outlined their position and the next steps. Therefore, we cannot conclude the lack of response failed to manage the resident’s expectations or caused any unnecessary delay in resolving the issue.
16. In making our finding we do not seek to diminish what was evidently a stressful situation for the resident. But we have not seen evidence to indicate that the situation was a result of or exacerbated by a lack of communication from the named landlord staff members. The resident said she did not find the advice provided about her rent helpful, but that issue falls outside of this investigation and has been addressed in a separate determination.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This is in line with our Code.
18. The landlord acknowledged the formal complaint within 1 working day. The resident requested amendments to the acknowledgement. The landlord provided an updated acknowledgement within 1 working day, which was appropriate. It provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later, in line with its policy and the Code.
19. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation within 1 working day. The resident requested an amendment to the acknowledgement. The landlord responded the next day to say it had noted her email and it would take any new points or desired outcomes into consideration. It explained to her its acknowledgement was more generic as the resident’s emails concerned issues which it was investigating under another complaint at the time. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
20. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 December 2023 to confirm it had reviewed the email exchanges between the resident, her representative at the time, and the officers in question. It asked the resident to provide copies of specific emails to which she had not received a response so it could investigate and respond appropriately. This approach was appropriate and in line with our Code, which requires complaint handlers to give the resident a fair chance to set out their position.
21. The resident requested more time to gather the evidence. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would extend the deadline for it to provide the stage 2 response and checked the date was reasonable for the resident. It confirmed this in a letter and provided our contact details, as required by the Code. Although the stage 2 response was issued outside of the standard timescales, the delay was justified to ensure all relevant information was considered.
22. The stage 2 response was thorough and clearly outlined which issues it could address, and which it could not because they formed part of another complaint. It acknowledged the resident found some of the stage 1 wording offensive. This was specifically comments about contacting housing benefit and “taking some of the burden” off her. The landlord apologised and explained the wording was intended to be helpful. While we have not investigated its handling of the rent account here, its response on this point was reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord has evidenced good record keeping in this case. It showed it had a sufficient overview of its communication across different departments and a system which allowed it to access the necessary information required to complete its own investigation. We have highlighted from the records where it should have acknowledged a lack of response to the resident.

Communication

24. It was clear in this case that the operation of her housing benefits and the landlord’s obligations was confusing for the resident. The resident said the landlord eventually informed her of the dual housing benefit but that it should have done so sooner. The landlord may wish to reflect on its correspondence at the time and consider if there is any learning it can take from the resident’s experience.