Sovereign Network Group (202421481)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since April 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a query about the resident’s rent account.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a query about the resident’s rent account.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a query resident’s rent account

4. The landlord did not demonstrate it fully investigated the resident’s query or explain why it was unable to do so.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not demonstrate it investigated at stage 1. This meant the resident did not have access to the landlord’s full 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.

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 told the landlord she made payments that were not credited to her rent account. The landlord met with the resident. Its meeting notes show the resident provided 3 references she used to make payment (‘payment refences’) and the landlord asked her to send bank statements. The resident subsequently sent the statements, however, the evidence provided by the landlord does not show it acknowledged receipt.
7. The landlord identified one reference was for another resident’s account. It said 12 payments were made using this reference and were rejected. The landlord arranged for one payment (£300) that was not rejected to be credited to the resident’s rent account. The landlord said it emailed this information to the resident. It has not provided a record of this communication.
8. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided no evidence it had investigated the resident’s query. Instead, it asked the resident to provide her bank statements and details of the payments she believed were missing. The resident had already sent the statements. If the landlord required additional information, it should have requested this before sending its stage 1 response.
9. The resident told the landlord several times she had sent the bank statements. The landlord responded and said it could not look through 50 pages of statements. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for further information. However, the landlord did not clarify its requirements until 3 months after its original request. At this stage the resident had already provided the statements and was understandably frustrated. The tone of the landlord’s response was not constructive.
10. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out how it had investigated the incorrect payment reference and confirmed the money had been returned to the resident or credited to her rent account. It acknowledged the situation was distressing. However, the resident  said she used 6 payment references and the landlord only explained how it had investigated one of these. The landlord failed to demonstrate it  investigated all of the resident’s query or explain why it was unable to do so. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s conclusion that it believed her rent account was accurate.

11. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets the timeframes for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and send a response at stage 1 and stage 2. The landlord complied with these requirements.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response asked for additional information. It did not demonstrate it had investigated the resident’s complaint. As a result, the first investigation took place at stage 2. The failure to investigate at stage 1, meant the resident did not have access to the full complaints process.

Learning

13. When a landlord conducts an investigation of a rent account it should explain how it investigated and arrived at its findings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

14. In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to provide her bank statements despite having already received them. This indicates a recordkeeping failing.

Communication

15. The landlord did not explain how it would investigate the resident’s rent account query and any limitations on the investigation.