London Borough of Wandsworth (202531510)

Background

1. The resident received Universal Credit to pay his rent. After moving from housing benefit to Universal Credit, his account showed arrears between payment dates, which triggered automated arrears letters from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about rent arrears.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s concerns of rent arrears.
   2. No maladministration in its response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concerns of rent arrears

4. The landlord explained the arrears and applied a suppression code to prevent it sending arrears letters to the resident between payments. It apologised when it did not respond to the resident’s emails. It also took steps to support the resident through income-maximisation checks. These actions provided reasonable redress for the service failure identified.

Complaint

5. The landlord managed the complaint in line with its policy.

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.

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. On the 4 December 2024 the resident reported that the landlord was sending repeated arrears letters to him after he moved to Universal Credit. He said the arrears were caused by the timing of the benefit payments and he had found the letters to be distressing. He added the landlord had not responded to two emails in which he had asked for clarification about the arrears.
7. Under the tenancy agreement, rent is due in advance. The landlord’s rent collection service procedure manual says that when an account shows arrears, recovery action may be taken, and it issued automated letters at set stages. The policy also says that officers must provide clear and accurate information and respond promptly to requests for information.
8. The evidence shows that on 28 October 2024 the landlord’s system identified arrears following the resident’s move to Universal Credit and issued an arrears letter. It issued further letters on 11 and 25 November 2024. On 4 December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord. The landlord explained that Universal Credit was paid in arrears and that the account would show arrears between payment dates. It also offered a repayment arrangement, which the resident declined.
9. The landlord issued further automated letters on 3 March, 1 April, 14 April, and 28 April 2025. On 19 and 23 April 2025, the resident emailed the landlord requesting clarification of the arrears dates. The evidence shows the landlord did not respond to those emails at the time. The landlord’s failure to respond to the emails was not reasonable and a service failure. The resident was entitled to receive a response.
10. When the resident raised a formal complaint on 2 May 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s earlier emails. It confirmed that it had received the emails and said the officer involved had been spoken to by their manager. The landlord explained that it would address the issue as a training matter and that response times would be monitored. It also provided the resident with an explanation of the arrears position, including a rent statement showing payments received, and invited the resident to discuss an affordable repayment arrangement. The landlord additionally applied a suppression code to prevent automated arrears letters from being issued between benefit payments.
11. In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated its apology and confirmed the suppression code remained in place. A further arrears letter was issued on 30 June 2025 due to a code error. The landlord apologised and reinstated the code.
12. We have seen no evidence that the arrears were calculated incorrectly or that the landlord escalated the matter to enforcement action. The primary failure was the lack of response to the April 2025 emails. The landlord acknowledged that failure, apologised, introduced monitoring as learning, and took practical steps to reduce the impact of further arrears letters.
13. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the landlord’s actions were proportionate to the service failure identified and addressed the inconvenience caused. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
15. The resident raised a formal complaint on the 2 May 2025. The landlord issues its stage 1 response on 12 May 2025. The resident escalated the complaint the same date, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 June 2025. Both responses were provided within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and out complaint handling code.
16. The landlord addressed the issues raised, acknowledged the service failures and explained the actions it had taken. We are satisfied that the landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and there was no maladministration in its response to the resident complaint.

Learning

17. The landlord identified that delays in responding to emails contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction. It acknowledged this as a learning point and said the officer would receive monitoring and support to improve response times.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. Record‑keeping was generally sufficient. However, the failure to respond to the resident’s April 2025 emails highlight the need to ensure that incoming contacts are logged and actioned promptly.

Communication

19. Communication was not consistently effective. While the landlord later provided clear explanations, the missed email responses caused avoidable uncertainty for the resident. Ensuring timely replies and monitoring officer caseloads would strengthen communication.