London Borough of Newham (202339968)

Background

1. The landlord issued the resident with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) in December 2023 due to rent arrears. The resident complained that the landlord had done this even though he had promised to make a payment towards his arrears that month. He queried whether it had followed the correct process and asked the landlord to cancel the NOSP.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Decision to issue a NOSP.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision to issue a NOSP.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord acted in line with its rent management procedure. It was reasonable and proportionate for it to escalate rent recovery given the history of arrears and previous warnings.
   2. The landlord recognised that its complaint handling at both stages fell below the expected standard. It apologised and offered proportionate compensation to put things right.

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.

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.

5. The tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s responsibility to pay rent on time. The landlord has a rent management manual which guides its staff as to how to respond when accounts go into arrears, including the procedure for issuing a NOSP.
6. The landlord’s manual says a NOSP may be issued when an account goes into 5 weeks’ worth of arrears. At the point the NOSP was issued, the resident’s arrears totalled more than 40 weeks’ worth of rent. The resident’s payment in December 2023 brought this down to about 35 weeks before the arrears rose again. His rent statement showed that his account had been in constant arrears since August 2022, with large gaps in between his payments. The landlord’s decision to serve a NOSP was therefore appropriate and consistent with its policy.
7. The landlord’s records show it had contacted the resident multiple times since November 2022 to raise the matter of rent arrears with him. Evidence shows the landlord warned the resident that failure to respond would result in it taking legal action. It sent a ‘final warning’ letter to him in April 2023. The landlord sought to set up a repayment plan with the resident, and it asked him to complete an income and expenditure statement as part of this process. The landlord queried the figures he gave, and asked the resident to provide evidence of his expenses. Evidence shows the resident declined on the basis that this was private information.
8. The landlord’s records show the resident did not keep to promises he made to repay the arrears. Given this history, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to enable it to pursue legal action should the arrears continue to build. By issuing the NOSP, it also made clear to the resident how serious the situation was. The landlord demonstrated a proportionate approach to the matter when it told the resident it would not take further legal action if he took steps to clear the arrears.
9. It is clear the resident expected the landlord to be more proactive in offering him help when he found himself in financial difficulty from August 2022 onwards. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and rent management manual place emphasis on the resident’s responsibility to actively engage with support around financial difficulties, and to negotiate rent repayment agreements. Its communications with the resident included signposting to its money advice service and other appropriate charities, and it was left for the resident to decide whether to make contact. This was a reasonable approach because the resident had not informed the landlord of any reason why he would be unable to pursue this himself.
10. The landlord’s rent management manual says it will conduct a ‘personal interview’ before issuing a NOSP. It does not explain what this involves, but it is clear that the landlord had spoken with the resident several times over the phone before the NOSP was issued, and had discussed matters such as claiming universal credit, his employment, and childcare costs. It was ultimately the resident who chose to put a stop to the landlord’s attempts to understand his financial circumstances and what would be affordable for him to repay.
11. The evidence shows the landlord complied with its policies and procedures during the arrears recovery process. It was appropriate for it to issue the NOSP when it did. Therefore, we found no maladministration in its decision to issue the NOSP.

12. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
13. The landlord exceeded the timeframes specified in its complaints policy and the Code at both stages of the resident’s complaint. Its service was particularly poor at stage 2, where it failed to acknowledge his complaint in a timely way and then failed to provide an update and response when it had promised. This was particularly important because the matter he had complained about was ongoing and had the potential to have serious consequences for his tenancy. It is right that it offered the resident compensation for the time and trouble its delays and poor communication had caused him.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a much fuller explanation of what considerations it makes before issuing a NOSP. It addressed the resident’s concerns about specific staff and their involvement in the process, and apologised for its complaint handling delays. The landlord demonstrated it understood that the resident’s complaint was not only about receiving a NOSP, but also the way in which this was done. Its apology and offer of £300 was consistent with our relevant guidance on remedies for delays in resolving complaints about such matters.
15. Therefore, based on our findings, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

16. There is evidence that the landlord’s complaints handling at the time was not consistent with the Code. This may provide the landlord with opportunities to provide refresher training.

Communication

17. In this case, the evidence shows that delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint increased the resident’s uncertainty while enforcement action remained live. Clear and timely updates, particularly where tenancy security may be affected, help manage expectations and reduce confusion for residents.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord demonstrated it kept detailed records of its contact with the resident regarding his arrears. We have not identified any concerns for us to highlight.