Soha Housing Limited (202403989)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision to seek payment of rent arrears from 2021. She says the landlord told her she was entitled to withhold rent while repairs were ongoing, and she believes she should not have to pay the arrears.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s rent account.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find there has been:
   1. No maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s rent account.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right with regard to its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The resident is required to pay her rent in advance under the terms of her tenancy. This remains the case when she is unhappy with repairs. While she said the landlord verbally agreed to waive rent while repairs were ongoing, we have seen no evidence which supports this. In the absence of any evidence of an agreement to waive rent, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek payment of the arrears.
6. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s December 2021 complaint through its complaints process until July 2023, meaning there was a significant and unreasonable delay in its response. While it apologised, it failed to offer any compensation for the inconvenience caused. So it has not done enough 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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. We can only consider complaints which have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has referred to delays in repairs, and to the possible presence of asbestos in one of her ceilings. Neither of these issues were part of her original complaint, which was about whether there were rent arrears, and the landlord’s decision to pursue payment of those arrears. As such, we cannot consider the resident’s further concerns as part of this investigation.

Assessment

8. The resident is responsible for paying rent under the tenancy agreement. The rent is calculated weekly, and payment is due fortnightly in advance. There have been arrears on the resident’s rent account since 2021. The resident disputed there were any arrears, as she says the landlord’s staff told her she could withhold rent while repairs were ongoing in 2021. She then told the landlord in 2023 when escalating her complaint that she did not believe she should have to pay rent because she thought her ceiling contained asbestos. She added that she would not pay any arrears because the landlord had not chased payment for a long time.
9. We note the resident was frustrated about repairs, and told the landlord she was withholding rent because of the repairs. But the resident is required to pay the rent in advance under the terms of the tenancy agreement, and tenants do not have a general right to withhold rent due to delays in repairs.
10. The resident said she made a verbal agreement with the landlord’s staff that she could withhold rent. However, our findings must be based on documentary evidence, and we have not seen any evidence which supports this. The landlord’s records show it chased the resident for payment throughout that time, and confirmed in December 2021 that the arrears remained payable. It investigated her comments about an agreement, and the named staff members disputed having made such an agreement. In the absence of any evidence of an agreement, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord agreed to waive the rent for the repair period. As such, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to issue arrears notices to the resident, and to request payment of the arrears.
11. We note the resident said she felt harassed by the landlord when it chased payment in 2023. While we do not doubt her feelings, we have seen no evidence of any inappropriate conduct by the landlord in pursuing payment of the arrears. It is standard industry practice for a landlord to contact a resident if their account is in arrears, as it is a necessary step social landlords take to determine the cause of any arrears, and to try to avoid the need for legal action.
12. The landlord notified the resident of arrears on her account on multiple occasions throughout 2021. It discussed the arrears with her throughout that time. She also told the landlord in March 2022 that she was unwilling to pay the arrears. The landlord did not chase payment of the arrears between March 2022 and May 2023. This was because the resident’s arrears were not increasing, and it prioritised action on rent accounts where the arrears were increasing. It said following a change of IT systems it was better able to monitor accounts with static arrears, leading it to chase payment again.
13. It is for the landlord to decide how to prioritise action related to rent arrears, and a delay in chasing payment does not mean the payment is no longer due. We have also seen no evidence that an absence of payment chasers from 2022 to 2023 caused any detriment to the resident. It is apparent from the communication in 2023 that she was aware when and how the arrears had accrued, and that she was making a choice not to pay them as she disputed they were owed. As such, there is no evidence that the outcome would be any different had the landlord pursued payment throughout 2022 and 2023.
14. Overall, the evidence provided shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account was reasonable and appropriate. It discussed the arrears with her, investigated her comments, explained that the arrears remained payable in its view, and appropriately signposted her to support in making payments. It also appropriately offered payment plans, and explained that it would continue to chase her for payment if the arrears remained outstanding. This was reasonable and appropriate, and we find no maladministration in this regard.

15. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints process match those set out in the Code.
16. The resident made a complaint on 16 December 2021. The landlord attempted to resolve the complaint through an informal resolution, which was in line with its policy at the time. It then escalated the complaint to stage 1 when it was unable to resolve the complaint informally. However, it failed to investigate the complaint at that stage.
17. The landlord only logged the stage 1 complaint on 31 July 2023, 19 months after it told the resident it would investigate her complaint. This was clearly an unreasonable delay. The landlord accepts this was unreasonable. It said this happened because the allocated complaint handler left the organisation at that time. But it is for the landlord to ensure it has appropriate processes in place to prevent staff changes causing such problems. And it also delayed logging the complaint in 2023.
18. While the delay in the landlord’s response was significant, we have seen limited evidence that it caused the resident specific detriment. While it delayed timely resolution of the complaint, the landlord’s position on the rent arrears never changed. So the delay did not affect the overall outcome. We have also seen no evidence that the resident chased up a response to the complaint, and the landlord did not chase payments during that time. This means while there was inevitably some inconvenience in delaying the complaints process, the inconvenience caused was limited.
19. The landlord has apologised for its complaint handling delays. But it has not offered any compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay in responding to her complaint. This is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failings which adversely affect a resident but have no permanent impact.

Learning

Complaint handling

20. The landlord did not have processes in place to ensure that complaints were appropriately logged and responded to at stage 1. It also did not have reasonable processes for a handover when staff members left the organisation. It would benefit from reviewing its complaint handling processes, if it has not already done so since this complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable and appropriate.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication about the arrears was generally reasonable and appropriate.