Beyond Housing Limited (202009831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009831

Beyond Housing Limited

20 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the letting of the property to the resident in October 2019.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that the feedback survey he had completed in November 2019 had been altered by a member of the landlord’s staff.
3. The resident’s concern about the arrears recovery action taken by the landlord at the end of his tenancy.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the letting of the property to the resident in October 2019.

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In his communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident raised concern that he was not provided with a formal written offer of accommodation by the landlord in October 2019, meaning that he had not been able to provide notice to his previous landlord before he left his former property. This meant that he had needed to pay rent at both properties for a period of three weeks. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised about this issue to the landlord until 2 October 2020. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaints regarding the feedback scores logged and the landlord’s arrears recovery actions.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a tenant of the landlord and has since ended his tenancy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed it on 8 September 2020 to advise that a payment had been made into his rent account by Universal Credit. The landlord responded and advised that this payment was not showing but that it would be in touch once it was.
The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident on £0 September 2020 to confirm that there was an outstanding balance on his rent account. It asked the resident to clear the balance within 14 days and confirmed that until the balance was cleared or an arrangement was set up, any housing applications would be overlooked. The records also show that the landlord called the resident on the same day to discuss the outstanding balance following the Universal Credit payment. The resident agreed to set up a payment arrangement but was unable to set it up that day.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2020 and explained that before he had moved into the property in 2019, the landlord had not provided written confirmation of its offer of accommodation, meaning that he had needed to move into the property before the notice period on his previous property had ended. This meant that he had needed to pay two rent amounts for three weeks. He said that he had mentioned this issue in the survey he had completed when he moved into the property. He said that this matter had left him with minimal income and asked the landlord to refund him for the three weeks’ additional rent he had paid due to its failure to provide written confirmation of its offer.
The landlord’s records show that any arrears recovery action was put on hold at the resident’s request due to his ongoing complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that the offer for the property was made verbally and was not followed up by a formal offer letter. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and explained that it was normal practice for a formal written letter to be sent. It added that the member of staff had advised the resident to give notice to his previous landlord as that the property was ready to move into and it could not hold the property until the resident’s notice end date.
2. It confirmed that as the resident was in receipt of universal credit (UC), he would not have been entitled to claim housing costs on both properties. it added that this was Government legislation and not something it had control over. It confirmed that it was a not-for-profit organisation and needed to let its properties as soon as they were available to minimise any loss of rental income.
3. It said that before the resident moved in, an affordability assessment was completed and the resident advised that he needed a two-bedroom property despite living in the property alone for the first month before his wife and son could join him. The resident was advised that he would be subject to a one-bedroom occupancy charge in line with Government legislation. The resident was advised that he would be left with minimal income due to the additional rent he would need to pay over a six–month period. The resident had confirmed that he wished to proceed and could guarantee that he had enough savings to cover the £500 monthly payment for the first six months of his tenancy.
4. A visit was carried out on 21 November 2019 to check that the resident was managing the tenancy. The resident confirmed that he was managing and that he required no further support. The landlord noted that the resident’s rent account was clear at this stage and a direct debit had been set up for future payments. A satisfaction survey was completed at this stage and the resident had scored his satisfaction with the helpfulness of staff throughout the sign-up process to be eight out of ten, his satisfaction with his responsibilities as a tenant to be eight out of ten and his rent obligations to be nine out of ten. The landlord concluded that the resident was advised correctly on all aspects of taking out a tenancy and therefore it was not able to issue a refund.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 October 2020 and said that he wanted to complain about the scores on the survey. He stated that he had given low scores on the survey because he was unhappy and believed his scores had been altered. He said that members of staff could change the scores and felt the landlord should have surveys completed independently. He added that he wanted to escalate his complaint further because he had not been given a verbal offer by the landlord which was why he could not give notice to his previous landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 October 2020 and explained that despite it providing an initial response, in line with its complaints policy the resident’s complaint about the start of his tenancy in 2019 was out of time. This was because it could only consider complaints that had been brought to its attention within three months of the event. It thanked the resident for his feedback regarding the satisfaction survey and confirmed that it was reviewing the way it obtained feedback from customers.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint regarding his allegations of fraudulent information on 22 October 2020 and confirmed that it would investigate this matter and provide a response.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2020 regarding his concern that the scores on his satisfaction survey had been changed. It noted that it had discussed this matter with the resident over the phone on 21 October 2020 and confirmed that it would investigate this matter further. It confirmed that it had spoken to the member of staff who had completed the scorecard and said that they remembered explaining the purpose of completing the scorecard and that any scores lower than five would be followed up with a phone call, which was the process at that time. It had reviewed all scorecards completed by the member of staff between July and September 2019 and found that both higher and lower scores were recorded. It confirmed that it did not find any reason to suspect that the member of staff had changed the scorecard. It confirmed that the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord sent the resident a further invoice for his rent arrears on 25 November 2020. The resident’s rent account was again placed on hold on 22 December 2020 following his report that he wished to escalate his complaint to this Service. The landlord called the resident on 25 January 2021 to advise that the next step in its procedure would be to send the outstanding balance to an external debt collector. An email was sent on the same day to confirm that if the resident did not wish for this to happen, he would need to pay the outstanding balance in full or set up a payment arrangement.
On 25 January 2021, the resident raised another complaint with the landlord regarding the lack of written offer for the property before he moved in, the behaviour of the member of staff responsible for this and the score which had been recorded on his feedback survey. He added that he wanted to complain at the time but believed the low score would result in a complaint being registered automatically. The landlord referred the resident to its previous response on 5 November 2020 and confirmed that it had provided clear explanations of the points he had raised. It confirmed that the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied and wanted further advice.
On 27 January 2021 the resident raised a further complaint as the landlord had employed a debt collection agency before receiving the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review. He did not feel this was appropriate for the arrears of just over £100. The landlord responded and confirmed that the balance on the account was correct. It noted that despite the ongoing case, the arrears remained outstanding and should be paid promptly. It added that it would only use a debt collection agency as a last resort and the resident could call to make a payment arrangement.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2021 and asked it to confirm whether the resident had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord confirmed that the resident had not exhausted its complaints procedure and issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 16 April 2021. It explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that it had responded to the resident’s initial communication on 2 October 2020 but had not raised this as a formal complaint as he had requested. It offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling service failure.
2. It noted that the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated as he did not agree with the scores given in the satisfaction survey and felt that they had been fraudulently changed. It had responded stating that it could not consider the concerns about insufficient notice being given when he moved into the property as this was not brought to its attention within three months of the event in line with its complaint policy but failed to address the resident’s allegation that his satisfaction scores had been changed. In view of this, the landlord offered a further £50 compensation.
3. It added that the resident had raised his complaint on 19 October 2020 and the complaint was logged and acknowledged on 22 October 2020. It noted that this was outside of its published timescales and offered an additional £12 compensation. It noted that it provided its stage one complaint response on 5 November 2020 which was within its published timescales.
4. It noted that the resident had raised a formal complaint regarding the same issues on 25 January 2021 and said that it should have asked him if he wished to escalate his complaint at this stage rather than referring to its response on 5 November 2020 and incorrectly referring him to this Service. In recognition of this inconvenience, the landlord offered a further £50 compensation.
5. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for a complaint to be raised on 27 January 2021 regarding it employing a debt collector to recover his rent arrears of £125.94. It had responded to this email on 28 January 2021 but did not raise this as a formal complaint as requested. In view of this, the landlord offered a further £50 compensation.
6. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling service failures and confirmed that the total offer of compensation was £212. It confirmed that it would deduct the rent arrears of £125.94 and refund the balance of £86.06. it confirmed that it was not obliged to handle the complaint raised on 2 October 2020 as it had not been reported within three months of the event. It also confirmed that there was no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims that the scores provided in the satisfaction survey had been fraudulently altered and it was, therefore, unable to take any further action regarding this point. It confirmed that it had employed a debt collector as a last resort because the resident was not engaging when contacted about the arrears.
The resident referred his complaint to this service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He noted that the offer of £212 did not cover the additional rent he had needed to pay on leaving his previous property which amounted to around £350. He also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the feedback scores and said that he had scored four and five but the member of staff had put eight and nine. He added that the landlord had taken his final month’s housing element of his Universal credit without warning, meaning he did not have the money to pay his first month’s rent at a new property and that the landlord had continued to threaten legal action in relation to the outstanding arrears on his rent account.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that the feedback survey he had completed in November 2019 had been altered by a member of the landlord’s staff.

In this case, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by speaking to the member of staff and reviewing scorecards completed between July and September 2019, before the resident’s survey in November 2019. It found that both higher and lower scores were recorded by this member of staff. It also confirmed that there was no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims that the scores provided in the satisfaction survey had been fraudulently altered and it was unable to take any further action regarding this.
It is acknowledged that the resident feels that his scores were fraudulently changed by a member of the landlord’s staff, however, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take to investigate the reports or implement measures to address the issue due to the length of time that had passed since the survey was completed in November 2019. The Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the event to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Fraud is a serious offence and there would need to be significant evidence to support such an allegation before the landlord could take any action such as disciplinary measures against the staff member concerned.
Based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not take any further action on this matter as there was no supporting evidence to suggest that the scores had been changed and no documentary evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims. The landlord has demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and explain its position clearly.
The resident has also said he believed that a complaint would be automatically raised at the time as he had given low scores on the feedback survey. The landlord has confirmed that if a low score was given then the resident would usually receive a phone call, in line with its process. Ultimately, if the resident had not received any form of correspondence regarding his concerns, he would have had the opportunity to pursue this matter with the landlord at the time and there is no evidence to suggest that he had done so.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concern that the feedback survey he had completed in November 2019 had been altered by a member of its staff. Whilst the Ombudsman has not disregarded his comments, there is a lack of evidence to prove that the resident had given lower scores at the time and no substantive evidence to suggest that the scores had been raised by the member of staff. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate his concern with the member of staff responsible and confirm its position.

The resident’s concern about the arrears recovery action taken by the landlord at the end of his tenancy.

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the resident would be responsible for ensuring that his rent is paid in full and on time. The resident would also be responsible for all previous debts owed, such as rent due for a previous home. The tenancy agreement confirms that when the tenancy ends, the resident must pay any outstanding rent and other costs owed.
The landlord’s income management policy states that the landlord takes a preventative approach to arrears and it should make early contact with a resident whose rent account goes into arrears to prevent the debt from escalating. It should also work with the resident to reach a satisfactory agreement to repay the arrears. The landlord’s former customer rent arrears procedure (which was in place at the time of the complaint) confirms that as an alternative to enforcement, it would consider applying for direct deductions from benefits or Universal Credit. It states that it may refer the debt to a debt collection agency if attempts to recover the debt have failed, for example, if the former tenant does not respond to telephone calls, emails and two letters requesting contact to come to an arrangement.
The landlord’s records show that it made regular contact with the resident regarding rent arrears during the tenancy. It sent a letter advising of the outstanding balance on 30 September 2020 once the tenancy had ended and followed up with a phone call, asking the resident to make a payment arrangement to clear the outstanding balance. The resident said on a number of occasions that he would set up a payment arrangement but it does not appear that he did so. The landlord acted reasonably by pausing any arrears recovery action at the resident’s request whilst the complaint was in progress and sent a further letter on 25 November 2020 reminding the resident of the arrears. There is no evidence to suggest a repayment arrangement was agreed by the resident and it was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to warn the resident that it intended to send the debt to a debt collection agency should no agreement be in place by January 2021.
In line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s income management policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to take arrears recovery action as the resident’s rent account was in a negative balance. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to notify the resident of the arrears and set a payment arrangement. It would be the resident’s responsibility to ensure that any outstanding rent is paid regardless of any discrepancy. In this case, there was no dispute raised regarding the arrears on the resident’s rent account and whether they were payable. There is no evidence to show that the resident had set up any arrangement with the landlord. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue the resident to recover the arrears.
The resident has also raised concern that the landlord had taken a final payment from his Universal Credit in September 2020 without telling him. The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2020 to advise that Universal Credit had made a payment into his rent account. This was not showing at the time and the landlord confirmed that it would make a note to check this later in the month. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident expressed concern that this had been taken at the time or raised a complaint with the landlord regarding this matter. In line with its policy, the landlord was entitled to apply for direct deductions from benefits or Universal Credit and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was unaware of this payment being made at the time.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the arrears recovery action taken at the end of the resident’s tenancy. The landlord has demonstrated that it has followed its former tenant arrears recovery procedure and had made reasonable efforts to warn the resident of the consequences of not settling the outstanding balance on his former rent account. The landlord’s actions were proportionate in line with its procedure and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had pursued this unreasonably.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one of its internal process, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two days and provide a formal response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a formal response within ten working days. The policy confirms that a complaint must be brought to the landlord’s attention within three months of the events which led to the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that a landlord should accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, for example where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months prior. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord not to address the resident’s concerns about the information provided at the start of his tenancy in October 2019 as around 12 months had passed since this event. The landlord acted appropriately by fully explaining its position to the resident and demonstrating that it was acting in line with its policies.
The landlord has acknowledged that it should have addressed the resident’s concerns about false information being submitted on a feedback survey following his initial concern on 2 October 2020. It also noted that there was a slight delay in acknowledging this complaint and occasions where the resident’s concerns should have been raised as a stage one complaint as requested but were not.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its complaint handling service failures and apologising to the resident. It also put things right by offering £212 compensation in line with its compensation policy. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website), which states that amounts in this range are appropriate where the service failures were of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
The landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failings. The landlord has therefore made reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £212 as previously offered if it has not already done so, as the finding of redress was found on this basis. This may be paid directly to the resident or into the resident’s rent account to offset any outstanding arrears, at the landlord’s discretion.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concern that the feedback survey he had completed in November 2019 had been altered by a member of the landlord’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the arrears recovery action taken at the end of his tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

There is a lack of evidence to confirm whether the feedback scores given by the resident had been altered by a member of the landlord’s staff in November 2019. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s claim and explain its position to the resident but due to the length of time that has passed and in view of the conflicting accounts from the resident and staff member, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty what happened at the time.
The landlord has demonstrated that it followed its arrears recovery procedure correctly and made reasonable efforts to warn the resident of the arrears on his account and the potential consequences of not reaching a payment agreement. The landlord has not acted unreasonably in pursuing this matter and employing a debt collection agency as a final resort in line with its policy.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were some service failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint which may have caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord has offered compensation to the resident which is proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £212 as previously offered if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis. This may be paid directly to the resident or into the resident’s rent account to offset any outstanding arrears, at the landlord’s discretion.