Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202122741)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122741

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

15 June 2023

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 is about:

a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move after he was released on bail.

b. The way the landlord handled the resident’s rent arrears.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant in a one bedroom, first floor flat. The tenancy began in August 2017. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he was no longer living in the property.
Prior to moving out, the resident applied to join the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme. On 1 June 2021, he received a letter from the scheme, confirming his membership number and providing details on how he could bid for suitable properties.

Legal and Policy Framework

The tenancy agreement states that, if the resident does not pay his rent, maintenance and service charge, it will take the resident to court to get a Court Order to evict him from his home. It also states that the resident must pay the rent and any maintenance and service charge in advance, on or before the first day of each month, or where agreed with the landlord, at the agreed intervals.
The Prevention and Management of Arrears section of the landlord’s Income Collection and Rent and Service Charge Setting Policy states that the resident will be offered advice and support. Debts are identified at an early stage to prevent them escalating. Where they are not able to prevent them escalating, agreements are reached that take into consideration the resident’s ability to pay. Residents can receive basic budgeting and benefit advice and are referred for specialist debt advice, where appropriate. The landlord will also provide vulnerable tenants with appropriate support and provide accurate and clear information on rent accounts to staff and tenants. When managing arrears, the policy states that the landlord will make personal contact with tenants in arrears at an early stage to prevent arrears increasing, act in a firm but fair way, dealing with residents as individuals and referring cases for legal action only as a last resort. It will use possession and eviction only as a last resort, once all other reasonable steps have been taken.
The landlord’s Allocations & Tenancy Policy states that it may consider a move to alternative accommodation, referred to as a management move (MM), for residents in exceptional circumstances. Examples include: If a tenant is suffering from domestic abuse or harassment; if the resident is unable to live in the property so that it becomes unreasonable for them to remain there, for example, on medical grounds, and where a household is owed the full housing duty under Part VII Housing Act and a senior manager approve the property to be directly matched to a household to avoid using alternative temporary accommodation. The Management Move Procedure states that, when an officer identifies that a MM needs to be considered, they will complete a MM request form. It also states that it is important at this stage that the resident is not advised that this is being considered in case of a negative outcome.

Summary of events

On 4 June 2021, the resident was involved in an altercation with a neighbour and, on 14 June 2021, he was subsequently charged and bailed on condition that he did not return to the property during the bail period. It is understood that, at this time, the resident’s rent arrears stood at £1,102.41 and that he was residing with a member of his family.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 June 2021 and informed him that it would not be able to house him in the local area but that he could approach other local authorities in the surrounding areas and the landlord would support him.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a Notice to Seek Possession, advising him that the notice was being served on him because he was in arrears with his rent and that this was the first step in the legal procedure to repossess his home. The landlord called the resident on 28 June 2021 to discuss his rent arrears and his options, one of which was a possible management move (MM). It explained however that he would not be considered for a MM until he reduced his rent arrears to £500. The landlord also advised the resident that, if he was in fear of violence, he could approach any local authority in the country for assistance.
The resident sent the landlord a message on 25 June 2021, informing it that he was staying with a family member, that he probably would not be returning to his flat and that, as the landlord did not want to help him, he would be giving up his property. On 29 June 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that he was on bail, was not allowed to enter the local area, that his parent was dealing with things at his property and that the communal door lock had been changed and he had not been given a key.
On the resident’s request, the landlord sent him a termination of tenancy form on 30 June 2021 and, on 7 July 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident again and reminded him that a MM could not be agreed until he cleared his arrears. Upon receipt of the completed termination form, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 July 2021,confirmed it had been accepted and his tenancy was due to expire on 2 August 2021.He was told this could be extended if needed.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 23 July 2021 and stated the following:
1. The landlord had accepted his termination and the property was in a period of notice.
2. Prior to submitting his termination form, the landlord was considering a MM to alternative housing that was more suitable to his current needs.
3. The landlord stated that, as he intended to terminate his tenancy, it could no longer consider him for a MM.
4. If the resident wished to discuss this further, he should contact the landlord on the number provided.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021 and said he wanted to withdraw his termination if a MM had been agreed. On 28 July 2021 the landlord replied and advised him that he still had to pay off his rent arrears before a MM could be agreed. The landlord advised him that he could either continue with the tenancy termination or clear his arrears and be considered for a MM. Following the resident’s withdrawal of the notice to quit, the landlord reiterated its advice on 3 August 2021 and, on 12 and 26 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he was waiting for an insurance payment that would clear his rent arrears.
Following the landlord’s application to the DWP for an Alternative Payment Arrangement (APA), the resident contacted it on 9 September 2021 raising concerns that he was still accruing arrears on the property while he was not living there. He said that he had offered to terminate his tenancy but was advised by a member of staff that, if he did this, he would not be able to have a MM. He explained that he was paying rent to his mother and, at the same time, accruing rent arrears on his property, which was putting him into financial difficulty. The resident added that he had raised a complaint seven days ago and had not received a response. He asked if the landlord could contact him to discuss what options he had to stop him falling into debt. The landlord advised that someone would call him back within a day.
On 14 September 2021, the resident told the landlord that the insurance payment was not as much as he was expecting and that it would not clear his rent arrears. The landlord said it would check if it could offer him a MM if his account was in arrears, and it got back in touch on 20 September 2021 to confirm that its decision was the same as before and that the resident would have to clear his rent arrears before being considered for a MM.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 20 September 2021 to raise a stage one complaint about the ongoing situation with his tenancy, and stated the following:
1. He had contacted the landlord, who told him that his arrears had to be reduced to £500 before a MM could be considered.
2. He said he was intending to terminate his tenancy but was advised not to do so if he wanted a MM.
3. The resident stated his rent was being taken directly from his Universal Credit payments, which meant he was not left with enough money to pay rent to his mother.
4. He felt he had been subject to a lot of miscommunication and was unhappy with the way the landlord had treated him.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 20 September 2021 and then, on 21 September 2021, it called the resident to discuss his concerns. In addition to the issues he had raised the previous day, he added that the reason he had built up rent arrears was because a housing officer had given him incorrect advice.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response, which stated the following:
1. The landlord had made the resident aware he could be considered for a MM once he cleared his rent arrears.
2. The advice that he could approach any local authority for help was correct, that he could still do this and that he could apply for housing through the local choice based lettings scheme.
3. The resident could still choose to terminate his tenancy and would need to advise the landlord if he wanted to do so.
4. It stated that the resident was still liable for the rent at his property and, in order to stop this liability, he would need to terminate his tenancy.
5. The landlord stated that it had provided advice about moving and that, if he required any assistance, he could contact the local authority’s Housing Options Team.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 to say he would like to escalate his complaint to stage two and stated the following:
1. The resident believed his complaint had not been properly investigated, it contained incorrect dates and it did not mention some of the calls he felt were important.
2. He stated that, on 7 June 2021, he phoned his housing officer, told him about his bail condition and asked if he could be moved. The housing officer told him that he needed to approach another local authority and tell them that he feared for his safety.
3. The resident told his housing officer that if he was not prepared to help him move, he would stop his direct debit and would also stop his Universal Credit payments. He said he knew, on 7 June 2021, that he was £1102.41 in arrears but that he would have cleared it by the end of that month if the landlord had given him correct advice.
4. A week or two following his conversation with the housing officer, he phoned the landlord again to ask if there was any way it could help him move but the member of staff he spoke to provided the same advice as the housing officer. He told her not to expect him to pay any rent as he needed to pay for a storage company to remove his belongings.
5. A different member of staff contacted him on 28 June 2021 and, after looking into his case, she told him that the landlord could give him a MM on the condition that he cleared his rent arrears and did not terminate his tenancy.
6. He said the only member of staff who had tried to help him was the budget coach, and that she was not even part of the housing team. He said his housing officer had failed to inform him about the option of a MM.
7. The resident stated that, if he had not been given incorrect information, his arrears would not have built up to a point where he had no hope of clearing them. He said he was stuck in limbo because if he wanted a MM, he had to clear his debt but, if he cancelled his tenancy to stop further charges from accruing, he would not be able to get a MM.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint. It advised the resident that the Chief Executive would investigate and that he would respond within 10 working days. The resident called the landlord on 3 November 2023 to chase his stage two response and the landlord responded on the same day to apologise for the delay and confirmed that the Chief Executive would contact him directly.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord sent the resident a court warning letter, informing him that his current arrears stood at £2,470.78 and that, because he had failed to maintain his account, the landlord was considering applying to the County Court for a Possession Hearing. The landlord sent a further letter on 17 November 2021 informing him that, as a result of failing to maintain his agreement of rent, plus arrears, it was considering issuing possession proceedings against him.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2021, informing it that it could not make a direct payment to it from the resident’s Universal Credit. It advised that the resident would need to pay his rent directly to the landlord.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord’s Chief Executive wrote to the resident, told him that he had tried to call him and apologised for not getting back to him sooner. In his email, he stated the following:
1. Once the resident was bailed from his address, he had to continue paying his rent to keep his tenancy. He stated that the resident’s arrears had been building up for a while, including before the incident, but it was still an option for him to agree a payment plan to pay his outstanding rent.
2. If the bail conditions allowed, the resident would be able to move back into his property and keep his tenancy.
3. As the landlord managed the waiting list on behalf of the local authority, it would help the resident find another property, either locally or further afield.
4. The landlord was satisfied it was consistent in the information it had provided and the resident still had the choice to keep his tenancy, and he should speak to its Income Team for assistance.
The Chief Executive tried calling the resident again on 29 November 2021 and then sent the landlord’s stage two response on 7 December 2021. The letter reiterated what it had said in its email of 23 November 2021 and confirmed that, if the resident left the property, the landlord would try and recover the outstanding rent. It said it was upholding the decision it had made in its stage one response and signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident raised a further stage one complaint, on 11 January 2022, where he raised concerns that the landlord had passed his case to a debt collection agency and that, as the landlord had said it would set up a payment programme if he gave up his tenancy, he felt it was too early to engage debt collectors.
The landlord called the resident on 13 January 2022 to discuss his complaint and then sent its stage one response, on 20 January 2022, which stated the following:
1. It stated that the resident’s rent account was last in credit on 31 May 2020 and, although some payments had been made throughout the tenancy, many had been missed leading to severe rent arrears.
2. The landlord had sent the resident multiple arrears warning letters, which outlined the action that would be taken if payments were not made.
3. The resident was issued with a Notice to Seek Possession letter on 23 June 2021, and the landlord provided support through a budget coach, who discussed the rent arrears with the resident on several occasions. It stated that the budget coach explained to the resident, on 20 September 2021, that a MM would not be possible until the arrears were considerably reduced.
4. The landlord issued a court warning letter on 8 November 2021 and, on 17 November 2021, it issued a compliance notice letter, which explained that it was seeking possession. As per the compliance notice, the 14 day period had expired and, because the resident had made no payments, the landlord commenced court proceedings.
5. The landlord stated that its Income team contacted the resident on 6 December 2021 and reiterated the options available, as outlined in the stage two response. It also advised him of the court process and that, although the court would ratify an agreement to pay rent, the resident would incur additional costs. The resident chose to terminate his tenancy as he was unable to commit to a repayment plan at that point.
6. It said that, by 22 December 2021, the resident had made no rent payments and had not contacted the landlord to make an arrangement to pay, which led to the landlord passing the case onto its debt collector.
7. The landlord stated that it had given the resident multiple opportunities to make a payment arrangement by specific dates, all of which he had missed. It was satisfied it had followed its procedures and service standards in handling his rent arrears and that, as it did not uphold his complaint, the debt would remain with its debt collector.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s request for a move after he was released on bail.

Whilst the resident had rent arrears for some time, the resident’s circumstances changed in June 2021, leading to his requirement for a move. It should be noted that, while taking into account his circumstances and any vulnerabilities that he had, along with any discretion the landlord could exercise, it was entitled to pursue arrears whilst considering the resident’s request.
The evidence suggests that the resident contacted the landlord three times in June 2021 to ask for help to move to a different location, after he was bailed. The landlord did not provide a telephone record of the first conversation, which the resident stated took place with the landlord’s housing officer on 7 June 2021. From the information the resident provided, the landlord was not at fault when it advised him that he could make a homeless application to any local authority if he wanted to be re-housed outside his local area. This is because there is evidence from the resident’s choice based lettings application form that he had some physical and mental health disabilities, along with a learning disability. The records also show he was receiving personal independence payments. It is not possible, from the evidence available, to determine the extent of the resident’s disabilities or the impact this may have had on his housing need. However, if he had made a homeless application to a local authority, he may have been assessed as being in priority need and could have been eligible for emergency housing; although this would have been a decision for the local authority to make.
According to the records, the resident went to stay with a family member after he was bailed, which mitigated the risk of immediate homelessness and minimised the urgency of having to find alternative accommodation. It should also be noted that the resident had already been accepted by this time on the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme, and was able to bid for suitable alternative accommodation while residing with his family member.
The resident raised concerns that a delay between the two conversations he had with housing officers and the third conversation with his budget coach in June 2021 prevented him from getting a management move (MM). He stated that he was given incorrect advice by the housing officers and, had he known about the possibility of a MM, he could have reduced his arrears to a figure whereby a MM would be considered. The landlord was not at fault in this respect. This is because there is no evidence, as explained above, that the landlord had given incorrect advice, and there is no indication the resident had actively engaged in agreeing to and then following a payment plan. If the resident was able to make any payments, he could have reduced the arrears regardless of whether or not he had been advised of a possible MM, particularly as he had received several reminders of outstanding rental payments prior to him being placed on bail.
Although the landlord exercised its discretion in terms of considering a MM, on condition that the resident reduced his rent arrears to £500, it is not evident the landlord fully explained the MM process to the resident, or the chances of his application being successful. There is no indication the landlord gave proper consideration, against its eligibility criteria, as to whether it was appropriate to make this offer. Although the option the landlord gave appeared to be well intentioned, it could have better managed the resident’s expectations. It was clear from the correspondence available that the resident did not fully understand the MM process or the eligibility criteria, which would have led him to believe that his application would be successful if he reduced his rent arrears. In addition, the letter the landlord sent to the resident on 23 July 2021, implied the resident would get a MM if he did not terminate his tenancy, which was misleading because there was no suggestion his application for an MM would ultimately be successful.
There is no evidence, when the resident told the landlord of his intention to terminate his tenancy, that it discussed the implications of this on a potential homeless application, or the possibility the resident could make himself intentionally homeless. Had the landlord given clearer guidance, it would have helped the resident make a more informed decision on whether or not a notice to quit would be the most suitable option for him at that point.
The landlord’s emphasis on trying to encourage the resident to reduce his arrears on the basis it would allow him to be considered for a MM would also support the suggestion that the landlord was offering this as an incentive for the resident to clear his rent arrears. It was inappropriate for the landlord to raise the possibility of a MM in this way, particularly as its procedure guidance clearly states: “When an officer identifies that a MM needs to be considered… It is important at this stage that the resident is not advised that this is being considered in case of a negative outcome”. The landlord should request payment of rent as standard rather than offer incentives and possibly providing false hope.
It should also be noted that the letter from the landlord of 23 July 2021 did not include the condition that a MM would only be considered if the resident reduced his rent arrears to £500. The lack of clear messaging would have caused confusion and may have added to an already stressful situation, where the resident was struggling with an increasing debt and unable to return to his home. The landlord could have given greater consideration, in view of the resident’s history of rent arrears and mounting debt, whether keeping the tenancy would have been in his best interests or whether it would have been better for the resident to terminate his tenancy as he had intended. In this respect, it could be seen as irresponsible to have raised the expectation of a MM while it was clear the resident was struggling to make any rental payments.

The way the landlord handled the resident’s rent arrears

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident has struggled with rent arrears for a considerable amount of time and recognises how upsetting it must have been for him to lose his home in a situation that was clearly very difficult. However challenging a resident’s circumstances, there is no requirement or expectation that a landlord can address all of a resident’s requests. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the response by the landlord to a resident’s reports, whether it complied with its policies, current legislation and good practice, and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances
It is unclear when the landlord came to be aware of the resident’s disabilities; however, by the time it had seen his choice based lettings application and been made aware he was receiving personal independence payments, it would have known he had vulnerabilities. It is not clear what advice the landlord provided but it could have explored whether the resident would have been entitled to any emergency funding from the local authority to help with the rent arrears or signposted the resident to charities that could provide rental assistance. Although this may not have changed the outcome, it could have provided the resident with some further options and opportunities to reduce his rent arrears.
The evidence shows that the landlord correctly followed its procedures in managing the resident’s rent arrears and took reasonable steps before applying for possession, and passing the case onto its debt collection agency. The landlord provided debt support by referring the resident to a budget coach and it also referred him to a job coach to explore whether he would be eligible for a start-up grant to set up his own business.
The landlord followed good practice by sending regular rent arrears and warning letters, and acknowledged the difficulties the resident was having in paying his rent by giving him ample time and opportunity to find ways to reduce his arrears. There is evidence the landlord kept in regular contact and tried to resolve the matter by applying to the DWP for an alternative payment arrangement; however, this was unsuccessful. The landlord made several attempts to set up a payment plan; however, lack of engagement on the resident’s part meant this was also unsuccessful. It is evident, for the reasons stated above, that the landlord was proactive in supporting the resident to manage his rent arrears. After he was bailed, the resident went to live with a family member and was able to bid for alternative accommodation on the choice based lettings scheme. By the time he had accrued rent arrears of over £2,000, the landlord was not at fault for passing the debt onto its debt collector.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a move after he was released on bail.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s rent arrears.

Reasons

The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations when it offered to consider a MM on the condition he reduced his arrears. It did not properly follow its MM procedure, and did not fully explain the process to the resident, or the likelihood that he would get a move, whether or not he cleared his rent arrears. The landlord gave the resident confusing information regarding a MM, which meant he was not in a position to make an informed decision on whether or not he should terminate his tenancy. This led to the resident sending a termination of tenancy notice, withdrawing it and then subsequently deciding again to terminate again. This suggested the resident was acting on confusing information along with a lack of clear communication from the landlord.
The landlord correctly followed its procedures in dealing with the resident’s rent arrears and took reasonable steps to work with the resident to reduce those arrears, provide support and set up a payment plan. As the resident went to stay with a family member after he was bailed, this reduced the urgency to find alternative accommodation. As the landlord had taken reasonable steps to recover the rent arrears it was not at fault for passing the debt onto its debt collection agency.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of distress caused by its poor communication and lack of expectation management, along with the time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
The landlord to apologise to the resident for failing to correctly follow its management move procedure, for not properly explaining the process to him and its lack of transparency in not explaining what his chances were of getting a move, even if he did reduce his rent arrears.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its Management Move procedure and provide training to staff on the MM process to ensure the procedure is correctly followed, that it is considered in cases where it is appropriate and that residents are provided with clear information about the eligibility criteria, along with other options available, in order that they are able to make informed decisions.