Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust Limited (202421499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421499

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

29 September 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her tenancy, including the type of rent paid and affordability.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. This has been in place since 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
4. On 1 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord with concerns about the affordability of her tenancy due to an upcoming change to her benefit entitlement.
5. On 5 August 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. In the complaint, she said:
   1. at the time of signing her tenancy agreement, the difference between affordable and social rent had not been explained to her
   2. she had neighbours in similar properties who were paying less rent than her
   3. following a recent bereavement, she was due to inherit money which would impact her benefits – this made her concerned about the sustainability of her tenancy
   4. she and her family had spent money on making improvements to the property
   5. her health conditions were being exacerbated by stress
   6. as an outcome, she was seeking an explanation of the tenancy type and to be switched to social rent
6. On 16 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained to the resident:
   1. the difference between social and affordable rent
   2. that this explanation was given at the welcome sign up – she could also find the definition in her tenancy agreement and on its website
   3. why 2 similar properties on the same street may have different rents payable
   4. it could not switch her to social rent as she was requesting because the rent type was pre-set against the property
   5. that it understood the change in the resident’s circumstances and could help with finding a more affordable property, or refer her to its tenancy sustainment team
   6. it would review its sign up process to ensure that all residents have a clear understanding of what is meant by an affordable tenancy
7. On 21 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She did not agree that the meaning of affordable rent was made clear when she signed the tenancy agreement.
8. On 9 September 2024, the landlord issued its final response. It maintained its original position given in the stage 1 response. It reoffered its resources available to support the resident with tenancy sustainment, which it said the resident had declined.
9. On 19 September 2024, the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer sent a letter to the resident. This explained their role, support available and provided contact details for if the resident wished to use this resource.
10. The resident brought her complaint to us on 21 February 2025. The resident would like the investigation to consider whether:
    1. the landlord properly considered her circumstances
    2. the meaning of “affordable rent” was suitably clear when she signed the tenancy agreement

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident’s complaint concerned what she was made aware of at the time of signing her tenancy. She felt that the landlord did not make the meaning of affordable rent and the annual increases clear. We cannot consider complaints concerning the level of rent, rent increases or outcomes which are outside our authority to decide, such as changing the level of rent. We also encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out. Considering the availability and reliability of evidence, and when the complaint was made to the landlord, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on events from August 2024 onwards.
12. When discussing her case with us, the resident described being spoken to in an inappropriate way by a landlord employee. As this aspect did not form part of the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint, we are unable to comment on this for the investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this, she should first direct it through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her tenancy, including the type of rent paid and affordability

13. The landlord’s rent setting policy says that affordable rents are based on a formula which is up to 80% of the market rent. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that rent will be set in accordance with its rent setting policy on affordable rent tenancies and rent will not be increased more than once annually.
14. The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy says that the term “vulnerable” describes anyone who experiences difficulties with everyday living to the extent that they require additional support to ensure they are not at any disadvantage and/or to sustain the occupancy of their home. It says that that tenancy sustainment support is available to help customers manage their money.
15. The landlord’s internal notes say that the resident initially contacted it on 1 August 2024 to express concern with sustaining her tenancy because of a change in her circumstances following a bereavement. It offered her tenancy sustainment support. It said that the resident declined this offer. We consider that the landlord made an appropriate offer of support from the first day the resident raised concerns.
16. Between 1 and 5 August 2024, the landlord’s notes refer to 2 employees phoning the resident to discuss her change in circumstances and tenancy concerns. After the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 5 August 2024, the landlord phoned the resident after 3-working days. The landlord clarified the complaint aspects during this call. It phoned again on 12 August 2024, 5-working days after the complaint was raised. The landlord explained that it could not switch her to social rent. It said that the resident became upset by this and did not understand why the request was refused. The landlord said it would issue the same explanation in writing, to allow the resident to read it in her own time. We consider that the contact and information provided by the landlord in this period was appropriate and a reasonable attempt to manage the resident’s expectations.
17. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that the rent could not be changed. It offered her tenancy sustainment support. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s financial concerns and provided information about support that it was able to offer. While it did not directly reference if the resident should be considered under its vulnerable persons policy, the resident was offered the same support as if she was. We have considered that the landlord provided clear responses to the resident’s concerns about the type of rent paid and affordability. When it could not provide the outcome the resident was seeking, it provided suitable alternative methods of support. It also showed a willingness to learn from the complaint.
18. On 21 August 2024, the customer escalated her complaint. The landlord’s internal notes say it attempted to contact the resident the following day but could not get through. It left a voicemail. It made further contact attempts on 27 and 28 August 2024. It made an appointment to visit the resident’s home on 2 September 2024. In this time, the landlord made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident about her tenancy concerns.
19. On 2 September 2024, the landlord visited the resident. In its write up from the visit, it said that the resident clarified the reasons for her complaint escalation. The resident did not understand what was meant by affordable rent when signing her tenancy agreement. The landlord reoffered the option of tenancy support and said the resident refused. The landlord said it confirmed that changing the rent type on the property was not possible and that rent increases for her tenancy were in line with its rent setting policy. The landlord acted reasonably by referencing the relevant policy to explain its decisions and providing clear information about the support it could provide.
20. In its final response dated 6 September 2024, it referred to its rent setting policy, the definition of affordable rent in the resident’s tenancy agreement and the detail in the property advert at the time the resident took the tenancy. It reiterated that it could provide tenancy sustainment support. By linking to these facts, it provided a reasonable explanation to its decision not to uphold the complaint and reaffirmed that it could provide alternative support.
21. After issuing its final response letter, the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 19 September 2024. This letter was from one of its tenancy sustainment officers providing information on the specific support available and how to contact the team if the resident wanted to use this resource in the future. This showed a positive commitment from the landlord to support its residents and help them to maintain their tenancies when circumstances change.
22. In summary, the landlord appropriately dealt with the resident’s concerns by:
    1. making regular contact with the resident
    2. explaining both verbally and in writing where the definitions of affordable rent could be found and offering further explanations on this
    3. providing consistent messaging about its decisions, which were appropriately linked to relevant policies
    4. considering the resident’s financial circumstances by offering tenancy sustainment support and assistance with finding a more affordable property
    5. reminding the resident of the support available on 4 occasions that we are aware of, at regular intervals throughout the complaint process
23. Overall, we consider that the landlord took reasonable steps in line with its policy to address the resident’s concerns about her tenancy, including the type of rent paid and affordability. As such we have made a finding of no maladministration for this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states that, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It also states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged in writing. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days. The Code states that when a complaint is acknowledged, landlords must be clear which aspects of the complaint they are responsible for, and landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy says that residents have a contractual right to claim compensation at the end of their tenancy for “qualifying improvements” they have carried out to their home.
26. On 5 August 2024, the resident made the complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it phoned the resident on 8 August 2024 to discuss the complaint. We recognise that this displayed a positive approach to customer service. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing. This was not in line with its policy. On 16 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This was a reasonable response time and in line with its policy.
27. In its stage 1 response, although it referenced it as part of the complaint, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of spending money on enhancing the property. It could have provided information about compensation being considered for this at the end of the tenancy, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord did not address all points raised, which was not in line with the Code.
28. On 21 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. This was acknowledged within 2-working days. On 6 September 2024, the landlord issued its final response letter. This was a reasonable time and in line with its policy. In its final response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the missed complaint aspect raised at stage 1.
29. We have recognised positive steps taken by the landlord in offering alternative support. However, we have identified the following failings:
    1. it did not issue a stage 1 acknowledgement in writing
    2. it did not address all points raised by the resident at both stages of the complaint process
30. We consider that the failings identified did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. As such, we have made a finding of service failure and an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about her tenancy, including the type of rent paid and affordability.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £50 in compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
    3. Any compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt owed.

Recommendations

34.  We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to reiterate the advice and support available around tenancy sustainment or finding alternative properties.