City of Doncaster Council (202322790)

Decision
Case ID	202322790
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Doncaster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 February 2026

Background

1. The resident had an introductory tenancy. He was unable to pay his rent, which resulted in the landlord seeking a notice of possession. It suspended this while an appeal with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was ongoing.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The rent account.
   2. Reports about staff conduct.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The rent account.
   2. Reports about staff conduct.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the rent account

5. We identified times early in the landlord’s handling of arrears on the account, where it did not follow its arrears recovery policy. However, the landlord’s subsequent actionswere in line with its policy, and it offered various support to the resident. We have therefore not identified detriment to the resident from the earlier failings.

The landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct

6. The resident made several allegations of abuse by the landlord’s staff. He said this was due to debt recovery letters, and calls regarding arrears. The landlord has demonstrated that it investigated each allegation and responded appropriately to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The resident made several complaints regarding staff conduct. The landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s concerns. However, we have identified some occasions on which the landlord did not respond to the resident as early as it could have. This was not inline with its policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 November 2022 to21 September 2023	Complaint The resident made several complaints. He said: He was unhappy about the conduct of income management officers. He had not been offered support or advice, regarding his rent arrears. He wanted a payment plan based on his affordability. However, the landlord had told him he needed to pay in full. He felt threatened by rent arrears letters. He was unhappy about a notice of possession. He was unhappy about the landlord extending his introductory tenancy. He felt the landlord had ignored evidence that he had an ongoing appeal with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). The landlord had given incorrect details regarding the Ombudsman services. He wanted information about whether the landlord recorded calls. Complaint letters were signed by people who had not written them. Stage 1 responses The landlord issued 4 stage 1 responses during this period. It said: It had reviewed calls as and when the resident raised them. It had not found inappropriate conduct from its staff. The resident had been abusive to staff on calls. It issued three warnings regarding his conduct. This was a breach of tenancy, and it was considering enforcement action. Its rent arrears letters were standard letters. They did not consider these to be abusive. Calls were recorded when the resident called the customer access team. If the call was passed to another department, this would not be recorded. It would correspond in writing moving forward. It had responded correctly on issuing a notice of possession, and subsequently an extension to his introductory tenancy. It had held the arrears on the account while an appeal was ongoing. On 17 July 2023 the resident had sent it a letter dated 10 May 2023. This letter said that there was an open appeal regarding his benefits. On 14 June 2023 the DWP advised the landlord the appeal was finished. It outlined that there were two Ombudsman’s it dealt with. It advised the difference between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman.
29 September 2023	The resident requested a stage 2 response. He said: His appeal with the DWP was ongoing. He had sent evidence regarding this. He wanted calls from 26 September 2023 to be presented to the reviews panel. He felt the landlord was ignoring orders from the LGSCO.
4 October 2023	The landlord issued a further stage 1 response. It said: It had reviewed recent calls and had not found them to be abusive. The evidence the resident sent was dated 10 May 2023. The landlord was subsequently updated by the DWP that the appeal had finished. It was considering tenancy action due to the resident’s abusive behaviour.
10 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: The resident had felt the letter at stage 1 was not drafted by the person who signed it. It confirmed that an authorised officer drafted the letter before sending it to the relevant person to review and sign. It was not involved in the appeal with the DWP. However, it had checked with the DWP regarding the status of the appeal and was advised this had finished. It had given the resident a single point of contact to avoid duplication of information. It also said it could not guarantee calls were recorded. The resident should put any correspondence in writing. It had followed its debt process correctly regarding his arrears. This included holding the debt process when the appeal with DWP was ongoing. The resident had said he was told he had to phone to raise a stage 2. It said this was incorrect information, although it had been unable to identify when the resident was told this. It had reviewed calls from 26 September 2023. It found one officer had been unable to locate the letter dated 10 May 2023. It apologised for this and said this was an oversight. Other calls and previous correspondence had confirmed it did have a copy of this letter.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The landlord has since gained possession of the property due to arrears. The resident feels the landlord ignored his evidence from the DWP. He remains unhappy with how the landlord treated him.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the rent account.
Finding	No maladministration

8. On 6 October 2022 the landlord issued a rent statement. The statement said the resident was in arrears. The landlord’s arrears recovery policy states it will be fair and reasonable in arrears recovery, whilst maintaining its own financial viability. It was reasonable for the landlord to issue the rent statement and notify the resident he was an arrears. The landlord’s debt recovery policy says it will offer support when recovering arrears. The rent statement signposted to the citizens advice. It also offered to provide financial advice. The landlord acted reasonably in line with its policies.
9. The landlord sent a further debt letter on 24 October 2022. This advised that if there was no contact then it would seek a notice of possession. It signposted the resident on how he could get support. The landlord’s rent arrears recovery policy says it will visit introductory tenants 7 days after it sends its debt recovery letter. We have not seen evidence it visited at that time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit the resident, as per its policy.
10.  However, we are aware the landlord had previously conducted visits to offer benefit application support. At the time, the resident advised he had an ongoing benefits appeal. The landlord noted that the citizens advice bureau was supporting him with this. It also noted that it had made follow up calls to the resident regarding the progress with his appeal. While the landlord has not followed its policy, we consider it was taking other actions to ensure the resident had support. As such we have not identified a significant impact on the resident in the landlord not completing the visit. The landlord subsequently visited the resident 9 times between 9 February 2023 and 10 November 2023.
11. The resident called the landlord on 14 November 2022. He felt the landlord was not giving him support and he needed a payment plan. On 16 and 18 November 2022 the resident called the landlord in response to debt calls he had received. We have not seen evidence of the calls made to the resident regarding arrears. The resident said the calls had been threatening and abusive. We would expect the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns. We have not seen evidence it did this at that time. We have considered this in the complaints handling section of the report.
12. On 8 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to express he was unhappy with the debt collection procedure. The landlord spoke with him on the same day. The resident said that it was not that he wouldn’t pay, it was that he couldn’t. The landlord noted that it did not continue the call as there was abusive behaviour from the resident. The landlord’s tenancy management policy says it has a zero-tolerance approach to abuse towards staff. It was reasonable for the landlord not to continue with the call, in line with its policy.
13. Between the 22 December 2022 and 8 February 2023 there were further records of calls between the landlord and the resident which the landlord said it ended due to abusive behaviour. The resident also sent letters saying he was not receiving help to pay. We note that the landlord has recorded that it offered to support the resident with benefits applications. It provided details of the citizens advice on more than one occasion. We consider the landlord was acting in line with its rent arrears policy and offering the resident relevant support.
14. On 9 February 2023 the landlord issued a “notice of proceedings for an introductory tenancy.” (NOSP) This said it would apply for a possession order due to the arrears. The landlord’s introductory policy states that the NOSP letter must advise the resident of the right to appeal. The letter stated the resident had 14 days to appeal and advised him how to do this. The landlord followed its introductory tenancy policy.
15. The resident appealed the NOSP. On 6 March 2023 the landlord issued a letter confirming it would put the NOSP on hold due to an appeal with the DWP regarding his benefits. The introductory tenancy policy says it will give residents opportunities to discuss their circumstances. It also said that they will be given support to maximise income to allow them to pay their rent. As a benefits appeal may have resulted in income maximisation, the landlord acted reasonably in suspending the NOSP.
16. On 11 May 2023 the landlord served a notice of extension (NOE) for the introductory tenancy. The landlord’s introductory tenancy policy says it will serve a NOE where there are issues with the tenancy conduct but there are mitigating circumstances. The resident’s tenancy states that not paying rent is a breach of tenancy. However, there was a benefits appeal ongoing. This meets with the reasons why an NOE might be served. The landlord acted appropriately in sending the NOE.
17. The introductory tenancy policy says that resident’s must be given an opportunity to appeal. The NOE said the resident had 14 days to appeal. The landlord acted in line with its policy. The resident appealed on 16 May 2023. He said he was waiting on a large compensation payment that the LGSCO had awarded him. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 June 2023 with the outcome of the appeal. It said it was extending the introductory tenancy. This was due to the arrears and to allow time for the DWP appeal to go ahead. It also gave time for the resident to receive his compensation award. As both the appeal and compensation payment are likely to have been mitigating circumstances the landlord acted in line with its policy when serving the NOE.
18. On 21 December 2023 it identified that the NOE had the incorrect date on it. It therefore considered the NOE to be invalid and advised that his tenancy had become secure. Whilst this was a failing from the landlord, we do not consider this to have been detrimental to the resident. This is because secure tenancy has additional protections, including longer debt recovery processes. This is likely to have resulted in the resident having additional time to resolve the arrears issue.
19. The landlord said the DWP informed it on 10 June 2023 that the benefits appeal was concluded. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2023. It said that the appeal had been concluded. It also noted that it had paid the compensation from the LGSCO case. It said the resident had the funds to clear the balance, and it expected payment for the arrears. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, he was responsible for paying any arrears. It was reasonable for the landlord to request payment.
20. In the letter the landlord advised that if it did not receive payment, it would consider legal action to get possession of the property. The landlord’s housing management policy says it must ensure that it has fair process when collecting arrears. This includes notifying the resident of consequences of non-payment. We are aware the resident felt that the letters were threatening. However, we consider the landlord was ensuring there was an understanding of any consequences, as per its housing management policy.
21. The resident used the compensation payment from the LGSCO case to clear the arrears. On 14 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident he was in credit on his account. It advised the resident when the credit on the account would run out. It said the resident would need to start paying rent once the account had run out. The landlord gave advice, in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, that he needed to make rent payments.
22. The resident said on 14 July 2023, that his appeal was ongoing with the DWP. The landlord advised they had received notification from the DWP that the appeal was finished. The resident disputed this. On 15 July 2023 he said he had letters from the DWP confirming the appeal was ongoing. We have seen two letters from the DWP regarding the resident’s appeal. One was dated 10 May 2023. As this was before the landlord said it had been notified the appeal was closed, this is not evidence of an ongoing appeal at that time.
23. The second letter was dated 13 September 2023. However, the resident has notified us that he did not provide this letter to the landlord. He said this was because the landlord had ignored previous correspondence. The DWP and the landlord are separate organisations. We therefore would not expect the landlord to be aware of the letter, dated 13 September 2023, unless the resident had provided it to the landlord. As he has said he did not do this, it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to act on this evidence.
24. On 5 October 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter notifying him of arrears. On 17 October 2023 the landlord sent a letter seeking notice of possession. On 18 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that the only evidence of an ongoing appeal with the DWP was the letter it received, dated 10 May 2023. As it had new information on 10 June 2023 that the appeal had concluded, it considered this still to be the case. It said if there was further evidence the appeal was ongoing, the resident should send this in. There is no evidence the resident sent this to the landlord. The landlord has followed its arrears recovery policy, acting on evidence available to it.
25. We have identified some failings early on in the arrears recovery process. This includes the landlord not responding to the resident’s concerns regarding debt calls in November 2022 as quickly as it could have. We have also not seen it visited the resident within 7 days of the debt letter, as per its arrears recovery policy. Whilst we recognise this is a failing, we have identified that the landlord was offering support to the resident. We also note that no recovery action took place at that time. Further, the resident had said he was unable to pay rent due to not being entitled to benefits. The landlord subsequently discussed this with him and ensured he was getting support from citizens advice and the DWP. As such we do not consider there to have been a significant impact on the resident, in relation to failings early in the debt procedure.
26. We also note that a notice of extension had the wrong date. However, the landlord’s subsequent actions meant there was no detriment to the resident.
27. The landlord has demonstrated that it followed its debt recovery and introductory tenancy procedures for the majority of the time. We acknowledge the resident was unable to pay rent. We also acknowledge that he felt the landlord did not support him. However, the evidence indicates it offered support. We also are aware that the landlord visited the resident, spoke with him on the phone and sent letters providing advice. It suspended the accounts during the period it believed the DWP appeal was outstanding. As such there was no maladministration in its handling of the rent account.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of staff conduct.
Finding	No maladministration

28. The resident has made multiple allegations of abusive behaviour from staff members. Due to the volume of allegations, we will not provide an exhaustive list of incidences. However, we have considered the allegations and the landlord’s responses. We have reviewed the call notes, the responses from the landlord relating to the allegations, and 2 call recordings from 26 September 2023.
29. The resident regularly said staff had spoken to him inappropriately. On several occasions the resident raised queries about when the landlord recorded calls. In a complaints response it sent on 22 June 2023 the landlord advised that it recorded calls to its customer access team. However, calls to direct lines were not recorded. It also said that if it transferred calls from its customer access team to another department, the call would not be recorded. We consider the landlord gave a detailed response to its call recording availability. We also note it suggested correspondence in writing, to avoid any misunderstanding. This was a reasonable alternative as we are aware that the resident regularly communicated in writing.
30. On 13 July 2023 the landlord recorded a call with the resident at his request. It did this via a standalone call recording device. We acknowledge this is different to the information the landlord had previously given the resident. Whilst we recognise that the landlord was attempting to accommodate the resident’s request, we consider this may have undermined the landlord’s previous response. In a stage 1 response letter, dated 28 July 2023 the landlord explained the additional recording was something a staff member had done outside of usual process. It also said it did not encourage its staff to take this action. We have not seen that the landlord recorded any additional calls after this date. We consider the landlord responded appropriately regarding this matter.
31. We note that there have been multiple stage 1 complaint responses. On each occasion, the landlord has given a response to calls that the resident felt were inappropriate. It said it had not identified any inappropriate behaviour. The landlord provided detailed summaries of calls complained about in its complaints responses. The landlord has demonstrated it carried out sufficient investigations regarding staff conduct.
32. The resident has referred to arrears recovery letters as being abusive. As above we have found the landlord followed its arrears recovery policy appropriately. We do not consider that following the debt recovery process is abusive.
33. We note that the landlord said it had terminated several calls from the resident due to what it said was abusive behaviour from him. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord adopts a zero-tolerance approach to abusive behaviour to its staff. Between 19 May 2023 and 4 October 2023, the landlord served 3 warnings to the resident regarding his conduct when speaking to staff. We are aware the landlord has an unacceptable behaviour policy on its website. It is unclear if this was in place during the time we are investigating. It says it will serve warnings when resident’s use abusive behaviour. We consider the landlord acted reasonably when serving a warning regarding the resident’s behaviour.
34. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had appointed a single point of contact as part of the complaints process. This was a reasonable action to support the resident, and manage staff contact. It explained in the stage 2 response that this was to prevent misinterpretation or duplication of information. The landlord has given a reasonable explanation for its decision to appoint a single point of contact.
35. The landlord has responded reasonably to complaints about staff conduct. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of staff conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

36. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 3 working days and respond within 10 working days of that. It says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. The definition of a complaint, and the response times, comply with the Housing Ombudsman Code. (2024)
37. We have identified calls from November 2022 in which the resident expressed dissatisfaction at how the landlord had treated him. In line with the landlord’s definition of a complaint the landlord should have considered this as a complaint. On 8 December 2022 and 22 December 2022, the resident asked to raise a complaint about arrears recovery. We have not seen that the landlord acknowledged this complaint, or that it issued a formal complaints response. He raised a further complaint about the same issue on 16 January 2023. We have not seen evidence the landlord responded to this complaint. The landlord has not acted in line with its complaints policy.
38. On 15 May 2023 the resident raised a new complaint. This was regarding arrears recovery action and staff conduct. The landlord responded to this within 11 working days. This is one day outside the timescales in its policy. While this is not within the timescales of the policy, we do not consider the delay to have had a significant impact on the resident.
39. On 6 June 2023 the resident raised a new complaint regarding interactions he had with staff. The landlord responded in 12 working days. This was outside the timescales in its complaints policy. On 14 July 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about arrears recovery and staff conduct. Whilst the events he complained about were new, we consider that he had previously made complaints about the recovery process and staff conduct. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a stage 2 response. This would have ensure the resident had a final response on how it would recover arrears, and what it considered to be appropriate staff conduct.
40. The resident continued to raise complaints and on 31 August 2023 the landlord issued a new stage 1 response. We note that whilst the complaints responses were addressing new specific actions, the substantive issues remained the same. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that where there was persistent contact regarding the same issues it may consider ending contact with the resident. However, if fresh evidence is presented the complaint will be treated on its own merit. As per our code we expect landlords to treat each complaint on its own merit. However, we also say that if matters have already been considered under the complaints policy, the landlord may choose not to accept a complaint. If it does not accept a complaint, it should advise the resident the reasons for this.  In this instance, it may have been fairer and more reasonable to provide a final response to its arrears recovery process, and communications its staff would have with the resident regarding this. This would have allowed the resident to raise the complaint with the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the response.
41. On 5 September 2023 the resident said he needed a “conclusion” letter to take the matter to the Ombudsman. He was unhappy with the previous complaints response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 13 working days later. This was outside the timescales in its complaints policy. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint 36 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was outside of the timescales in its complaints policy.
42. We note that on 9 October 2023 the landlord sent a second stage 2 acknowledgement. It said that on 26 September 2023 the resident had said he did not want a complaint review. When the landlord spoke to him on 29 September 2023 the resident would not confirm if he wanted a stage 2 review. It then received in writing on that day that the resident did want to escalate the case. We consider that the resident’s actions may have contributed to the delay. However, these events were over 3 days and so, even with this delay the landlord would still not have responded in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged the delayed response in its stage 2 response.
43. The landlord’s complaints responses gave detailed information to the resident’s concerns. It demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and investigated these. We recognise that there were challenges with the complaints handling. This was due to the resident raising several complaints. We recognise that the landlord was attempting to provide full responses to each new event, particularly when the resident complained about staff conduct. However, we have identified some delay in the landlord’s complaints responses. We also consider that the landlord could have concluded the complaint sooner. This would have allowed the resident to approach the Ombudsman. Due to this we have found maladministration.
44. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is within the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.

Learning

45. We are aware that since the time of this complaint, the landlord has updated its complaints policy. It has also created an unacceptable behaviour policy. This ensures resident’s expectations are managed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. We note that some of the calls from income management were not in the evidence file. We would encourage the landlord to ensure it has a records of all calls. However, where calls were noted, the landlord provided sufficient detail of what had happened. This was particularly significant where the resident had made accusations of abuse. It also allowed the landlord to identify any instances of abusive behaviour from the resident.

Communication

47. It was positive that the landlord recognised that there were challenges in communication, particularly in reference to allegations of abusive behaviour from its staff. The landlord explored different options to communicate with the resident. This included suggesting all correspondence in writing and appointing a single point of contact. The landlord fully explained to the resident the reasons for any changes in how it wanted to communicate. In making a decision on how to communicate, the landlord considered the benefits for the resident, and its own staff.