Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202303713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303713

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

4 March 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Support and advice provided to the resident in relation to rent arrears.
2. A request for translation services.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property. One of the resident’s sons is acting as her representative in the complaint. For ease of reference both the resident and her son, where he is acting on her behalf, are referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
In 2013, the resident wrote to her landlord, giving her son permission to manage her rent account on her behalf. She explained that she needed his support with translation.
The resident has spare bedrooms in her home, so she is liable for a 25% occupancy charge (which means the amount of her rent that universal credit will pay towards her housing costs is reduced by 25%). There is also a non-dependent deduction to her benefit entitlement, for one of her adult sons, who lives with her. This is a further deduction from the amount that universal credit will pay towards her housing costs, as non-dependent household members are expected to contribute financially towards rent. These deductions mean there is a shortfall between her rent and her benefit entitlement, which the resident is required to pay. As she did not fully pay the shortfall, she accrued arrears on her rent account.
On 4 December 2021, the resident called the landlord to discuss her rent account. She told the landlord that she did not want to consider downsizing; She would pay the shortfall and make payments towards her arrears.
Between March and June 2022, there were several calls between the resident and the landlord. The landlord recorded that:
1. The family had made an arrangement to repay their arrears, but they were struggling to keep to this. Family members who did not live with the resident had made payments on the resident’s behalf.
2. It had discussed downsizing with the resident, sent the family an application to downsize, a budget planner, and a form to apply for discretionary housing payment (discretionary housing payment, or DHP is discretionary financial support for residents who are unable to fully pay their rent). However, the family did not wish to downsize.
On 5 June 2022, the resident called, and said the family would be unable to afford the rent from July 2022 onwards. She asked if the landlord could write off the arrears. The landlord said this would not be possible. It told her she could speak to its welfare benefits team and apply for DHP.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 July 2022. She said the family could not afford to pay their rent, so they had cancelled their direct debit. The landlord advised the resident to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau. The resident explained that she had done this, but Citizens Advice were unable to help.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord recorded that the resident’s son asked to be removed as a contact for correspondence about the resident’s rent arrears.
In around July 2022, the landlord served a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) on the resident. A notice of seeking possession is a legal notice that landlords of secure tenants must serve before applying to court for a possession order.
On 26 September 2022, the resident’s son called the landlord, and asked it to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident and a translator. He explained that his vocabulary was not good enough to translate the notice of seeking possession to the resident. The landlord suggested the resident go to a community centre for support.
There were further calls between the landlord, the resident, and members of her family on 10 November 2022 and 5 January 2023. As a result, the landlord met with the resident and her non-resident son on 12 January 2023. No professional translator was present. The landlord recorded that as the resident had lived at the property since 1991, and her English was limited, moving would have “an excessive” impact on her. It supported her to apply for DHP. The application was successful, and the resident was given a backdated DHP award which was used towards her rent arrears.
On 13 March 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord saying:
1. The family had accrued rent arrears after the death of a family member, which had changed their financial circumstances.
2. 2 members of staff had given the family inadequate advice about the resident’s rent account. They were unsympathetic and did not seek to support them in a time of financial hardship.
3. The family wanted a refund of money they had paid towards the arrears as they believed this should have been covered by housing benefit.
4. They were unhappy that they landlord refused to translate the NOSP.
5. The resident asked the landlord to arrange a meeting with the staff she had complained about, and their manager.
The resident met with the landlord on 22 March 2023. Her sons supported her with translation. She discussed her rent account, the family’s financial difficulties, and options for the family going forward, which included downsizing.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint and said:
1. The resident was given correct information about DHP and referred to the landlord’s welfare benefit team.
2. It would not refund any rent payments while the rent account was in arrears.
3. No meeting was required.
4. The landlord could not see on its records that it had permission to speak to the resident’s son. She should send in written consent.
5. At the recent meeting with the resident and her sons, it appeared that the resident’s sons could translate adequately. The landlord could arrange translation but would usually trust respected family members to translate.
On 24 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its complaints process, saying:
1. The landlord told the family that they were only able to get DHP if they downsized. They were sent a housing register application form, but this said that if they had rent arrears, they could not join the rehousing list.
2. The resident communicated with the rent collection team for over a year before being referred to the welfare benefit team. This should have happened sooner.
3. Neither of the resident’s sons could adequately translate for the resident.
4. The resident had requested a home visit with the landlord and a translator to avoid court action, but the landlord refused to do this, or to translate the NOSP.
5. The landlord said it could not ‘wipe off’ the debt, but the DHP award had effectively done this.
6. The resident sent written permission for the landlord to speak to her son in 2013. The landlord had never previously questioned this.
7. The resident’s son denied telling the landlord he did not want to receive correspondence about the resident’s rent account. He said he had asked to stop receiving system generated text messages to call the landlord.
As she had not received a response to her complaint escalation request, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for support on 13 July 2023. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process by 5 September 2023.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord served a second NOSP on the resident. The first NOSP had expired, and the rent account was still in arrears.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2023. It:
1. Apologised for its delayed response. It explained that there had been an administrative error in escalating the complaint.
2. It asked for evidence that the resident had given her son permission to deal with her account on her behalf.
3. It said it had arranged a face-to-face meeting for the resident, her son, and a translator.
The landlord found a copy of a permission letter signed by the resident on its records. It responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 6 September 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, saying:
1. It did not have any concerns about the conduct of its staff.
2. It maintained that the advice it had given the resident was correct and timely. It said the delay in applying for DHP caused no financial disadvantage to the resident as the award was backdated. It said it had given the resident advice about DHP and downsizing on 2 previous occasions, and suggested she spoke to the welfare benefits team.
3. The landlord reiterated its position on translation, noting that the resident’s sons had assisted in translation during 2 in person meetings. The landlord did not believe there were any issues with translation during these meetings. The landlord apologised if it had not provided translated documents and said it could do so on request.
4. It offered the resident £75 as a good-will gesture for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response. It also said it would arrange staff training on accessing translation services and seeking resident permission to speak to other family members about their accounts.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She reiterated her concerns about the landlord’s housing application form and the advice given, and said:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord said there was no need to have a meeting, and with its failure to escalate the complaint. She queried if this was deliberate.
2. She felt staff in the landlord’s income collection team were unsympathetic.
3. She denied that the landlord had ever mentioned a referral to the welfare benefit team.
4. She still wanted a refund for the rent paid March and April 2023. She would not have made these payments if the DHP was in place.
The landlord responded, telling the resident she could contact the Ombudsman for support as she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. It reiterated its position, saying in addition:
1. Its failure to escalate the complaint was not deliberate. Learning was in place, so it did not happen again.
2. The resident had previously spoken to other staff in the welfare benefit team, including the team manager.
3. The arrears were not written off, although the DHP award had reduced them significantly.
4. There was a financial incentive for downsizing. As the incentive would clear the current arrears, she was able to apply.
On 21 September 2023, the resident and her son had an in-person meeting with the landlord and a translator. At the meeting, the resident discussed her options with the landlord and made an arrangement to pay the arrears. The landlord agreed to translate legal documents going forward.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2023. She asked the landlord to explain and evidence the administrative error that led to its failure to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded on 10 October 2023, saying:
1. It missed an email prompt from the complaints system. This was an error.
2. The member of staff responsible was now aware of the process and had apologised.
3. There was no evidence that the failure to escalate the complaint was intentional, and no disciplinary action would be taken.
4. The landlord reminded the resident of her right to take the case to the Ombudsman.
The resident did not feel the goodwill gesture the landlord had made adequately reflected the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. She therefore approached the Ombudsman for independent investigation.

Assessment and findings

Support and advice provided to the resident in relation to rent arrears

The landlord has separate in-house welfare benefits and rent collection teams. Its rent collection team manages rent collection, including any legal enforcement action, for its residents. Its welfare benefits team provides support and advice around applying for benefits and grants to maximise income, personal budgeting, and debt and money advice.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for deciding not to downsize at the time of this complaint. She has the right to stay in her current property rather than downsizing if she wishes to. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident consider downsizing as a way of improving her financial situation, as if the resident moved to a smaller property, she would no longer need to pay an under-occupation charge. However, the landlord could have done more to fully explain the downsizing process to the resident. The landlord sent the resident an application form which said it could take 16 years for applicants to be rehoused and residents with arrears could not apply for rehousing. As a result, she believed she was ineligible.
Landlords and local authorities often give high rehousing priority to people downsizing from family-sized accommodation, and may offer financial incentives, or agree a “move despite arrears” in some circumstances. From the advice given, it seems the landlord believed the resident was eligible to move despite her arrears, so it should have explained the downsizing process to her and made it clear if some information on the application form did not apply to her situation. There is no evidence it did so. This may have affected her decision making. When the resident raised the issue through the complaints process, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it should have given her more information, and fully explain the downsizing process.
In its complaint response, the landlord said the resident was eligible to downsize as the DHP award had reduced her arrears, and the remainder would be covered by a downsizing incentive payment. However, her arrears were much higher when downsizing was first suggested and it is unlikely the incentive would have covered them. Therefore, the landlord only gave the resident a partial explanation. This was not reasonable and may have caused the resident additional confusion. In future, the landlord should make sure that its communication around downsizing is clear and tailored to each resident’s individual circumstances. If it sends out a rehousing application form, it could consider including a covering letter explaining the downsizing process, detailing relevant information such as rehousing priority and any downsizing incentive.
The resident felt that the landlord should have supported her to apply for DHP sooner. The landlord said the delay in applying for DHP did not cause a financial detriment to the family, as submitting the application at the end of the financial year was crucial to its success, and the award was backdated. The Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the resident would have been awarded DHP if it had been applied for sooner, but the landlord is correct in saying that the backdate means there was no direct financial detriment caused.
The landlord was also correct in saying the discretionary housing payment did not ‘write off’ the arrears. A debt “write off” is when a creditor agrees not to pursue a debt. This is only usually done in exceptional circumstances where the creditor is unlikely to get its money back in full. This did not happen in the resident’s case.
Neither was the discretionary housing payment awarded because the resident’s benefit entitlement had been miscalculated. Discretionary housing payments are a financial award offered to residents whose entitlement to benefits is not enough to cover their rent. As a discretionary award, it is for the local authority to decide the situations it will grant awards in, provided it uses its discretion fairly. When the resident was awarded DHP, this “paid off”, or offset, some of her arrears, but it did not “write” them off.
Benefits awards like DHP and debt “write-offs” are complicated technical terms so the resident’s confusion about them is understandable. It may have been helpful for the resident if the landlord had explained the terms more clearly. It had several opportunities to do so, including when the resident called and asked if it would ‘write off’ the arrears debt, when the landlord supported her to apply for DHP, and when she raised the issue in her complaints.
The family experienced significant worry about the rent arrears, particularly as a legal notice was issued and they were concerned about eviction. As a result, they took loans out of their universal credit awards, which they used to reduce the arrears. Ongoing repayments towards the universal credit loans caused them additional financial hardship. The resident says she would not have taken out these loans, had the landlord supported her to apply for DHP earlier. For this reason, she believes the landlord should refund her the rent payments she made using the universal credit loan.
While the resident’s feelings are understandable, it was reasonable of the landlord to say it would not refund the payments, as the resident’s account was still in arrears. It is the landlord’s usual practice to offer refunds only where an account is in credit, and refunding the payments would increase the arrears to a level where the landlord might consider pursuing legal action.
Although the resident gave permission for one of her sons to manage her rent account, other family members contacted the landlord about the account throughout the relevant period. On some occasions, the landlord discussed the resident’s account with other family members, although it did not have the resident’s written permission to do so. For example, it appears that the landlord told a family member it would refer the resident to the welfare benefits team on 5 January 2023. This was not appropriate, as the resident’s rent account information was confidential personal information. In addition, it caused the resident confusion, as she later said she was unaware that the referral had been made. In its complaint response, the landlord said it would send guidance to staff about checking its records for permission forms from relatives. This was an appropriate action by the landlord to prevent this from happening in future.
The landlord successfully applied for DHP on the residents behalf, and this award significantly reduced the arrears on the resident’s account. In April 2023, it also helped the resident apply for a discount on her water bill and gave her advice on contacting her energy supplier for help with energy debt. These were positive actions taken by the landlord to support the resident, but they could have been taken sooner.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the meeting with the welfare benefits team in January 2023 was not the first time the resident spoke to the welfare benefits team, and she had been advised to speak to them on other occasions by the rent collection team. Its records support this. However, the resident’s previous conversations with members of the landlord’s welfare benefit team appear to have been short phone contacts. Its records suggest the conversations focussed on DHP and downsizing, and that it signposted her to Citizens Advice and Shelter. While these contacts were not inappropriate, they would not have provided the resident with the level of support she later received from the team. There is no indication from the records that she was told that additional support with budgeting, debt, or energy advice was available, so it is understandable that she felt that the landlord could have done more to offer her support at an early stage.
The resident says she explained the full extent of the family’s financial hardship to the landlord. She had significant energy debts and said that when she cancelled her direct debit in July 2022, she did so as it was a choice between paying rent and purchasing food. Given her full financial situation, the landlord should have explained its full service offer to the resident, but there is no evidence it did so.
There were 3 occasions where the landlord could have done more to offer support:
1. On 6 June 2022, it recorded that the resident seemed reluctant to contact the welfare benefit team. She said the team had previously agreed to send her a form, but she did not receive it. The landlord recorded that it told the resident “sometimes we have to try a little harder to get what we want”. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have apologised for its failure to provide the form and offered to re-send it. It could also have offered to ask the team to call her or arrange an in-person meeting.
2. When the resident called to cancel her direct debit on 7 July 2022, the landlord suggested she spoke to Citizens Advice. It would have been reasonable for it to refer the resident to its internal welfare benefits team, and spoken to her about support it could offer, e.g. a food bank referral.
3. On 26 September 2022, the landlord signposted the resident to Citizens Advice again. She said she had already spoken to Citizens Advice, and they could not help. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to refer the resident to its internal team.
Cumulatively, the landlord’s failure to fully explain its service offer to the resident, and the delay in referring her to its internal team, meant that the resident did not access all available support until meeting with the landlord in person in January and April 2023. This will have prolonged the distress and worry she felt because of her financial situation and damaged the landlord-tenant relationship. This amounts to service failure.
To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to directly pay her £100. In line with the Ombudsman’s established approach to compensation, this payment should not be offset against any rent arrears. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says awards in this range are appropriate for service failure that has caused loss of confidence in the landlord.

The resident’s request for translation services

The landlord has an additional support needs policy. One of the guiding principles of the policy is clear communication, recognising that its residents are diverse in their circumstances and may need the landlord to adapt how it delivers services. The policy lists “language/literacy difficulties” as a personal circumstance that may indicate a resident needs additional support. In the policy, the landlord also says it will consider making documents available in other languages and formats where appropriate.
The resident had written to the landlord giving her son permission to support her with her rent account, as she needed support with translation. However, this should not have prevented the landlord from offering or providing translation services, in line with best practice.
There are several reasons why landlords should consider using professional translation services rather than relying on family and friends for translation, including:
1. Although they may want to do what is best for the person they are translating for, friends and family are not always impartial, and may add opinion or withhold information when translating.
2. It is more difficult for residents to access support if there are safeguarding concerns, where services or landlords rely on family and friends for translation.
3. Family and friends may not have adequate understanding or vocabulary to translate complex technical issues, such as legal enforcement action or rent and benefits claim information.
4. Translation services mean that landlords can be confident in their ability to demonstrate to a court that a resident fully understood any legal action taken.
For the reasons above, when it decided to serve a NOSP on the resident, the landlord should have arranged for this to be translated and booked an in-person meeting with an interpreter to explain what would happen next, but it did not do this. This may have caused the resident and her family avoidable worry and distress.
On 26 September 2022 the resident requested that the NOSP be translated and that an in-person meeting was arranged with an interpreter but said that the landlord refused the request. The landlord’s records appear to support this, as although the resident’s son explained his vocabulary was inadequate to translate the NOSP, the landlord did not arrange a translator and instead told the resident’s son to take the resident to a community centre for support. This was not in line with its additional support needs policy. It was a missed opportunity for the landlord to ensure the resident had full understanding of the legal action it was taking and may have damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
Although the resident’s son told the landlord he did not have adequate vocabulary to translate for the resident, the landlord repeatedly failed to consider this. For example, in its complaints response, the landlord said “I am assuming that you have no problems explaining the meeting to your mother if she could not understand”, and on an internal record, the landlord wrote that as the resident’s son could support with translation at the job centre, he should be able to translate in meetings with the landlord. It also said it had “appeared” that the resident had understood in meetings where her sons translated for her. These assumptions were inappropriate. Without providing professional translation, the landlord could not conclusively say what the resident did or did not understand. The landlord’s failure to consider what the resident had said may have made her feel that it was not listening to, or did not believe her.
In both of its complaint responses, the landlord said it had access to translation services and interpreters, but it would “always encourage a trusted family member who is proficient in reading and speaking English to translate to expedite the required process”. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also said that utilising friends and family members for translation was a ‘recognised practice’. As discussed earlier in the report, there are several reasons why this is not good practice. Many translation services can provide an on-demand telephone interpretation service and prompt document translation. In future, the landlord should ensure its translation services are readily available, rather than relying on family and friends to translate as standard practice. The landlord should consider putting in place a stand-alone translation policy to set out when it is appropriate to rely on family and friends to translate and when formal translation services should be used. This would assist staff with following the correct process and ensure consistency.
The landlord’s failure to translate or provide interpretation at the resident’s request amounts to maladministration. Although the landlord apologised “if” it had not translated documents when the resident requested this in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not fully accept that it had made errors, which had caused the resident distress and loss of confidence in the landlord.
To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Directly pay her £300 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above, says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has tried to put things right, but this is not proportionate to the findings of our investigation.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
After the resident had complained, the landlord arranged an in-person meeting with a translator present and agreed that it would translate legal documents for the resident going forward. It also said it would send a reminder to staff about the availability of translation services. These were reasonable steps to put things to improve its service in future.
It should also consider extending its agreement to translate legal documents for the resident to include any document that could be used as evidence in a court hearing. This will give the resident the best opportunity to understand her rent account and would also support the landlord’s legal case if legal action becomes necessary.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaints handling.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not progress complaints to stage 2 of its complaints process if the complainant is unable to provide evidence of why the findings from its stage one response were wrong. This does not align with the Code, which says “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure.” The landlord should consider self-assessing to ensure its policy fully aligns with the Code.
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process in 7 working days. This was appropriate as it was within the landlord’s complaint policy timescales.
The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and asked it to terminate their employment. She also requested a meeting with members of staff she had complained about and their manager to discuss their behaviour. The landlord said in its complaint response that it saw “no need” to meet with the resident, as the landlord’s position was explained in its complaint response, and she had received benefits advice from its welfare benefits officer. The resident felt this was dismissive.
The landlord may have been concerned the resident might behave in an unacceptable manner towards it staff, so it was reasonable for it to refuse to arrange a meeting between her and the members of staff she had complained about. However, it would have been reasonable for another member of its staff to meet with her or discuss her concerns by phone. This would have enabled it to gather information to fully investigate her concerns about staff conduct. It would also have shown her it took the concerns seriously.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to interfere with employment matters and therefore we will not comment on the outcome of any investigation into staff conduct or order the landlord to dismiss members of staff. However, the landlord should have fully investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. This is an important step in complaint handling, enabling landlords to give “the reasons for any decisions made” in line with the Code. The landlord’s stage one complaint response failed to fully demonstrate that it did so. In future, the landlord should make sure to review its records and summarise its findings in its complaints response. The landlord would not be expected to share details of any disciplinary action it may take against staff, including dismissal, due to confidentiality, but it should share a general summary of its findings and the next steps without compromising confidentiality.
The landlord should be careful to ensure its tone remains neutral in complaint responses. Phrases like “I found your comments about the 2 officers inappropriate and completely inaccurate” and saying that the resident was “demanding” particular outcomes, could undermine the resident’s trust in the impartiality of the landlord’s complaints process. If the landlord considers that the resident’s actions were inappropriate it can address this through its unacceptable behaviour policy and issue a warning reminding the resident of how to communicate with its staff, whilst maintaining neutral language.
There was a delay of almost 6 months in the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord has acknowledged that this was inappropriate, far in excess of its policy timescales and the Code. The landlord’s failure to respond promptly caused the family inconvenience, as they had to contact the Ombudsman for support in progressing the complaint. This has been considered when assessing compensation, as detailed further below.
The resident believed that the landlord had deliberately ignored her escalation request. The evidence seen as part of this investigation does not support this. The landlord has explained that its member of staff had misunderstood its complaints system and as a result, had overlooked the resident’s escalation email. The landlord’s transparency about this failure was appropriate. The landlord apologised for the failure, and the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the oversight was raised with the individual involved. The landlord also arranged training for staff to prevent similar oversights happening in future. These steps that demonstrated that the landlord had taken the failure seriously and took appropriate action to address it.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process on 5 September 2023. However, on this date, the landlord emailed the resident’s son to ask for evidence the resident had given him permission to manage her account on her behalf. He located an unsigned copy of the permission letter, and explained the original was given to the landlord 10 years previously. The landlord told him this was not acceptable evidence as the letter was unsigned. The landlord later found the signed permission in its records. It should have thoroughly checked its records before contacting the resident, as this would have avoided inconveniencing the family. The landlord should ensure the permission form is stored in an easily accessible location, to prevent a reoccurrence in future.
The landlord sent the response one day after the deadline it was given by the Ombudsman. This delay was avoidable but would not have caused significant detriment or inconvenience to the resident or her family, as the delay was not excessive, and the landlord notified them of the cause of the delay.
The failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration. The landlord offered the resident a good will gesture of £75 in recognition of the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process, and the inconvenience this caused. This did not adequately reflect the inconvenience caused by the avoidable almost 6-month delay, and the damage this caused the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for its complaints handling failures. If it had already paid the resident the £75 it offered, this can be deducted from the total amount. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate when the landlord has acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in the support and advice offered to the resident in relation to rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Provision of translation and interpretation services.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Directly pay the resident £550, comprising:
  1. £100 for its delay in providing support for the resident.
  2. £250 for its failure to provide translation and interpretation services.
  3. £150 for its complaint handling failures. If it has already paid the resident the £75 it offered in its complaints process, this can be deducted from the total.
2. Apologise to the resident for the findings identified in this report.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders.
In line with the Ombudsman’s established approach to compensation, the compensation should be paid directly to the resident and should not be offset against any rent arrears.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaints policy and procedure to its complaints process aligns with the new Complaint Handling Code which was published on 1 April 2024.
In addition to translating legal documents for the resident, the landlord may want to consider translating any letters to the resident that may be used as evidence in a legal process.
The landlord should consider offering staff further training and developing a policy on translation and interpretation services, ensuring staff are aware that it is not always appropriate to rely on family and friends to translate.