Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Housing 21 (202347346)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347346

Housing 21

14 August 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 resident’s report of the landlord’s response about:
    1. The rent account.
    2. A community bike project.
    3. Parking.
    4. Damage to a carpet following a leak.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. This is an assured tenancy that began in 2020. The property is part of a retirement living housing complex.
  2. From as early as 2022, the landlord’s records show various emails of communication with the resident about rent arrears. The rent arrears appeared to be because of a change to universal credit entitlement. In October 2022 the resident made an agreement with the landlord to pay £25 per month; £7.15 of which was a payment towards reducing the rent arrears.
  3. On 25 April 2023 the resident reported a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended the same day and repaired the leak. Its records of 10 June 2023 state it was arranging for the resident’s carpet to be cleaned once the property had dried out.

 

  1. On 25 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord if he could start a community bike project. There had been 2 bikes abandoned within the grounds of the complex. The resident asked if he could take these bikes to refurbish them. His intention was that the refurbished bikes could benefit the wider community. Communications were ongoing between the resident and landlord. The landlord supported the project, however, it asked if the resident could take the bikes to his flat to repair or carry out repairs in a certain part of the complex. The resident later withdrew his interest in the project.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 13 January 2024. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his rent account. He said the landlord was harassing him due to the tone of its communications. The resident said the landlord had contacted the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about his universal credit without his consent. He believed this was because he had withdrawn from the community bike project. He said the issues were having a detrimental impact on his health. He also complained about the landlord’s handling of the community bike project, car parking, and a leak that he said had damaged his carpet.
  3. The resident provided the landlord with a medical letter dated 19 January 2024. It said he was experiencing weight loss and reported a lot of stress due to the ongoing issues.
  4. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint and responded to the resident on 30 January 2024. It told him:
    1. Rent
      1. Rent should be paid in advance.It broke down the account balance. There was a 1-year period where the resident had not paid the weekly support charge. In October 2022 the resident made an agreement to pay the support charge plus £7.15 a month off the arrears.
      2. In April 2023 the support charge increased, however, the resident’s payment did not increase. As universal credit was paid direct to the landlord, it made an application for an additional contribution. It said it had been hasty in making the application and it had already apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It agreed to reinstate the agreement back to a payment of £25 per month.
      3. It confirmed the current weekly shortfall after benefit was £4.37.
      4. It could see no evidence of harassment in its communications. It denied the resident’s allegation that it had applied to DWP because he had withdrawn from the community bike project. It apologised for the distress of its application to DWP and recognised it should have discussed this with the resident. It offered him £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
    2. Community bike project
      1. .It recognised the initiative was generously driven by the resident to benefit other residents.
    3. Parking
      1. The resident complained that he could not use the car park due to a recent change from a first come first served basis to one that allowed only visitors and carers to park their cars. The landlord said there was nothing within his tenancy agreement regarding the use of the car park.
      2. The use of the car park was part of its discussions at its annual service agreement meetings and residents decide on usage arrangements.
      3. The car park had been closed to residents for several months due to major works.
      4. It had made an application to the council for permit holder parking bays.
      5. In the recent residents ‘choice and consensus’ meeting residents decided that they wanted to keep the car park for visitors and carers only and not for resident parking. It gave him information for how decisions of this nature were made.
    4. Damaged carpet
      1. The resident said the leak on 25 April 2023 had caused damage to the carpet. He did not have contents insurance. The landlord agreed to clean the carpet as a gesture of goodwill.
    5. Tone of communications
      1. It was unable to find any content in its communication that was malicious or inappropriate. It did however agree that there had been inappropriate comments in some of its internal communication. It was recommending training on email etiquette.
    6. It offered the resident a total of £100 compensation to put things right.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2024 to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 February 2024. It then sent a holding letter to the resident to extend its response time to 7 March 2024.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2024.
    1. Rent
      1. It found further failures. It said it should not have included the rent in advance explanation in its rent arrears calculation. It apologised that it had done this, and it increased its compensation to £200 for the distress caused to the resident. It said that additional training would be provided to its rents team.
      2. It apologised that it had not made more attempts to discuss the rent arrears with him before it had contacted DWP. It assured him there was no malice in its application.
      3. It told the resident about a ‘helping hands fund’ for residents who are struggling financially and also offered its own support in managing his finances and reviewing benefits.
    2. Community bike project
      1. It had reviewed all correspondence, and it found that it had supported his initiative and offered him tools to refurbish bikes. It had encouraged other residents to participate but no one was interested. Over time some residents had started to complain about the mess on the complex grounds. It had asked the resident if he could repair the bikes in his flat or use a specific part of the communal area to reduce trip hazards.
    3. Car park
      1. It explained its ‘choice and consensus’ resident decision process. The resident had voted after the response deadline. It said it should not be using a formal voting ballot, and it apologised for the way it had been handled. It said it should use various communication methods to capture residents views. It had requested a review of the car park usage, and it said it would provide training for its staff.
    4. Damaged carpet
      1. The carpet had been cleaned however the furniture had not been put back. It said it would resolve this and offered the resident £50 compensation.
      2. It provided the resident with details of its partnership with a contents insurance provider.
    5. It apologised for its overall failures and offered the resident a total of £250 compensation.
  7. The resident provided us with a recent update about the car park. He said that he had not heard anything from the landlord about what was happening. It is unclear if the resident can park his car at the complex until the issue has been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme.
  2. Paragraph 34a of the Scheme sets out what can be complained about as follows:
    1.  A complaint relates to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
  3. The resident’s request to start a community bike initiative is not a housing activity that affects the resident’s occupation of the property. This aspect of the complaint is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident mentions his health had deteriorated due to stress relating to the issues. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Rent account

  1. The resident accrued rent arrears on his account in 2022. The landlord explained to the resident how the arrears built up. In October 2022 the landlord accepted the resident’s rent arrears agreement to pay £25 per month.
  2. The landlord’s rent arrears policy and procedure aims to prevent rent arrears. It aims to support residents to establish and maintain good habits in paying rent. It also looks to ensure residents maximise their benefit entitlement. The landlord is committed to using appropriate and proportionate responses to its rent arrears cases. The policy allows the landlord to agree an affordable payment plan with the resident. The evidence suggests the landlord’s actions were aligned to its rent arrears policy.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in mid-January 2024. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had contacted the DWP without his consent. He believed the landlord had done this on purpose due to him withdrawing from the community bike project. He said the landlord was harassing him and he did not like the tone of its communications.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident at the end of January 2024. It explained the build-up of arrears which was partly to do with non-payment of a weekly support charge and universal credit. The resident’s universal credit rent payment was being paid directly to the landlord. It agreed that it had been too quick to make an application to DWP for an additional contribution. It denied doing it as a result of the bike scheme issue.
  5. The landlord said that it had reviewed its communication, and it did not agree that its tone of communication was poor. However, it had found some internal email etiquette issues, and it identified staff training needs. It apologised for its overall failures and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  6. We have reviewed all correspondence as part of our investigation. There is no evidence that the landlord’s tone of communication was poor. However, we can see why there may have been confusion in the landlord’s explanation of rent arrears. The emails were often lengthy, complex and did not always provide clear explanations. This contributed to a large volume of 2-way communications. It would have been more reasonable to discuss the complex matter in person and follow up in writing with the resident. The landlord recognised this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord at the beginning of February 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response at the beginning of March 2024. It identified additional failures in its explanation of the rent arrears. It said it had not made enough attempts to discuss the rent arrears with the resident. It apologised, provided information about a support fund, and offered its own support. It increased its compensation to £200. It identified learning from the complaint of staff training.
  8. The landlord’s rent arrears policy states that if arrears are due to the non-payment of housing benefit or universal credit, it can support the resident by making enquiries with housing benefits or DWP for universal credit claims.
  9. The policy states that where there are 8 weeks or more rent arrears, the landlord can request direct payments for housing costs from universal credit. It says that this may only be granted for a limited period. The policy remains silent on its protocol for contact with DWP, however, the resident’s universal credit was being paid direct to the landlord and there had been a change in circumstances.
  10. Given it was the resident’s universal credit claim, it was unreasonablethat the landlord did not obtain the resident’s consent to contact DWP.The landlord did however identify its failure, apologised and attempted to put things right by way of the apology and putting the previous repayment agreement back in place.
  11. Where the landlord has attempted to put things right for the resident, we consider our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  12. To summarise, the landlord identified the following failures:
    1. It contacted the DWP too soon without the resident’s consent.
    2. It did not make enough attempts to discuss the rent arrears with the resident.
    3. It was not clear in its communications on rent arrears.
    4. It had found some email etiquette issues within its internal communications.
  13. The landlord was transparent with the resident about its failures, apologised and offered him £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered him support in managing his rent and benefits. It also demonstrated learning in the identification of additional staff training. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord put things right for the resident and learnt from the complaint. Its compensation offer is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures that had an adverse impact on the resident. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the rent account.

Parking

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in mid-January 2024. He had a car, and he did not feel it was fair that he could not use the car park. He said the use of the car park had always been on a first come first served basis.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response at the end of January 2024. It explained there was nothing in the tenancy agreement about the use of the car park. Residents had decided they wanted to keep the small car park for visitors and carers only and not for resident parking. These types of decision were made through its ‘choice and consensus’ policy.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not make reference to car parking facilities. The landlord’s ‘choice and consensus’ online guide makes reference to car parking as follows:
    1. “Unless in exceptional circumstances, car parking is not allocated or reserved. Residents can collectively decide how best to use the car park, taking into consideration residents, employees, care workers and tradespeople. This excludes parking spaces designated within individual leases or employee bays”.
  4. The landlord’s ‘choice and consensus’ policy and procedure aims to ensure residents have as much choice as possible about services at the complex. Its resident engagement decision making states that local decisions will be reached in a variety of ways. One way is a formal ballot with a majority outcome. It says that this method should be of last resort (unless required for contractual, statutory, or regulatory reasons). It states that it is more preferable to reach a consensus decision amongst as many residents as possible.
  5. The landlord has a service agreement to record all of the services at each complex along with any local agreement reached. These may be reviewed at any time, however, this should be at least annually.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord at the beginning of February 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 7 March 2024. It said that it should not have used a formal ballot, and it apologised for how it had been handled. It agreed to review the car park usage and identified learning that involved staff training.
  7. There is no obligation on the landlord to provide car parking facilities under the terms of the tenancy agreement for individual resident’s. The car park arrangements are outlined on its website under its ‘choice and consensus’ policy guide.
  8. The small car park facility at the complex is managed by the landlord. The landlord demonstrated it was trying to find a solution to the demand and supply issues, and it contacted the council about a permit scheme. It appears that this was unsuccessful. The landlord demonstrated it used its ‘choice and consensus’ policy appropriately in consulting residents within the complex on its usage. However, its method of engagement by written ballot was unreasonable given its aim was to consult all residents. This method may have excluded some residents with limited reading and writing or disabilities.
  9. It is positive that the landlord recognised that the use of a ballot method for a change in car park usage was not the fairest way to reach a decision. It was appropriate that the landlord committed to review its decision, however, we do not know the details of what the review entailed or how it intended to reach a resolution to the parking issue under its ‘choice and consensus’ policy.
  10. The landlord has already apologised to the resident for its failure to use an appropriate consultation method. We see this as an appropriate remedy to the complaint. The landlord should however update the resident on how it intends to reach a resolution on the car park issue and provide him with its estimated timescale.

Damage to carpet

  1. Towards the end of April 2023, the resident reported a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended the same day and completed a repair. Later, when the property had dried out, it arranged to clean the affected carpet.
  2. The landlord is obliged, in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to repair the leak within a reasonable time of being given notice that there was an issue.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will resolve emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord completed a repair to stop the leak on the same day. The landlord’s actions were therefore appropriate.
  4. Given the landlord had met its repair obligations it was not responsible for any damage caused to personal possessions. However, it went a step further and arranged to clean the resident’s carpet. The landlord’s actions therefore went above its statutory obligations and provided an empathetic, customer centric resolution to the issues.
  5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in mid-January 2025. The landlord responded at the end of January 2025 at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It reiterated its position.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord at the beginning of February 2025. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure at the beginning of March 2025. By this time, it had cleaned the carpet, however, it had not put furniture back. It offered the resident £50 compensation. It also provided him with details of how he could obtain contents insurance.
    1. In conclusion, the landlord fulfilled its obligation to repair a leak within a reasonable timeframe. The resident did not have contents insurance and therefore it agreed to clean the carpet affected by the leak. It compensated him £50 for not putting items back after the cleaning process. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s actions were reasonable in putting things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the resident’s report of the landlord’s response on the rent account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 34a of the Scheme the resident’s report of the landlord’s response to a community bike project is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the resident’s report of the landlord’s response to car parking.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the resident’s report of the landlord’s response to a damaged carpet following a leak.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation.as offered during its internal complaints process, if has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should update the resident and our Service of its intentions with the car park including how it will ensure its decision-making process is fair. This should include its estimated timescales to reach a resolution.