Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202224871)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224871

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

24 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Rent account following a succession.
2. Associated complaint, including her use of a representative.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2021, when she succeeded to her mother’s tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s mother sadly passed away on 18 June 2021. On that day her rent account was £2,344.26 in credit. On 7 July 2021, the resident provided the landlord with her mother’s death certificate and advised she would be applying for succession of the tenancy. The resident succeeded to the tenancy on 25 October 2021. By this point the credit on the rent account had increased to £4,131.38. On 27 October 2021, the resident told the landlord that she had taken over her deceased mother’s tenancy. She said she had previously asked for a refund of the credit on the account. The landlord’s call handler acknowledged this and asked her to put in a further request. The resident also asked the landlord to close her mother’s rent account. The account was not closed as it was intended by the landlord that the resident would continue to use it as her own.
The landlord transferred £4,000 from the credit on the rent account to the resident’s bank account on 3 December 2021. On 30 June 2022, the housing benefit department told the landlord it had overpaid £4,120 in housing benefit payments to the resident’s late mother’s rent account. On 23 August 2022, the landlord raised an order for the overpayment to be returned to the housing benefit department. It then added £4,120 as a debt to the resident’s rent account on the same day.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022. She said:
1. She was making a complaint about the lack of communication from a specific staff member. She had sent a significant number of emails and made numerous calls but had no response.
2. She had been trying to obtain money owed to her from her rent account and the rent account of her late mother. The money owed was thousands of pounds.
3. Her mother had been paying rent that she did not need to pay. She (the resident) had now been told the money owed to her was an overpayment.
4. She had been trying to get a response on the matter since 18 October 2021 and wanted a senior member of staff to contact her and discuss her concerns.
5. She was seeing her GP because the lack of contact was causing her to suffer stress and depression.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It said:
1. It apologised unreservedly for the delay in providing a response.
2. The staff member about whom the resident had complained had been employed by the landlord since November 2021. The resident therefore could not have been trying to contact them for 2 years.
3. Its records showed the staff member had been contacting the resident by phone call and email as well as chasing up the housing benefit department. It found the communication levels satisfactory and was unable to find service failure in the staff member’s actions.
4. The local authority had continued to pay housing benefit to the resident’s late mother’s account from June 2021 to January 2022, which led to a buildup of arrears.
5. It had refunded £4,000 of the arrears to the resident on 3 December 2021. This caused confusion (within the landlord’s organisation) as it now “strongly believed” this should not have been refunded.
6. The local authority required the overpayment to be refunded and had issued an invoice for £4,120, which it (the landlord) paid. It was likely that the resident would now be liable to pay the money back.
7. The resident had verbally asked to succeed to her mother’s tenancy several days after she had passed away. She had provided a death certificate on 7 July 2021. The landlord set up a ‘use and occupation account’ on 9 August 2021. Following delays in the resident obtaining the required information, the succession was approved on 25 October 2021.
8. The resident had asked for a refund of the credit built up in the use and occupation account. This was refused because no rent was being taken, which had led to a further accumulation of arrears.
9. All rents had been adjusted and the account balance at the time of the complaint response was £3,228.26 in arrears. The accounts team acknowledged that the number of adjustments may make the rent statement hard to understand.
10. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the complexity of administering her account and the fact that it had lost sight of the issues until she brought them to its attention.
11. It offered £150 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 September 2023. In a phone call with the landlord on 15 September 2023 she outlined her complaint points as follows:
1. The landlord had incorrectly refunded her credit (from her late mother’s rent account), which had left her rent account in significant arrears.
2. The landlord had set up a new account but rent payments had continued going into the old account. She was unsure what rent account card she had to use.
3. Nobody had explained the issues to her “in plain English” or fixed the problem. She also felt the level of compensation offered at stage 1 was insufficient.
4. She was unhappy that the issue had been ongoing since the death of her mother on 18 June 2021. Prior to this date she had been paying £20 per week when the account was in credit.
5. Due to the arrears, she was now paying £190 per month, in addition to universal credit. She was unsure if this was enough and how long she would have to make the payments.
6. The landlord had sent letters addressed to her deceased mother and deceased brother in relation to the rent arrears.
7. The situation had had a significant impact on her mental health. She was constantly worrying about being in rent arrears. She felt the landlord had not properly managed the issues. It had also not considered the impact of her mother passing away, which had caused her significant distress and upset over the past 2 years.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. It broke the complaint down into the resident’s escalation points. It said:

Credit refund

When the resident took over her mother’s account there was a credit of around £4,000. It incorrectly refunded the sum of £4,000 to the resident. The credit was due to an overpayment of housing benefit, which the local authority later billed the landlord for. It then allocated the £4,000 back to the resident’s account as arrears.
The resident had been given a new account which built up credit due to weekly payments of £20 and universal credit. This account was combined with the original account (previously in the resident’s mother’s name) on 6 October 2022. Once the arrears were cleared it would contact her to review her payment.
It upheld this part of the complaint for the confusion and detriment it had caused.

Rent card and account switch

It had set up a use and occupation account until the succession of the tenancy had been completed. The succession had taken longer than expected due to COVID–19 and a delay in the local authority processing information following a cyber attack.
No financial detriment had been caused by the delays.
It had caused confusion by issuing multiple rent cards. To avoid further confusion, it would send out a further rent card and asked that all others should be put away and not used.
It was not responsible for the delay, but it accepted it had caused issues with the rent card. It therefore partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.

Lack of clarity in the statement of accounts

The housing benefit showing on the statement related to the resident’s late mother’s account. The presence of these payments did not “mean that the housing benefit was paid into the account at that time, just that is when the tenancy was updated into your name”.
The amounts that seemed irregular were complex to explain and included the service charge associated with the rental value. The customer accounts team had checked and confirmed the accounts were correct with an arrears balance of £2,146.70.
The customer accounts team had attempted to verbally explain the accounts to the resident on a number of occasions.
It partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint due to the confusion it had caused.

The length of time the issues with the rent had been ongoing

It apologised for the length of time the case had been ongoing. It understood that it had caused a great deal of upset for the resident, especially just after the passing of her mother.
It acknowledged that it had made mistakes and could have done more to make the process a “more seamless experience”. It had put additional checks in place to ensure the errors did not happen again.
It upheld this part of the complaint due to the length of time that had passed without a sufficient response being provided to the resident.

Uncertainty on payments and affordability

It believed that “the accounts at the time were inaccurate and did not reflect the combined refund from the resident’s mother’s account as well as the credit on the resident’s use and occupation account”. This had been rectified following the merging of the accounts on 6 October 2022.
The resident’s monthly payment was sufficient to reduce the arrears.
It had attempted to explain this on numerous occasions, but acknowledged that it had caused confusion. It therefore partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Letters received addressed to deceased relatives

An issue with its internal system meant letters were sent to persons previously recorded at the address. It acknowledged that the resident’s brother had never lived at the address. However, he had made contact once, which meant his details were recorded for data protection purposes.
It assured the resident that similar errors would not happen in the future and upheld this part of the complaint due to the distress caused by the letters.

Impact on the resident’s health

It appreciated the impact and worry that the rental arrears had on the resident’s mental health. It sincerely apologised and enquired what additional support and referrals it could assist with.

Stage 1 complaint

The length of time it took to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was unreasonable. It was also evident that it did not follow internal guidance on appropriate levels of communication. Due to the resident having to escalate to stage 2, it upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Conclusion

Overall, it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £350 compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £100 for failure of service.
2. £200 for time and trouble, which included distress.
3. £50 for poor complaint handling (this was the maximum that could be offered in addition to the £100 for complaint handling at stage 1).
The compensation could be paid directly to the resident or taken off the arrears on the rent account.

Events post internal complaints procedure

After the resident brought her complaint to this Service, the landlord contacted us on 28 June 2024. It said as part of our evidence request it had completed a review of the case and had identified that more compensation would be appropriate. It advised it intended to offer the resident additional compensation totalling £650.
We spoke to the resident on 8 April 2025. She felt the case was not resolved. She disagreed with the landlord’s decisions and reasons. She felt the rent accounts were not accurate and that she had been overcharged.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We acknowledge that the complaint timeline began when the resident’s mother passed away. This was already a very difficult time for her and a period where she was grieving for a close family member.
During her complaint the resident explained how the landlord’s actions and inaction during this time impacted upon her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute or underestimate her concerns, but we are unable to make a determination about any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account following a succession

The resident’s mother was an assured tenant of the landlord. A clause in her tenancy agreement permitted a contractual succession of the tenancy. The succession policy states that a contractual succession does not continue the original tenancy. For contractual succession a new tenancy will be granted.
The landlord commits in its money and debt policy to supporting residents with money and debt issues. It states it will deal sensitively with anyone in arrears, focus on the individual, and treat customers fairly. To achieve this, it says it will employ clear communication and consider the customer’s personal circumstances when deciding the most appropriate method of recovery, as well as providing an enhanced service where a customer has been assessed as requiring additional support. In addition, it will offer arrangements to repay arrears based on an assessment of what is affordable and permissible. It will review arrangements regularly to ensure they do not cause any hardship.
The landlord’s guidance for awarding compensation says that complaint handlers are expected to exercise a high level of discretion when considering what is fair in individual cases. This shows a recognition that the emotional impact experienced by an individual complainant is unique to them. Not all complainants will experience the same emotional impact in response to the same instance of service failure. The policy has 3 categories of compensation as follows:
1. Low failure – instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. This category has a payment range of up to £50.
2. Medium failure – instances of considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but where there may be no permanent impact. Payments for this category range from £51 to £160.
3. High failure – where there has been severe lack of ownership of the issue that has had a severe long–term emotional or physical impact on the complainant. Payments for this category range from £161 to £350.

The tenancy

The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2021 to confirm that she had “taken over (succeeded) to the original tenancy by law”. This indicated that the landlord had granted a statutory succession as opposed to a contractual succession.
The error was recognised on 1 December 2021. The landlord’s notes show that it incorrectly issued a statutory succession, which is usually only granted for a secure tenancy. It went on to state that because it was the course of action advised by the housing officer, it is the course of action that was followed. It is unclear what impact, if any, this has had on the resident’s tenancy. However, we have made an order for the landlord to investigate this, provide an explanation to the resident, and (if necessary) update/change her tenancy to the correct type.
The staff member who made the notes referred to above spoke to the resident on 6 July 2023. The notes from that call state that the resident felt she should have had a new tenancy and rent account number. The staff member explained that as a statutory successor, she would not be issued with a new tenancy agreement. They went on to note “she [the resident] mistakenly believes this was our mistake”.
These notes directly contradict the landlord’s earlier notes on the matter and indicate a lack of transparency and openness with the resident. This left her feeling she was in the wrong, which was unfair.

Rent account

The resident’s mother passed away on 18 June 2021. At that time her rent account was £2,344.26 in credit. On 5 August 2021, the landlord informed the local authority of the death and asked it to “cease payment to the rent account with immediate effect and if applicable send an invoice for any overpaid housing benefit”. While it was positive the landlord contacted the local authority, this communication should have happened as soon as it became aware of the death. At the very latest, it should have happened when it received the death certificate on 7 July 2021. The delay was unreasonable.
After the resident’s mother passed away, her rent account remained open. To allow rent payment until the resident formally took over the tenancy, the landlord created a ‘use and occupation account’ on 13 September 2021. It later admitted this was an error. The error caused considerable confusion to its staff and the resident, through no fault of her own. It is reasonable to conclude that this additional impact was avoidable.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that her late mother’s rent account was £3,572.45 in credit and that credits over 4 weeks old could be refunded. On 27 October 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she had taken over the tenancy. She asked it to refund the credit in her mother’s account and then close the account. On 1 November 2021, the landlord sent an internal email advising that housing benefit had been received for a resident who had passed away. It further stated that it was unable to tell if the housing benefit was for a relative at the address. In response, a staff member advised that a request to update the system with the new tenancy details had been made “weeks ago” but had not taken place yet. These emails demonstrate silo working, delays in sharing information across departments, and a failure to update records in a timely manner. This was inappropriate.
In an internal record dated 30 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that housing benefit was being paid into the resident’s deceased mother’s account. There was also a question in capital letters that said: “Why has it not been closed down?” A further comment by a different member of staff the same day stated “not sure why this account is still running if the resident’s mother had passed away”. The awareness of the overpayments and confusion among staff should have prompted action by the landlord to review the status of the rent accounts. However, instead it processed a refund of £4,000 to the resident.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord confirmed internally that the money should not have been paid to the resident as the money needed to be refunded to the local authority. Despite asking for the payment to be stopped, the money had already left its account. The landlord had been aware as early as 5 August 2021 that there were likely to be overpayments of housing benefit being received into the resident’s mother’s account. It was responsible for managing the rent account and should not have processed the payment until it had resolved the issue with the credit and the overpayment. Providing the refund to the resident, though likely well-intentioned at the time, was a failure that had far–reaching consequences for her.
With the knowledge that the payment was an error, we would have expected the landlord to immediately contact the resident to explain the situation. It then could have either asked her to return the money or advised that the funds should not be spent until it had clarified the issue. There is no evidence that this happened, which was unreasonable and unfair on the resident. It left her with a substantial sum of money that she believed she was free to spend, unaware that she was not entitled to it. The landlord’s money and debt policy states that it will employ early intervention strategies to identify residents that might be at risk of arrears. Given the landlord’s awareness that the money should have been paid to the local authority, its inaction at this point was a significant failure to comply with its policy.
In March and April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 5 times to request clarification on her rent, ask how much credit was on her account, request a rent statement, and ask if she would be issued with a tenancy. The call handler’s note on 26 April 2022 stated that they had not had an answer to the internal emails they had sent about resident’s requests dating back to 30 March 2022. Several of the internal emails requesting the information had been sent to the staff member the resident had complained about. The landlord’s failure to provide answers to the resident was frustrating for her and caused her to expend additional time and trouble chasing the information.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord confirmed in an internal email that the resident’s late mother’s account was still open, was in credit, and was continuing to accrue housing benefit. It also confirmed that the resident’s use and occupation account was still open and was in credit. In the same email chain the landlord confirmed that neither account was being charged rent. This indicates an ongoing failure by the landlord to address the original issue of overpayments by the local authority that it had been aware of for 5 months. The evidence also shows that – for reasons unknown – the resident was not being charged rent, which would explain her repeated requests for information. The landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable. The call handler noted: “This has been ongoing since the end of last year and is now causing the resident a great deal of stress trying to resolve.” This shows the landlord had some knowledge of the level of impact.
As the credit balance continued to accrue, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2022 and asked that it refund the credit to her. She also requested an update on the rent accounts. She did not receive a response and had to contact the landlord again on 23 May 2022, stating that she was becoming “increasingly frustrated”. This was unfair. The records show that all contact was initiated and chased by the resident; the landlord’s actions were reactive and only ever in response to contact from her. This was inappropriate given that the issues surrounding the rent were something that it should have been equally concerned about as the resident was. We would therefore have expected the landlord to instigate a thorough investigation to understand what was taking place. We would also have expected it to regularly communicate with the resident and update her on its findings. However, it failed to evidence that it did either, which was unreasonable.
As a result of the resident’s chasing, the landlord emailed the housing benefit department on 23 May 2022 to ask if there had been any overpayments in connection with the property. It is unacceptable that this was the first time the landlord had contacted the housing benefit department since it became aware that overpayments were taking place in November 2021.
The staff member the resident had complained about spoke with her on 24 May 2022. They advised the landlord could not provide a refund until the housing benefit department confirmed there had been no overpayments. In an internal email the same day, the same staff member asked if the (resident’s) succession would be going ahead. Given that the succession was completed on 25 October 2021, this is an indication of continuing issues with internal communication and record keeping. It also shows that the staff member was not aware of important details about the case they had been dealing with for a number of months, which was concerning. In the same email the staff member advised the resident now had 3 rent accounts, which included a sub–account that she was paying rent into.
Notes made on 1 June 2022 by a different staff member state that because the succession had been granted through survivorship, the (mother’s) rent account should not have ended and the use and occupation account should not have been set up. The officer making the notes had made 2 previous requests to close the use and occupation account (on 1 November 2021 and then on 1 December 2021). They also acknowledged that they had requested the payments to be transferred using an incorrect payment reference. They advised “we need to end the use and occupation account, reinstate the rent account and then transfer all payments from the sundry account onto the rent account again”. The evidence indicates the errors the landlord had made at the start of the case had not been rectified. Requests to close accounts had not been complied with, which led to payments being allocated to incorrect accounts and a further unnecessary buildup of credit. This all contributed to creating a more complex and confusing situation that caused distress and frustration for the resident.
The resident chased further updates from the staff member complained about on 10 and 13 June 2022. On both occasions the call handlers emailed the staff member and requested a call back for the resident. The staff member did not call her back until 30 June 2022. The timescale for the call back was unreasonable and demonstrates that the resident was not being communicated with as would be expected. This was contrary to the landlord’s finding in its stage 1 response that it could not find fault with its communication.
In the call the staff member told the resident that there had been an overpayment of £4,120 into her late mother’s account. They advised that the housing benefit department was deciding whether it had to be repaid or would be “written off”. This is the first instance in the landlord’s records that indicates it told the resident that there had been overpayments into her mother’s account. The landlord had been aware of this fact since November 2021. For it to have taken 7 months to raise it with the resident was unacceptable. Being presented with this information would likely have caused the resident significant anxiety and frustration given her repeated attempts to obtain information about the anomalies on the accounts.
The resident pursued the staff member again on 8 July 2022 about the credit on her account and the housing benefit overpayment. The staff member advised the housing benefit department had stated that it required 2 weeks to respond. The staff member then told the resident to “chase the housing benefit department herself as it can take over an hour to get through to them and I have a very busy workload”. Hearing this would have likely been difficult and upsetting for the resident. The comment by the staff member was insensitive and unhelpful. This was again contrary to the landlord’s subsequent finding in relation to this specific complaint point about the staff member.
The resident called the staff member again on 15 August 2022 but was unable to reach them. The call handler advised they would ask the staff member to call her back. This did not happen. On 18 August 2022, the local authority issued the landlord with an invoice for £4,120 for overpayments into the resident’s late mother’s rent account. The landlord added the debt of £4,120 to the resident’s account on 23 August 2023. Unreasonably, the staff member did not update the resident when they received the invoice or when the debt was added to the resident’s account. This required her to chase again on 8 September 2022. In that call the resident asked for the credit in her use and occupation account to be refunded. She was told this could not happen because she was still not being charged rent. She then asked for a copy of the invoice that the local authority had issued. The staff member told her she could not have it. This was a missed opportunity to be open and transparent with the resident to try and rebuild trust. However, the call notes do not show any empathy, explanation attempts or offers of support, guidance or advice to the resident. This was unfair in the circumstances.
The landlord told us that when it received the invoice from the local authority, it contacted the resident to ask her to return the money. However, we have not been provided with contemporaneous notes of this call or any email or letter sent to the resident at the time. Once the landlord received the invoice, we would have expected it to have formally written to the resident to set out the circumstances of the incorrect payment to her. This should have included details of the overpayments of housing benefit and the subsequent invoice from the local authority. We would have further expected written advice to be provided on support and debt services as well as proposed or potential repayment plans. With such significant sums of money, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have only provided this information verbally. However, there are no records to show the communication took place either verbally or in writing.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve issues, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident’s new rent account had built up credit and had been combined with the original rent account (previously in her mother’s name) on 6 October 2022. It did not clarify whether it was referring to the use and occupation account, which remained open, or the sundry account. In any case, there is no evidence that it explained this to the resident at the time, which was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 December 2022 and 10 January 2023. She wanted to know why her account was in arrears as she had been paying her rent every month. She said she also wanted the rent account to be in her name and not the name of her late mother. These call records indicate that the resident still did not understand the debt that had been applied to her account or why the rent account remained in her mother’s name and had the same account number. Failing to provide a adequate and clear explanation was a failure on the part of the landlord.
The resident called the landlord 6 times between 16 January 2023 and 16 February 2023 chasing an update and explanation on her accounts. There is no evidence in the records that she received a call back. This is further evidence of poor communication.
This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps to deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which supports residents and the complaint handling process.
On 2 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord stating she wanted to speak to the income team as she felt her account should not be in arrears. After the call, the landlord sent an internal email advising the resident had arrears of £7,277.35. The notes state that both she and universal credit were paying into a sundry account on one of the landlord’s systems which was £4,701.71 in credit. These records contradict the landlord’s earlier statement that the rent account and sundry account had been combined on 6 October 2022. It would appear the credit from the sundry account had been transferred to the rent account, but the sundry account had been left open.
In addition, the officer who had previously made the request to close the use and occupation account acknowledged on 6 July 2023 that the account remained open. They also stated, “I can’t believe this is actually still going on”. They then made a further request the same day that all credit/arrears were transferred from the use and occupation account to the rent account. They then mistakenly asked for the sundry account to be closed and not the use and occupation account as intended. In an earlier email the staff member had stated, “there is also another sundry account, but I am not sure what that is related to”. In a further email on 7 July 2023 a different staff member stated that “no sundry account should have been opened”. The ongoing situation with the accounts demonstrates that the landlord had failed to take the appropriate actions to resolve the situation, which continued to cause the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
In its complaint responses the landlord indicated that it had tried to explain the situation to the resident but that she found it confusing. The evidence shows that the situation was confusing its own staff who could not explain it to the resident. One staff member commented “I am very confused what is going on with this”. Another said: “This has been around for a while and is one of the most complex ones I’ve seen in 11yrs of working here!” In the circumstances, it was misleading for the landlord to attribute the confusion to the resident’s lack of understanding.
On 7 July 2023, the resident and the staff member she had complained about spoke on the phone. The resident said she had been waiting 2 years for the staff member to come back to her. The staff member disputed this, stating the resident had taken on the statutory succession which meant she took the tenancy “as is” including arrears. They advised the parties would have to come to an agreement, otherwise the landlord would start the arrears process. Given the circumstances of the case, the staff member’s comments were inappropriately unsympathetic. Also, threatening the resident with the arrears process was inappropriate given that the errors were as a result of the landlord’s actions. While she had not been waiting 2 years for a call back, she had been waiting 2 years for a resolution and had made numerous calls to the staff member requesting call backs that were either not responded to or significantly delayed. The resident was understandably frustrated with this communication and told the staff member that “she would pay any money she owed but wanted it in writing”. She also asked for a rent statement.
The staff member unreasonably did not send the requested information. The resident called the landlord chasing the rent statement and the written explanation about the arrears and the overpayment of housing benefit 5 times between 12 July and 26 July 2023. She finally received a copy of the rent statements and the invoice for the overpayments from the local authority on 1 September 2023. This was nearly 2 months after she had asked for the rent statement and over 1 year since she had asked to see the invoice. These timeframes were unacceptable and further eroded the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord’s processes. She did not receive the written explanation she had asked for, which was an additional failure.
In her discussion with this Service, the resident said that she did not believe the accounts, or the reasoning given in the landlord’s complaint responses, to be correct. She stated that her mother was never in arrears and always paid an extra £20 per week. She also referred to the fact that her mother’s account was £2,344.26 in credit when she died. The local authority confirmed the overpayments only started after the mother’s passing on 18 June 2021. One of the landlord’s staff commented, “Any payments up to the mum’s death would be the mum’s.” Due to the lack of clarity in the landlord’s explanations, it is unclear what happened to this sum of money and whether it was appropriately allocated. It is probable that it should have been part of the estate and dealt with through probate. For this reason, and the numerous errors highlighted in the preceding paragraphs, we have made an order for the landlord to have the rent accounts independently checked.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised her concerns about the number of rent cards she had. She advised that the landlord kept sending them to her. However, the landlord has stated that this was at the request of the resident. It appears the confusion arose because several of the rent cards had the name of the resident’s estate on it rather than the landlord’s name. This confusion was compounded when a staff member told the resident on 26 July 2023 that the card should have the landlord’s name on it. Further, some of the rent cards had the number of the resident’s late mother’s account on them, which she found difficult to understand. It would also appear that the landlord was issuing new rent cards for the different accounts it was creating. The landlord has now dealt with this issue by highlighting which card the resident should be using. However, the significant time it took to resolve the problem was unreasonable and caused unnecessary confusion and distress.
During the period of the complaint, the resident received letters regarding rent arrears that were addressed to her late mother and brother. We would expected the landlord to have fully updated its systems once the resident succeeded to the tenancy. However, it is evident that this did not happen, which was unreasonable. In an internal email on 6 July 2023, a staff member said that the landlord “often receives queries after a tenant’s name is changed with old names incorrectly staying on the account”. They advised they did not know how to resolve this error. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the letters should not have been sent and confirmed it would not happen again. This demonstrates that a solution was possible. The fact that the landlord was previously aware indicates that it should have taken earlier action to determine the cause of this error and taken steps to correct it. Had it done so, it could have spared the resident the additional distress and upset the letters caused.
The sequence of events began after the death of the resident’s mother, whom she had lived with and cared for. This was an especially trying time for her when she should have been able to grieve in peace. However, the events that followed prevented her from being able to do this. Initially the landlord awarded the resident a £4,000 refund without carrying out sufficient checks that it was the correct course of action. It then opened accounts it should not have, and failed to charge the resident rent for nearly 1 year. Despite being aware of the errors, the landlord failed to take timely action to find a resolution. It applied a £4,120 debt to the resident’s account, 9 months after refunding her the money, which placed her in significant rent arrears. The evidence provided shows that the landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to provide clear explanations and did not offer timely support and guidance to assist the resident. As a result, she suffered considerable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble at an already sensitive and difficult time. Due to the significant and ongoing failures identified, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it offered £50 for service failure. It increased its compensation offer to £300 at stage 2 (£350 including the stage 1 payment). This amount of compensation was insufficient to address the impact to the resident. We acknowledge that the payment was the maximum amount allowed by the landlord’s compensation policy at that time. Even so, we would have expected it to have exercised appropriate discretion and gone beyond its policy to offer an award that adequately reflected the experience of the resident. We note that the landlord’s most recent policy does allow for awards outside of its usual tariff in “exceptional situations”. However, as this policy was not in force at the time of the complaint, we have made an award of compensation based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation.
Further to this, we note that the landlord made an additional offer of compensation 9 months after the resident’s complaint completed its internal complaints procedure. We have considered this offer in our award. However, the landlord has not demonstrated how it presented the offer of additional compensation to the resident. In the circumstances, this would have been helpful for our investigation.
For cases where there have been significant failures that have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, our guidance recommends awards of £1,000 and over. We have therefore made an award of £1,500. This is inclusive of the money already offered or paid at stage 1 for the substantive element of the complaint.
In its communication with us on 28 June 2024, the landlord advised of the lessons it had learned from this case and the changes it has since made to its relevant processes. This is positive and shows that the landlord is applying the principle of learning from its mistakes, which we support as a pillar of a robust complaint handling process.

Complaint handling and representation

At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2–stage complaints process. At stage 1 it committed to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days with a response provided within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged and responded to within 20 working days. If there was a delay at either stage of the process it would contact the complainant and agree new response times.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that complaints can be received by any channel of communication, including phone calls. It also states that any correspondence received by any area of the business, which fits the definition of a complaint, must be passed to the complaints team within 24 hours.
To assist the resident with her complaint she obtained the services of a representative from a local charity. The landlord’s communication with the representative was interspersed with its communication with the resident. For clarity and ease of reading, the communication with the representative and the complaint handling have been dealt with under separate headings.

The resident’s representative

The representative initially emailed the landlord a list of questions. The records supplied do not indicate the date of this first email. Prior to answering the questions, the landlord requested a “consent to share” form, which the representative forwarded on 17 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the form the same day, confirming it had “added this to the system”. On 24 October 2022 the representative provided it again as the landlord subsequently said it had not received the form. In their email the representative asked it to answer the questions they had submitted. Unreasonably, the landlord did not respond, requiring the representative to chase the matter again on 31 October 2022.
The landlord again failed to respond until the representative chased a third time on 5 December 2022. In their email they acknowledged that the landlord had told the resident it could not deal with the representative because they were a solicitor. They highlighted they were an advisor for a small charity similar to Citizens Advice and were making the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s comments to the resident were inappropriate. There is nothing to stop a resident using a solicitor as a representative if they so choose. The landlord’s assumptions about the advisor were incorrect and unnecessarily obstructive.
The landlord responded on 5 December 2022. It said it could not locate the consent to share form and said it would discuss the matter with the resident. It also said it would ask its legal team what information could be shared. Being unable to locate the form was an indication of poor record keeping and unnecessarily created further delays in the complaints process.
On 10 January 2023, the representative emailed the landlord advising they had still not heard from it about the enquiries made in October 2022. They said the landlord had failed both to address the complaint and to provide information on its complaints procedure. There is no evidence that the landlord corresponded any further with the representative. Its refusal to communicate with them was unreasonable and ultimately impacted upon the resident, who was left to pursue the complaint herself.

The complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022. It acknowledged her complaint the next day, which was positive. In the acknowledgement it advised it would respond within 10 working days. On 21 October 2022 it wrote to the resident advising it required a further 10 working days. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of the delay, in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). However, it would have been good practice to provide the notification before the date the response was due.
The resident emailed the landlord for an update on the complaint on 31 October 2022. She said she was told the response would be issued on 3 November 2022. She contacted the landlord again on this date chasing the response. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022. It apologised for the delay but went on to say that due to workload it did not have the capacity to respond to the resident on a regular basis. In the context of the complaint, this comment was insensitive and likely frustrated the resident.
In the same email the landlord said its response would be delayed until 17 November 2022. When this date arrived, it said it needed a further 10 working days, adding that it would contact her when it had an update. This open–ended update proposal was inappropriate. The resident asked for an update on 1 December 2022. The landlord responded on 5 December 2022, advising the complaint would be further delayed until 2 January 2023. It did not issue the response on this day and did not update the resident on any further delay until 27 January 2022. This was further evidence of poor communication that caused the resident ongoing time, trouble and frustration.
The landlord’s complaint handler sent an internal email on 10 February 2023. They stated: “This complaint has been open for 89 days and I am no clearer where I stand on this. The delay and impact on the resident are poor and frustrating.” The complaint handler then emailed the resident apologising for the delay and stating that a further 10 working days was required. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 3 March 2023. However, it was incorrectly dated 23 February 2023. The delay in providing the complaint response was unreasonable, and significantly outside the requirements of both the Code and the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
The stage 1 response was unclear and did not outline the errors or the cause of these. It was evident from the response that there was no coherent understanding of the issues amongst the landlord’s staff. Further, we consider that the compensation offered for the substantive element and complaint handling was insufficient for the detriment caused and failed to put things right for the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 6 June 2023. She said she had been waiting 2 years for a resolution and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The call handler’s notes state: “I advised her she needs to put any complaint in writing – she said ‘so you can’t help me’ I told her it is in her interest to put it in writing so that she can have a trail.” There is nothing in the landlord’s complaint policy or procedure that states an escalation request must be made in writing. The call handler’s response was unhelpful and added to the already significant delays for the resident. This was unacceptable.
On 11 September 2023, the resident called the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. In this instance the call hander acted correctly and forwarded the escalation request to the complaints team. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023, which complied with the timeframes in its policy.
The stage 2 response, while clearer than the stage 1 response, still contained inaccuracies. The account was not reduced to zero when the £4,000 was refunded to the resident (as stated). The rent statement shows there remained a £730.13 credit on the account. The response also said that the credit that had built up in the new account was because of the £20 overpayments and universal credit. While this may be somewhat correct, the main reason the credit built up was because the landlord had failed to take rent from any of the accounts for a period of at least 9 months. Further, the response stated at point 6 that the accounts “at the time were inaccurate”. It did not clarify what timeframe it was referring to, which was unclear and confusing. It also did not link clearly with the corresponding complaint point.
In its decision, the landlord said that it upheld or partially upheld aspects of the complaint and so partially upheld the complaint overall. We do not agree with this decision. The errors and confusion were caused solely by the landlord, and, on the basis of the findings it made, we consider it should have upheld the resident’s complaint overall. Where a complaint is not fully upheld, we would expect a landlord to be clear which parts were not upheld and why.
At stage 2 the landlord increased its compensation offer for complaint handling by £50. It advised this was the maximum that could be awarded in line with its policy. We have considered this aspect of the policy in the previous section and will not revisit it here. However, we consider the £150 for the complaint handling failures identified was insufficient. The landlord later acknowledged this and offered a further £200 for complaint handling in June 2024. As this offer was made 8 months after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, it cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes) for a substantial compensation offer to be made late in a protracted process with the intention of avoiding investigation, or a more severe finding, by our Service.
In summary, the landlord’s complaints process did not operate as expected and did not put things right for the resident. There were unreasonable delays at stage 1 and poor communication throughout those delays, including barriers to the resident’s use of a representative. The stage 1 response failed to sufficiently address the complaint and constituted a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint in the first instance. The landlord then failed to escalate to stage 2 when first requested. The compensation offered at both stages was insufficient, as the landlord itself later recognised. The stage 2 response also failed to uphold the resident’s complaint, which was inconsistent with the evidence. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. A finding of severe maladministration has been avoided only because of the efforts of the stage 1 complaint handler pursuing the relevant information internally, and because the landlord more recently recognised the extent of its complaint handling failures.
Due to the errors identified and the impact on the resident, we have made an award of £500 compensation (increasing the landlord’s offer by £150). The additional amount is in line with our remedies guidance and reflects the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s ultimate offer. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account following a succession.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint, including her use of a representative.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from its chief executive to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £2,000 compensation. This sum is inclusive of the money already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears or other financial arrangement. It is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
  2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Provide the resident with proof that it paid the £4,120 to the local authority.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must investigate any errors associated with the tenancy and provide an explanation to the resident, including any impact this had on her. It must then review and amend the tenancy agreement if necessary. Details of the action taken must be communicated in writing to the resident and this Service.
Within 12 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must arrange for a comprehensive and thorough independent review of all financial aspects of the case. The review must be undertaken by a suitably qualified individual independent of the landlord, this complaint and the original investigation. The resulting report must be laid out in a clear and easy to understand format and must be shared with the resident and this Service. The report should provide detailed conclusions on the accuracy of all the resident’s rent accounts that were open at the time of the complaint. It must also detail where the £2,344.26 credit present on 18 June 2021 was allocated.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.