North Kesteven District Council (202305127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305127

North Kesteven District Council

24 June 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his rent account.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy agreement. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow.
3. The resident suffers from diabetes and has informed the landlord he also suffers from mental health issues.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2022 following a letter which said his rent account was in arrears. The resident believed this was a mistake. The landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss this on 12 October 2022, and sent follow up letters on 24 October 2022, 21 November 2022 and 5 December 2022. The landlord then again attempted to visit the resident on 20 December 2022. The resident was unavailable at this time however the landlord was able to contact him via a phone call. It explained that the resident owed arrears on his rent account.
5. The landlord sent the resident a breakdown of the arrears on 4 January 2023 and then visited him again on 10 January 2023. It explained that the resident owed money due to having a spare room in his property. This resulted in the removal of the spare room subsidy. It further explained that this was the government’s policy and not the landlord’s decision. The landlord continued to chase the resident for the outstanding arrears throughout January and February 2023.
6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023, expressing his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of chasing his rent arrears. He said he refused to pay any additional rent due to having a spare room. He also said that he felt the landlord’s handling of this matter represented harassment. The resident wrote the landlord several additional letters throughout March 2023 advising that he would not be paying any additional rent due to the removal of the spare room subsidy. He also informed them that its continued chasing of the outstanding amount was having a negative affect on his health.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 March 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It explained the reasons the resident’s rent had changed, and that this was due to government rules. The landlord said that it had found no issues with its handling of the matter, and provided the resident with details of its Discretionary Housing Payment Fund if he required financial assistance.
8. The resident sent the landlord letters on 31 March 2023 and 1 April 2023 once again reiterating that he would not be making any additional payments to it. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s description of him as being of ‘working age’. The landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 12 April 2023.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2023. It again did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it was unable to remove the rent charge as it was following the law. It explained why it had described the resident as ‘working age’. It again found no fault in its handling of the matter and said it would be unable to completely cease contacting him. The landlord also asked that the resident change the way he was speaking to it.
10. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 10 May 2023. He said he felt the landlord had behaved unreasonably, pestering him and his brother about the outstanding rent arrears. He added that he would not pay the spare room tax. He said the landlord’s chasing of this matter was an act of harassment and discrimination and he felt the landlord should pay him significant compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

11. Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that ‘concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent of service chare increase’. This means that this investigation has not considered the resident’s increase in rent, or the removal of the spare room subsidy that the resident has complained about.
12. The resident raised concerns with the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the matter equated to both harassment and discrimination. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on harassment and discrimination allegations, this Service will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord treated him fairly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his rent account

13. The landlord’s Rent Arrears Management Guidance outlines the steps that it will take when chasing the outstanding balance. The aim of all contact in this policy is for the landlord to collect the full outstanding balance. It says however that if residents are unable to clear the balance in full then it will arrange to clear the account in instalments. The landlord says it will undertake at least 3 attempts to contact the resident either by telephone, e-mail, or a home visit. It also says it will send 3 formal warning letters. If following this the outstanding balance remains, the landlord will then proceed onto legal action to recoup the outstanding balance.
14. The landlord appears to have followed this policy when seeking payment of the outstanding rent arrears. It attempted to contact the resident by various means and the time between its contact appears to have also been reasonable. Given the potential negative consequences that can occur if rent arrears are not managed, it was fair of the landlord to act in the way it did and be pro-active in chasing the resident regarding the amounts due.
15. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s actions when visiting the resident or discussing the matters with him over the phone have been unreasonable. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with copies of the letters it sent the resident regarding the arrears. These letters were fair in content and tone.
16. The landlord noted the resident’s vulnerability and decided not to proceed with legal actions available to it such as serving a notice of seeking possession. It said it did so after considering the resident’s condition and following this sought to take an alternative approach to help the resident clear the arrears.
17. After exploring its potential options, the landlord decided to apply for a third-party deduction from the resident’s universal credit. This has meant that the landlord does not have to chase the resident directly for this money and potentially reduced the amount of contact it needs to have with the resident regarding this matter. It was fair from the landlord to explore its options and to take this course of action. The landlord previously outlined in its letters that this was a course of action that it may take.
18. The landlord offered the resident support if he was struggling to make his payments. It referred him to its Discretionary Housing Payment Fund in its complaint responses. All of the letters sent to the resident also had contact details offered if the resident was struggling and needed financial support.
19. The resident raised an issue with the landlord speaking to his elder sibling about the arrears. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence regarding this contact and is therefore unable to make any decision as to whether any service failure occurred as a result of this.
20. The landlord also fairly explained in its communication its usage of the term ‘working age’. It confirmed to the resident that it understood, due to his situation, that he was unable to work but why he fell within this definition.
21. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge complaints within 4 working days. It says it will then aim to provide its complaint response within 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord says that it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days.
22. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was fair. It provided detailed responses and outlined the necessary information to the resident, including explanation of the background to the spare room subsidy and how this impacted his rent account. It followed the timescales in its policy when responding to this complaint.
23. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his rent account. The landlord communicated with the resident fairly and provided him with offers of support to manage the situation. The landlord’s actions in contacting the resident and trying to help him manage the rent issue were fair when considering the potential consequences of rent arrears.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his rent account.