Peabody Trust (202113483)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113483

Catalyst Housing Limited

19 July 2023

 

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 landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for information about how her rent was calculated, and;
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident began her tenancy in January 2015. She complained to the landlord on or before 30 March 2021, after hearing from neighbours that her rent was “significantly higher” than theirs. The resident believed that because there were close similarities in the properties and the properties were let by the same landlord, that her level of rent may be incorrect.
  2. The landlord responded on 19 April 2021, explaining that the resident has an Assured Tenancy, identified as “Affordable Rent”, which is charged at 80% of market value. The landlord explained that it cannot provide details of other tenant’s charges, but noted that tenants with different tenancy agreements may have different rent charges. This was due to a number of factors, such as when the tenancy began or changes in legislation. The landlord apologised that this felt unfair, but explained that it was something the landlord was unable to change.
  3. The resident responded on 24 April 2021, explaining that the landlord had not addressed the resident’s concerns. She explained that a number of questions remained outstanding, including what types of tenancies exist, further clarification of the relevant legislation and any impact it may have on levels of rent, and requested further supporting documentation. The landlord responded on 27 April 2021, adding further detail to the information it had already provided.
  4. On 5 May 2021, the resident responded explaining that although she appreciated the detailed response, she remained unclear about a number of elements. The resident was primarily concerned about “understanding how the level of rent was determined and what specific factors led to the level of rent being higher than others.” She added that the landlord had “confirmed [the resident] had an Assured Tenancy” and to “please advise what my level of rent would be if I had another type of tenancy”.
  5. The landlord did not respond. The resident approached this Service on 10 September 2021, which instructed the landlord to issue a final response on 4 October 2021, 8 November 2021 and 2 March 2022.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 4 April 2022. The landlord accepted that the resident had made multiple complaints following the previous response on 5 May 2021, in May, June, July and August 2021. The landlord accepted that it should have escalated the resident’s complaints and offered £150 as a goodwill gesture. The landlord repeated the information it had already provided regarding the issue of rent.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Under paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge. This investigation focuses on how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for information regarding her rent.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about how her rent was calculated

  1. This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint, believed to have been made on or before the 30 March 2021. The landlord’s response stated that the complaint was about the amount of rent charged compared to other residents. The resident later clarified that their main aim was to receive an explanation of the difference in levels of rents between different tenants.
  2. The landlord’s responses on 19 April 2021 and 27 April 2021 are both, as the resident describes, detailed in their content. Both responses were issued quickly and cited relevant legislation relating to the resident’s query. The resident pointed out that some elements of the initial complaint, which this Service has not seen, were not responded to. The landlord’s response on 27 April 2021 rectified this oversight, adding further detail and background about the resident’s tenancy.
  3. On 5 May 2021, the resident explained that she had a number of further questions, and did not understand parts of the landlord’s responses. The landlord did not respond again until its stage two response of 4 April 2022. The stage two response provided no further information than that which the resident had received previously, meaning that the questions raised in the escalation request of 5 May 2021 remained outstanding.
  4. It is understandable that the resident was concerned that she may be paying more rent than she should. The resident had explained that the level of rent “may be correct, but I suspect that it is not”. This caused the resident to worry that she was not being treated fairly. The resident was justified in seeking answers which she could clearly understand in relation to this issue. Therefore, when the resident explained that the issue had not been explained in a way she could understand, and that the answers had prompted further questions, the landlord should have done more. The landlord could have signposted the resident to organisations or information which could have given the resident more insight into rent levels in the social housing sector, or tried to reword their earlier responses in a way that the resident might better understand. The landlord failed to do so.
  5. Internal landlord emails from November 2022 (following on from a request from this Service for information) show the rent and service charge team held further, relevant information regarding the resident’s queries. The emails explain that “neither [the rent and service charge team] or [the relevant staff member] saw the original queries, and have not heard back from the complaints team [about ways in which they could help provide answers to the resident]”. The emails go on to provide further information about the levels of rent and suggests remedies for the resident. There is no evidence that there was any response to this internal email.
  6. In conclusion, opportunities were missed to better inform the resident about the issues about which she was seeking clarity. Although the initial responses provided by the landlord were strong, no attempts to better explain the resulting questions, or clarify earlier responses, were made. The frustration the resident felt was exacerbated by the landlord failing to issue further responses and the resulting delay this caused. There was miscommunication between staff members which meant that although the landlord may have held the information the resident sought, it was not communicated to the complaints team or ultimately, to the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about how her rent was calculated.
  7. The landlord’s stage two response of 4 April 2022 did not address the outstanding issues or make an attempt to convey the information in a way which was easier to understand. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where this occurs, and there has also been a failure which adversely affected the resident, compensation of  £100 plus is due. Therefore, orders are made below to ‘put things right’.

Complaint Handling

  1. After the initial complaint and response, including a request for clarity and further information, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord had dealt with her concerns. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “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 Code also states that a request to escalate to stage two must be acknowledged within five working days, and responded to within twenty. There is no evidence that the landlord complied with either of these requirements.
  2. On 14 September 2021, internal landlord emails show that it was recognised that a stage two response remained outstanding, and a staff member was assigned. It was felt that further information was required to answer the resident’s queries and a senior staff member was approached. The staff member stated that they had “nothing to add”. The staff member handling the complaint responded by asking a number of specific questions that would help better explain the issue to the resident. There is no evidence that a response was ever received.
  3. The Ombudsman formally instructed the landlord to issue a final response on three occasions between October 2021 and March 2022, but the landlord failed to do so until 4 April 2022. The stage two response failed to resolve the resident’s concerns and did not provide answers to the additional questions posed in the escalation request of 5 May 2021, leading to further frustration. The response was therefore not compliant with the Code, which states that all elements of a resident’s complaint should be responded to.
  4. The evidence continues to show that the primary reason for the delays in this case was due to internal communication problems. This Service has seen evidence of multiple instances where staff members did not respond to information requests from their colleagues. The evidence also shows that complaint handling staff were at times unsure of who to approach to request relevant answers, and that the information requested may have been available if the right team or members of staff had been contacted. It is clear that despite the lack of responses, complaint handling staff did make an effort to respond to the resident’s request, but faced internal barriers.
  5. Later however, such as when the Ombudsman made requests for information relating to this investigation, there appeared to be barriers when other departments tried to contact the complaints team. Internal emails show that in late 2022 for example, senior landlord staff members also had to go to extensive efforts to compel the complaints department to respond.
  6. There were also times when the landlord had an opportunity to provide the resident with more information, when it would have been appropriate to do so. For example, when the resident complained again on 6 June 2022, the landlord did not respond to the resident, but said internally that “all [complaints] have been responded to and the rent setting has been explained to her and as far as we’re concerned the complaints are closed. She’s just not happy that we’re unable to change things. We won’t be logging another complaint about this.” There is no evidence to suggest the resident was unhappy that the level of rent could not be changed. The resident was clear throughout her correspondence that her aim was to receive answers to a number of key issues, to better understand her rent charges. There is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident that it would not respond to her complaint or log any further complaints. This implies that the failure to respond may have been intentional, demonstrating that the landlord dealt with the resident in an inappropriate and heavy-handed manner.
  7. The evidence shows that the resident went to a great deal of time and trouble to induce the landlord to respond, including engaging in extensive correspondence with the landlord, her MP and this Service. The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to her complaints/escalation requests in “May, June, July and August 2021” and offered £150 in compensation. The stage two response however failed to acknowledge that this Service had also instructed the landlord to respond on behalf of the resident in October and November 2021, which it failed to do. It failed to recognise in the stage two response both the time and trouble the resident went to and ultimately failed to provide the information the resident was requesting more clearly, or explain why it was unable to if that was the case. The landlord’s inaction contributed to delays of approximately eleven months until the resident received a stage two response, which she required in order to escalate her complaint to this Service.
  8. As a result, £150 is not sufficient to constitute reasonable redress. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made below to ‘put things right’.
  9. The Ombudsman carried out a Special Report on this landlord which it published in March 2023. The report has explored in further detail persistent failings faced by many residents, many of the themes of which are shared in this case. In response to the report, the landlord has made a number of changes to address the systemic failings highlighted in this case, and previous cases which the Ombudsman considered. As such, the orders below seek only to ‘put things right’ between the landlord and resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about how her rent was calculated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £400 compensation, made up of the following:
    1. £150 in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about her rent, and;
    2. £250 for the complaint handling failures experienced. The £150 already offered should be deducted from this amount if it has already been paid to the resident.