Peabody Trust (202336554)

Background

1. A member of the landlord’s staff called the resident to discuss her rent arrears. Following the call they requested a managed payment to landlord (MPTL) from the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) to recover arrears from the resident’s Universal Credit benefit. The resident’s complaint concerns the request for a MPTL and the staff member’s conduct.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about staff conduct.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s MPTL request followed its rent collection policy. At stage 1 of the complaints process, its investigation into staff conduct was incomplete and lacked detail. The stage 2 complaint response provided more detail, but some explanations were unclear and inaccurate. The landlord did not apologise or offer compensation. This caused the resident confusion and time and trouble in escalating the complaint.
5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 1 although its complaint response was issued on time. There was a slight delay in it issuing the stage 2 complaint response. This was not in line in with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the resident was not impacted by these errors.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident’s rent account shows that rent was due on the first day of each month. On 3 May 2023, the resident had not paid the rent due on 1 April 2023 or 1 May 2023. She was therefore in arrears by 2 months’ rent. The landlord’s rent collection policy says it will call customers when they have at least 1 week of rent arrears. Where a resident receives Universal Credit, the policy says the landlord may request a MPTL. Government guidance allows landlords to request deductions from Universal Credit for rent arrears when at least 2 months’ rent is owed. The landlord did not need the resident’s agreement before it requested the MPTL.
7. A member of the landlord’s staff called the resident on 3 May 2023. Her notes of the call state the resident “stated categorically she will not be paying rent even though she [received] Universal Credit”. After the call, the staff member discussed the case with her team leader and they authorised an MPTL. The staff member applied for it that day. Although the landlord had not requested an MPTL when the resident’s account showed similar arrears in earlier months, its decision to do so on this occasion was in line with its policy and the MPTL criteria at the time. It was a reasonable step to reduce the risk of the resident losing her tenancy due to the arrears.
8. Later, on 3 May 2023, the resident made a payment at the previous rent rate. However, this was after the landlord had requested the MPTL. She also lodged an appeal with the FTT to dispute her rent increase. When a valid rent dispute appeal has been made to the FFT, the resident may pay rent at the original rate, pending the outcome of the appeal.
9. The landlord received £200.56 through the MPTL on 10 May 2023. The resident then asked the DWP to cancel the MPTL, which it did later that month. By then, she was no longer 2 months in arrears.
10. On 28 June 2023 the landlord noted on the resident’s rent account that the FTT rent increase hearing would take place on 18 July 2023. It stated that the resident had not lodged the appeal before the increase took effect on 1 April 2023, as required by the appeal process. In those circumstances, the FTT may decide the appeal is invalid because it is out of time. We have not seen the FTT decision. However, we have also not seen evidence that the FTT required the landlord to reduce or reverse the rent increase. Therefore, landlord continued to charge rent at the increased rate. The resident continued to pay rent at the old rate on or around the 11th day of each month.
11. The named staff member called the resident on 11 September 2023, noting that the resident was ‘underpaying’. The call was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s rent collection policy. The call note says the resident was unavailable, did not wish to speak with that staff member because of their previous dealings, and agreed to call back and speak to someone else. The landlord also issued a rent statement that day. Given the resident’s agreement to call back, it would have been better practice to pause issuing the rent statement until that call had taken place.
12. The resident spoke with a different member of staff the next day and said she would pay her rent later that week. The notes state the resident was unhappy about being called the day before and was told staff were required to call when payment was overdue. On 18 September 2023, the resident paid her rent due on 1 September 2023, at the old rate.
13. It is not our role to reach findings about the conduct of individual staff members. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a way that was fair, evidence based, and reasonable in the circumstances. We expect landlords to gather and consider relevant available evidence. Where a complaint concerns a phone call and no recording exists, the landlord should consider alternative evidence. This may include system notes, and statements from the resident and the staff member. The landlord’s compensation policy says it takes an evidence-based approach and will not award compensation based on unverified accounts or assumptions. That did not prevent it from considering the accounts of both parties where other evidence was limited.
14. In her complaint dated 15 November 2023, the resident gave limited details to support her allegations about the staff member’s conduct. However, she said she had evidence she wanted the landlord to consider. There is no evidence that the landlord asked her to provide this evidence before it issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was a failing. It was particularly relevant because the resident referred to call recordings, and the landlord did not have a recording of the 3 May 2023 call. The resident’s recording did not include that call, but the landlord did not know that before it issued its stage 1 complaint response.
15. The landlord listened to the available call dated 11 September 2023. That was appropriate. In the absence of a recording of the 3 May 2023 call, it was also reasonable for the landlord to consider its system notes. However, those notes only explained why it requested the MPTL. They did not address the resident’s concerns about the staff member’s behaviour during the call. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to speak to the resident and the staff member before issuing its complaint response. Its approach limited the fairness and thoroughness of its stage 1 investigation. This caused the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint before the landlord considered her evidence.
16. The resident had raised concerns about discrimination, intimidation, interference with her welfare benefits, abuse of position, neglect, psychological harm and dishonesty. The stage 1 complaint response did not address these specific concerns. This meant the landlord did not show that it had properly considered the complaint she had made.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained why it considered the MPTL was appropriate. However, it did not explain that its policy allows discretion and why its approach differed from earlier months when the resident’s account had shown similar arrears. This lack of clarity led to the resident feeling her complaint had been misunderstood.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reviewed the records again and considered the evidence the resident provided on 11 December 2023. This was appropriate and gave a fuller review of her concerns. However, the landlord now said its staff member had considered the MPTL appropriate because the resident had continued paying rent at the previous rate. That explanation may have reflected the later pattern of payments, but it did not accurately explain the position when the MPTL was requested.The rent increase took effect on 1 April 2023. At the time of the call on 3 May 2023, the landlord had not received any payment at the old rate after that increase. The landlord also did not make clear that the rent dispute had not been made before the MPTL had been requested. The landlord also did not address why the staff member had sent the rent statement on 11 September 2023. These points were important because the resident’s concern about a heavy-handed and inconsistent approach to pursuing the arrears was central to her complaint.
19. Overall, the landlord’s MPTL request was in line with its policy. However, its handling of the complaint about the staff member’s conduct was not fair or thorough. At stage 1, it did not ask the resident for her evidence or seek the staff member’s account of the disputed call. This cost the resident time and trouble escalating her complaint and led her to feel her concerns had not been listened to. Its stage 2 complaintresponse was more detailed, but it did not acknowledge and remedy those shortcomings. It also gave an inaccurate and unclear explanation for the MPTL request and the landlord’s different approach to earlier arrears. This reduced the resident’s confidence in the investigation and again left her feeling her complaint had been misunderstood.
20. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct. We order it to pay the resident £150 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for when the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

21. The Code says that complaint handlers should complete a full investigation and consider all relevant information and evidence carefully, providing a full response. The landlord’s failure to do so in this case have been addressed in our earlier assessment. Therefore, we have not also considered it here.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of this complaint stated it would log complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being received. Where a resident requested escalation, its policy stated it would issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the request. Any extension should not have exceeded a further 10 days at each stage without good reason.
23. The landlord’s complaint handling was not fully in line with the Code in place at that time because it did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint. However, it issued the stage 1 complaint response within the policy timescale.
24. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation within 5 working days. It also told the resident about an extension within the original stage 2 timescale. It issued the stage 2 complaint response 2 working days after the revised deadline and did not update the resident about that further delay. This was a missed opportunity. However, the evidence does not show that this short delay caused detriment to the resident. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

25. This case demonstrated a lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach to managing the resident’s arrears. The landlord may wish to consider strengthening its approach to recording and applying discretionary decisions to support consistency and transparency.
26. This case also highlighted the importance of a fair and thorough investigation when a resident complains about the conduct of a landlord’s member of staff. The landlord is encouraged to consider our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights. This report highlights what best practice looks like in the handling of such complaints.