Sanctuary Housing Association (201805588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201805588

Sanctuary Housing Association

22 April 2022

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 administration of the resident’s rent account in relation to rent arrears on the account.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a two-bedroom flat.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy agreement:

This states that the resident is obliged to pay the rent, service charges and any other charges weekly in advance. It also sets out the weekly rent and other charges the resident is responsible for, and it confirms that the rent is payable weekly in advance on a Monday and is calculated on a 52-week collection year.

Tenancy Handbook:

This states that if the tenant falls behind with their payments, the landlord will contact them by phone or by post. It will continue to contact them until the rent is up to date or the tenant is making regular payments to clear the arrears. It also asks tenants in financial difficulties to contact the landlord and it will provide advice, signposting and support.

Income Management policy and procedure:

This states that customer accounts are automatically escalated where payments have not been made in line with agreed contractual terms. Staff will seek to maximise revenue collection and prevent unnecessary escalation and possession action by negotiating an affordable payment arrangement with customers.
Notices are served where customers have not engaged with the support offered or have failed to make and maintain suitable payment arrangements. Where additional needs are identified, support and/or signposting will be provided.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has noted that the resident has said that he has made several complaints to the landlord about its handling of his rent arrears over the last five years. However, the available evidence shows that these complaints had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
From what can be ascertained from the present evidence, it is noted that a complaint was logged in August 2018 about the conduct of the landlord’s staff when speaking to the resident about his rent arrears. There is no evidence that this complaint had completed the landlord’s complaints process. Similarly, it is noted that a further complaint was logged in May 2019, and the evidence shows that the complaint was closed with the resident’s knowledge in June 2019 and it did not complete the landlord’s complaints process.
There is evidence to show that two further complaints were logged in December 2019 and September 2020 and both complaints were about the handling of rent arrears and both complaints had completed the landlord’s complaints process.
In light of the above, this report will not address any historical complaints or any of the complaints that have not formally concluded the landlord’s complaints process. This investigation report will therefore only consider events from December 2019 (this being when the resident raised a new complaint) up until December 2020 on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. It should be noted however that all of the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.

Summary of events

The landlord’s correspondence shows that it wrote to the resident on 8 December 2019 about his rent arrears and provided a copy of his rent statement covering two years. The resident has said that he did not receive this letter. However, on 10 December 2019 the resident emailed the landlord querying his rent arrears balance after receiving a letter threatening court action for rent arrears. He said that this warning letter had caused him ‘severe anxiety and depression’. He acknowledged that there was a shortfall of £77.00 each month from his Housing Benefit due to the ‘bedroom tax’. He said that he usually made up this shortfall every month so he was unsure why his rent account was showing significant arrears of over £1000. He also queried if a previous compensation award (for an unrelated complaint) had been credited to his rent account as he had requested.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident at this time and the resident had agreed to pay £90pm towards the arrears.
On 16 December 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint (‘Complaint 1’):
1. He was unhappy that after coming home from a medical appointment for his chronic depression, he found a member of the landlord’s staff waiting for him ready to hand him a Notice of Seeking Possession (‘NOSP’) threatening him with eviction due to rent arrears. He felt that this was inappropriate and the staff member should have made an appointment and not come unannounced.
2. The resident said he refused to accept the service of the NOSP and would not be responding to it until his complaint was addressed first. He wanted to know why the landlord sent someone round to harass him given his medical conditions and vulnerabilities. He felt that the NOSP was unnecessary as he had already agreed a repayment plan to tackle the arrears. He also asked again if the £150 compensation from his other complaint had been correctly credited to his rent account.
The landlord responded to the complaint (the correspondence provided is undated) and confirmed that the £150 compensation had been credited to the rent account. It explained that the income team do not operate an appointment service and will usually do ‘cold call visits’. It apologised if this had caused any inconvenience to the resident on this occasion. It also confirmed that the NOSP would be withdrawn as long as the resident keeps to the repayment plan that had been agreed of £90pm.
On 20 December 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he was unhappy with the response and that it had not fully addressed his complaint about the staff harassing him and turning up unannounced causing him distress.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 formal complaint response on 20 January 2020. It explained that it uses a variety of contact methods including un-booked visits. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and asked him to ensure that he maintains the repayment plan so as to cover the shortfall in rent and manage the arrears as this will prevent any further visits or calls being made to him. It explained that it can offer assistance and support with rent arrears but this would require ongoing contact. It agreed that in future the resident can book an appointment to come into the office or for staff to visit him at home. The letter stated that if the resident remained unhappy, he could escalate the complaint to its final stage.
The resident referred the matter to this Service and enquiries were made which established that the landlord’s complaints process had not yet been exhausted. The resident then requested that the complaint be escalated on 17 February 2020. He reiterated that he remained unhappy with the NOSP and that the landlord had failed to show any empathy for his situation and had attended unannounced at his home threatening him with eviction. He said this had an adverse effect on his mental health and caused him anxiety and depression. He accused the landlord of being ‘hostile and aggressive’ in dealing with arrears.
The records show that the landlord issued a further complaint response on 26 February 2020, but neither party has provided this Service with a copy of this letter. It is not disputed however that the landlord apologised for any inadvertent distress it may have caused by the unannounced visit and if offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £75 compensation.
The resident responded on 18 March 2020 reiterating his concerns and the impact on his mental health and rejecting the offer of £75 compensation and he suggested that a more appropriate amount would be around £500.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 March 2020:
1. It explained that it has to consider issuing a NOSP when rent arrears reach a certain level.
2. It accepted that the timing of the unannounced visit was unfortunate, but it said it would not have been aware that the resident was returning from a medical appointment.
3. It confirmed that the resident had been made aware of the rent arrears prior to the visit and had spoken to him about this prior to the visit.
4. It reiterated its stance as stated in its earlier complaint response that the purpose of NOSP being hand-delivered was to enable the Income Officer to provide an explanation in person, answer any questions and avoid any misunderstanding that it was an eviction notice.
5. Going forward it had taken note of his concerns and it had requested that an alert be placed on his records requesting that he be given prior notice of any future home visits. It also said that if there were any additional communication requirements it would abide by them.
6. It noted that the payment arrangement had not been maintained and it had received ad-hoc payments. It acknowledged that the COVID pandemic had caused unprecedented circumstances and it asked the resident to contact it to discuss his current situation so that arrangements can be made going forward to both manage the account and reduce his anxiety.
7. It again put forward its goodwill offer of £75 compensation and explained why it could not agree with the resident’s requested amount and it referred the resident to this Service’s website for further guidance on compensation levels.
8. It confirmed that this was its final complaint response and that, if accepted, it would put the £75 compensation as a credit on the rent account.
On 26 March 2020 the resident responded and accepted the £75 compensation as a resolution to his complaint and he agreed to pay £45 every fortnight.
The landlord’s records show that an alert was put on the resident’s account to show that he needed email confirmation before any home visit due to his mental health and anxiety. The £75 compensation was also credited to his rent account and the NOSP that was issued in December 2019 was withdrawn.
The correspondence between the resident and the landlord in August 2020 showed that discussions had been ongoing about rent arrears and the landlord had requested a home visit be carried out, which the resident was unhappy with. The landlord’s records show that it considered that further action was necessary due to the resident underpaying and only paying sporadically against his plan.
On 26 August 2020 the resident raised another formal complaint (‘Complaint 2). He was unhappy that the landlord was insisting on visiting him at home. The landlord responded and explained why a home visit would be beneficial and it confirmed that all COVID safety measures would be taken including PPE. It reiterated that there continued to be a shortfall between the Housing Benefit and the weekly rent and the additional payments being made by the resident on an ad-hoc basis were not enough to cover the shortfall. It was therefore concerned that the rent arrears would keep on increasing. It also advised the resident to seek assistance via a Discretionary Housing Fund from his Local Authority.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 2 September 2020 and acknowledged the complaint. On 17 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord repeating his concerns about the way his rent arrears were being pursued by the landlord and the recent conduct of its staff on the telephone, which he felt was harassment and was causing him severe anxiety. The landlord explained that the previous complaint (Complaint 1) had completed its complaints process in March 2020 and that this new issue (stemming from contact in August and September 2020) would be set up as a new complaint and investigated separately. It asked the resident to provide more clarification about the call in question.
The landlord’s records show that on 18 September 2020 another NOSP was issued by post, with a served date as 25 September 2020, and effective from 26 March 2021. Upon receiving this the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had been very distressed and traumatised during the past few weeks due to the aggressive way the landlord had been pursuing him and he was angry that anther NOSP had been issue. He felt that the landlord was now actively trying to evict him from his home during the COVID pandemic. He also explained how this was impacting his mental health.
The landlord’s records show that it cancelled the NOSP on 30 September 2020 and issued a complaint response. It apologised for any concern caused by the service of the NOSP and confirmed that this had been withdrawn as the resident had agreed to a repayment plan. It reminded him of the need to keep up with the agreed plan and signposted him to other help and advice available to him.
The resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 23 October 2020 as he remained unhappy with the complaint response. He repeated his concerns about feeling harassed by the landlord and mentioned previous unannounced visits and threatening telephone calls. He requested that his plan be amended so that he would pay £80pm, and not £90pm as he had previously agreed.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 27 October 2020. It also confirmed that it could not agree to £80pm as the shortfall every month was £79.69pm, this would only leave 0.31p towards the outstanding rent arrears of £710.02. His proposal did not cover significant costs towards the outstanding balance due. It reiterated what had been agreed previously about the £90pm plan. The resident confirmed that he would be prepared to continue to pay £90pm.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the complaints team took steps to make sure that wherever possible, the resident’s vulnerabilities had been fully taken into account.
The landlord issued its final complaint response (for Complaint 2) on 20 November 2020:
1. It gave a detailed breakdown of the contact between landlord and the resident from 25 August 2020 onwards up until November 2020. It said it had reviewed all available system notes and records.
2. It confirmed that outside of the complaints process it had only contacted the resident on two occasions about his rent arrears. It had been unable to listen to these calls because the recordings were only kept for one month. As such, it was not able to evidence if staff had in any way, threatened the resident or used language/tone that could be construed as threatening or aggressive. It apologised if the resident felt threatened in any way during the calls or from any of the correspondence he had received.
3. It explained that it had taken into account government guidance on dealing with rent arrears during the COVID pandemic and it had tried to work with the resident to tackle the arrears. It detailed the payments made since February 2020 against the agreed plan(s) which fell short of the agreed monthly amount. It explained that the sporadic payments did not cover the shortfall or make a contribution towards reducing the arrears. As such, it acted in line with its policy by issuing the NOSP. It explained that it had done so in line with all government guidance for extending timeframes and it gave the resident six months’ notice as was required. It has since withdrawn this NOSP.
4. It said it was satisfied that that the amount of contact made was reasonable and in line with its policy and procedure. Whilst it was sorry for any upset caused, it remained of the view that it had taken into account the resident’s circumstances and has offered guidance and support to assist him in maintaining his rent account and it therefore did not uphold the complaint.
5. It acknowledged and apologised that it failed to log the complaint in a timely manner and in recognition of this it offered £25 as a goodwill gesture.
On 22 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to say that he remained unhappy with the complaint response. The landlord responded on 29 December 2020 confirming that it had exhausted its complaints process and the matter would now need to be referred to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said that he has been making complaints to his landlord for the last five years about the way it has been handling his rent arrears. As explained at the start of this report, the historic issues will not be addressed rm we will only be addressing events from December 2019 to December 2020.
It is noted that the resident has said that his mental health has suffered due to what he considers to be the landlord’s aggressive behaviour and harassment. The resident is clearly angry and upset about the landlord’s handling of the matter and what he feels is its lack of empathy. It is the role of the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, and to the formal complaints, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and in accordance with its policies and its obligations to the resident. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions and the potential deterioration of the resident’s mental health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this, and should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he would need to obtain his own legal and medical advice in this regard.
The starting point on this case is that the resident is responsible for paying the rent in advance and on time. There will of course be times when this may not be possible, and rent arrears then accrue. The Ombudsman will look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its handling of the rent arrears.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has a tenancy for a two-bedroom flat, and his rent is paid via Housing Benefit. However, following the introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’ there has been a shortfall between the rent charged and the amount received via Housing Benefit, and as this shortfall was not covered this has caused the resident to fall into arrears. Whilst the resident is clearly unhappy with the ‘bedroom tax’ and the implications of this on his Housing Benefit, this is not for the Ombudsman to comment upon. As explained above, the Ombudsman will only address the landlord’s response to the rent arrears and whether it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and its response was reasonable.
With regards to the first complaint about the landlord staff turning up unannounced at his home, the resident has said that he felt harassed and that the landlord was chasing him in a ‘hostile and aggressive manner’. The resident has said that on that occasion he had just returned home from a medical appointment and had been very distressed and worried to find the landlord staff waiting for him to hand him the NOSP.
The resident’s concerns and worries were appropriately noted by the landlord and it did explain its position with regards to carrying out home visits. It also responded reasonably by apologising for any distress its visit may have caused, but it was not aware that the timing of the visit was sensitive for the resident. Going forward it also agreed to ensure that the resident was given reasonable notice of any future home visits. This shows that the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s circumstances and health concerns and ensured that it amended its actions accordingly to take this into account.
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the issuing of the NOSP in December 2019 was inappropriate or unreasonable given the rent arrears at that time and that the repayment plan for the arrears was not being adhered to by the resident. Whilst the resident was unhappy with the NOSP being delivered in person by the landlord staff, the landlord has explained that it did so to be able to give the resident an opportunity to discuss the matter in person with the staff member and answer any questions and address any immediate issues in person and provide some reassurance that the serving of the NOSP did not necessarily mean that the resident was going to be evicted. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The same would apply to the NOSP that was issued in September 2020, in that the landlord has demonstrated that this was issued due to not only the rent arrears but also the failure to keep up with the repayment plan. The landlord has shown that the ad-hoc payments being made by the resident did not cover the shortfall between the Housing Benefit and the rent or make a contribution towards reducing the rent arrears, thus the rent arrears were increasing.
The resident has complained that the landlord is very eager to chase him and harass him for minor levels of rent arrears. However, the fact of the matter is that the rent arrears have been ongoing for a long time and the evidence shows that the landlord has consistently and continuously tried to assist the resident in managing the issue. It has provided advice, guidance and signposted him appropriately to other agencies for additional support. It has also shown that it has taken into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and anxiety about the rent arrears and it has tried to work with him through this. It should also be noted that the landlord is entitled to contact the resident when there are rent arrears and when intervention is necessary, for example, when an agreed repayment plan is not being adhered to.
Looking at the correspondence between the landlord and the resident on this issue, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concerns or was in any way harassing him. The very nature of rent arrears is that it is a difficult issue for both the resident and the landlord and a careful balance is required in terms of the landlord ensuring that it takes appropriate action to ensure rent arrears are cleared and do not reoccur. Whilst also working with the resident and being sympathetic to the actual individual circumstances of the resident and the underlying cause of the rent arrears.
In this case, the landlord has shown that it has acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures and its communications with the resident have shown an adaptable and sympathetic approach, but with practical and realistic advice and guidance.
The Ombudsman understands that whilst there has been no identified service failure, the landlord has however offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £75 compensation. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether this goodwill gesture put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and apologising for any distress that may have been caused by its actions. Whilst no service failure is noted, an award of £75 compensation is within the range of compensation set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response to the complaint was reasonable, and the landlord has made a goodwill offer in light of the resident’s distress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its administration of the resident’s rent account in relation to rent arrears on the account.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has demonstrated that its responses were appropriate and reasonable. Whilst no service failure had been identified, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for any upset caused by its actions and has offered a goodwill gesture which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable.