Southern Housing (202300442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300442

Southern Housing

11 February 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:
1. The management of the resident’s rent account.
2. The resident’s concerns about poor staff communication.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed, first–floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement which began on 20 July 1998. The resident lives in the property alone and is therefore subject to the under-occupancy charge, commonly referred to as the ‘bedroom tax’.
The complaint took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, including periods where lockdown protocols were in place. The resident declared to the landlord, and to this Service, that he had medical conditions which placed him in the ‘extremely clinically vulnerable’ group.
The complaint centres around communication from the landlord regarding the resident’s rent account. In particular, to information provided about arrears on the account and the landlord issuing a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). This included some communication from particular members of staff which the resident felt were manipulative, coercive, and threatening.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2022 in which he said:
1. He had been incorrectly issued with a NOSP, when his account was not in arrears.
2. The landlord’s staff had been “bullying, coercive, manipulating, and threatening”, particularly around a threat to issue a second NOSP.
3. His rent payments had been inflated and manipulated.
4. The landlord had not considered or accommodated his medical needs.
5. These situations had caused him distress and inconvenience, including sleepless nights, palpitations, anxiety, and mental distractions.
The landlord issued an informal complaint response on 18 November 2022, in which it said:
1. The NOSP had been issued incorrectly, as it required 4 or more weeks of arrears to be valid. This was not the case when it was issued. It apologised and offered £50 compensation in respect of this error.
2. The resident had not maintained payments in line with a payment plan that he had previously agreed in September 2021.
3. It had noted the resident’s vulnerabilities and health needs. It had attempted to accommodate this by providing a wide range of possible payment options.
The resident replied on 8 December 2022 and said he did not agree with the landlord’s response. He escalated the complaint to the stage 1 complaint stage.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2022, in which it said:
1. It could find no evidence of coercion, manipulation, disrespect, or bullying by its staff. It apologised if the resident had felt this way from its communications.
2. It had already agreed a different payment schedule with the resident to account for his medical needs and current COVID-19 guidelines.
3. It reiterated that it had previously issued a NOSP incorrectly. It had previously apologised and offered compensation for this.
4. It wished to offer £180 compensation for the incorrectly issued NOSP, failure to answer all of the resident’s queries, poor complaint handling, and any inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. This replaced its previous offer of compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 9 January 2023. He said:
1. A member of the landlord’s staff had attempted to give “medical advice” by advising the resident to go out of his property to pay his rent, despite him being in a vulnerable group.
2. The landlord’s staff had threatened him with “arrears action” despite being in credit. He also reiterated that the landlord had not considered his medical needs.
3. His rent account was being manipulated to include arrears owed by the local council in housing benefit payments.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2023, in which it said:
1. The resident’s rent account would often show as being in arrears because the payment of housing benefit was paid every 4 weeks in arrears.
2. It did not treat housing benefit arrears as true arrears for the purpose of taking further action. It also said that it was not possible to display the rent account in any other way to separate the housing benefit arrears from any additional sums due.
3. It was happy to provide the resident with a calculation of any bedroom tax owed by him at any time.
4. It apologised if the wording in previous correspondence had indicated that it intended to pursue formal action against him (including a second NOSP). It said it had only intended to provide clear timelines.
5. It reiterated its previous offer of £180 compensation.
6. It had identified learning from the complaints process including changing the wording on rent statements to note that a housing benefit or universal credit payment may be due. The landlord also said it had provided coaching for its staff to better engage with residents experiencing arrears.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 May 2023. He sought an apology for the distress he had experienced, further compensation, and changes to the landlord’s accounting systems.

Assessment and findings

Management of the resident’s rent account

During the period of this complaint, the resident’s rent (inclusive of service charge) was £141.41. The resident received housing benefit payments which paid this rent, less £19.80 per week for the bedroom tax. This amount was payable by the resident directly.
It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that rent payments are the responsibility of the resident, even in cases where housing benefit (or other benefits) are paid against this amount. For example, if the local authority housing benefit payment had been suspended, reduced or altered, the resident would still remain liable for the full rent amount.
Housing benefit payments are paid 4-weekly in arrears. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s arrears policy show that the resident’s shortfall payment for the bedroom tax was payable weekly in advance, unless an alternative arrangement was agreed.
The landlord’s arrears policy says:
1. It will provide additional support for vulnerable residents to assist them to pay their rent and sustain their tenancies. The policy highlights that this might include more regular contact or engaging with external agencies, support workers, or similar.
2. Its staff should check current rent account information, details of previous contacts, and payments of housing benefit prior to making contact with residents or progressing any arrears action.
3. Its trigger point for issuing a NOSP is four weeks of arrears.
4. It will not start possession proceedings where arrears are due to an outstanding benefit claim providing the resident has provided the landlord and benefit provider with all relevant information, and the resident is paying any sums due, not covered by the benefit payment.
Within its policies and correspondence with the resident, the landlord said that it offered the following payment methods for rent:
1. Direct debit or standing orders.
2. Reoccurring card payments.
3. By phone, including text message.
4. Using the landlord’s app.
5. Using the landlord’s website, which features a customer portal.
6. In person payments using PayPoint. This included the ability to pay by card, cash or cheque.
7. By direct drawing from benefits.
The resident said that he was extremely clinically vulnerable and did not wish to attend a PayPoint weekly to pay his rent as this would place him at additional risk of contracting COVID-19. Both the resident and landlord noted that this was the resident’s preferred method of payment; however, all the other options shown above were also available to the resident.
On 29 September 2022, just prior to the resident’s formal complaint, he agreed an alternative payment schedule with the landlord. The resident said he would pay his rent quarterly in January, March, September, and December. The landlord agreed to this arrangement on 3 October 2022 and noted this arrangement on its rent account system.
It is not disputed by either party that the landlord issued a NOSP in error on 7 March 2022. While 4 weeks of arrears did, temporarily, build up on the resident’s account, he then made a payment to settle this balance. The landlord acknowledged that there was a crossover period of 3 days between the payment being made and the NOSP being issued. This resulted in the NOSP being issued when the resident’s account was in a surplus of £60.71.
The landlord acknowledged that this NOSP was invalid and withdrew it. It said that the notice became invalid when the resident’s payment was received. The evidence shows that it did not confirm to the resident that it had removed the NOSP until May 2022. Furthermore, the landlord’s internal records indicate that it did not remove the NOSP from the notes on the resident’s account until 20 September 2022. Additionally, this indicates that the landlord did not follow its policy around supporting vulnerable residents by reviewing the account information prior to contact or taking further action. This was a failure which caused unnecessary distress to the resident.
This was a record keeping failure. The Ombudsman recognises that this caused distress to the resident, however it did not alter his legal position as the action to withdraw the NOSP and prevent it progressing to court had been completed in a timely way. A recommendation has been made below to review its processes for removing NOSPs and other arrears actions in a timely way, to prevent the possibility of miscommunication or further action being taken in error.
Within the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord alter the presentation of his rent account to show two balances owing. He suggested that this should show the amount owing from housing benefit payments in one column and the amount he paid additionally for bedroom tax in a separate column.
The Ombudsman understands why the resident felt that this would make the account easier to understand. In its correspondence, the landlord said that it could not do this because the entire rent balance, regardless of who it is paid by, is the legal responsibility of the resident. As it is the resident who entered into the tenancy contract with the landlord, he would be responsible for the total payment should there be any interruption or change to the benefit payment.
On this basis, the landlord acted reasonably in communicating and explaining the reason for its position about the presentation of its rent accounts to the resident.
Overall, the landlord has acknowledged that it incorrectly issued a NOSP. It apologised, explained its position and offered a total of £115 compensation for this, which was in line with our Remedies guidance. Additionally, the landlord explained its position related to the presentation of rent accounts and made appropriate notes on its system once an alternative payment schedule had been agreed with the resident. This, along with offering a wide range of payment methods, reflected the resident’s medical needs and took account of his preference to pay via PayPoint, but at a reduced frequency.
On this basis, the landlord has provided suitable redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Concerns about poor staff communications

The resident said that the landlord’s staff were manipulative, coercive, and threatening in their communication with him. This was primarily linked to conversations around pending arrears actions, which the resident said he thought related to the landlord seeking to issue a second NOSP.
Additionally, the resident felt that one member of staff had provided “medical advice” which they were not qualified to give. The resident said this was because they had told him to go out to a PayPoint to pay his rent more regularly, which placed the resident at increased risk of COVID-19.
The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on several occasions to advise him of the payment arrangements and arrears that were accruing from the bedroom tax. The landlord also sent text messages to the resident. From the documents seen by this Service, there is nothing to indicate that the landlord acted unreasonably in communicating the arrears, the deadlines for payment or the possible actions it could consider if this was not paid.
Additionally, the landlord’s communications included a range of payment methods which the resident could have considered if he felt that paying at the PayPoint placed him at additional risk. The landlord was clear in its communication that it acknowledged the resident’s health condition and did not wish to place him at any additional risk. It also stated that it did not consider itself to be an expert in the resident’s health condition and for this reason, it provided a wide range of payment options for him to consider.
The landlord’s complaint responses apologised for any distress caused to the resident by its communications. The landlord addressed specific concerns and examples raised by the resident and said that it did not find fault in its staff’s communication. It also noted that it had provided further coaching to its staff around communicating with residents who were experiencing arrears. These were reasonable and proportionate responses to the resident’s concerns.
On this basis, the Ombudsman can find no maladministration in the communication between the landlord’s staff and the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process in which it commits to responding to complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 complaints – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints – 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a 2-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
The evidence shows that the landlord issued an informal response to the resident 9 working days after he submitted his complaint. While the response was substantial and responded to some of the resident’s concerns, this was labelled by the landlord as a complaint acknowledgement letter.
The landlord should have either made this its substantive stage 1 complaint response or refrained from adding this additional informal response, in order to be compliant with the Code. Adding informal stages extends the complaints process and causes additional time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the complaint to completion.
Additionally, the landlord’s complaint responses were issued after 29 and 47 working days respectively. These were both sent outside the landlord’s policy timescales and the requirements of the Code. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding these delays. This was a failing as it delayed the resident being able to progress his complaint to the Ombudsman and caused additional time and trouble for him in pursuing the complaint to completion.
The landlord offered £65 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response, which related to complaint handling. This was broken down as:
1. £15 for a failure to respond to all the resident’s complaint points initially.
2. £50 for “unsatisfactory handling of the complaint”.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated this offer, as the resident had not, at that time, accepted it. The landlord did not increase its compensation offer. This was a failing given the additional delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
It is positive to note that the landlord shared its learning from the complaint process with the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This included changes to the wording on its rent statements and additional coaching for its staff in handling arrears cases.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint process was extended by the addition of an informal stage and delays in issuing both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The landlord’s compensation, apologies, and learning go some way to providing redress for these matters; however, this it is not prop additional delays experienced by the resident in the stage 2 process.
Therefore, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord must now pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by delays in issuing its complaint responses. This order for compensation replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £65.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has provided redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the resident’s complaint about the handling of his rent account satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about poor staff communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delays in issuing its complaint responses. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £65. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its processes for removing notes on residents’ accounts related to NOSPs and other arrears actions to ensure that this is done in a timely way. This will reduce the likelihood of communication errors or further action being taken incorrectly.
2. Implement the learning set out in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so. This included:
  1. Adding commentary to its rent accounts to note that payments from housing benefit, or other benefits pay be pending.
  2. Providing additional coaching to its staff around supporting residents experiencing arrears.