Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202204966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204966

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

13 April 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 response when the resident asked the landlord to explain the difference in rent paid by the resident and a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the tenant of a two bedroom flat described as an affordable rent property. The landlord is a registered social housing provider. The resident’s property was marketed for let at a rent of £172.32 per week and the resident moved into the property in February 2021.
3. Following the arrival of new neighbours, it came to the attention of the resident that the rent charged by the landlord for her neighbour’s property was significantly less than she was required to pay. On 6 May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord asking for the difference to be explained.
4. The landlord’s response explained that government guidance and its own policies dictate how it sets rents. It also explained that rents could vary between similar properties in the same location. The reason being that, when a property becomes vacant, the new rent is set based on a proportion of the market rent valuation at that time.
5. The resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed and for her rent to be reduced in line with that of the neighbouring property. The landlord responded  confirming that it had checked the rent calculation for her property and was satisfied that this was correct. It also acknowledged that a mistake had been made at the time the neighbouring property had been let resulting in an error in the rent calculation and a lower rent for that property being charged. The landlord explained that increasing the rent for her neighbour’s property was only possible in line with rent review regulations or when the property next became vacant. Because the resident’s rent was correct, and she had signed a tenancy agreement which set out these rent charges, the landlord concluded that there was no justification for reducing the amount of the rent for her property.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. The resident said that she still felt that she had been dealt with unfairly compared with more recent tenants.

Assessment and findings

7. In its responses to the resident’s complaint the landlord provided a full explanation for the discrepancy the resident had discovered between the rent she was required to pay, and the amount charged for a neighbouring property.
8. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that (i) as a social landlord the way in which it set rents was controlled by government guidelines and its approved policies, and (ii) rents could vary between similar properties in the same location because the rent for any new tenancy was calculated based on a proportion of the market rent at that time.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 response also acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had helped bring to its attention the fact that a mistake had been made in calculating the rent for the neighbouring property when it last became vacant. The landlord explained however that it could only increase the rent for the neighbouring property in line with rent review regulations or when that property next became vacant.
10. The landlord considered the resident’s proposed remedy for the discrepancy which was to reduce her rent to the same level as her neighbour. It reviewed the calculation of her rent and confirmed that this had been correctly calculated at the beginning of the tenancy and had been correctly reviewed since then.  It also noted that the resident had signed a tenancy agreement accepting the rent she was due to pay. For these reasons the landlord concluded that it was not able to justify reducing the resident’s rent.
11. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint fully and responses were timely and sympathetic, recognising the resident’s sense that the disparity in rent charges appeared unfair. It also offered to signpost the resident to further support in paying her rent.  The landlord demonstrated a willingness to learn from the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that by raising her complaint the resident had helped bring the issue to its attention and that it would be taking action to ensure that the error did not happen again.

12. When the resident discovered that the rent for a neighbouring property was significantly less than the rent she paid it is entirely understandable that she considered this to be unfair and wanted an explanation.
13. There is no dispute here that the resident has not been treated on equal terms with her neighbour, who is paying less rent for a property that is comparable to that occupied by the resident. However, the difference in rent between the properties does not entail that the resident has been treated unfairly. The landlord’s complaint response confirms that her rent is in accordance with relevant guidelines and that there is no reasonable justification for reducing the charge so that it equates with that of her neighbour.
14. For the reasons set out in this assessment the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It gave reasons for the discrepancy between rents including an acknowledgement of its own error. It also explained why it could not justify reducing the rent for a tenancy where that rent had been correctly calculated in line with the landlord’s policies and government regulation.
15. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about whether the level of rent charged is reasonable. If the resident wishes to query the level of rent charged she may be able to apply to the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) to have this decided. However it is important to remember that the Tribunal may decide to put the rent up if they think it is lower than comparable properties in the area.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.