Sovereign Network Group (202345806)

Background

1. In January 2024 the resident told the landlord she had lost her job and applied for benefits. She raised concerns about being able to afford the rent. The landlord recommended she speak to Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and suggested 2 grants she could apply for to help with rent payments.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the affordability of the property.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated formal complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property were appropriate and reasonable.
7. The landlord’s refusal to accept the complaint was not in line with its policy or our Scheme. There were delays in its handling of the stage 1 and 2 complaints and it only responded as a result of our intervention. The landlord did not acknowledge its failures, offer redress or identify learning.

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.

8. When the resident first raised concerns about the affordability of the property, the landlord signposted her to the CAB and told her about grants she could apply for. While the landlord should offer support and advice in these types of situations, ultimately the resident is responsible for paying the rent in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Therefore, it was her responsibility to seek support if she was unable to afford this. The resident said the landlord did not offer any advice or support in respect of her concerns. While it did not give her the answers she wanted, the landlord offered appropriate advice that was reasonable in the circumstances.
9. The resident asked the landlord to complete an affordability assessment. The landlord is required to complete affordability checks at the time a property is allocated and an offer of a tenancy is made. It is not required to complete subsequent affordability assessments once the tenancy is in place, even if a resident’s circumstances change. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to complete this.
10. The resident said she was told by the CAB that the landlord was required to do this. This was incorrect. There are requirements on council’s to complete affordability checks to confirm if it is reasonable for a resident to continue to occupy accommodation in certain circumstances. However, the landlord is a housing association and not required to do this.
11. The landlord told the resident even if it did complete an affordability assessment and conclude the property was unaffordable, it would not reduce the rent. It said it was her responsibility to consider alternative rehousing and provided options for her to explore. We acknowledge this was upsetting for the resident. However, this was a reasonable response.
12. The landlord was not obligated to reduce the rent because it was unaffordable for the resident, as the rental amount is set based on Government guidance. The landlord told the resident this, which was reasonable. It did advise her how she could formally dispute this. This was appropriate considering she had raised concerns about the level of the rent increase. The landlord is also not obligated to move the resident in these circumstances. However, it was appropriate that it offered advice on rehousing options for her to explore.
13. The resident raised concerns that the landlord applied for money to be paid directly to it from her benefits. The decision to deduct money from the resident’s benefits was made by the DWP. We cannot assess this agencies decisions or actions. Our investigation has assessed how the landlord responded to this concern.
14. The landlord confirmed it was entitled to apply for this where there were arrears on the account. It said if the DWP did not think this was feasible, it would have declined the request. It suggested she speak to the DWP about this and offered to make an agreement to reduce the amount being deducted. While frustrating for the resident, this response was reasonable.
15. We acknowledge this situation has been worrying and upsetting for the resident. However, the landlord’s responses to her concerns have been appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property.

16. The landlord initially declined to accept the resident’s complaint because it was about the rent increase amount. It told her how she could dispute this and said this was a formal process that sat outsides its complaint policy. While correct, the resident’s complaint was about more than just the rent increase. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her concerns and the adequacy of advice and support offered.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. Therefore, while it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to address the resident’s concerns about the level of the rent increase, it should have accepted her other concerns as a formal complaint. Its refusal to do so was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy or our Scheme.
18. The resident challenged the landlord’s decision and said she had raised more concerns than just the rent increase. The landlord replied asking her to provide further details so it could log a complaint. This was unreasonable as the resident had already set out her concerns in her initial complaint. It was unfair of the landlord to ask her to spend time and effort resubmitting her concerns when she had already done so. It was only after contact from us several months later that the landlord accepted the complaint.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. As the landlord should have accepted the resident’s complaint at the outset, we have assessed the timeliness of its handling of the stage 1 complaint from the date the resident first raised this.
20. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2024, 37 working days after the complaint was raised. This was significantly over the committed timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with the committed response time set out in its policy.
21. We acknowledge that the landlord told the resident why it had not raised a complaint. However, this decision was unreasonable and suggests a lack of staff awareness in identifying complaints. We order it to deliver training to all staff involved in complaint handling on identifying complaints and exclusions in line with its policy. We will consider this order complied with if it can show training of this nature has been delivered in the last 12 months.
22. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint or responded to the resident’s escalation request of 17 May 2024. It was only after contact from us on 2 July 2024 that the landlord progressed this. This was disappointing for the resident. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 36 working days, over the committed response time set out in its policy.
23. Overall, the resident’s complaint took 83 working days to complete the landlord’s internal process, compared to a committed timescale of 40 working days. This equates to a delay of more than 6 weeks. Additionally, the resident spent time and effort trying to raise and escalate the complaint, but was unsuccessful as the landlord repeatedly declined to raise a complaint and did not respond to the escalation request. The resident’s complaints were only progressed after our intervention. This was frustrating for her and damaged her trust in the landlord.
24. The landlord has not acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, offered redress or identified learning. This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
25. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation. This amount in line with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time that said it would pay £50 for complaint handling delays of more that 10 working days. As there were delays of more than 10 working days in the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 and 2 complaints, we have awarded £50 for each, plus an additional £50 for its failure to accept the complaint in line with its policy.

Learning

26. The landlord should offer advice and support to residents who raise affordability concerns, as it did in this case.
27. The landlord should raise complaints where residents express dissatisfaction with its services. It should not unreasonably refuse to accept complaints because one concern falls outside the scope of its complaints process. It should address all concerns raised and respond to these.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. No record keeping issues were identified in this investigation. The records provided were sufficient for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication in response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property was reasonable. However, its communication in respect of her complaint was not. The landlord should acknowledge and respond to complaints in line with its policy and our Scheme.