Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

St Mungo Community Housing Association (202401815)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401815

St Mungo Community Housing Association

11 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a rent refund and rent arrears.
    2. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. Prior to March 2023, the resident had been an assured tenant of the landlord. Following this date, her tenancy was transferred to a new landlord.
  2. The resident has raised a related complaint with her new landlord. This complaint has been referred to this service and will be investigated separately under reference 202512955. The resident has also previously raised a complaint about eviction proceedings, which was investigated under reference 202308029. This report will not readdress the issues considered as part of that investigation.
  3. The resident’s rent is paid via universal credit. It is evident that following the transfer of tenancy to the new landlord, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) transferred an overpayment to the landlord.
  4. In January 2024, the resident enquired about how the overpayment would be refunded. The landlord explained it would be returned to the DWP and could not be paid to her directly. It also noted that the resident had accrued arrears and requested she arrange a repayment plan. We have seen evidence that the landlord contacted the DWP around this time to request an invoice in order to process the repayment.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 January 2024. She noted that a member of the landlord’s staff had been rude to her during a phone call. She also noted that she was repaying the arrears following a previous court order; however, she queried why she should be making arrears payments to the landlord given that she now had a new landlord. She advised she considered the arrears payments should be made to the new landlord.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 January 2024 and provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024, which included the following:
    1. Regarding the behaviour of its staff member, it advised it was conducting an internal investigation and would take any necessary action accordingly.
    2. Regarding the overpayment refund, it advised it had chased the DWP for the necessary invoice in order to make the repayment and would process the repayment once this was received.
    3. Regarding the arrears payments, it explained that while her current rent payments go to her new landlord, the arrears were accrued while it was the landlord, and so payments should continue to be paid directly to it.
  7. The resident reiterated her understanding that the arrears payments should be going to the new landlord. The landlord explained that the new landlord had not transferred the arrears and reiterated its position.
  8. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 16 February 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on both the same day and again on 20 March 2024. The landlord noted on 11 April 2024 that its stage 2 response had been delayed and would be provided the next day.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024, which included the following:
    1. It confirmed it was still chasing the DWP for the necessary invoice.
    2. It noted there had been confusion over the repayments but confirmed that the resident should continue to make the court-ordered repayments.

Assessment and findings

Rent

  1. It is not disputed that the DWP incorrectly sent a payment to the landlord covering a period following the transfer of the tenancy to the new landlord. This was beyond the landlord’s control and not a fault of the landlord.
  2. Shortly after being made aware of the issue, it is evident that the landlord sent the necessary request for an invoice to the DWP in order to return the overpayment. It is not evident that the landlord is able to return the overpayment other than by following this process. It was appropriate that the landlord took prompt action to rectify the issue so as not to cause any disadvantage to the resident.
  3. The landlord also appropriately explained the action it had taken, along with an explanation of why it could not send the overpayment to the resident directly. It repeated this advice in both its formal responses, which was appropriate.
  4. It is evident that the DWP did not send the necessary invoice in a timely manner to the landlord. Nevertheless, it is evident that the landlord sent updated requests and kept the resident informed of its actions. This was appropriate, and it was beyond its control that the DWP did not take the necessary action.
  5. Additionally, the resident had concerns that the arrears that had accrued while a tenant of the landlord should now be repaid to the new landlord. The landlord appropriately provided its position that the new landlord had not taken on the arrears. As the arrears had been accrued while it was her landlord, the repayments should continue to be made to it. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that this is the correct position; however, should the resident continue to dispute this position, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a binding determination on contractual interpretation, and so she has the option to seek further legal advice. It was nevertheless reasonable that the landlord explained its position.
  6. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord additionally requested the resident set up a repayment plan. This caused some confusion, as there was already a court-ordered payment plan in place. However, it appropriately clarified in its stage 2 response that, given the court-ordered repayment plan, the resident should continue to follow the plan and take no further action. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to return the overpayment, and it appropriately kept the resident informed of its position and the action it was taking. It also appropriately explained its position regarding the payment of arrears. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made in the circumstances.
  8. This service has not been updated as to whether the overpayment has now been returned to the DWP. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with an update regarding the overpayment, including any further action it intends to take, if it has not done so already.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This policy is in line with this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident raised her formal complaint on 11 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 January 2024 and provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 February 2024. The landlord initially acknowledged the escalation on the same date; however, it sent a further acknowledgement on 20 March 2024. The second acknowledgement gave the target date for the stage 2 response as 11 April 2024. On this date, the landlord advised its response would be delayed until 12 April 2024, on which it provided the stage 2 response.
  4. While the 1-day delay between its quoted target date of 11 April 2024 and its actual response on 12 April 2024 was not significant, both dates were beyond the correct target date based on its policy. The stage 2 response should have been provided 20 working days after the escalation, which would have been 15 March 2024. Given that an acknowledgement was initially correctly provided, it is not clear why a further acknowledgement was given some 5 days after the due date for the response.
  5. This would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident and unreasonably delayed the resolution of her complaint. As such, a finding of service failure has been made. An order for £50 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not be used to offset any arrears.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about a rent refund and rent arrears.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with an update regarding the overpayment, including any further action it intends to take, if it has not done so already.