Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202324270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324270

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

23 January 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. handling of the resident’s arrears.
   2. handling of the resident’s rechargeable repairs.
   3. response to reports of damp and mould.
   4. response to reports of poor staff conduct.
   5. response to reports of property damage.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property was a 2-bedroom house. The landlord held no records of vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. On 13 January 2022, the resident sent the landlord notice that she would terminate her tenancy on 30 January 2022. She said that she was ending her tenancy because she had been living in damp conditions for 2 years. The notice stated that she would pay rent up until the end of her tenancy and dispose of any items she has inside or outside of the property.
4. On 31 January 2022, the landlord inspected the property and found rubbish at the exterior of the property which was rechargeable. On 11 February 2022, operatives for the landlord inspected the property as part of its voids works and found more rechargeable works. On 17 February 2022, the landlord invoiced the resident to her previous address for £1368.76 for the rechargeable works. On 18 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising that her rent arrears were £406.89. The resident called the landlord on 1 March 2022 and 16 March 2022 and made payments which reduced the rent to £300.
5. On 15 August 2023, the resident called the landlord and was provided a breakdown of her rent arrears and rechargeable repairs. On 16 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould throughout her occupancy, property damage caused by the landlord, and incidents of poor staff conduct. She was unhappy that the landlord only made her aware of the arrears on a phone call the previous day. She highlighted that the landlord had not made her aware of the rechargeable repairs when she made a rent payment in March 2023.
6. On 29 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had dealt with the resident’s complaint about issues she had experienced throughout her tenancy as part of a previous complaint in which it sent a response on 1 June 2021. It said that the resident’s tenancy agreement stated that she would be recharged if any changes were made to the property. It attached a copy of the invoice for rechargeable works. It said that to prevent any further action, the resident should contact it to make payment in full or agree a payment plan.
7. On 22 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She provided a list of damage caused to her personal belongings throughout the course of her tenancy. She requested compensation for the landlord’s failings throughout her tenancy which included staff conduct and distress caused by damp in her property.
8. On 28 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it was satisfied with its stage 1 complaint response. It advised the resident to contact it to make payment or agree a payment plan to prevent further action.
9. On 16 October 2023, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service. She said that she was unhappy with the conditions she had lived in, and the damage caused to her property. She disputed the rent arrears because she thought that it had been cleared as she was on universal credit at the time. She also disputed the rechargeable repairs, saying that she did not leave anything behind or cause damage. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to compensate her for damage to her personal property and she wanted the landlord to waive the arrears on her account.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction 

10. This investigation has not considered the resident’s complaint about
    1. damp and mould,
    2. staff conduct, or
    3. property damage.
11. The evidence shows that the resident raised the above complaints on 16 August 2023, which was 18 months after the resident terminated her tenancy with the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

Scope of investigation

12. This investigation has considered evidence since the 13 January 2022, when the resident notified the landlord that she was terminating the tenancy. It is reasonable to consider the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears and rechargeable repairs, because, based on the evidence, the resident first became aware that these accounts were outstanding on 15 August 2023 and complained to the landlord the following day.
13. The resident disputes that she is responsible for the rechargeable repairs. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability or consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s charges, this dispute would be dealt with through the courts. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s communication around the charges and whether it correctly followed its policies and procedures and treated the resident reasonably in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears

14. It is not disputed that there were arrears on the rent account at the end of the tenancy. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord confirmed on a phone call in March 2022 that the rent would be cleared by her universal credits. The landlord’s telephone notes state that on 16 March 2022 that the resident made a payment and reduced her rent arrears to £300. The Ombudsman cannot determine what was said on this phone call, however, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident’s rent had been cleared.
15. The landlord has provided evidence that it attempted to contact the resident by phone 69 times about the rent arrears since the termination of the tenancy up until 27 October 2022. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not have details of the resident’s new address and, as such, telephone was the only avenue of communication available to the landlord. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
16. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears. There is no indication that the landlord had incorrectly advised the resident of the rent arrears, and it reasonably advised the resident of its position through its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rechargeable repairs

17. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its position in respect of rechargeable repairs. It states that in the event of the charge failing to be recovered, it will be held indefinitely against the tenant’s rent account and taken into consideration should a further tenancy be applied for. It notes that chargeable works include damage to individual homes owned by the landlord and communal or community areas of a building or estate.
18. The landlord sent an invoice for rechargeable repairs to the resident’s previous address. While the Ombudsman acknowledges it was distressing for the resident to find out 18 months later that there were rechargeable repairs, the evidence indicates that the landlord had no forwarding address to send the invoice and it had attempted to contact the resident by telephone. The landlord appropriately sent the resident a copy of the invoice when it contacted the resident.
19. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rechargeable repairs. The landlord took appropriate steps to advise the resident of the rechargeable repairs, and it reasonably advised the resident of the outstanding invoice through its complaint process.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rechargeable repairs.