Thrive Homes Limited (202311541)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202311541
Thrive Homes Limited
7 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 handling of the resident’s request for credit from her rent account to be refunded to her.
Background
2. The resident became a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house, in 2002. It is understood that around 2018 the tenancy was transferred to the landlord, a housing association, and became an assured tenancy.
3. On 20 December 2022 the resident spoke to the landlord and said she wanted the credit on her rent account refunded to her directly. The landlord said that was not possible because, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, she was paying the rent in advance.
4. On 8 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to refund the £79.52 credit on her rent account. The landlord declined this request and the resident raised a complaint. She said the credit should be refunded as she had never agreed to pay the rent in advance and as a secure tenant she did not have to.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 30 June 2023, it said it was only required to refund residents if they had over 4 weeks credit on an account or their tenancy agreement did not require them to pay in advance. It confirmed that the resident’s tenancy agreement stated that rent was due weekly in advance and she did not, therefore, meet the criteria for a rent refund.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 August 2023, saying that the landlord should refund her because it had done so in the past and she had not signed the tenancy agreement.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had previously received a rent refund but said that a new income policy had come into effect afterwards. Under the new policy her account needed to be over 4 weeks in credit before it would approve a refund. As such it felt it had correctly followed its policies and procedures in declining the refund request.
8. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman she has said she disagrees with the landlord’s decision not to refund the credit because the tenancy agreement did not say she needed to be 4 weeks in credit before she could have a refund.
Assessment and findings
Scope of this investigation
9. When bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has also raised concerns about the level of rent she was paying (she felt the landlord was charging her for a 3-bedroom house) and the negative impact of a previous compensation payment on the level of credit on her account. However, these matters did not form part of the original complaint which was about the landlord declining to refund the credit on her account.
10. As the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme) these issues are not considered further in this report. This is because we must be satisfied that the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues before we intervene. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard.
11. Additionally, while the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord handled a complaint about the level or reasonableness of rent, it does not have the authority to comment on, or determine, the level or reasonableness of the rent itself (reflected at paragraph 42.d of the Scheme). These matters would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal.
The resident’s request for credit from her rent account to be refunded to her
12. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is obliged to pay the rent and other charges weekly in advance. The landlord’s income protection policy, dated January 2019, says tenants are required to maintain 4 full weeks rent credit on their accounts. It also says that no refund of credit will be made where there is an outstanding debt of any type or where the refund would result in a breach of tenancy.
13. In the resident’s complaint she said she believed she should be refunded the £79.52 credit because she had received a refund in the past. She also said she was a secure tenant and had not agreed to pay in advance. The call notes from her escalation request also say the resident claimed she did not sign the agreement.
14. In its complaint responses the landlord explained that the resident had an ‘assured at transfer’ tenancy and the signed agreement said she was required to pay her rent weekly in advance. It also confirmed that, in practice, the resident’s rent was paid in arrears once every 4 weeks through her benefits. It acknowledged that the resident had received a rent refund in 2018 but in 2019 a new income protection policy came into effect. It explained that under the 2019 policy her account needed to be over 4 weeks in credit before a refund would be approved.
15. The resident’s rent account statements show that from April 2023 to 2024 her rent was £132.89 per week. As such, when the resident requested the refund in June 2023, her account was not over 4 weeks in credit as was required under the policy. The landlord was not obliged to offer a refund solely on the basis that it had given one before. Therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to rely on the terms of its current income protection policy when making the decision not to refund the credit on the resident’s rent account.
16. During a call with this Service on 13 December 2024 the resident said she never signed a document agreeing to the policy change in 2019. She said she previously asked the landlord for a copy of any document she signed agreeing to needing to be 4 weeks in credit before a refund could be approved, but it confirmed no such document exists.
17. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident is disappointed with the need to be 4 weeks in credit before a refund could be approved. However, this is standard industry practice and it was reasonable for the landlord to have changed its policy to keep in line with this. There was no obligation for the landlord to have the resident, or any other residents, sign a document agreeing to this policy change at the time.
18. Once the resident’s concerns were raised to the landlord, it took the opportunity of the complaint process to appropriately explain its responsibilities as a landlord and the relevant terms of its income protection policy. This explanation included the policy condition that an account must be 4 weeks in credit before a refund can be approved and why the resident’s account did not meet the criteria for a refund. Its responses were provided promptly, provided a clear position in response to the resident’s request, and were given in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement and policies. As a result, the landlord provided a satisfactory response to the resident’s complaint.
Determination
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for credit from her rent account to be refunded.