Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202127239)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127239

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

15 May 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

The complaint relates to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s enquiries and concerns about charges.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied the property, a three bedroomed house, with his mother. The tenancy commenced in 1984 and his mother succeeded the tenancy in 1987. The resident states that he lived at the property with his mother from July 2019, and his mother submitted a Termination Notice on 7 August 2020. The resident applied to assign the tenancy, but it was refused as the Termination Notice had been accepted and processed. The resident’s mother moved out, and it became a Use and Occupation tenancy from 7 September 2020 until January 2022, when the resident moved out of the property. The tenancy ended on 30 January 2022.
On 10 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a Notice to Vacate the property, because the tenancy ended on 7 September 2020, and he remained in the property. In the letter giving Notice, the landlord said he must vacate by Monday 5 October 2020 and failure to do so, would result in it commencing possession proceedings.
The landlord also told the resident, “whilst occupying the property, you are liable to pay a weekly amount in the sum of £106.39 by way of mesne profits…” That being money the landlord was claiming from the resident, for occupying the property past the end of the tenancy. The resident was advised he may have been able to claim Housing Benefit, and was signposted to the local council and other organisations that could potentially offer assistance. The landlord stated that paying this charge did not create a new tenancy and it provided a contact telephone number to call with any queries.
The landlord’s records show it hand-delivered the 10 September 2020 letter to the property, but the resident was not home. However, there is a note of a telephone conversation later that day, summarising the position, and the resident asking to set up a direct debit for water rates. It also states he had applied for housing benefit and had submitted a Homesearch application. The following day, a note records the landlord spoke with the resident, and he confirmed he had set up a direct debit for water rates, in the amount of £10.63. On 14 September 2020, the landlord noted the resident had applied for Universal Credit, and his first payment was due on 16 October 2020.
There are case notes after that, referring to steps taken by the landlord, to consider what assistance it could offer in terms of finding the resident a new property. It was explained to the resident that he was subject to the bedroom tax, living alone in a three bedroomed property, and families needed the property, It took steps to try and find the resident a more suitable property, such as a flat.
A telephone call between the landlord and resident took place on 20 October 2020, where his application for Universal Credit was discussed. The landlord’s record of the call noted, “Advised him if the £290.28 has been paid to us to find out the date and then pay £111.76 shortfall after DD payments taken into account. Advised him if housing costs paid to him he will need to pay £402.04 after DD payments taken into account. Advised him if the housing costs continue to be paid to him he will need to increase the weekly DD to £111.14 until arrears cleared”. A direct debit was set up on 20 October 2020, in the amount of £444.56 from 17 November. The landlord also acknowledged receipt of payment in the amount of £402.04 from the resident.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord noted the direct debit should be reduced to £436.12 to acknowledge water support that had been applied. On 24 November 2020, the resident told the landlord that he had also received a Discretionary Housing Payment, from the local authority.
There is no evidence of anything further happening until January 2022,when the landlord liaised with the resident about moving to another property. The landlord’s record, dated 28 January 2022, mentions that a team attended the property to help move items, and that the resident made a threat against a member of staff. In a letter to the Ombudsman dated 24 May 2022, the resident referred to the same incident and said he referred to a particular staff member and said, “I’ll ring (sic) her F-ING neck, at which point he took off down the path.”
On 21 February 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident about money owed; that being £164, as a direct debit had gone unpaid. The resident disputed the charges but offered to pay £10 per month, and the landlord said this would be considered by his rent manager.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and said the “tenancy of the above address ended on 30 January 2022, arrears of £164.42 remain outstanding”. It spoke with the resident on 14 March 2022 about the money owed and noted he wanted a complaint form sent out.
The landlord sent another letter chasing payment, on 15 March 2022. It said, “It was discussed that the charges on the rent account are correct and are required to be paid by yourself, we can look at a suitable agreement if you are unable to clear in full. A rent statement will be sent out also for you to look over. As you can see on 17th January 2022 once the direct debit had been taken a balance of £57.48 was still outstanding. You were then charged a further weeks (sic) rent of £106.94 resulting in balance of £164.42 prior to the tenancy ending.”
The landlord spoke with the resident on 21 March 2022, and noted his view that he had been overcharged. It is recorded that it explained the breakdown of the charges to him. On 27 March, the landlord chased the resident for payment again, and a rent statement sent showed the rent payable, the payments made, as well as the balance. It showed a balance payable in the amount of £164.42.
A stage one complaint was logged by the landlord on 29 March 2022, following a conversation with the resident, the previous day. It had a target response date of 12 April 2022. The landlord noted the resident complained that:
1. He disputed his last direct debit taken out and did not believe he owed the landlord any money.
2. He spoke to numerous people and believed his complaint was not taken seriously.
3. He received a letter from the finance department giving him incorrect charges.
4. Someone made a comment to him when he went to look at a second property (he had declined the first) and told him “if you don’t take this property I will evict you and then you won’t have anything because we don’t have to help you”.
The landlord wrote to the resident the same day, and said the complaint was about the following two issues:
1. He was disputing the outstanding balance of £164.42 at the property and he said he did not owe any money.
2. He received a letter from the finance department which provided him with incorrect charges.
To resolve the complaint, the landlord noted the resident wanted the outstanding debt to be cleared. It told the resident it aimed to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days of the complaint being made, and it enclosed a copy of its customer ‘Guide to Complaints’ document, setting out amongst other things, details of its stage one and stage two complaints process.
The landlord discussed the complaint over the telephone with the resident, on 31 March 2022, and it agreed to look at the information that had been sent by its Finance team. It also noted his complaint about comments made by a staff member when he went to look at a second property.
The landlord’s records show a call was made to the resident on 1 April 2022 to say the account and charges applied were found to be correct. It said that letters sent to him from the finance department detailed direct debits set up on the account correctly. In terms of a rent statement showing the resident had been charged for water twice from weeks commencing 21 September 2020 to 19 October 2020, the landlord explained that rent charges on the rent statement did not reflect any payments made. Payments made were reflected in the balance column and figures quoted were correct including water charges.
The landlord issued its stage one response, which was dated 20 April 2022; however, it is evident this was dated incorrectly, as the resident received it on 5 April 2022. In relation to the two issues it had noted in its 29 March letter, it found:
1. The mesne profit charges as of 7 September 2020 were £107.39 inclusive of a water charge of £10.63. Therefore, the letter sent to the resident on 10 September 2022 confirming his use and occupation status and quoting charges of £106.63, was incorrect.
2. The advice that the resident may have been able to claim Housing Benefit was also inaccurate and resulted in a delay of less than one week for him to claim Universal Credit (UC) with a direct debit set up to cover water rates only.
3. The resident was granted and was paid UC Housing element and agreed to a formal arrears repayment plan. On 20 October he paid £402.04 and his weekly direct debit was changed to a monthly payment of £444.56 as agreed with his Debt Officer, which covered his weekly mesne profit charges and an amount towards his arrears.
4. On 4 November 2020, the resident was advised a Water Support application he had made, had been successful. Therefore, the weekly water charge had been reduced and an adjustment of £4.22 was made to the rent account as this award was backdated to the point of his application. The monthly direct debit could also be lowered to £436.12 due to the reduction of the water charge.
5. A rent increase in April 2021 meant the resident’s direct debit was increased to £444.00 each month and the new weekly mesne profit charge was verified with UC on 15 April 2021.
6. The resident’s final monthly direct debit payment was reduced to £164.42 to clear the balance on the account as he had surrendered the keys to the landlord on 28 January 2022 ending the Use and Occupation tenancy. However, this direct debit was returned unpaid leaving a balance on the account of £164.42.
As the landlord accepted that wrong information was given to the resident in terms of its letter of 10 September 2020 quoting the incorrect weekly mesne profit charges and inaccurate information about claiming Housing benefit, it offered the resident £82.21 in compensation; although, it did not offer an explanation for the amount offered.
On 10 April 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter, which he said he received on 5 April (despite it being dated 20 April 2022). He said he had been unable to get through to the complaints department on four occasions. He went on to say the landlord had downplayed the actions of its staff, who were rude aggressive and argumentative. He commented that there had been omissions and that someone had threatened him with eviction. He also queried certain payments and said he wanted a refund.
The landlord’s records note it spoke with the resident on 24 April, as the resident thought he had still been overcharged, and it explained its calculations, and why it was of the view that that was not the case.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident dated 25 April 2022, saying the complaint would be investigated at stage two of its complaints procedure. It referred to having spoken with the resident that day, and that there had been confusion about his complaint. That his complaint was not about an outstanding balance of £164.42 at the property. Rather, he was overcharged during the Use and Occupation tenancy at the property.
The landlord noted the resident claimed he was told to pay £10.63 per week until his benefits were sorted. After he notified the landlord that he was in receipt of Universal Credit, he was advised to set up a direct debit for full weekly rent charges plus water charges. Additionally, he was asked to pay an extra amount per week towards the arrears that had accumulated. The resident believed he had been overcharged as he had already paid the five weeks water charges, so he was charged twice. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted his rent account reviewed and to be paid back for the sum he was overcharged.
A response at stage two was issued by the landlord on 12 May 2022. It addressed the resident’s concern about being overcharged, and also considered his complaint that several employees had been rude to him and that one person had also threatened him with eviction. As well as accepting the oversights at stage one, and re-offering the compensation offered at that time, the landlord apologised if the resident had been given any conflicting information in the past.
However, the landlord did not accept that the resident had been overcharged, and it provided a chronology of events along with a log of all payments due and paid, with an explanation as to how it calculated that the resident owed £164.42. That being, £57.48 arrears following the last payment on 17 January 2022, and a further week’s rent of £106.94 prior to the tenancy ending. It said it had offered to make an arrangement for clearing the balance.
The landlord said that it was unable to find evidence of staff having been rude and argumentative. It explained that the resident had been told he could not legally stay at the property, but it was offering to rehouse him. The landlord also referred to the resident being assisted with his move, and on that day, having allegedly made threats to a member of staff. It did though, say that in order to reflect its findings and by way of an apology for not following its own procedure, it wanted to offer the resident £50 compensation, in addition to the £82.21 offered at stage one; making total compensation of £132.21. This was not accepted by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, says the landlord must respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed between the parties. A landlord must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, a landlord may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s ‘Guide to Complaints’ says at stage one, “Your complaint will be passed to a manager for investigation and they will contact you to discuss your complaint and how we can resolve it. They will investigate your complaint and provide you with a written response within 10 working days. If we can’t respond in this timescale we will explain why and agree a revised response date with you. If you feel our response has not fully answered your complaint, or you disagree with our findings you should discuss this with the investigating manager. If after speaking with the investigating manager you still remain dissatisfied you can ask for your complaint to be considered at Stage 2 of our formal Complaints Procedure.” This is also reiterated in the landlord’s Complaints Policy and Complaints Procedure.
In terms of when a complaint is referred to stage two, the guide says, “If you ask to escalate your complaint to Stage 2, you must give us valid reasons why you feel we have not answered your complaint at Stage 1. We may choose not to escalate if:
1. we upheld your complaint at Stage1 and you were offered a fair and proportionate resolution;
2. the resolution you have asked for cannot be provided as it is disproportionate, or outside of our control to provide; or
3. your behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable and you have refused to engage with us in an acceptable manner during the investigation of your Stage 1 complaint.”
It goes on to say, “Our Customer Relations team will contact you to discuss your complaint and they will begin an independent investigation. You will receive a written response to your complaint within 20 working days. If we can’t respond in this timescale we will explain why and agree a revised response date with you. The decision letter will explain what to do if you remain unhappy with the outcome of your complaint. You will be given details of the Housing Ombudsman Service if this is appropriate to your complaint.”
The landlord’s Rent Recovery Policy says, “We recognise that a tenant’s personal circumstances can sometimes make it difficult to maintain rent payments and will assist and advise tenants in maximising their income through welfare benefits, identifying suitable grants and avoiding falling into debt.”
It also says, “The tenant will be advised as to their potential eligibility for UC Housing Costs Element or HB and where appropriate, tenants will be supported with their application for UC and appropriate information provided to the DWP at their request to support any UC claim. Where appropriate, tenants will also be supported with their application for HB and requested to complete a HB Consent Form, which will allow us to act on their behalf.”
The Rent Recovery Policy also states, “We will promptly advise tenants of any change to the amount of rent payable in accordance with the terms of their tenancy agreement and / or any relevant statutory notice periods”. In addition, “In line with best practice, we will act as early as possible to prevent the escalation of arrears and will only rely on possession proceedings as a last resort.”

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries and concerns about charges.

The landlord’s Rent Recovery Policy makes it clear that it takes in to account a resident’s personal circumstances and will offer support where needed, to help them maximise their income. Where the amount payable alters, it will notify a resident promptly.
In this case, the evidence shows that having initially advised the resident that he would have to leave the property, the landlord decided not to proceed with that route. Instead, it came to an agreement for the resident to continue to occupy the property, until he could find alternative accommodation.
The landlord set out the charge which was payable on a weekly basis, and liaised with the resident in order to try and obtain benefits and assistance by way of a Discretionary Housing Payment and water support. It also looked in to whether it could find alternative properties that might have been suitable.
This shows that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s financial position, and it treated him appropriately, by only charging him for water rates initially, until his benefits were paid to him.
The resident has complained that the landlord has overcharged him by charging him twice for water rates and not dealing with his enquires about why a charge of £164.42 was payable. However, the evidence shows that the landlord spoke to the resident about his concerns, and also set out clearly in its complaint response, how it had calculated the money owed. The rent log shows the amount paid by the resident against the amount owed. The landlord has explained that the amount owed is made up of £57.48 arrears following the last payment on 17 January 2022, and a further week’s rent of £106.94 prior to the tenancy ending.
In terms of the resident’s concern over double charging for water, the landlord explained that the £10.63 paid for water from 21 September 2020 to 19 October 2020 was taken in to account when he paid £402.04 on 19 October 2020, as this payment covered mesne profits of £95.76 and four weeks of £3.75 to clear arrears. This is also reflected in the rent log.
The landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s concern over the charges made, both in terms of the overall amount he was being pursued for, and his concern over double-charging, on more than one occasion. Having said that, the landlord did make a mistake when referring to the weekly mesne profit charges, in its 10 September 2020 letter. There was a small difference in the amounts. The mesne profit charges as of 7 September 2020 were £107.39 inclusive of a water charge of £10.63, not £106.63. The rent log provided by the landlord shows that the resident was actually charged the correct amount; therefore, this was an error in the letter and the resident was not adversely affected by this.
The landlord also referred the resident to claiming Housing Benefit rather than Universal Credit, but this was a minor error and the evidence shows this led to minimal delay, as the Universal Credit application was made by 14 September. The landlord appropriately took steps to support the resident in his application for benefits in order to assist him in maximising his income; as per its Rent Recovery Policy.
In its stage two response of 12 May 2022, the landlord did note the resident’s concern that he had been given conflicting information at times by its staff, and although it did not refer to any evidence of that happening, it apologised for any upset or confusion caused as a result. Evidence of conflicting information has not been seen, other than the minor service failures referred to previously, but the landlord’s apology for any confusion which had been caused was reasonable. The landlord confirmed the resident had not been over charged, and as already referred to, it had provided an explanation of the charges and a copy of the debt log, for ease and clarity.
There were some minor failings on the part of the landlord in relation to the resident’s enquiries over the charge being pursued, but it did offer the resident compensation of £82.81; that being half of the remaining balance on the rent account. As there was no significant detriment to the resident as a result of these failings, the offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The resident has complained about various issues with the conduct and communication of landlord staff. The key points identified from the correspondence with the landlord, as well as a letter received by this Service on 24 May 2022, are:
1. The resident says he contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 about the £164 he was being pursued for. On 21 February, after cancelling the direct debit, he says he had a text saying the payment was cancelled. He says he spoke to someone in Finance about the text and about making a payment plan, but that option was dismissed and the person’s demeanour changed.
2. In his letter to this Service on 24 May 2022, the resident says the landlord led him to believe the debt had arisen from the beginning of the tenancy, and this was later explained by a staff member and that he “was misinformed”.
3. He says he has been called a liar by someone but also says in his letter to this Office that he called someone at the landlord a liar also.
4. The resident claims someone spoke to him aggressively when discussing him moving/looking at another property, as they said they didn’t have to rehouse him and could start eviction proceedings.
5. On 28 January 2022, the landlord’s staff showed up to remove white goods from the property. The resident says “The manager knocked on my door and although saw me clearly on a chair he proceeded to knock again. I answered and in a raised voice asked him what the hell was going on and why was everyone turning up so early. He just stood said nothing I asked again stating that I felt like I was being bullied, again he just stood silently, after asking if it was [landlord staff member] who had sent them? and again getting no answer I said I’ll ring (sic) her F-ING neck, at which point he took off down the path.”
The Ombudsman has noted all that has been said and appreciates the resident is upset and feels he has been treated badly. However, the evidence records notes about the case but there is no way of knowing exactly what was said by both parties, or how things were said.
In relation to paragraph 44 (e), both the landlord and the resident accept that on 28 January 2022, when the landlord sent people to help the resident with the move, the resident made a comment about a staff member; but the Ombudsman is only considering the landlord’s handling of the matter here. It is noted that the resident says the landlord’s staff turned up at the property earlier than he expected and walked away when he made a comment about another staff member. This incident was referred to in the landlord’s stage two response of 12 May 2022, and the landlord records that the resident was warned about his behaviour. If events happened as both parties have said, the landlord’s response was not unreasonable, if the landlord’s staff were offended by the comment made.
Having considered points raised in relation to paragraph 44 (b), that a staff member told the resident he was “misinformed”, while noted, the evidence indicates the resident had misunderstood the charge being pursued. The Ombudsman has seen from the landlord’s response to the complaint, that it has made reasonable attempts to clarify financial matters with the resident.
In terms of points raised in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d), the landlord, in its stage two response, does acknowledge the resident was told he had no legal right to the property, and it was offering to rehouse him, but that is different to what the resident claims was said. The landlord’s notes say the resident was told a payment plan could be considered by the resident’s rent manager; not that it was actually dismissed.
It is appreciated that judging somebody’s demeanour or interpreting things that are said, can be subjective. It is acknowledged the resident feels he was given misinformation and the landlord has downplayed actions of the staff; but, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate his concerns. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of its staff’s conduct and communication, was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident’s stage one complaint was recorded on 29 March 2022, and the evidence shows the landlord did adhere to its promise to respond by 12 April and its guide to handling complaints, which says a response will be provided within ten working days. Although incorrectly dated 20 April 2022, the resident received the reply by 5 April.
The resident made it clear on 10 April 2022 that he disagreed with the stage one response; however, the landlord did not instigate stage 2 of the complaints process until 25 April 2022. The landlord did recognise in its stage two response, that its complaints procedure should have been followed, in terms of recording the stage two complaint sooner. For that, it offered the resident a further £50 compensation.
Having considered this, it is noted that if the landlord had started stage two of its complaints process sooner, its response would have still been provided within 20 workings days, as it was sent on 12 May. The time taken to escalate the complaint did not therefore cause any detriment to the resident.
There is evidence the landlord noted four separate issues raised by the resident at stage one; however, its letter to the resident only mentioned two. When the resident commented in response to the stage one response that something had been overlooked, the landlord said in its stage two response, that having sent its summary of the complaint on 29 March 2022, “you did not contact the investigating officer to advise this was incorrect, or to add any further points”.
While what the landlord has said is correct, and the resident did not but could have corrected the landlord, the resident had made his complaint clear, as the landlord noted each issue on its record. Therefore, the onus was on the landlord to ensure it accurately reflected the complaint, in its confirmation letter to the resident and the landlord should not have sought to attribute blame on the resident, for the complaint not being accurate.
With that said, the landlord did ensure it addressed the right issues at stage two, and it provided a comprehensive response. Therefore, there was no detriment to the resident, in that respect. In addition, it is noted the landlord complied with its Complaint Procedure by telephoning the resident to discuss his concerns, also.
The remedy offered by the landlord at stage one in relation to its response to enquiries about charges has already been deemed reasonable, to recognise minor failings. In terms of the the additional £50 offered by the landlord, this offer was also reasonable. That is because there was only a slight delay moving the complaint to stage 2 and it did not result in the complaint response being delayed. Therefore, a modest amount of compensation, sufficiently remedies the minor detriment here.
It would have been useful though, if the offers made by the landlord, both the stage one and stage two responses, could have been clearer in terms of how the compensation offered had been calculated. At stage one, the landlord did not say in its response, how it had come to the compensation figure of £82.21. At stage two, it offered £50 compensation for not following its procedure, but did not explain what procedure it was referring to. This lack of reasoning may have helped the resident asssess whether the offer being made, was reasonable, in all the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries and concerns about charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did make a minor error when referring to the weekly mesne profit charges, in its 10 September 2020 letter. The mesne profit charges as of 7 September 2020 were £107.39 inclusive of a water charge of £10.63, not £106.63. However, the rent log provided by the landlord shows that the resident was charged the correct amount.
The landlord referred the resident to claiming Housing Benefit rather than Universal Credit, but this led to minimal delay.
There was a slight delay in progressing the service complaint to stage two; but, it did not prevent the complaint from being responded to within a reasonable time, and sufficient compensation was offered by way of a remedy.
The landlord reasonably investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that, when it responds to complaints, its responses capture all issues raised and it explains to residents the basis for its calculation of compensation.