Progress Housing Association Limited (including Reside Housing) (202309317)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202309317
Progress Housing Association Limited (including Reside Housing)
18 February 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discrepancies on her rent account, resulting in poor communication and misinformation on moving into a new property.
Background
- The resident has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom first floor flat, which is part of an independent living scheme for people over the age of 55, on an assured tenancy since June 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The resident previously lived in another property (the former property) owned by the landlord and moved in to the current property before the former tenancy ended. Therefore, there was an overlap of the 2 tenancies for 2 weeks and 3 days, and rent was payable on both properties during this period.
- At the former property, the resident’s rent from April 2022 was £116.08 a week. Her housing benefit award was £111.73, which required her to pay a top up of £4.35. The resident was paying the landlord £10 every 2 weeks to cover this, which resulted in an overpayment of 65p per week.
- The tenancy on the former property ended on 3 July 2022 and the account balance was £73.87 in credit. The new tenancy started on 17 June 2022 and the landlord transferred this credit to the new account, to help cover the shortfall of the overlap period. The rent at the new property was £138.87 until April 2023 and £122.64 was covered by housing benefit. The resident was responsible for the remaining £16.23 a week and she paid £35 every 2 weeks, resulting in an overpayment of £1.27 per week.
- On 20 July 2022 the resident questioned the landlord about her rent account and asked that any credit be refunded to her rather than transferred to her new account. The landlord said the credit needed to be transferred to the new account as the rent needed to be paid a week in advance. The resident said she had not been aware of that, or that she ought to have applied for a dual housing benefit payment to cover both rents in the cross-over period. The landlord explained, on 25 July 2022, that the council had said she could still apply for dual housing benefit and it would consider her reasons for the move. However, on 2 September 2022, the resident was advised she had received the correct amount of housing benefit.
- The resident complained to her MP on 22 May 2023 that the landlord would not credit her the additional money she had paid in rent. She also commented that she had paid a deposit on the former property of £129.33 and £198.39 on the current one. The MP sent the complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2023.
- In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 June 2022 it acknowledged the overpayments made by the resident and provided an account breakdown which showed a balance of £128.02 credit. It went on to say that:
- It had explained that it could not provide a refund unless the credit balance was in excess of one week’s rent. She did have a credit balance but it would not be refunded as it did not exceed one week’s rent
- It calculated rent balances taking into account all debits and credits against the account, regardless of the source.
- The monies she paid on both properties were payments of rent in advance at sign up rather than deposits and were taken from all tenants.
- It apologised for its communication as the resident had spoken to different members of staff and it may have caused confusion. It had learnt from that and was ensuring all staff receive relevant training to accurately read and understand rent accounts. Rent would also be discussed in depth with potential tenants at sign up stage in the future.
- The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2 on 16 June 2023 and sent its stage 2 response on 7 July 2023. It reiterated its earlier position and said the rent balance was £254.20 in credit. A housing benefit payment was due that week and, after that, she would be £128.04 in credit. It confirmed the direct debit had been altered so she was no longer making over payments and, although rent needed to be paid in advance, it was arranging a refund of that amount to recognise a lack of communication while addressing the issue.
- The landlord has since told us that, as well as crediting the resident £128.04 as she requested, it is also prepared to pay her an additional £50 compensation for its lack of communication.
Assessment and findings
- The resident’s total rent is made up of core rent and service charge and it is accepted she was paying in excess of the amount needed to top up her rent payment. Her rent account statement shows she was in credit of £73.87 at the end of the former tenancy. This was transferred to her new account on 1 August 2022.
- The resident has indicated she was unaware of the need to pay rent a week in advance. However, evidence shows the landlord was clear on this point. The resident signed to confirm she accepted the terms of the Occupancy Agreement on 17 June 2022, which at section 27 said she was to pay the rent (including the fixed service charge) in advance on the Monday of each week. The landlord’s Income Collection Policy also states a tenant has to pay one week’s rent in advance. The resident was also told that the deposits she paid on both properties, were actually payments of rent in advance, so were credited to her account.
- The resident raised concerns over having to pay rent at both properties and has said she felt pressured to move in to the new property before the old tenancy expired. However, no evidence of the landlord pressurising the resident has been provided. Although the circumstances surrounding why the resident moved to the new property before the former tenancy came to an end are not known, the Occupancy Agreements committed her to being responsible for paying rents at both properties while the tenancies were active.
- The Tenant’s Handbook, which is on the landlord’s website, states “it remains your responsibility to make sure the rent is paid in full even if you get Housing Benefit or help with housing costs”. It goes on to say it was the resident’s responsibility to liaise with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over rent; in particular, to notify it of any change of circumstances.
- An email sent by the landlord to the resident on 21 June 2022 reminded her to ask the DWP about how her housing benefit would cover the rent on both properties. The landlord explained it had awarded one rent free week (covering 7 days) and that her rent account may sufficiently cover the rent. The resident signed a pre-tenancy checklist on 17 June 2022 to confirm that the landlord had discussed the implication of overlapping tenancies with her, and it is clear she then contacted the DWP as housing benefit was rearranged. The landlord explained she could apply for dual housing benefit to cover rent on both properties in the cross-over period. It seems an application was made but was unsuccessful. While this is unfortunate, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the DWP’s decision.
- In the July 2022 correspondence, the resident was correctly told that any credit would be transferred to her new account. In response to the complaint, the landlord provided a clear breakdown of the amount paid and correctly explained that a refund could not be made unless the credit balance was in excess of one week’s rent. It also accepted that the resident had spoken to different members of staff and been given differing information. There is no evidence of this happening, but as it was accepted by the landlord, it was appropriate to apologise for any confusion or inconvenience its communication caused.
- As well as apologising, the landlord demonstrated how it had learnt from the complaint and put measures in place to prevent similar issues arising in future. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Overall, the landlord accounted for all the money in the rent account and complied with the terms of its Occupancy Agreement. It was not obliged to issue a credit to the resident, but in order to be helpful it did go on to refund the £128.04 it held on account, as requested by her.
- The apology offered at stage 1 and the landlord’s commitment to improve its processes was a reasonable and proportionate remedy to recognise any minor confusion there may have been when the resident first contacted it about issuing a credit. We are not directing the landlord to pay the resident the additional £50 it has recently said it would offer, but if it is prepared to make that payment, it should liaise with the resident directly on that.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of discrepancies on her rent account, resulting in poor communication and misinformation on moving into a new property.