Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Retirement Lease Housing Association (202301232)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301232

Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA)

22 November 2024


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 response to the resident’s concerns about the information it provided regarding the service charges.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a licence with the landlord. The licence began on 22 July 2019. The property is part of a sheltered scheme for elderly and vulnerable residents. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident approached her local Citizen Advice who have been acting as a representative for the resident. For the purpose of this report and to avoid any confusion we will refer to the representative as the resident.
  2. On 2 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that for the period from 1 April 2020 until 3 April 2022 she had not been informed what service charges within her weekly charge were ineligible to be covered by housing benefit. She had now been informed by housing benefit that she had been overpaid £1192.70 housing benefit because of an ineligible weekly charge.
  3. She said she had received an email from her housing services officer dated 27 July 2022 apologising because the service charge information from 2020 onwards had not been provided. This was because it had been requested but not received until 2022. She asked given that the landlord had failed to provide this breakdown that it would write off the service charge for the relevant period.
  4. On 8 December 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had written to the resident on 2 March 2020 informing her that her maintenance charge was increasing from 1 April 2020. Within that letter there was a breakdown of the service charges showing the housing benefit element and ineligible costs. Given that she received her housing benefit directly it would expect her to share the relevant information.
  5. In addition, it said it had written to the resident on 20 January 2021 to inform her that due to a difficult year it had decided to leave the maintenance contribution the same as the previous year. In this letter it also advised that if the resident was receiving housing benefit directly then she would need to inform the local authority that the maintenance contribution was not changing. It was unable to accept responsibility for the overpayment and would not write off the monies as requested.
  6. On 6 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. She said that she disagreed that the 2 letters sent to her explained any break down in the charges. The new resident check list provided also did not show that the complexities of housing benefit were explained. If the landlord had provided information to the local authority about other residents living in the same block, then why was this information not applied to her claim.
  7. On 22 March 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2. It said that it was unable to find that any of its actions had resulted in the over calculation. It was also unable to find any evidence that the local authority had contacted its finance team to seek information on any irrecoverable service charge. The housing benefit had been paid directly to the resident. If it had been paid directly to the landlord, it would have deducted the irrecoverable charges or picked up any issues.

Post complaint.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for the overpayment.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the information it provided regarding the service charges.

  1. It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s response to the queries she raised about the information provided relative to the service charges. We should make it clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to how information about service charges was communicated.
  2. The universal credit service charge guidance for social landlord’s was published in December 2019. The guidance states that landlords should determine which of its service charges are eligible in accordance with the eligible service charges regulations and guidance. It should also notify its residents of the amount. The guidance suggests that it would be relatively straight forward for landlords to highlight the eligible service charges and the amount on notifications sent to its residents. It also goes on to say that the department of work and pensions does not intend to mandate this approach as landlord’s should have the freedom to determine the best way to communicate with its residents.
  3. The resident’s licence agreement states that a weekly maintenance contribution is payable in advance. It states that if the resident is entitled to housing benefit, it is advisable that she makes an application to the local authority. If the resident experiences any difficulty in claiming it suggests that the resident lets the estate manager know.
  4. The landlord said within its complaint response that it was satisfied that the information it had provided the resident was sufficient for a benefit claim to be correctly calculated. It made reference to 2 separate letters it had sent to the resident during the relevant period.
  5. It firstly referred to a letter it had sent to the resident on 2 March 2020. The landlord said that attached to the letter was a rent calculation showing the increase which also highlighted the ineligible charges. The resident said it was unclear whether the enclosure was included with the letter. She pointed out that there was no reference to anything being enclosed within the letter itself. This Service is unable to conclude whether this information was included or not. However, it is acknowledged that the letter made no reference to the enclosure which does not demonstrate clear communication.
  6. Furthermore, this Service considers that it would have been reasonable to expect a landlord to make it clear that the enclosed information was required when making a claim for housing benefit. That it did not was a further shortfall in its communication. The second letter the landlord referred to was dated January 2021. The letter informed the resident that it was not increasing its charges that year. The letter did not however provide a breakdown of its charges neither did it highlight the ineligible charges. It is unknown therefore how the landlord had satisfied itself that it had done all that it could to ensure that the breakdown of its charges, in particular its ineligible charges were made clear to the resident in this case.
  7. Although the landlord’s communication about the charges could have been clearer it had communicated its charges to the resident. It had also made the resident aware that she could claim housing benefit. The resident could have sought clarification from the landlord at the point she made the housing benefit claim, but she did not. This Service cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord’s shortcoming in its communication was the reason that the overpayment occurred. Its shortcoming may not therefore have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  8. The landlord correctly pointed out that it had had no involvement in the claim itself or the payments made by housing benefit. Furthermore, it did not have the opportunity throughout the relevant period to determine whether the housing benefit award was correct and advise further. This service therefore considers the landlord’s shortfall in its communication was minimal and amounts to a service failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure states it operates a 2-stage procedure. It describes the first stage as a “one touch complaint review.” Its procedure states it will communicate its decision in writing, but it fails to provide a timescale in which it will respond. It goes on to state that if the resident remained unhappy after its first response, then the resident could request an appeal. If an appeal was accepted, it would aim to respond within 8 weeks.
  2. The landlord’s complaint procedure is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that landlords should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 in 20 working days.
  3. The landlord took 27 working days from 2 November 2022 to 8 December 2022 to respond to the resident’s request for a stage 1 complaint. This was not in accordance with the timescales provided within the Code and a failing in its complaint handling.
  4. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s concerns about the fact that the service charge information from 2020 onwards had not been provided. This was a further failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
  5. The landlord took 39 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 request from 27 January 2023 to 22 March 2023. This timeframe was unreasonable, not in accordance with the Code and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was issued by its chief executive. The response was in writing but very informal. The Code states that the complaint response should be in writing and confirm the complaint stage and the complaint definition. That the landlord had not made this clear in its response was a further failing. In addition to this the Code states that the stage 2 response should contain details of how the resident could escalate the matter to this Service. The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to provide this information which was an additional failing.
  7. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within the relevant timescales. The responses failed to address all of the issues raised. The stage 2 response was informal and not in accordance with the Code. The failings caused the resident further time and trouble having to pursue her complaint with this Service. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  8. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
  9. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
  10. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the information it provided regarding the service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £100 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the information it provided regarding the service charges.
      2. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again. Its review should focus on:
    1. How it can clearly set out to its residents the breakdown of its charges.
    2. How it can clearly set out to its residents its eligible and ineligible charges.
    3. How it can advise residents what information needs to be provided to housing benefit/universal credit.
    4. A copy of the landlord’s review should be shared with the resident and this Service also within 8 weeks.