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

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202105766)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105766

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

10 May 2022


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 information he was provided in relation to his rent account.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He was previously a tenant of the landlord at a different property within the same scheme. His new tenancy began on 15 February 2021.
  2. The resident raised a complaint as he was dissatisfied that the rent for his new property was higher than that of his previous property and felt the amount should be the same as he was an existing tenant not a new tenant. He said that he had not been informed that his rent would increase and disputed the landlord’s assertion that he had signed the agreement on 8 February 2021, claiming that he signed the agreement on 15 February 2021 when he handed the keys for his old property. The resident felt he had been treated unfairly as another resident had also transferred into another property on the scheme and was being charged the lower rate. The resident wanted information regarding the rent and service charge breakdown. He wanted the landlord to consider reducing his rent to the original amount he paid for his previous property, to fall in line with other tenants rent amounts.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord explained the following:
    1. The rent for the scheme was part of the affordable rent regime and was set at 80% of the current market value. When the resident signed the agreement for the new property, the rent was based on the most recent valuation of the property carried out in November 2020. It added that six properties had been re-let at the higher rent amount since the valuation.
    2. The tenancy agreement related to a specific property and could not be transferred to another property which was the reason the resident had needed to sign a new agreement. It added that the rent amount was inclusive of all service provided by the landlord and there was not a separate service charge.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the date the tenancy agreement was signed and confirmed that the signed agreement was uploaded onto its system on 8 February 2021, negating his suggestion that he signed the agreement on 15 February 2021. It also provided evidence that confirmed the meeting to complete the sign-up documents had been scheduled for 8 February 2021 by the member of staff responsible.
    4. It confirmed that the rent amount was clearly stated on the tenancy agreement and the resident would have had the opportunity to raise any concerns about the increased rent amount before signing the agreement if it was likely to be an issue. However, it acknowledged that the correct process had not been followed and that the resident should have been sent an offer letter for the property (including the rent figure) prior to the sign-up process.
    5. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered, by way of apology, to reduce the resident’s rent for the 2021/22 period to the amount that he would have paid had he remained at his previous property. Following which, the rent amount would increase to the current listed amount under the new tenancy plus any additional annual increase. It also apologised that the person named in the resident’s initial complaint had completed the stage one investigation and that the resident’s representative had not been updated on the progress of the complaint. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its service failure.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer to reduce his rent to the previous figure for only 12 months. He wanted his rent amount to stay at the amount he had been paying for his previous property and only increase by the annual percentage each year. He was also dissatisfied that he was not informed of the increase in rent before signing the tenancy agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of rent charged by the landlord for his new property. In line with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about whether the rent charged is reasonable or payable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from Shelter (https://england.shelter.org.uk) in relation to how to proceed with a case. As such, this report will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and the information provided in relation to the rent figure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about information he was provided in relation to his rent account

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the resident. It is dated as signed on 8 February 2021, with the tenancy commencing on 15 February 2021. The agreement states that the weekly rent for the property would be £151.80 a week. The resident would be responsible for paying the weekly rent for the property upon signing the agreement.
  2. The landlord’s rent setting and service charge policy states that ‘Affordable rent’ would be up to 80% of the market rent at the time of letting and would be reassessed at timely intervals against market conditions. It would also be inclusive of all service charges that are applicable. When an affordable rent property is re-let, the landlord would reset the rent based on a new valuation, ensuring that the amount does not exceed 80% of the current market rent value.
  3. In this case, the resident raised concern that the rent amount for the new property was approximately £40 per month more expensive than his former property within the same scheme. He also disputed that he had signed the agreement on 8 February 2021 and believed that the agreement had been altered. In addition, he remained dissatisfied that he was not made aware of the new rent amount before signing the tenancy agreement and added that no due-diligence checks were completed.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s concerns and provided a reasonable explanation of its valuation process and affordable rent regime. The landlord’s explanation was in accordance with its rent setting and service charge policy which states that the rent for a property when re-let would be recalculated based on up to 80% of the current market rent valuation. It also explained that the rent amount was inclusive of the services supplied to the resident which is in accordance with the landlord’s policy. It is noted that the resident raised concern that another tenant, who had also transferred to a new property within the scheme had not been subject to the same increase. The Ombudsman is unable to comment of the rent charged to other tenants by the landlord as this would involve requesting confidential information about another tenant and would not accord with data protection regulations.
  5. The resident has maintained his position that he signed the tenancy agreement on 15 February 2021, the day he handed in his keys to his previous property, and had not been previously made aware of the new rent figure. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the evidence supplied by the landlord shows that the sign-up appointment had been arranged for 8 February 2021 and the evidence indicates that the agreement was uploaded onto its system on 8 February 2021. Whilst it is noted that the resident has said that the date of the agreement was not in his handwriting, there is a lack of evidence to support the resident’s claim that he had signed the agreement at a later date.
  6. The onus would be on the resident to ensure that he was aware of the terms of the new tenancy agreement and that the rent amount was affordable before signing and he would have had the opportunity to raise his concerns at the point the agreement was signed, whether that was on 8 February 2021 or 15 February 2021 as the resident maintains. It is noted that the resident says he felt he had no other choice but to sign the agreement or be made homeless, however, no evidence has been provided to show that this would not have been the case. There is also no evidence that the resident had raised concern about the new rent amount at the time of signing. As such, the landlord was not made aware that the rent figure was a cause for concern and was not able to take additional action to support the resident at this stage. It is noted that once the resident raised concerns about the affordability of the new rent amount, the landlord acted appropriately. It offered to complete an assessment of his current financial circumstances to determine whether the resident was eligible for any form of benefit to assist with his rent payments, but this was declined.
  7. The landlord has acknowledged that the correct process was not followed and the resident should have been provided with an offer letter prior to sign-up with clear information about the rent figure at an earlier date. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident for its failure to send an offer letter to the resident prior to the sign-up process for the new property. It put things right by clearly explaining the reasons as to why the rent amount was higher at the new property and offering to reduce the resident’s rent to the amount he would have paid had he remained at his former property for a 12-month period. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by reviewing the current processes and making recommendations to amend the offer letter and acceptance form to improve the sign–up procedure and avoid making similar errors in the future.
  9. The landlord’s apology for completion of the stage one investigation by the person named in the resident’s initial complaint was appropriate recognition of its failings. Its offer of £100 in compensation for not updating the resident’s representative on the progress of the complaint was further acknowledgement and reasonable consideration of the areas where it had fallen short of its requisite standards.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s offer to reduce the resident’s rent to the amount he would have paid had he remained at his previous property was reasonable by way of apology to the resident and was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord was not strictly obliged to offer this; however, it was reasonable for it to do so given the service failure in this case. It is clear that the resident remains dissatisfied that his rent would increase to the current figure from April 2022 along with any additional annual percentage increase, however, the Ombudsman is not able to comment on whether the increase is reasonable or payable as set out above. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter if he remains dissatisfied. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about information he was provided in relation to his rent account, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.