Longhurst Group Limited (202114326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114326

Longhurst Group Limited

28 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a service charge and its handling of her refund.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for documents relating to the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the property was reclassed due to the disability adaptations in one of the bedrooms.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff members.
5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the property, the tenancy began in March 2011. The property was a new-build property with adaptations for the resident’s daughter who had disabilities and the tenancy agreement stated it had 3 bedrooms. The resident has advised that the adaptations were completed between March 2011 and May 2011. The resident’s daughter passed away in 2020. The resident has moved from the property since the landlord’s final complaint response.

Scope of Investigation

Over the course of the complaint, the resident raised several concerns to this Service that did not form part of her complaint to the landlord. These included issues related to antisocial behaviour (ASB), mould within a convection unit in her loft and an increased gas bill as a result, issues with the lift in the property being out of use for a period, issues with the balance on the 2 rent accounts for her old and new properties and issues she experienced when moving to her new property.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’. These issues did not form part of the resident’s complaint under investigation and will not be investigated within this report. Some of these issues have been raised in a separate case to the Ombudsman under reference 202315493 and will not be commented on further in this report.
In her communication, the resident has advised of the impact the circumstances have had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that she felt that a member of staff should be reprimanded for their behaviour towards her. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
The resident has raised concern about the benefits she was in receipt of throughout the complaint. If the resident disputes the amount of universal credit or housing benefit she was eligible to receive, she could address this matter with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and ultimately approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the LGSCO can look at complaints about local authority’s activities (aside from their responsibilities as landlords), including complaints about benefits.

Summary of events

2021

The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 18 February 2021 and 8 April 2021. During the calls:
1. The resident queried a service charge she was paying and asked for her rent figure as she was in communication with DWP regarding her universal credit. She informed the landlord that her daughter had passed away and she was struggling financially as she was no longer entitled to certain benefits and had a 25% under occupation penalty (bedroom tax).
2. The landlord advised that it could not confirm what the service charge was for but that it had always been charged. It noted the resident had also asked for a copy of the tenancy agreement and said that she would need to find her copy as it could not re-issue this. It confirmed it would ask for the resident’s rent statements to be sent to her.
3. The resident established that the service charge was for the maintenance of the through-floor lift adaptation and was unhappy that she paid this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 July 2021 via its webform and by phone. She advised that she was being financially penalised following her daughter passing which was impacting her ability to grieve. She asked the landlord to:
1. Provide a copy of her tenancy agreement and the details of her having agreed for the costs of lift maintenance. She noted that she had requested a copy of the agreement previously and said she had been in touch with the lift provider who had said that the lift was covered for a number of years
2. Provide copies of paperwork showing the change of house banding due to the property having 2 rooms for the use of her late daughter.
3. Provide paperwork related to the adaptations in the property, the plan of the property, and the insurance policy.
4. Reclassify the property as a 2 bedroom property as the internal lift took up two-thirds of her late daughter’s bedroom and the lounge space so the room could not be used as a bedroom.
The landlord acknowledged her enquiry on the same day and said that it had asked its housing team to contact her within 2 working days and for a copy of her tenancy agreement to be posted. The tenancy agreement was sent to the resident on 30 July 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the resident gave written permission for the landlord to discuss the reclassification of the property with her representative. The representative contacted the landlord on 6 August 2021. The landlord’s call notes show that it had advised that it could not speak to the representative without the resident’s consent.
On 11 August 2021, the resident called the landlord and said that she was dissatisfied with the service received. The landlord confirmed that it would respond to her once it had more information as it was still looking into her enquiries. It confirmed that it would discuss her concerns with her representative as requested. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident’s representative on 13 August 2021 but could not get through.
The resident submitted a further webform to the landlord on 17 August 2021 and detailed the following:
1. She had asked for copies of her rent statements as she believed that she should have been in substantial credit on her rent account. The landlord had advised her that there was a service charge which she had not been aware of previously. She had called back after receiving the statement and had been told that the charge was probably for window cleaning or mowing lawns which were not services she received.
2. She had been told that the landlord did not hold a copy of her tenancy agreement but had discovered that this had been sent to the local authority previously so requested a copy which she had now received. She said that there was no mention of a service charge.
3. She sent a request for information related to the tenancy on 27 July 2021 so that she could provide these to DWP in relation to the bedroom tax but had not been provided with the information.
4. She had received a call from a member of staff on 11 August 2021 which she found to be insensitively handled. They said that they were passing her requests on to 2 managers to deal with her list of email requests and she did not feel she had the opportunity to talk.
5. She had asked the landlord to speak to her representative regarding her request for the property to be reclassified due to the bedroom tax she was paying but the landlord had declined them despite giving her consent. She was dissatisfied with the level of customer service she had received and the attitude towards her while grieving.
6. She wanted the landlord to respond to her previous requests and details of how the service charge was added. She wanted this to be refunded as there was no mention of the charge on her tenancy agreement. She also wanted the landlord to improve its customer service in sensitive situations.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s enquiry on 19 August 2021 and confirmed that a case related to her enquiries about her service charge had been raised on its system. It had also referred the resident’s enquiry to its lettings team who would get in touch with her directly. Its internal records show that it understood the resident’s communication to be a complaint.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 3 occasions in September 2021. She expressed dissatisfaction that her complaint had not been dealt with and requested a copy of any agreement she had made to pay for the future costs of the lift maintenance. The landlord confirmed it would pass her queries on to a manager and its internal records show that it had asked if the room could be measured to see if it could be reclassified. The landlord also explained the process of reclassifying a bedroom and that it needed a surveyor to measure the available floor space to see if it was large enough to be considered a bedroom. The resident said she was unsure as to whether she wanted to proceed as she did not want her late daughter’s room to be disturbed and she thought the room was large enough. She said that she would speak to her representative as she believed the room could be reclassified due to the equipment it contained. She also continued to contest the service charge.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021 and asked it to respond to her complaint regarding her liability for service charges, its response to her request to reclassify the property due to the disability adaptations, her request for copies of documents, the conduct of its staff, its communication and a refund of service charges which had been paid. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its formal complaints process by 20 October 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 21 October 2021 due to arrears on her rent account. The resident spoke about her complaint regarding the lift and her service charge and that she was waiting for a refund but had not received any communication. The landlord agreed to pause arrears action while the resident organised her finances but that this would progress if a payment was not made by 13 November 2021 when she received her universal credit. It asked internally for an update regarding the service charge enquiry.
On 4 November 2021 during a phone call, the resident informed the landlord of the Ombudsman’s request for it to respond to her complaint. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 8 November 2021 and acknowledged her complaint on the same day. During the call, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the lack of empathy from the landlord in relation to her rent account and that its staff had shown little compassion for her situation. She noted that one member of staff did not seem to care about her grief and another had called her about her rent arrears and told her she may lose the property. The landlord offered its condolences and apologised for the service she had reported. It confirmed that it would investigate her concerns. It also said that its rent team had processed a rent adjustment in relation to the service charge. This would go onto her rent account to pay off any arrears. She would need to leave her rent account 4 weeks in credit but could request any additional credit be paid directly to her.
The landlord called the resident on 12 November 2021. In relation to the recategorization of the property, it said it would need to survey the property and measure the room to start this process. It confirmed that the surveyor would call to arrange an appointment.
A refund of £3,344.48 was credited to the resident’s rent account on 19 November 2021 for the service charge that had been charged in error.
The resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update regarding compensation on 23 November 2021. The resident said that she had been informed by DWP that she would need to seek alternative accommodation or look to downsize as her benefit entitlement had changed. The landlord confirmed that it needed to extend the complaint deadline by a further 10 working days. It informed the resident that the service charge of £3,344.48 was credited to her rent account on 19 November 2021. The resident disputed the amount and stated this should be around £5,000 from 2011 onwards. She also felt it was unfair that the landlord paid itself first as she was struggling financially. She noted the impact the situation was having on her mental health. The landlord said it would ask for a breakdown of the service charge refund to be sent to the resident.
The resident’s rent account statement shows that she was refunded £1,752.20 directly on 26 November 2021 from the credit on her rent account.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 1 December 2021. She sked about the service charge for the period between 2011 and 2014 and the landlord said its income team would be in touch as per its complaint response letter. It confirmed that 2 options had been provided in relation to her request that the property was reclassified. It advised the resident to read through its resolution letter and to email back should she remain dissatisfied.
In its submissions to the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided a stage 1 complaint response dated 1 December 2021. It is noted that the resident has advised that she did not receive this complaint response at the time. In the response, the landlord explained the following:
1. The resident first contacted it regarding her service charge in December 2020. Its computer systems changed in June 2021 and it had been unable to locate any other record of the resident contacting it about the service charge. It summarised the contact from the resident from August 2021 onwards and advised that on 5 November 2021, its rents and service charge team confirmed that the resident had been charged in error.
2. An adjustment request was submitted for all service charges applied from 14 April 2014 to date. It had confirmed to the resident on 23 November 2021 that a credit of £3,344.48 had been added to her rent account. It had also explained that the credit would pay off any arrears and its income team would look to ensure the rent account was 4 weeks in advance.
3. It noted that the resident was unhappy with this and felt that the amount of service charge she had pad was closer to £5,000 since 2011. Its rent and service charge team said that they had been unable to locate records dated from before 2014. It asked that this was looked into further and would ensure this was monitored and communicated.
4. It noted that the resident wished for the property to be recategorized as she was not able to use her late daughter’s bedroom as a bedroom due to the lift and hoist adaptations that were in place. It acknowledged the resident had said this was having a financial impact due to the bedroom tax charges she was incurring.
5. It explained that under the Housing Act 1985, recategorization of a property depended on a room meeting the minimum size criteria. In order for its investigations to progress, it had asked for a surveyor to visit and measure the room. An appointment was arranged for 16 November 2021, however, they could not gain access to the property. It had queried the issue internally and said that due to the adaptations having been installed when the property was built, its understanding was that the measurements of the bedroom would be above the recategorization threshold and it was not in a position to take this matter further.
6. It would be decommissioning the through floor lift which would be parked on the ground floor for health and safety, and insurance reasons. It would also be decommissioning the electric hoist in the bedroom. It said the track would remain on the ceiling to minimise the disturbance. It confirmed that it would contact the resident to arrange a start date. It explained that either the resident could remain in the property and be liable for the bedroom tax, or it could arrange for a management transfer to one of its smaller homes. It asked the resident to consider the options and respond by 17 January 2022 to allow time to think.
7. It noted the resident first contacted it on 27 July 2021 and asked for her tenancy agreement, information related to the property alterations, housing plans, adaptations and insurance policies to be provided. It provided the resident with a copy of the tenancy agreement on 30 July 2021 and apologised that this was outside of its 2 working day response time. It had not been able to locate any notes to show that the other information requested was sent for which it apologised.
8. It said it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2021 and noted that the resident again requested information showing where she had agreed to pay for costs relating to the lift maintenance on 10 September 2021. These requests had been sent through to its asset and property services on 10 September 2021.
9. In relation to the resident’s comments regarding staff conduct, it noted that during a call on 8 November 2021, the resident had expressed upset about a call with one of its income advisors on 26 October 2021. It had looked into this and was not able to find the call recording. It had spoken to the staff member and noted that they were attempting to gain an update as to the discretionary housing payment (DHP) claim the resident was making for her rent arrears and ongoing rent payments.
10. The resident had confirmed that the DHP claim was being processed and provided an update on her current housing benefit position. Due to the resident’s rent arrears increasing over the previous 3 months, the income officer needed to explain that if arrears were to increase, it was unable to stop action to recover this. The income officer acknowledged and sympathised with the resident’s situation and agreed to place a hold on arrears action and arranged a call at a later date.
11. The officer had also asked if the resident required support with household bills and the resident had advised that she did not. It was satisfied that if the notes reflected the conversation, the officer had acted appropriately. It passed on their apologies if she felt the call was not dealt with appropriately. The staff member had advised that it was not their intention but they were trying to keep the resident informed of her rent account situation and ensure the important issue of rent arrears was addressed.
12. It acknowledged that it had not contacted the resident when promised or completed any courtesy calls to let her know it was looking into matters raised. It apologised and confirmed that feedback had been given to each of the teams. It acknowledged that despite the resident’s complaint email of 19 August 2021, it had failed to log this formally and despite expressing concern on 8 September 2021 that her complaint was not being dealt with, a complaint was not logged. It was not until 4 November 2021, following further contact, that it sought to acknowledge the complaint. It apologised for the service received and inconvenience caused. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident regarding her service charge queries. It noted that the resident believed she was owed around £5,000 but said that it could not locate any service charge information prior to 2014. It asked whether the resident had been contacted. The resident responded and confirmed that she had not been contacted. She had received a call regarding the complaint but had not received the response letter. The landlord responded and apologised that the resident had not been contacted. It said it had chased this up internally and would be in touch with any updates.

2022

The landlord’s records from 26 January 2022 show that the resident called to ask what the balance was on her rent account and was informed that she was in arrears by just over £500. The landlord’s notes form the call detail that the last payment into the account was made on 25 October 2021. The resident maintained that she was dissatisfied that she had not received the full amount of service charge refunded since the start of her tenancy and that the credit had been used to offset her arrears. The landlord and resident discussed her current financial circumstances and she advised that she was unable to make a payment towards her rent and asked that no letters were sent to her regarding her rent. The landlord advised that it was likely the correct arrears process would need to be followed due to the level of arrears.
Following contact from the resident on 3 February 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 February 2022 as she had advised that she had not yet received a complaint response. The landlord was asked to respond by 16 February 2022.
The resident’s rent account statement shows that £2,939.19 was charged to the resident’s rent account on 11 February 2022. The notes next to the payment show that this was paid back to DWP in relation to the overpaid service charge as the resident had previously been in receipt of housing benefit for her rent payments.
The landlord’s records suggest that it had resent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 15 February 2022, however, the Ombudsman has not seen this communication. On 16 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was aware that she believed there were further service charges paid prior to 2014. It was satisfied that the information provided to her regarding her service charge within its response was correct.
The resident responded on 18 February 2022 and detailed that she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication or apology from the landlord. She said that her complaint was not only about her service charges but also ASB, floods and mould in her convection unit. She said that she had not yet had a response or compensation for the way she had been treated while grieving for her daughter.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 24 February 2022 regarding arrears on her rent account. It explained that while it had discussed the account with the resident, no agreement had been made. An agreement was made for the rent with an added payment to be made each month.
The landlord’s records suggest it received a web form from the resident regarding her complaint where she mentioned her rent arrears on 11 May 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this communication. Its notes show the resident had asked to be contacted in relation to a management move. On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge her communication and said it would respond within 2 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 May 2022 to ask for an update regarding a management move, her complaint and her rent arrears figure being incorrect. On 18 May 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had decided to reopen the resident’s stage 1 complaint and review it at stage 2. It confirmed that it was currently taking up to 30 days to respond and it could take until 29 June 2022 to issue a full resolution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2022 to ask for an update. She had received a management move form in the post but had been told that she may not be able to move due to arrears. On 4 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised that it had not been in touch. It confirmed that a meeting would be held on 9 June 2022 to discuss current stage 2 complaints. It hoped to have a response to the resident’s complaint shortly after.
On 9 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord of the impact the situation was having on her mental health and said that she had begun to take medication for anxiety. She said that she had incurred arrears through no fault of her own as the landlord should not have refunded her. She said that she was owed compensation for 11 years of repair issues and ASB as well as the service charge she paid between 2011 and 2015. She said she had agreed to a management move when she was ready and had signed up for home-swapper to pursue a mutual exchange but this had been declined due to the arrears on her rent account.
The landlord has provided a copy of its stage 2 complaint response, dated 10 June 2022, which explained the following:
1. It noted that the resident had asked for the possibility of a management move. Originally, the arrears on the resident’s rent account were stopping this from moving forward. However, it would explore the possibility of a managed move or internal transfer with an agreement put in place for the arrears payments to be made. It confirmed it would keep the resident informed.
2. The resident had previously advised that a member of staff was rude to her and felt they were not compassionate towards her situation. It apologised and said it had asked its housing and repairs team to carry out a home visit and resolve any other difficulties with the bedroom and answer any questions.
3. It apologised for any upset and disruption caused. The complaint had highlighted training needs around showing empathy and compassion when handling situations such as these. It confirmed that it would also be looking at several policies and procedures arounds its complaints process and other processes such as moving home. It confirmed that this was its final complaint response and that the resident could approach the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it wanted to visit the property with a surveyor to see how it could support her with her complaint. It asked for the resident to confirm her availability.
On 20 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and noted that she would currently struggle to move quickly as she would need time to sort out the property and process moving as it was close to the anniversary of her daughter’s passing. She said that she needed to contact DWP about having her universal credit paid directly to the landlord and asked for help with doing this. She also asked the landlord to provide its initial stage 1 complaint response so that she could send this to the Ombudsman.
The landlord responded on 21 July 2022 and said that it had passed her email on to the relevant departments. It also provided a copy of the stage 1 complaint response.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2022. This was dated 21 June 2022. The Ombudsman advised the resident that she would need to escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied and allow 20 working days for the landlord to respond. The Ombudsman asked that the resident provided the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response or a copy of her escalation request to consider the next steps.
Following further contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 27 October 2022, asking it to escalate the complaint response dated 21 June 2022 to stage 2 (by 3 November 2022). The Ombudsman included communication from the resident dated 11 August 2022. She had advised that the service charge was refunded in part to her but the local authority had then sent the landlord a notice of overpayment and the landlord had applied the charge to her rent account. She believed that as the landlord had made the error of issuing a partial refund, it should have covered the debt itself. She added that a member of staff had been rude and insensitive to her current situation. She wanted all debts to be removed from her account and compensation for the landlord’s poor responses. She said she had not received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response but had sent multiple emails chasing this.

2023

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2023 to advise that her rent account should not be over £4,000 in arrears. The landlord advised that a large balance was added to the account in 2022 as it had been charged for a housing benefit overpayment by the local authority. The resident disputed the figures and said she had received compensation which was incorrectly paid. The landlord confirmed it would send her a 24 month statement.
A further call took place on 11 April 2023. The resident disputed owing any rent arrears and requested her rent statements from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord provided the resident with a link to her rent account and apologised that she had not been provided this sooner. It advised that it was unsure whether it could provide statements dating back to the beginning of the tenancy and said it would need to look into this. She maintained that she was not responsible for the arrears on her rent account and believed that the landlord owed her an additional service charge refund.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had asked for a breakdown of the overcharged service charge to be provided. It said it was unable to provide statements back to 2011 as it did not have this information because it had previously merged with the resident’s original landlord and the data had not been transferred. The resident responded to advise that she needed to see her statements from 2011-2015.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 to advise that the resident had said she had not yet received a complaint response despite previous contacts. The landlord was asked to provide the resident with a response by 6 July 2023.
On 23 June 2023, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, dated 10 June 2022, and a stage 1 complaint response, dated 21 June 2022.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023, noting that a stage 2 complaint response dated 10 June 2022 had been provided, but this had not covered the complaint points detailed within the Ombudsman’s communication on 27 October 2022 or 21 June 2023. This Service asked that the landlord offer a final complaint response by 11 July 2023.
On 5 July 2023, the landlord confirmed that it intended to formally reopen and review the resident’s complaint. It issued its stage 2 closure letter on 11 July 2023 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that following its previous response on 10 June 2022, the Ombudsman had asked it to provide a closure letter covering all points the resident had raised in the complaint.
2. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about its response to:
  1. her concerns about the liability for her service charge and her requests for a refund;
  2. her request that the property was recategorized due to the disability adaptations that had been made;
  3. her request for copies of documents relating to the service charge;
  4. her concerns about the conduct of its staff and its communication.
3. It confirmed that it did not charge customers for lifts unless this was in a communal area and apologised that this had been charged to the resident. Due to changes in its IT system, it could only look as far back as April 2014. It believed it had refunded the correct amount as it had found evidence to suggest that the resident had not paid a service charge prior to 2014. It confirmed that it had found documents showing that the weekly rent in January 2013 was the same as the amount listed on her tenancy agreement which showed that no additional costs were charged. It found that it was charging the resident an additional £4.81 in April 2014 which was in line with the rent increase. It therefore believed that it had credited the correct amount to the resident’s rent account.
4. It acknowledged that when it had refunded the resident, it used a portion of the amount to offset the rent arrears of £1,075.48 and it refunded £1,752.20 directly to the resident. It apologised that this was refunded directly and it did not inform her that it would need to be paid back to housing benefit who paid the resident’s rent at the time. It offered £100 compensation by way of apology.
5. It apologised that it said it had not found evidence on its previous computer system that the resident had contacted it regarding the service charge. It found evidence that she had contacted it on several occasions and the handlers could not explain what the service charge was for. This should have been sent for further investigation in order to avoid any delays.
6. In relation to the resident’s request to recategorize her home due to the disability adaptation, it had previously advised that it was not able to recategorize the home due to the amount of space the lift took up. It found that the home was built with the lift, and the room sizes were considered when initially categorising the home.
7. It offered the option of a management move to a smaller home so that the resident would no longer be liable for bedroom tax. It noted that the resident was not ready to move at the time given how soon it was after her daughter’s passing. It reiterated the offer the previous year and the resident had now advised that she was ready to move. It acknowledged that the resident had now accepted a property and confirmed that it would offer a removal service in order to support her.
8. In relation to the resident’s requests for documents relating to the service charge, it noted she had requested a copy of the tenancy agreement, property alterations, housing plans and adaptations on 27 July 2021. The tenancy agreement was sent on 30 July 2021 but she was not provided with the other documents.
9. It acknowledged that the resident had asked, on 10 September 2021, for a copy of the agreement for her to pay a service charge for the lift maintenance and that she did not receive a response. It confirmed that no agreement existed so this could not be provided. It also confirmed that it did not hold a copy of the property plans, alterations or adaptations.
10. It felt that its response relating to the conduct of one of its staff members was fully responded to at stage 1. It had found the officer had acted appropriately by apologising that the call left the resident feeling upset.
11. It acknowledged that the lack of communication on its part was unacceptable. It had not contacted her several times as promised during its stage 1 investigation. Its communication did not improve and the original stage 2 complaint was not fully answered at the time. It was unacceptable that the resident had needed to contact the Ombudsman for it to fully address each point of the complaint. It said that measures had been taken to improve its service, including expanding its complaint team and further training. It offer £200 compensation as an apology for its poor communication about her complaint. It confirmed its overall offer of £300 would be paid directly to the resident on 21 July 2023 and that this was its final complaint response.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She said that she had not previously received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response from 10 June 2022. She was dissatisfied with the apologies offered by the landlord within its further response and did not feel this considered the impact on her finances or mental health and wellbeing. She wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for the housing benefit overpayment charge and said she had also had a charge of £85 from the lift company which she wished to be refunded for. She raised a number of other issues as detailed in the scope of investigation above.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the property is a 3 bedroom house and that the resident is responsible for making her rent payments in advance. The tenancy agreement shows the service charge figure payable by the resident as £0.00. It notes that this figure may be increased and any changes to the charge must be confirmed in writing. It confirms that services it provides may include servicing and repair.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident owes money, compensation awarded would be used in the first instance to offset any debt.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process. It also had an informal complaint stage. The complaint would be designated as an informal complaint where the issue had not previously been dealt with as a complaint and the problem could be resolved within 2 working days. All other complaints would be logged as formal complaints.
At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord would contact the resident within 2 working days to discuss the details of the complaint and advise them of the timescale for response. It would then aim to provide its response within 10 working days. All responses would be sent to the resident in writing. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would explain the reason for the delay to the resident and provide an expected response date. This would not exceed a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a service charge and its handling of her refund.

The resident initially queried a service charge she was paying in February and March 2021. The landlord was unable to tell the resident what the charge was for which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who did not believe she should be paying the charge. Ultimately, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated her concerns at the time to determine whether the charge had been applied accurately and then provided the resident with clear information.
Despite raising concern that she was paying the charge for lift maintenance (which she did not feel she should be paying) on 8 April 2021 and later in July 2021, there is no evidence to suggest that her concerns were investigated further. The resident spent significant time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update and it was not until November 2021 that she was informed that a rent adjustment had been processed as the service charge was an error.
The resident’s rent statement shows that her weekly rent payments were reduced by £8.08 from 8 November 2021 which is in line with what she was being charged at the time for the service. A credit of £3,344.48 was applied on 19 November 2021 to account for the service charge that had been charged in error from 14 April 2014. The landlord acted appropriately by including a breakdown of its calculation to the resident within its initial response.
It is noted that the resident believed she had paid the charge since the beginning of her tenancy in 2011. The landlord initially acted reasonably by informing the resident that it would look into the matter further and would ask its income team to contact her. However, the landlord then informed the resident that it could not locate any service charge information prior to 2014 (on 20 December 2021). On 16 February 2022, it advised that while it understood the resident thought she had paid a service charge prior to 2014, it believed that the information it had provided within its response to her was correct. It offered no further explanation as to how it had made this decision which was likely to have caused confusion and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not provide a full explanation as to why it did not believe that the resident had paid a service charge prior to 2014 until its follow up complaint response on 11 July 2023. It acted reasonably by confirming the steps it had taken to investigate her concerns given that it did not have clear service charge information prior to 2014. Its explanation at the time was reasonable.
Within her communications, the resident has provided the landlord and the Ombudsman with a series of screenshots which she says shows that she had paid a service charge prior to 2015. The images show notification letters detailing a service charge for financial years 2014 to 2015 and 2016 to 2017. She has also provided a rent increase notification letter effective from 14 April 2014. Within its responses, the landlord confirmed that the service charge refund was for the charge paid between 14 April 2014 and November 2021. As such, the landlord had already considered the information provided by the resident within its calculations.
The resident was initially dissatisfied that the service charge refund was used to pay off arrears on her rent account and leave the account in advance by 4 weeks. Ultimately, in line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for paying her rent in advance and it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure that any debt on the account was paid in the first instance. This was also in line with its compensation policy which states that where debt is owed, any compensation would be used to offset any debt.
Within her escalation requests to the landlord, the resident also raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had refunded the credit on her rent account to her directly and that a housing benefit overpayment of £2,939.19 had been charged to her rent account.
The landlord was evidently aware that the resident had been in receipt of housing benefit over the course of the tenancy as her rent statements showed that it had received payments directly as early as April 2015. As such, while the landlord may not have been aware of the exact amount owed to housing benefit at the time of the credit to the resident’s rent account on 19 November 2021, it would have been aware that a significant proportion of the credit would have been due to be returned to housing benefit as overpaid and should not have been refunded directly to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that according to the rent statements, the resident’s rent account was in arrears at the time of the service charge refund. Had the housing benefit overpayment been returned following the service charge refund into the resident’s rent account, the account would have remained in a negative balance. The landlord should not have refunded the credit on the rent account following the service charge refund, and it should have informed the resident that this may be repayable to housing benefit. The landlord has acknowledged this failing within its complaint response to the resident and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
The resident feels that the landlord should have paid the housing benefit overpayment charge itself and not applied this to her rent account. She has also asked that the arrears on her account are cleared as a resolution to her complaint. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s financial circumstances, and that part of the existing arrears formed due to the landlord refunding her £1,752.20 directly, she would ultimately be responsible for ensuring that the correct rent payments were paid in line with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord would not be expected to refund or credit the rent account with any rent payments that are owed under the terms of the tenancy in view of the confusion around the service charge refund to her and the housing benefit overpayment. It is, however, noted that this error was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident and the landlord has acknowledged this. It acted fairly by apologising to the resident. Nevertheless, it would not be obligated to clear the arrears on the resident’s account as a result of its error. The resident’s rent statements show that the arrears on the account, not including the refund paid directly to her, have built as there had been gaps where no payments had been made into the account or where the amount paid was not enough to cover the ongoing rent. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the balance is incorrect, nor that any additional rental charges were added to the account.
The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to assist the resident with a management transfer despite the significant arrears on her rent account which would usually prevent it from doing so. This was reasonable in view of the error made in refunding the resident directly, and her concerns about the ongoing affordability of the property.
However, the landlord’s overall offer of £100 compensation – in recognition of the inconvenience caused by refunding the resident directly and not informing her that the amount may need to be repaid – is not considered proportionate redress in view of the identified failings. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble spent, and inconvenience caused by its delayed and incomplete communication, and the inconvenience caused by the error in refunding the resident directly. It is noted that the resident has raised ongoing concerns about the balance on her rent account for the property in question and for her new property. As such, a recommendation has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for documents relating to the property.

The landlord’s records show that the resident initially asked for her rent statements and her tenancy agreement on 3 March 2021 and was informed that she would need to find her own copy as it did not re-issue tenancy agreements. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord made any further enquiries at this stage which was inappropriate.
It is not disputed that following the resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement, details of her having agreed to pay for the maintenance of the lift, paperwork related to the alterations in the property, the plan of the property, and the insurance policies, that only the tenancy agreement was provided on 30 July 2021.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised that it had not provided the other documents despite the resident’s requests, it failed to offer any suitable redress to the resident, provide the documents, or explain why it was unable to do so within its initial complaint response. There is no further evidence that the landlord explained its position to the resident until its response on 11 July 2023.
Within its final complaint response, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging that despite the resident’s further requests on 10 September 2021 for the documents to be provided, it had not provided these. It confirmed that there was never an agreement for the resident to pay for the service charge in relation to the lift and it could not provide this as it did not exist. It also advised that it did not hold copies of the plans for the property and it could not find notes to confirm the alterations or adaptations in her tenancy file.
The landlord failed to consider that the resident had requested this information so that this could be provided to the local authority as part of her universal credit claim at the time. This would have meant that the information needed to be provided within a reasonable timescale so as not to impact or delay any decisions made by the local authority as to the level of benefit she may have been entitled to. While the Ombudsman cannot say that the resident’s benefit entitlement would have changed had the landlord informed her that it did not hold the information requested at an earlier date, the lack of ownership over the resident’s requests demonstrate that the landlord failed to consider this in full.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted given the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide information or explain why it was not able to do so, and the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her requests. While it apologised for its failings, it did not offer suitable redress to the resident in view of the impact on her.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the property was reclassed due to the disability adaptations in one of the bedrooms.

The resident initially asked the landlord to reclassify the property as having 2 bedrooms on 27 July 2021 as the internal through floor lift took up two-thirds of the room so this could not be used as a bedroom. There was a significant delay in the landlord explaining the process of reclassification to the resident between 27 July 2021 and 29 September 2021, a period of approximately 2 months.
Given her financial concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its position from the outset and within a reasonable timescale. It is also noted that despite the resident giving consent for the landlord to speak to her representative on 3 August 2021, it refused to speak do so on 6 August 2021 which suggests that its record keeping systems were not effective at the time. While the landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident’s representative on 13 August 2021, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that it liaised with the resident’s representative regarding the reclassification of the property as requested, which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
While the resident’s financial circumstances are noted, the landlord is not responsible for deciding whether she pays the under-occupancy penalty or not. This is legislation put into place by the government. The landlord’s duty is to ensure it classifies its properties appropriately. The landlord would not be able to reclassify the property to avoid the resident having an under-occupation penalty or “bedroom tax” applied to any benefits she received, unless the bedroom in question was not suitable to be considered a bedroom.
In line with the Housing Act 1985, a room between 50 and 70 square feet is a bedroom suitable for half a person (10 years of age or under). It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to agree to measure the room in order to determine whether the remaining space in the room met the size requirements as set out in the Housing Act. The evidence shows that the resident was hesitant as to whether she wanted to proceed with the room being measured on 29 September 2021 as she did not want her late daughter’s room disturbed and she believed the equipment within the room made it unusable rather than the space. The landlord’s records show that the resident had said she believed the room had enough space for it to be considered useable on the call.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the resident pursued any further concern that the room was not suitable to be considered a bedroom. However, the landlord acted appropriately by attempting to arrange an appointment to measure the room regardless. It is noted that it was not able to gain access to do so on 16 November 2021. Its internal records show that it had attempted to arrange this again, however, there is a lack of evidence to show whether further attempts were made.
Within its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord advised that as the property was newly built with the adaptations, its understanding was that the measurements of the property would be above the recategorization threshold and would have been taken into consideration when initially categorising the property. The landlord has not provided any further clarity about how it came to this decision or evidence showing that the property was built with adaptations. It remains unclear as to whether this explanation was accurate as the resident has advised that the adaptations were carried out after the property was built following successful grant applications to the local authority.
While the tenancy agreement, a legal document, notes that the property has 3 bedrooms, this was signed in March 2011 and is not clear as to whether the adaptations were considered within this categorisation. The landlord has not provided any further evidence to the Ombudsman as to how it satisfied itself that the room was of an adequate size – with the through floor lift – to be considered a suitable bedroom.
The landlord’s failure to provide clear evidence showing how it came to its decision does not necessarily mean that the room in question was not large enough to meet the criteria to be considered a bedroom. However, the landlord should be in a position to ensure that it has sufficient evidence to justify its decisions. There is no further evidence to suggest that the resident had concerns that the room was too small or pursued this further.
The landlord acted reasonably by informing the resident of her options and offering a management move. It is understandable, given the circumstances, that the resident did not wish to move at the time. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this given the resident’s concerns about the ongoing cost for the property being unaffordable.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the property was reclassed due to the disability adaptations in one of the bedrooms. While the landlord acted appropriately by attempting to measure the room in question and offering the resident a management move in view of her concerns about the affordability of the property, there were delays in communicating with her despite her ongoing financial concerns and the landlord has not provided the evidence it relied upon when establishing that the bedroom met the size criteria to be considered as such with the lift in place.

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

When a landlord receives a complaint about the conduct of a staff member, it would be expected to investigate the resident’s concerns and carry out actions such as listening to call recordings or interviewing staff members as part of its investigations. The landlord would not be obliged to share the outcome of its investigations in relation to any action taken as this would be related to the staff members’ employment which would be confidential. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it had investigated the allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrong-doing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said.
In her complaint of 17 August 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the member of staff who had spoken to her on 11 August 2021, stating that they had been insensitive to her circumstances and she did not feel she had the opportunity to talk. There is no evidence that this was properly investigated by the landlord.
During the landlord’s acknowledgment call of 8 November 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of empathy shown by the same staff member and another staff member who had called her about her rent arrears. However, within its initial complaint response, the landlord only commented on the resident’s concerns related to a call on 26 October 2021 regarding her rent arrears.
The landlord acted fairly by passing on the staff members’ apologies and confirming that it was not their intention to upset her. Ultimately, the landlord would be required to ensure that the resident was aware of any arrears on her rent account and that an agreement was in place to prevent any further action being taken against the tenancy. Its explanation of why the call was necessary was reasonable in the circumstances.
Within the complaint response of 10 June 2022, the landlord apologised that the resident felt a staff member had been rude or uncompassionate but failed to outline the steps it had taken to investigate her concerns or demonstrate that these had been taken seriously. While it said her complaint had highlighted training needs around showing empathy, it remains unclear as to whether it found failing in any of its staff members’ communication with the resident or that it had investigated her concerns appropriately.
The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns related to the conduct of its staff when communicating with her. It acted appropriately by confirming why the arrears recovery call was required and passing on apologies from the staff member in question. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns about the behaviours of the initial staff member or offer any meaningful insight into whether it had found a failing.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her enquiries on 17 August 2021. While the landlord’s internal records show that it considered her communication to be a complaint, it was not treated appropriately in line with the landlord’s formal complaints process.
There was a significant delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and she needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concerns both directly, on 8 and 29 September 2021, and via this Service. Despite the Ombudsman asking the landlord to address the resident’s complaint at stage 1 by 20 October 2021, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint formally until 8 November 2021.
Within its submissions to the Ombudsman on 19 February 2024, following a request for information, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its stage 1 complaint response dated 1 December 2021. The Ombudsman had not previously been made aware of a response on this date by either the resident or the landlord. Both the resident and the landlord had provided the Ombudsman with the same letter, dated 21 June 2022, on 7 July 2022 and 23 June 2023 respectively.
It is evident that the resident did not receive the stage 1 complaint response on 1 December 2021 and it remains unclear as to whether this was sent at the time. Had the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 December 2021, this would have been issued approximately 2 months since the Ombudsman’s request for the landlord to respond, and 3 and a half months since the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales at stage 1. While the landlord agreed there was a delay in acknowledging the complaint formally (within the stage 1 complaint response) and apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to offer suitable redress to the resident at the time.
The resident informed the landlord that she had not received its written response on 20 December 2021 and the Ombudsman also asked that the resident was provided with the stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2022. While the landlord’s records suggest that it had resent a copy on 15 February 2022, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to confirm that this was the case. In addition, the resident informed the landlord that she had not had a response on 18 February 2022 which suggests that this had not been provided.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was provided with a copy of its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2022, following a further request, and the date on the letter had also been amended to 21 June 2022. While it is understandable that this may have been in error, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided its written stage 1 complaint response to both the resident and the Ombudsman as requested. Its failure to do so amounts to a service failure and caused additional delays and confusion to the resident.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that it intended to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2022, following her communication on 11 May 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the webform the resident submitted at the time, however it is noted that her requests related to a management move offered by the landlord, and her concerns regarding staff conduct. The landlord has advised it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2022 which was within its policy timescales. However, the response did not address each aspect of the resident’s complaint and there is a lack of evidence to show that it took adequate steps to fully understand the resident’s concerns at the time.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she did not receive the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 10 June 2022 until this was provided by the Ombudsman following communication from the landlord on 11 July 2023. While this response may have been sent at the time, the evidence shows that she continued to pursue a stage 2 complaint response via this Service in October 2022 and the landlord failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s request that a stage 2 complaint response was provided by 3 November 2022, or confirm that it had already provided this.
The landlord had a number of opportunities to clarify when the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were issued to the resident as requested by the Ombudsman. The stage 2 complaint response eventually provided on 11 July 2023 was dated 10 June 2022, prior to the stage 1 complaint response provided dated 21 June 2022. Its failure to provide accuracy around the date of the stage 1 complaint response led to confusion as to whether a stage 2 complaint response had been issued for the complaint in question. The resident was evidently also uncertain as to what stage her complaint was at throughout the process.
The landlord acted reasonably by issuing a further stage 2 complaint response on 11 July 2023 at the Ombudsman’s request. This was within a reasonable timeframe of the request. It acted fairly within the response by apologising that its initial stage 2 complaint response did not address her concerns in full and that its communication regarding the complaint was poor. It acted reasonably by offering £200 for its poor complaint communication.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for its complaint handling is not considered proportionate in view of the significant delays, lack of response following requests that complaint responses were issued, and confusion caused by a lack of clarity about when responses were sent. Its handling of the resident’s concerns was likely to have caused significant inconvenience and the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing her concerns. An order has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a service charge and its handling of her refund.
2. Handling of the resident’s requests for documents relating to the property.
3. Response to the resident’s request that the property was reclassed due to the disability adaptations in one of the bedrooms.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff members.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not communicate reasonably with the resident in response to her request for a refund for incorrect service charges and its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s requests for documents relating to her property.
There were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her property to be reclassed and it did not fully explain the evidence it relied upon in making its decision.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it thoroughly investigated all of the resident’s staff conduct complaints.
There were delays and confusion in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £800 compensation comprised of:
1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its response to her concerns about a service charge and its handling of her refund. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £100.
2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident in relation to its handling of her requests for documents relating to the property.
3. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent in relation to her request that the property was reclassed due to the disability adaptations in one of the bedrooms.
4. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about the conduct of staff members.
5. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and communication. This is in addition to the £200 it previously offered.
This figure should be paid directly to the resident rather than to her rent account(s) to offset any existing arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord contacts the resident in relation to her request to be refunded for a charge she paid to the lift company, if it has not already done so. It should request evidence of the invoice she said she has provided and confirm its position as to whether it will refund her.
2. The landlord contacts the resident to ensure that it holds the correct contact details for her to ensure that correspondence is received.
3. The landlord contacts the resident regarding her ongoing concerns related to her 2 rent accounts for her old and new properties.
4. The landlord contacts the resident to understand any further concerns she currently has and seeks to explain its position. It should raise a new complaint to include issues that have not previously been addressed under its complaints process.
5. The landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that clear records of when a complaint response is issued are retained for audit purposes.