From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

bpha Limited (202331483)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331483

bpha Limited

30 April 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request to keep a dog in the property.
    2. Management of the resident’s rent account, including a service charge refund.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a second floor flat, in a block.
  2. In July 2023, the landlord told the resident he would receive a service charge refund. It said the money would be paid on to his rent account. Following a request from the resident, the landlord paid part of the refund to him directly the following month.
  3. A few days later, the resident said he was expecting the full refund to be paid to him directly and asked why he had only received part of it. The landlord replied that it would not pay him the full amount because, if it did, this would put his rent account into arrears. It said this needed to be a month in advance due to how his benefits were paid.
  4. On 16 August 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about his dog. It said he did not have permission to keep the dog at the property and told him he needed to ask for permission.
  5. On 6 October 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord via us. He said:
    1. The landlord had paid a service charge refund to his rent account, rather than directly to him.
    2. His tenancy agreement said he must pay his rent weekly in advance but his benefits were paid a month in arrears. The landlord always told him he was 3 weeks in arrears, but this was cleared once his benefits were paid.
    3. He had to get rid of his dog because the landlord told him he was not allowed to keep it.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 October 2023 said:
    1. The resident had been given incorrect information about the service charge refund. It apologised for this and confirmed it would pay him the remaining amount, which it did that same month.
    2. His tenancy agreement said he must pay his rent weekly in advance but his benefits were paid monthly. It acknowledged contact about the arrears on the account had caused him stress and said this was a process that needed reviewing across the organisation.
    3. His tenancy agreement said he could not keep pets without written permission.
  7. The next day, the resident said he had been misled into paying additional money onto his rent account to build up a months’ worth of credit. He asked for this money back. He believed his tenancy agreement said he did not need permission to keep a dog and the landlord had misquoted this on multiple occasions. Eight days later, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He asked why he had been misled into paying more money than he needed to. He said he was vulnerable with health conditions and the stress of the situation had made his health worse.
  8. In a letter dated 7 November 2023 the landlord responded to the points raised in the resident’s escalation request. It apologised that he had been given incorrect information about rent payments and that he had been asked to pay a month in advance, rather than a week as per the terms of his tenancy. It said a lot of residents had agreements that required them to pay a month in advance, which had led to confusion on its part. It said the money he had already paid was to keep the rent account up to date.
  9. In December 2023, following our intervention, the landlord provided a revised copy of its response dated 7 November 2023. This said it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 as the outcomes and answers would not change from its stage 1 response. The same month, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said his main concern was that the landlord would not return the extra money he had paid onto his rent account.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s request to keep a dog in the property

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must not keep animals other than normal domestic pets, for example a cat or dog, without the landlord’s written permission. This means that he would not need to ask for permission to keep a dog, as this is considered a normal domestic pet. Therefore, the information given to the resident on 16 August 2023 and in the stage 1 response was incorrect. This amounts to service failure.
  2. Regardless of whether the resident needed permission or not, his tenancy agreement also says the landlord will not allow him to keep a dog if he lives in a flat and his access to the outside is via a shared passageway, stairway or lift. That is the case for the resident as he lives in a second floor flat in a block. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to allow him to keep a dog in the property was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement.
  3. While there was service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding this issue, that did not affect the overall outcome or decision. This is reflected in the orders we have made. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the communication failure and pay him £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge it or fully put things right.

Management of the resident’s rent account, including a service charge refund

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must pay his rent weekly in advance. He is in receipt of benefits, which are paid monthly in arrears. This means he is unable to make payments in advance in line with the tenancy agreement, due to circumstances beyond his control. When the benefit payment is made, the account is clear. Over the course of the following month, as the rent is debited each week, it shows as being in arrears. However, once the benefit payment is made the following month, all arrears showing on the account are cleared.
  2. The resident has told us that whenever he contacted the landlord about his rent account, he was told it was in arrears. While this was accurate, the arrears showing were not a true arrear but a technical arrear that had built up because of the payment arrangements, which are outside of the resident’s control.
  3. The resident has said that being told his account was consistently in arrears caused him stress. This is understandable as any arrears showing on the account were not through non-payment of rent, but related to the timing of his benefit payments. In these circumstances, it is important that the landlord is sensitive in how it discusses the rent account with the resident to avoid causing unnecessary stress. That did not happen in this case and the resident has said this negatively affected his mental health. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord told the resident he needed to build up a months’ worth of credit on the account to resolve this issue and ensure the account was always in credit. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must pay his rent weekly in advance, not monthly. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord to ask him to build up a months’ worth of credit. The most the landlord could have reasonably asked him to pay was a week in advance. This is particularly concerning as the resident is vulnerable and in receipt of benefits and has told us that the additional money he paid onto his account is needed for other bills.
  5. We understand that asking residents in receipt of benefits to build up a credit on their account is common practice among landlords. While the landlord is entitled to ask residents to do this, it cannot enforce that they do so. Depending on residents’ individual circumstances, they may not be in a position to pay anything extra. It is important that, in these situations, the landlord does not chase the resident for any arrears showing on the account, as this is not a true arrear, but a technical one, for reasons set out above. Chasing residents for these types of arrears can cause distress and is unreasonable.
  6. The landlord noted that it told the resident during a conversation on 8 September 2023, that if he stopped paying the additional amount to build up this credit, it could be detrimental to his tenancy. This was incorrect information as it would be unreasonable to take enforcement action for any arrears showing on the account because of the timing of benefit payments. This was worrying for the resident and it was unfair of the landlord to make him believe that not paying this money could put his tenancy at risk. This amounts to maladministration. 
  7. It is important that landlords set out how this practice will be implemented in line with individual tenancy agreements, as part of its arrears policy. In this case, there is no mention of this approach within the landlord’s arrears policy. This is a concern and means there will be a lack of clarity and consistency in its approach, which can lead to incorrect information being given. That is what happened in this case, as the resident was incorrectly asked to build up a months’ worth of credit on the account. This caused him distress and upset and amounts to maladministration.
  8. We have made an order for the landlord to review and update its arrears policy to include reference to the practice of asking residents on benefits to build up a credit on their account. This should include how it will implement this in line with individual tenancy agreements and address this sensitively with residents, taking into account their individual circumstances. Training must be delivered to all front line staff on the updated policy with a focus on dealing with these conversations fairly and sensitively.
  9. As part of its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged there had been failure in its handling of this matter and that this had negatively impacted the resident. It said this process needed looking at, but we have seen no evidence it did this. The resident has told us that, since then, landlord staff have continued to tell him the same thing whenever he calls, which is frustrating for him. The resident has asked for the extra money he paid to be refunded to him, but this has not happened.
  10. The landlord said in its letter of 7 November 2023 that the money he had paid was to keep the rent account up to date. This is not true, as his benefit payments cover all of the rent and so the money he had paid was in addition to this. This was misleading and amounts to maladministration. We have made an order for the landlord to refund the resident all of the additional money he has paid onto his account. This should be the total amount of credit left on the account after his benefit payment is made.
  11. When the landlord issued a service charge refund to the resident in July 2023, it initially declined to pay him the full amount as it wanted him to have a months’ worth of credit on the account. This was incorrect for reasons already set out and the landlord should have paid him the full amount when requested. While the landlord did eventually pay him the full amount, this was 3 months later and only after the resident chased this up on at least 5 occasions and made a formal complaint. This amounts to maladministration and meant he incurred time and trouble to receive the full amount he was entitled to.
  12. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the rent account, including a service charge refund. The landlord acknowledged there had been failure which adversely affected the resident and made some attempt to put things right, by apologising to him. However, it failed to fully address the detriment caused and the redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, in consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 12 working days. This was 2 working days over the committed 10 working day response time set out in its complaints policy at the time. This was a minor delay.
  2. The resident’s initial reply to the stage 1 response, sent on 25 October 2023, expressed dissatisfaction with the response. Therefore, this should have been treated as an escalation request, but it was not. When the resident expressly asked to escalate the complaint on 2 November 2023, the landlord did not do so and only responded informally to the points raised in the escalation request.
  3. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said if a landlord decided not to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach us about its decision. There is no evidence the landlord did that at the time and this amounts to maladministration.
  4. Following our intervention in December 2023, the landlord sent us an updated copy of its letter sent on 7 November 2023. This included a response to the resident’s escalation request and expressly said it was declining to escalate the complaint. While the landlord sent this to us in December 2023, it is not clear if this was sent to the resident at the same time.
  5. It is concerning that the landlord backdated the amended letter to the original date it was sent, rather than issuing it with the current date. This was misleading and amounts to maladministration. Further, while the landlord’s revised letter advised it was declining to escalate the complaint, it did not include the resident’s right to approach us about its decision. This was not in line with the Code.
  6. The Code said that landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not set out any reasons it would not escalate a complaint to stage 2. Therefore, we cannot assess whether its decision was in line with its policy or not. The landlord said it would not escalate the complaint because the outcomes or answers would not change from the stage 1 response.
  8. This was unreasonable as the landlord could not know whether the outcomes or answers would change without completing a review of the complaint. This is the fundamental purpose of the second stage of the complaints process. The landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint on this basis was unfair. It was also not impartial as this decision was made by the same person who had investigated the complaint at stage 1. This amounts to maladministration.
  9. Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation. We have also made an order for the landlord to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on dealing with stage 2 escalation requests and refusals.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to keep a dog in the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s:
      1. Management of the resident’s rent account, including a service charge refund.
      2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the communication failure in its handling of his request to keep a dog in the property and its complaint handling.
    2. Paid the resident £625 compensation, made up of:
      1. £75 for its handling of his request to keep a dog in the property.
      2. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its management of the rent account, including a service charge refund.
      3. £200 for its complaint handling.
    3. Refunded the resident all of the additional money he has paid onto his rent account. This should be the total amount of credit left on the account after his benefit payment is made.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to all complaint handling staff on dealing with stage 2 escalation requests and refusals.
  3. Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed and updated its arrears policy to include reference to the practice of asking residents on benefits to build up a credit on their account. This should include how it will implement this in line with individual tenancy agreements and address this sensitively with residents, taking into account their individual circumstances. Training must be delivered to all front line staff on the updated policy with a focus on dealing with these conversations fairly and sensitively.