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

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202435323)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435323

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

3 June 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. The safeguarding team.
    2. Rent arrears.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of another property (property A) from 2014 to 2 June 2024. She was paying £600.26 monthly by direct debit towards her rent. The account was terminated on 2 June 2024 and, by this time, there were arrears of £1,114.96.
  2. The resident had hoped to move in March 2024 to the current property, a 1-bedroom, ground-floor maisonette (property B). However, it was not ready due to damp. She moved to property B on 20 May 2024, on an assured tenancy. She has mental health issues and has a support worker. The landlord is a housing association.
  3. There was an overlap whereby the resident had tenancies for both properties A and B between 20 May and 2 June 2024. To support the resident with the move, the landlord credited her 2 weeks rent for property A, amounting to £275.10. This reduced the arrears for property A to £839.86. This amount was deducted from the home loss payment made to the resident so all arrears from property A were cleared.
  4. The first direct debit for property B, for £695.68, was taken on 24 June 2024. This included an additional payment of £21.67 to gradually offset the arrears that had built up since the start of the tenancy while waiting for the direct debit to come into effect. As of 24 February 2025, the resident’s rent account was showing as being in credit.
  5. On 1 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about a number of issues, including the lack of support and professionalism from the safeguarding and housing teams and the accuracy of her rent account/arrears.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 19 August 2024, it accepted it could have better considered its communication with the resident and made it clear why other team members were contacting her. It said she had no arrears at that time and noted that she wanted one point of contact. It offered her £200 compensation to recognise its communication had fallen short.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 September 2024 and this was acknowledged by the landlord the next day. On 22 October 2024 the landlord notified the resident a panel meeting had been arranged for 4 November 2024, so an extension was needed.
  8. In its stage 2 response of 5 November 2024, it agreed with the stage 1 findings in part, but said it had incorrectly referred to her not being in arrears. It said, after her most recent payment, the arrears had accumulated to £99.02. It explained that the tenancy started on 20 May 2024 and it had only received payment at the end of June 2024, so she was on an arrangement and paying to reduce this. It concluded that she had not been overcharged for either property and the correct credits had been applied. It did not uphold this issue as there was no unprofessionalism, but the £200 compensation was still open to accept.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns with the safeguarding team

  1. On 17 October 2023 the resident advised the landlord she was feeling suicidal and needed help. She was contacted by the safeguarding team on 20 October 2023. It was unable to make contact, but made further attempts on a number of occasions. It then wrote to the resident on 16 November 2023 asking if it could provide her with additional support and this led to a meeting with her on 23 November 2023 to discuss her mental health issues.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord took a proactive approach when it was put on notice the resident may need support. Having discussed her needs, it supplied her with a medical form to complete and followed up with her after the meeting to check how she was. When the resident explained, on 7 December 2023, that she was not in a good place, it arranged an appointment to complete the form with her (although the resident was not then well enough to attend). This shows the landlord was doing what it could to offer the resident additional support.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 March 2024 about a lack of communication, compassion and professionalism. Again, it responded quickly, contacting the resident the same day and again on 18 March 2024. It advised someone would contact her to update her on the repairs to property B. It then emailed her on 19 March 2024 and met with her on 21 March 2024.
  4. The landlord’s records show it noted the resident was extremely vulnerable. As a result, while it acknowledged she was keen to move to property B, it was right to say this was not appropriate until it had addressed the damp. The resident’s best interests were, therefore, always being considered. The landlord was told on 2 April 2024 that the resident was self-harming due to stress and it made contact with her the same day. This demonstrates that it once again acted promptly when the resident may have been at risk. Although she confirmed she did not need help from the safeguarding team at that time, she did explain she found it hard being contacted by 5 or 6 different people.
  5. The landlord took the resident’s concern on board and acknowledged she had felt overwhelmed. While it had offered support from both the housing and safeguarding teams, it accepted it could have been clearer why other team members were contacting her. Had it done so, it may have lessened the stress she experienced. It recognised that she wanted one point of contact and the change of people may have caused stress. It apologised for the distress caused and offered £200 compensation. In addition, it confirmed it had raised her concerns with the managers in both teams so staff could be trained on ensuring each tenant receives a tailored service. It also arranged for a safeguarding officer to contact her as she had requested.
  6. The landlord therefore took some positive steps throughout, to help the resident. However, it also took responsibility for the fact it could have been clearer with her about why she was being contacted by a number of different people. Something she found difficult to cope with at what was an already stressful time.
  7. The landlord’s customer care and complaints policy says where a resident has suffered moderate inconvenience, compensation of up to £250 should be considered. That is the case here. There was a shortfall in the landlord’s service, but this did not have a permanent or long term effect, so the offer of £200 compensation was in line with its policy.
  8. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  9. Considering the circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the £200 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her concerns about the safeguarding team. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £200 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure. 

The resident’s concern about rent arrears

  1. The resident has explained that was not sure whether the landlord’s rent records were correct. She was concerned about having arrears and whether the landlord applied a credit to her rent account for 2 weeks rent, that it had promised. The landlord has supplied a copy of the resident’s rent statement for property A and B.
  2. In terms of property A, the rent statement shows the resident was in arrears several times over the years and the amount fluctuated. However, by 2 June 2024, when the tenancy ended, the arrears were £1,114.96. The statement shows the landlord did apply a credit to cover the 2 weeks’ rent that it said it would. The final arrears balance was then cleared when it was deducted from the home loss payment made to the resident.
  3. The tenancy for property B started on 20 May 2024 but arrears accrued as the first rent payment was not made until 24 June 2024. An arrangement was made between the landlord and resident on 10 June 2024, for her to pay £695.68 a month which included £21.67 towards the arrears. As of 24 February 2025 the resident’s account was £39.52 in credit and by 24 March 2025, she was £113.04 in credit. It is therefore evident she has cleared the arrears.
  4. Although the landlord incorrectly referred to the resident not having any arrears in its stage 1 response, it apologised for that and corrected the statement at stage 2. The resident was not certain whether the information provided about the arrears was correct, or whether she had had the benefit of the credit promised of 2 weeks rent. We are satisfied that the rent account does show a credit of 2 weeks rent. In addition, the arrears claimed by the landlord in its correspondence correlate with the figures set out in the rent statement. Therefore there has been no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the rent arrears.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the safeguarding team.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rent arrears.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £200 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised a deficiency in its communication and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.