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

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202331664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331664

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

24 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:
    1. A furniture and flooring package charge included on the resident’s rent account.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. In April 2015, the resident moved into the property, and he requested to take out a furniture and flooring package from the landlord at a monthly cost. The package included rental of the furniture and maintenance, such as repairs or replacement furniture if required. In addition, carpet replacement when there was general wear and tear.
  3. On 17 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and queried charges on his rent statement. He explained his rent statement showed a rent charge and additional charges, and he queried what the additional charges included.
  4. On 27 February 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s query and explained the additional charges on the resident’s rent statement included:
    1. Furniture and flooring package – £24.75.
    2. District Heating- £12.94.
    3. Communal facilities – £5.05
  5. On 18 April 2023, the landlord sent a letter to the resident confirming it had ended his furniture and floor package agreement and removed the charge from his rent account.
  6. On 16 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord expressing dissatisfaction and stated he agreed to the small furnishings and floor package at short notice to provide basics at his property. He stated he believed that when each item within the package was paid for, it would become his property, and he would no longer be charged. The resident stated after signing up for the package, he had not received any letters or information informing him he was still being charged for the package. He explained he would like the landlord to refund him the charges from the point the items were valued at £1.
  7. On 29 June 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint email as a service request. It explained that the furnished charge was incorporated within the additional charges, which was sent via letter every April. The landlord stated as the charge was ongoing, this was the reason the furnished homes team would not send out a letter. It stated letters would only be sent out when there was a change to a package.
  8. On 10 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and he stated the staff member who responded was not impartial as they were a manager for the landlord’s furnished homes department.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2023. It explained the furniture and flooring packaging charge was a service charge which covered the resident for the duration of the tenancy. In addition, it explained that the charge included ongoing service and support for the items included in the package such as repair or replacement when applicable. The landlord acknowledged that some wording in the furnished tenancy agreement could be clearer. It apologised for this and confirmed it would make amendments to the wording. The landlord confirmed it had removed the furnishing and flooring package from his account and refunded some of the charges to his account. It also confirmed it had let the resident keep the items. 
  10. On 5 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. He stated the landlord did not inform him of what he was paying for as part of his rent, and he explained he was not notified separately about the furniture and flooring package charge.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 December 2023. It explained that the resident’s furniture and flooring package was managed in accordance with the scheme. The landlord also explained an inventory check of items would only be completed at the start of the scheme and if a resident reports a repair issue with an item in the package. It also stated that the furniture and flooring package charge was recorded under the other charges section of his rent statement. In addition, it explained the rent statement did not provide a detailed description of the charges in the other charges section due to the landlord having around 40 separate charges it used.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated he wanted the landlord to refund charges paid towards the furniture and floor package after the items in his package were valued at £1. In addition, he stated he wanted the landlord to make changes to its furnished homes policy and complete an audit of the service. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident initially signed up for the furniture and flooring package in April 2015. Whilst this gives context to the current complaint, we will not be investigating the purchase of the package, as this was several years before the events leading to the resident’s current complaint. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events approximately more than 12 months prior to when the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord in July 2023. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the concerns the resident raised about the furniture and flooring package charge in February 2023.

Assessment

A furniture and flooring package charge included on the resident’s rent account.

  1. The landlord’s furnished homes policy explains for as long as a resident has a furnished tenancy package, the items will belong to the landlord. It states the weekly furnished charges pay for the items, the service it provides, and any repairs or replacements required throughout the lifetime of the furnished tenancy. The policy also states if a resident’s financial circumstances change, a resident can upgrade or downgrade their furniture package, and the furniture charge will adjust accordingly.
  2. The landlord’s sample furnished homes tenancy disclaimer states there will be an additional weekly charge starting from the date of delivery of the furniture, or when carpets are fitted. In addition, it states that the charge is ongoing through the duration of a resident’s tenancy and will include ongoing maintenance and repairs of all furnished items caused through natural wear and tear or item failure.
  3. In February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and queried charges on his rent statement. He explained his rent statement showed a rent charge and additional charges, and he queried what the additional charges included. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s query and explained the other charges on his rent statement were for his furniture and flooring package, district heating and communal facilities. The landlord also explained that the furniture and flooring package charge was £24.75 per month. The landlord took appropriate steps by providing the resident with a detailed breakdown of the charges shown on his rent statement.
  4. The landlord also sent further emails to the resident in March and April 2023 to provide a further detailed explanation about the resident’s furniture and flooring package charge and what it includes. It explained to the resident he had a silver package, which included a maximum of 5 furnished items and carpet or vinyl. The landlord also stated the ongoing package charge included furniture repairs, replacements or exchanges and carpet replacement for general wear and tear. The landlord acted appropriately by reminding the resident of what the furniture and flooring package included, so he could decide whether he wanted to continue with the package.
  5. Shortly after the landlord reconfirmed what the resident’s furniture and flooring package included, the resident asked to be removed from the package, as he stated the landlord did not previously tell him he would only be renting the items. The resident stated he believed he would own the items after a fixed period of time after making a certain number of payments. The Ombudsman recognises it would have been frustrating for the resident to find out he did not own the items after paying the monthly package charge for several years. As above, we are not assessing the sale of the package in 2015 as part of our investigation so we will not comment on what information the resident was or was not given at the time.
  6. We do not have the resident’s signed furnished homes tenancy disclaimer form from the time as the landlord no longer has this. However, the landlord provided us with a copy of a sample furnished homes tenancy disclaimer form, which stated that the charge was ongoing throughout the duration of a resident’s tenancy and would include ongoing maintenance and repairs of all furnished items. In addition, the furnished homes policy also stated that the items in the package belong to the landlord and the charge covers any repairs or replacements required throughout the lifetime of the furnished tenancy. Therefore, from the information provided by the landlord, it appears it explained that the furniture and flooring package did not provide the resident with ownership of the items.
  7. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request and agreed to end his furniture and flooring package. It sent a letter to the resident on 18 April 2023, confirming it had ended the agreement. In addition, the landlord also agreed to let the resident keep the items he rented as part of the package and a few months later, it agreed to backdate and remove the furniture and flooring charges from 15 March 2023. Therefore, due to this, it refunded the resident £113.33 and credited it to his rent account. The landlord acted reasonably by letting the resident keep items which were previously included in his furniture and flooring package.
  8. We recognise the resident requested a refund of the package to be backdated to when the items were valued at £1. However, the furniture and flooring package agreement and policy does not include any information in relation to refunding or stopping the monthly payment once a resident’s items were valued at £1. In addition, the furniture and flooring package charge included cover for replacement items should the items become damaged. Therefore, the landlord is not entitled to a refund on this basis. We acknowledge that the resident did not use this cover, but he could have used it and therefore the landlord was entitled to charge for this as part of the furniture agreement even though the resident had paid the cost of the furniture itself.
  9. The landlord reconfirmed in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses what the furniture and flooring package included, and it also explained that the charge was shown in the other charges section of the resident’s rent statement due to the landlord’s system producing the rent statement with one total net amount for any applicable other charges. The Ombudsman recognises it would have been useful for the format of the landlord’s rent statement to be clearer and provide a detailed breakdown of each monthly charge. However, we recognise it was not obliged to provide this automatically, although it should give a breakdown upon request.
  10. In addition, the landlord explained in its complaint responses that it did not send out any letters about the furniture and floor package after a resident signed up to the package. The Ombudsman acknowledges this was not a requirement. However, it would be good practice for the landlord to send out an annual statement to all residents who have a furniture and flooring package, so they are reminded of the package and what is included. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord implements this. We also recommend the landlord reviews its furniture and flooring package scheme to ensure it is suitable for residents.
  11. The landlord also acknowledged in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response that the wording in its furnished agreement and ‘guide to your home’ policy document, which was applicable to the furniture flooring package, included some unclear and misleading wording, such as stating that the furniture and flooring package was a fixed term scheme. The landlord took appropriate steps by apologising for the error and confirmed it would update the wording to make it clearer.
  12. Overall, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation to the resident’s concerns about the furniture and flooring package. Also, prior to the resident submitting his complaint to the landlord, it removed the resident from the package and agreed to let him keep the items. In addition, during its complaints process it apologised for incorrect and misleading wording in one of its policy documents applicable to the furniture and flooring package and confirmed it would amend the wording. The landlord’s apology was reasonable and proportionate to recognise the error with the wording in its policy document and took appropriate action by amending the wording to make it clearer. The apology is in line with the remedies referenced in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above and amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

 

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 3 working days of receiving it.
  3. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or actions on its behalf affecting a resident or group of residents.
  4. The landlord failed to log the resident’s complaint email dated 16 June 2023 as a complaint and instead logged it as a service request. The resident expressed dissatisfaction and provided valid complaint points for his email to be considered as a complaint. Therefore, we would have expected the landlord to consider the resident’s email dated 16 June 2023 as a complaint and issue a stage one complaint response in this instance. The landlord did not comply with its own complaints policy and the Code when it failed to log the resident’s email as a complaint and delayed the resident from bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord eventually logged a complaint for the resident on 10 July 2023 after the resident sent it a further complaint email. Following this, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 21 July 2023. The response was on time and in line with the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. It took the landlord around 89 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 5 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 December 2023. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
  7. The resident also raised that he was unhappy with the staff members who investigated his service request and complaints. From reviewing the service request response and complaint responses, it is evident that different staff members from the landlord handled the complaint at the different stages. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with the Code by having different staff members responding at each stage
  8. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint–handling errors. Therefore, given its complaint handling errors, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s concerns about a furniture and flooring package charge included on the resident’s rent account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling errors.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reviews its furniture and flooring package scheme to ensure it is suitable for residents going forward.
  2. We recommend the landlord to implement a procedure to send out an annual statement to all residents who have a furniture and flooring package, so they are reminded of the package and what Is included.