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

Soha Housing Limited (202301865)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301865

Soha Housing Limited

4 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about monthly charges which are not applicable to him.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident accepted the offer of a property on 28 February 2022. Both the advert for the property and the Tenancy Agreement explained that the total monthly cost was £470.22. It provided a breakdown of charges as follows:
    1. Rent £420.30.
    2. Service Charge £20.80.
    3. Housing Proactive (portable touchscreen combining two-way digital engagement and self-service) £21.67.
    4. Independent Living Charge £7.45.
  2. The resident accepted the property, a one bedroomed semi-detached bungalow, and signed the tenancy on 31 March 2022.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2023 and explained the rent was going to be increased as follows:
    1. Rent £458.42.
    2. Service Charge £17.31.
    3. Housing Proactive £25.74.
    4. Independent Living Charge £8.62.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint on 1 March 2023. He acknowledged the Tenancy Agreement stated there was a monthly charge for Housing Proactive and Independent Living, but he did not need these services. He said he had not fully digested the Tenancy Agreement at the time of signing it.
  5. The landlord responded the same day and noted the resident’s request for the removal of both charges. It explained the charges were mandatory and could not be removed as they were set out in the Tenancy Agreement when he signed up for the property. It accepted he did not use the Housing Proactive service, but the option was there should he need it. It explained the property was under the Independent Living scheme, so he had the services of the Housing Officer in order to help him with staying in his home and access external services should he need it.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 3 March 2023 and reiterated that the property was categorised as Independent Living. This meant it was age restricted to residents over 55 years old and came with an added level of housing support as set out in the Tenancy Agreement. Therefore, the charges could not be removed. However, it noted the resident’s declared income and offered to assist him in claiming Universal Credit in order to increase his income.
  7. The resident responded the same day and said he required a final response as he intended to refer his complaint to this Service. There was a further email exchange between the landlord and resident on 5 March 2023. The landlord asked the resident for evidence in support of his complaint, and he replied that he did not know where else to go with it.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 6 March 2023. It reiterated its reason for being unable to remove the charges, but said it could add him to the transfer list to move to a home in general needs housing, if he would prefer. It also reminded him that it could support him reviewing his income and benefits entitlement that could help cover the 2 charges he was disputing. It did not uphold the complaint as it had not breached its policies or procedures, but invited the resident to submit evidence to the contrary.
  9. The resident responded the same day and, although he noted the property was Independent Living, he could not see why the charges could not be removed. He felt it could be deemed discrimination. He said the District Council had “made it clear in no uncertain terms that I had to accept the offer of the property – or they would remove me from the waiting list”. He said he had to sign the Tenancy Agreement when the keys were handed over so did not have time to digest all of it at the time. He said a move to general needs housing may be a good option if the rent was lower, in the same location and was dog friendly.
  10. The landlord explained that it was separate to the District Council, and said “the best route for you to take this complaint now is to the Housing Ombudsman. I don’t feel a stage 2 panel would benefit you or change the outcome”.
  11. The resident responded by repeating that he had been told by the landlord that he would be signing the Tenancy on 31 March 2022 and in his view there were unfair terms/fees what were not legally binding. He said he would refer his complaint to this Service.
  12. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. It noted the resident’s concerns and said an offer letter had been sent to him on 16 March 2022 setting out the charges that would be applied and he signed the Tenancy Agreement on 31 March 2022 which also set out the charges. It therefore did not uphold the complaint, as it found he was given fair notice of the charges before committing to the tenancy. It concluded by saying, “If you would like to appeal this decision, we would ask you to provide further evidence that the charges have been unfairly applied.”
  13. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 1 April 2023. In the landlord’s response of 6 April 2023 it said it was unsure why the resident felt the charges were unfair, when he had been made aware of them before signing the Tenancy Agreement. It asked him to send in any evidence he had of it being unfair and it would continue to review matters at stage 1. Alternatively if he wanted to refer the complaint to this Service he could, as it did not think a stage 2 panel would be beneficial because it would not change the outcome.
  14. The resident replied by saying he had provided clear evidence in previous emails, the charges had not been explained in detail and “anyone with the slightest amount of initiative, after meeting me, would have realised that I did not require Independent Living/Housing Proactive ‘services”. He asked for a stage 2 response to be issued.
  15. The landlord explained that it had reviewed the resident’s past emails and reiterated it could not consider a complaint about the District Council. It therefore confirmed that the next step would be to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Monthly charges not applicable to the resident

  1. The resident has told this service that the crux of his complaint is the unfairness of being charged for Housing Proactive and Independent Living, when he does not utilise these services where he lives. The Ombudsman notes that the resident feels he has been treated unfairly but is unable to make a legally binding finding of discrimination. It is also not the role of this Service to determine whether the level of rent or service charge is reasonable, including whether a resident should be charged at all for a specific service.
  2. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) has powers to determine whether service charges are reasonable, and whether a landlord has followed the correct procedure to be entitled to recover service charges. Therefore, the resident would need to make an application to the FTT if this is something he wishes to pursue further.
  3. This Service can, however, look at the information provided by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns and whether it was reasonable. The resident has said he was not given sufficient time to consider the charges he would be liable for, before being asked to sign the Tenancy Agreement. However, the evidence does not support that.
  4. The advert for the property set out all charges that would be made and, amongst other things, it referred to support charges of £7.45 and ‘other charges’ of £21.67. It is not in dispute that the resident was sent an offer letter on 16 March 2022 informing him of the charges he would have to pay if he decided to accept the tenancy. Finally, the Tenancy Agreement the resident then signed on 31 March 2022 set out the monthly payments and provided more detail
  5. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident feels he did not have enough time to digest the Tenancy Agreement, but is satisfied he was given sufficient opportunity to question the charges before signing it. The resident was made aware that both the Housing Proactive and Independent Living Charge were payable each month, if he decided to accept the tenancy. If he had any questions or reservations about these charges, or anything else related to the tenancy, he needed to seek clarification before signing the Tenancy Agreement. Once it was signed, he was committed to paying the charges associated with the property. It is also of note that the resident did not actually complain about the charges until nearly a year after moving in and having paid the charges over that time.
  6. Overall, the landlord provided sufficient information for the resident to be able to make an informed decision about the property. Once a complaint was made, it set out its position in relation to why the charges were payable. It also took a proactive approach and went one step further by offering to help the resident review whether he may be entitled to benefits which would help cover his living expenses. In addition, it offered to help re-house him if he no longer wanted to live at the property. Based on all the information provided, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints policy says a complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days. It says it will aim to resolve the complaint quickly but if it cannot resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the resident within 3 days or it is likely to take more than 3 working days to resolve, it will commence a full investigation. At stage 1, a response should be issued within 10 working days from receipt. A resident can escalate a complaint to stage 2 if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of stage 1.
  2. The policy says a request for progression to stage 2 will be recorded and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. The stage 2 review will be undertaken by 1 board member or involved tenant and 1 member from Senior Leadership Team not directly involved with the initial complaint. A stage 2 review meeting will be scheduled to take place regularly so that, decisions are issued within 20 working days following the date the complaint was escalated.
  3. In this case, the landlord certainly addressed the resident’s complaint of 1 March 2023 promptly. It emailed him on 1, 3 and 6 March 2023, responding to his concerns over the charges and setting out why they were payable. Trying to resolve the complaint quickly was in line with its Complaints policy. However, in its email of 6 March 2023 it concluded by saying “the best route for you to take this complaint now is to the Housing Ombudsman. I don’t feel a stage 2 panel would benefit you or change the outcome”.
  4. While the landlord had attempted to resolve the complaint, it had not actually issued its stage 1 response at that point. The stage 1 response was issued on 10 March 2023 and while that was still timely, it meant the 6 March 2023 email was premature and inaccurate. Then when the resident asked on 1 April 2023 for the complaint to be escalated, the landlord’s response created even more confusion. It asked the resident to send in any evidence he had, and it would continue to review matters at stage 1. Alternatively, it said if he wanted to refer the complaint to this Service, he could that, as it reiterated that it did not think a stage 2 panel would be beneficial.
  5. Having issued its stage 1 response, the landlord created an unnecessary extra step by saying it would continue to review the case again at stage 1, and then dismissed the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This goes against its Complaints policy which states it is not necessary for a resident to say why they are requesting a Stage 2 review. It is also contrary to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states, “6.10 If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response.”
  6. There was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or attempt to put it right. This amounts to a service failure. The resident did not get his complaint reviewed at stage 2 as he should have. He should not have had his request for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2 refused, and this is something the landlord should investigate, and ensure a process is put in place going forward, to ensure its Complaints policy is always followed correctly, and operates in line with the Code.
  7. The Ombudsman does note though, that the resident did have the benefit of 2 separate people, a housing officer and head of housing, review his concerns and provide separate responses, which shows it did take the complaint seriously. Having said that, he was not given clear and accurate information about the complaints process, and this should be recognised by way of compensation in the amount of £75.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the imposition of monthly charges, which the resident states are not applicable.
    2. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within six weeks of the date of determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failure identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation to recognise the confusion caused by its poor handling of the complaint.
    3. Ensure all relevant staff are reminded of the importance of following its Complaints policy; in particular, that residents are entitled to have a complaint investigated at stage 2 prior to being signposted to this Service.