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

The Community Housing Group Limited (202322903)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322903

The Community Housing Group Limited

10 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 a chargeable repair to the property’s toilet.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about various other issues.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and his partner are assured tenants. Their joint tenancy began in 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health. They include depression and anxiety. He is also facing some difficult circumstances around his family and employment.
  2. In June 2020 the property’s toilet was damaged. The parties agree that the resident was obliged to cover the cost of the repair. They also agree that he arranged his own works at this point. Later, the landlord wrote to the resident about a chargeable repair in January 2023. It said he owed around £180 and he should pay within 7 days. This prompted his partner to contact the landlord.
  3. At this point, it was confirmed that the charge related to the damaged toilet. The resident’s partner disputed it and the landlord started an internal investigation. Ultimately, it referred the outstanding charge to a third-party debt collection agency in May 2023. The debt collector’s involvement prompted the resident to contact the landlord. It subsequently returned his case from the debt collector in June 2023. It also removed the disputed charge from the resident’s account.
  4. The resident complained around August 2023. He said the landlord was responsible for an error and it was unfair for it to pass his details to a third party. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in September 2023. It agreed the charge was incorrect but said the situation had been resolved. Later that month, it declined the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. It said a review would not change the complaint outcome. It offered him £20 as a goodwill gesture. The resident subsequently approached the Ombudsman. Our intervention prompted the landlord to reconsider its approach to his escalation request.
  5. In January 2024 the landlord visited the resident to discuss his complaint. He raised some additional concerns at this point. The landlord issued a stage 2 response several days later. It identified a number of service failures. It awarded the resident a total of £350 in compensation to address them. The resident remained unhappy. He felt its compensation award was insufficient. He updated the Ombudsman in April 2025. He reiterated his previous concerns about the landlord’s sharing of his information and its level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In October 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman that he felt the landlord had breached its data protection obligations by passing his details to an external debt collection agency. The Ombudsman is not specialist in data regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that specialises in upholding data protection and information rights. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the ICO. As a result, it is out of scope for our assessment. We can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of a chargeable repair to the property’s toilet

  1. In June 2020 the resident reported that the property’s toilet was cracked. He said the damage was caused by a falling vase. The landlord told him he was obliged to cover the cost of the repair. It also said it would cost around £180. The parties agreed that the resident would arrange the repair himself. This was to avoid the charge. Later, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was responsible for a record keeping error at this stage. The resident has not disputed this. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to the contrary.
  2. In January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about the charge. It said the £180 was outstanding and the resident should pay within 7 days. It also said, if he did not do this, it would refer the matter to a debt collection agency. The resident’s partner called the landlord several days later to dispute the charge. The landlord did not provide a copy of the call notes. This indicates there may be a record keeping issue. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows the call prompted it to make some enquiries. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the disputed charge.
  3. The landlord discussed the charge during internal correspondence in January and March 2023. On both occasions, it said it had completed the related repair. Later, in November 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman he had called the landlord several times about the charge. He also said it told him that he did not have to pay it. The landlord did not provide any corresponding call records. From the evidence provided, there is no information to show it was aware of an error at this stage. It is noted the landlord’s internal discussion in March 2023 may have been prompted by another call from the resident or his partner.
  4. On 26 May 2023 the landlord referred the charge to a third-party debt collection agency. The resident says he was notified when this agency wrote to him directly. He called the agency on 7 June 2023. Records show it advised him to contact the landlord with his concerns. The landlord asked the debt collector to return the resident’s case 2 days later. This suggests it discovered its historical record keeping error at this point. The evidence indicates that it swiftly removed the charge from the resident’s account. This is based on the landlord’s internal correspondence in June 2024. The same correspondence says the landlord updated the resident about its actions soon afterwards. The Ombudsman was unable to confirm this from the landlord’s primary records. This is concerning.
  5. The evidence indicates the resident complained to the landlord during a phone call in August 2023. This is based on the timing of its subsequent complaint acknowledgement email to the resident. The landlord’s call notes said the resident was upset by the debt collector’s involvement. They also said he felt that it should not have passed his details to a separate company. This suggests he was concerned that the landlord had shared sensitive information without his consent. These concerns are understandable in the circumstances. It is noted the landlord’s error could potentially impact the resident’s credit rating.
  6. On 13 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for the resident’s experience and the upset caused. It said the charge had been added to his account in error. It also said this had eventually triggered its collections process, which involved the third-party agency. However, it said the charge had been removed and the was “nothing for [him] to be concerned about”. In addition, the landlord said it had taken steps to prevent the error from recurring. Given the level of distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord could have considered awarding him some compensation at this point. There is no indication it did this. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows the resident had made several phone calls to the landlord and its debt collector about the error. It also shows that he was distressed by it.
  7. The resident called the landlord on 29 September 2023. Subsequently, the landlord wrote to him on the same day. Its letter shows he had asked it to escalate his complaint. It also shows the landlord declined his request. It said it would not change its findings if it reviewed his complaint. We will consider the landlord’s complaint handling in the relevant section below. It also said it had already explained its process for passing debts to a third party. At this point, the landlord offered the resident £20 in compensation as a “goodwill gesture”. It is noted that it later increased its award by a significant amount. This points to a problem with its initial calculation. The landlord’s letter rightly included referral rights to the Ombudsman.
  8. The resident approached the Ombudsman in October 2023. Subsequently, he told us that he felt the landlord had breached its data protection obligations by passing his details to an external debt collection agency. He also told us it had taken his complaint “very lightly” and its compensation award was inadequate. He said the situation had caused him great “anxiety and stress”. He highlighted his vulnerabilities. He also said the landlord’s error had “caused conflict” between him and his partner. His distress was understandable given the impacts he reported at this stage.
  9. On 16 January 2024 the landlord accepted the resident’s stage 2 complaint. On this date, it told us it accepted it should have actioned his escalation request previously. Five working days later, on 23 January 2024, it visited the resident at the property to discuss the complaint. The landlord has supplied detailed notes from its visit. They show that, among other issues, the resident reported that he had suffered some bereavements and lost his job. The notes said the resident felt that the landlord lacked empathy for his situation. He also felt its offer of £20 in compensation was “insulting”. The landlord was not obliged to complete a home visit at this point. The visit represents good practice on its part. It was a proactive, sensitive, and reasonable measure in the circumstances.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. It identified a number of improvement areas based on the resident’s experience. These related to its record keeping, debt recovery process, and related customer journey. The landlord also accepted responsibility for several failures. In relation to its handling of the chargeable repair, it awarded the resident a total of £300 in compensation. This figure comprised £50 for its repeated failure to recognise a record keeping error, £100 for inconsistent application of its debt recovery process, and £150 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. It had incorrectly logged the toilet repair as complete (rather than cancelled) in 2020. Subsequently, it was unable to process the associated charge until 2023. This was because its resources were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    2. It would address the logging error with its relevant teams. It would stress the importance of accurate records. It had raised awareness of record keeping issues internally over the last 12 months.
    3. Its investigation had shown it did not follow its debt recovery process consistently. The landlord expected its staff to keep affected residents updated. It also expected them to tell residents when its internal recovery process had been exhausted (before it transferred their case to a debt collection agency).
    4. It would review its existing recovery process. It invited the resident to participate in its review. It wanted to learn from his experience. It also wanted its debt related communications to be respectful, factual, informative, and personalised.
    5. It acknowledged that the resident wanted additional compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident had made some valid points. The landlord had based its compensation calculation on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  11. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about information sharing in its response. It felt it had transferred the charge to the debt collector without giving him sufficient notice. It awarded some compensation to address this specific failure. It felt the failure related to its adherence to policies/procedures and communication. The landlord did not say whether it was entitled to share the resident’s information or not. In mitigation, it is unclear if he specifically referred to data protection regulations during his complaint to the landlord. It is noted the landlord’s website says it “will share [a resident’s] personal information if it is in our legitimate interests to do so without seeking your consent first”. As mentioned, the ICO is best placed to decide whether the landlord was entitled to share the resident’s information with the debt collector in this case.
  12. The landlord identified a number of service improvement areas in its response. This was consistent with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of “learning from outcomes”. In addition, it invited the resident to participate in a review of its debt recovery process. This shows it valued his experience and contribution. The landlord also based its compensation calculation on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. All of these measures are further examples of good practice by the landlord. Our remedies guidance can be found on our website. It shows the landlord’s calculation was consistent with cases where there was a failure that adversely impacted a resident, but did not result in a permanent impact to them. The landlord removed the charge from the resident’s account, so this criteria applies to his case. We find that its award was reasonable and proportionate given the impact of its failures on the resident.
  13. In summary, the landlord was responsible for a significant error that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Ultimately, it recognised its failures during its own internal complaints process. It also took sufficient steps to put things right for the resident. It has shown that it learned from his experience. It based its compensation calculation on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Towards the end of the resident’s complaint journey, it demonstrated good practice on a number of different occasions. It is understood the resident feels it is responsible for a significant data breach. This matter is best suited to the ICO, which specialises in data regulations. Overall, we find the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about various other issues

  1. The resident raised other concerns during his complaint to the landlord. In his initial call, he said he did not feel comfortable requesting repairs. This was on the basis the landlord often declined his requests. He also said he felt that it did not want to help him. The landlord’s call notes did not refer to any specific repairs. It could have reasonably gathered more information about his concerns at this point. Later, the resident raised further issues during the home visit in January 2024. The landlord’s notes show the parties discussed rent arrears, a lack of communication from the landlord, the resident’s lack of trust in it, a declined repair request for gutter clearance, and overcrowding in the property. This shows the resident had various concerns about the landlord’s activities.
  2. The parties supplied limited information about the resident’s other concerns. The landlord’s notes (from its home visit) and complaint correspondence shows it addressed them at stage 2. The resident has not disputed the information in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to engage with his concerns and respond to them. In its response, the landlord said the declined repair related to a report from the resident in August 2023. It said he had reported moss on the property’s roof. It also said the landlord had declined to clear it. The evidence shows the landlord had previously cleared the property’s gutters. It also shows the resident felt its approach was inconsistent.
  3. The landlord said it was not obliged to clear moss from the roof. It also said it would complete a repair if moss was blocking a gutter. The repairs information on its website supports these assertions. Ultimately, the landlord felt it had given the resident correct advice but it could have done more to understand the location of the moss. It signposted the resident to information about its repair service in its response. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to support a related failure by the landlord.
  4. In relation to rent arrears, the landlord said it would ask its income specialist to arrange a meeting with the resident. It said the specialist would consider his support needs and the benefits he was claiming. It also said the meeting should allow it to refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment team. Arranging an initial meeting was a proactive and reasonable approach by the landlord. This shows it was suitably mindful of the resident’s situation and it was willing to support him where possible. There is no evidence to support a related failure on its part.
  5. The landlord adopted a similar approach to the resident’s reported lack of communication. In its response, it said it would ask its local representative to contact the resident. This was so the parties could establish a relationship. The landlord also said its local representative would consider whether they could offer him any additional support. This was a proactive and reasonable measure to address the resident’s concerns around communication. The evidence shows the landlord was suitably mindful of his vulnerabilities. It referred to them in its response. Ultimately, it said it would explore support options through a number of its internal channels. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Some of the resident’s communication based concerns related to a previous stock condition survey by the landlord. He said the survey was completed around 6 months prior to the landlord’s home visit. He also said there had been a lack of communication from the landlord after the survey. There is no indication the landlord was obliged to update the resident within a certain timeframe. In its response, the landlord said it had discussed the survey with its asset team. It also said this team was in the process of creating a “plan for homes”. In addition, it said the asset team would update affected residents once it had finalised the plan. The landlord also said it had asked this team to ensure that the resident received an update. This was a reasonable approach. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to support a related failure by the landlord.
  7. The landlord’s response also addressed the resident’s concerns around overcrowding in the property. It said 2 adults and 3 children were sharing a 2–bedroom house. It also said the resident had confirmed that he had registered for rehousing with the local authority. The landlord told the resident he could update the local authority about his housing needs. It also signposted him to a mutual exchange service. It said he would need to clear any rent arrears to be eligible for this scheme. The above shows the landlord gave the resident timely and appropriate information about rehousing options. It also took reasonable steps to manage his expectations (in relation to the effect of rent arrears). Ultimately, there is no evidence to support a related failure on its part.
  8. In summary, the landlord ultimately responded to the resident’s other concerns thoroughly and in a sympathetic manner. From the available information, there is a lack of evidence to support any related failures or corresponding impacts to the resident. The landlord was suitably mindful of the resident’s situation. It took various steps to try and improve matters for him. Overall, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The exact date when the resident complained to the landlord is unclear. However, it issued him a stage 1 acknowledgement on 31 August 2023. This indicates he complained around this time. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure says it should log complaints within 1 working day of receiving them at stage 1. In this case, there is no evidence to show it did not do this. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would respond by 14 September 2023. It subsequently issued a stage 1 response before this date. Its complaints procedure shows it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging them. The evidence confirms it complied with this timescale.
  2. In his initial complaint, the resident raised some unspecified concerns about the landlord’s repairs service. The landlord did not address these in its stage 1 response. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 says “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. The landlord did not do this. Its stage 1 response was unfair and contrary to the Code. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s related concerns were important to him. When the landlord overlooked these, it may have added to his overall distress. As mentioned, the landlord ultimately addressed them at stage 2.
  3. There were other issues with the stage 1 response. It did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld or not upheld). Section 5.8 of the Code confirms a compliant response must include a decision on the complaint in “plain language”. The landlord’s complaints procedure includes the relevant section of the Code. Nevertheless, the landlord did not include the required information in its response. This was inadequate. Its lack of clarity may have caused some confusion for the resident. It is noted the landlord subsequently referred to its (unspecified) decision during further correspondence to him at stage 1. It is also noted that it eventually repeated the same failure in its stage 2 response.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 29 September 2023. At this point, the landlord told him it had already resolved the matter. It said it would not change the complaint outcome if it reviewed it (presumably because it had already upheld the complaint). The landlord’s complaints procedure says residents can escalate a complaint if it is not resolved to their satisfaction. It also says the landlord can decline an escalation request in some circumstances. The exclusions that are listed in its complaints procedure do not apply to the resident’s case. The landlord’s decision was inappropriate and unfair. Its decision prompted the resident to approach the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient for him.
  5. Following our intervention, the landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request on 16 January 2024. It subsequently issued a stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. This was 11 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. When it changed its approach, the landlord did comply with its applicable timescale. However, based on the period between 29 September 2023 and 31 January 2024, it was ultimately responsible for an unreasonable delay of around 3 months. This would have been avoided if it had accepted the resident’s initial escalation request. The delay may have added to his distress.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its initial approach to the resident’s escalation request. It recognised it had not allowed him to exhaust its complaints process. It also said its decision was contrary to its complaints procedure. In addition, it said it had failed to recognise the extent of his distress at stage 1 and should have escalated his complaint sooner. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address these failures. This shows the landlord considered its own complaint handling carefully. It also recognised its key failures and took steps to address them. It was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident given what went wrong.
  7. As mentioned, the landlord based its calculation on our remedies guidance. Our guidance shows its complaint handling related award is consistent with cases where a resident was impacted by a minor failure that only lasted for a short time. The landlord’s accumulated failures are noted. It is also noted that it has not acknowledged some of them. We have also considered the extent of the delay and its impact on the resident. Based on these factors, we find the above criteria do not apply to the resident’s case. As a result, the landlord’s award was not sufficient to put things right for him. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation.
  8. In summary, the landlord was responsible for a number of complaint handling failures that affected the resident. It identified some of these failures and addressed them. However, it overlooked a number of issues and their impacts. Although it applied the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, its calculation did not reflect its accumulated delays and failures. As a result, the compensation it awarded was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. Since there was not a large disparity, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the chargeable repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about various other issues.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £50 that the landlord previously awarded the resident for complaint handling failures at stage 2. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord should deduct it (it must not make the same payment twice).
    2. An additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should concentrate on the failures that we have identified (rather than the ones that it previously acknowledged at stage 2). The landlord is free to include any examples of good practice that we have identified in its communication. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. In addition to the £100 ordered above, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 it offered him at stage 2 in relation to the chargeable repair, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this payment is made.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should address any impact to the resident’s credit file that was caused by its chargeable repair error. This is because its error could potentially affect his credit rating. In any case, it should update the resident and the Ombudsman about its actions (it should confirm whether it has newly arranged the update to his file or whether it had already done this previously).