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

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202213991)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213991

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

6 June 2023

 

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 request:
    1. To repair a broken window in the outbuilding; and
    2. To set up a direct debit for his rent payments.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The resident was in arrears with his rent and contacted the landlord in August 2022 to set up a direct debit, to cover current rent and an amount towards the arrears.
  3. The landlord advised the resident that he would have to complete the direct debit mandate over the phone. This was not suitable for the resident and he wished to complete a paper direct debit mandate.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 August 2022 regarding his treatment over the rent arrears and setting up the direct debit. The resident also added an element to the complaint concerning adding a friend to his tenancy agreement.
  5. On 31 August 2022 the resident raised a second complaint, regarding the direct debit for his rent, along with further elements concerning the proposed timescale for repairing a window on a shed on the property, a broken fan in the bathroom, a problem with the shower, and a lump in the bathroom floor.
  6. The stage one response to the first complaint explained that it had been following its procedure to recover the arrears and this could include making calls to the resident, sending text messages and sending letters if rent payments were missed, or if payments did not meet what was expected. It explained the steps that it had tried to follow to assist the resident in managing the arrears. It acknowledged there were issues with the resident’s universal credit, following periods in and out of work, and recommended that the resident inform the DWP to ensure that universal credit was put in place to cover all of the dates where he was not working. The landlord also clarified that only the recent arrears were being pursued and that the older arrears, that were the subject to a debt relief order, would not be recovered. The landlord advised that it was not a problem for a friend to move into the property, as long as the resident informed the landlord. The landlord also made recommendation for who else the resident would need to inform.
  7. The stage one response to the second complaint acknowledged that the resident had been given the wrong information regarding setting up the direct debt, and an apology was offered. The landlord discussed the shed window and explained that the repair was not regarded as an emergency under its policy, and that it was within the time limits for non-emergency repairs. The resident was advised that he was responsible for moving any valuable goods out of the shed, until it was secured. The landlord advised that the bathroom fan had been inspected and that the repair contractor would contact him directly to arrange a replacement. For the bathroom floor, the landlord advised that it had only been made aware of the problem and it was arranging an inspection. Finally for the shower, the landlord advised that the resident had reported this several times but, when inspections had been arranged, the contractors had been unable to gain access. It added that a new appointment had been scheduled.
  8. The resident did not ask to escalate the first complaint. However he asked that the second complaint was escalated. The issues that he was still unhappy about were the response to the repair of the shed window, and the attitude of staff who had spoken to him previously.
  9. The stage two response re-iterated that the response time was within its policy. The landlord advised that the resident had already had an apology for the misunderstanding over the direct debit mandate. The landlord also advised that recordings were not made of telephone correspondence, but apologised if the resident felt anxious or threatened. Finally, the landlord stated that, as the other elements of this complaint had not been mentioned in the escalation request, it had not reviewed them further.
  10. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding how long it should take to repair the shed window. The resident also remains dissatisfied at the handling of setting up the direct debit, the issue of adding a friend to his tenancy, the problems with the bathroom floor and fan, and the attitude of the landlord’s staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint includes additional elements to the ones covered in paragraph one. These are as follows:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to add a friend to his tenancy;
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the bathroom floor and bathroom extractor fan.
  2. These matters have not been considered as part of this report because they did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Repair to the outbuilding window

  1. The landlord’s obligations for carrying out repairs, are covered in its repairs policy, supplemented by a more detailed breakdown on its website. The information on the website is also covered in the landlord’s booklet ‘Hello! Welcome to your Thirteen Home’. The guidance on repairs defines emergency repairs, which are to be carried out in twenty-four hours. The guidance also covers appointable repairs, carried out to prevent immediate damage to the property, and planned repairs, which are non-urgent. The timescales for appointable and planned repairs are twenty-eight days and sixty days respectively.
  2. Throughout the case history, the window in question is referred to by the resident as a shed window, while the landlord refers to it as a shed / outbuilding window. The landlord’s repairs leaflet, which is also available on its website, list responsibilities for such buildings as follows:
    1. Garages and outhouses attached to property or let under a separate agreement – responsibility of landlord.
    2. Sheds – considered gifted to resident at start of tenancy, and therefore responsibility of tenant.
  3. The evidence does not state whether the outbuilding is attached to the property, or is let separately, but in any event the landlord did accept responsibility for the repair.
  4. The resident told this Service that the shed window needed repair since moving in, approximately three years before the most recent complaint. However, the repairs records and communications records between resident and landlord show no evidence of the repair being reported previously. The evidence demonstrates that the repair was reported on 22 July 2022 and the landlord attended to inspect on 12 August 2022. An appointment was made for 3 October 2022 for the repair to be carried out. This was within sixty days of the repair being reported. This was compliant under the terms of the landlord’s guidance.
  5. The resident disagreed with the timescale of the repair, and wanted it carried out earlier. His reasoning was that he was storing valuable goods in the shed and that they were therefore not secure. The resident also wanted the landlord to arrange temporary storage for his property, until the window was repaired.
  6. While a broken outbuilding window does not appear to be an emergency repair, this Service has considered whether the damage could be classed as an appointable repair, which would have moved the priority of the repair into the next category. The landlord’s definition of appointable repair is something that can prevent immediate damage to the property. As the window concerned is on an outbuilding, it is unlikely that the damage could lead to immediate damage to the main property. Furthermore, the resident has stated that the window had been broken for some time, which suggests that had there been a risk of immediate damage, it would have already happened. As such, this Service considers that this repair has been correctly categorised, and prioritised appropriately.
  7. The resident has raised concerns about the security of his belongings while waiting for the repair. The landlord did not accepted responsibility for the goods inside the outbuilding. The resident, despite knowing this, continued to store goods in the outbuilding. The landlord’s policy does not make it clear where responsibility lies for goods stored in an outbuilding. Therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the default position would be that these goods remain the responsibility of the resident. The resident has stated that the landlord offered temporary storage. However nothing in its policy states that it is required to do this, and there is no evidence that the landlord did in fact make this promise. The landlord’s handling of the repair to the outbuilding was appropriate as it acted in line with its repair policy.

Setting up the resident’s direct debit

  1. The resident has had various issues relating to the payment of the rent, which have been covered to various degrees over the recent case history. His complaint to this Service raised issues with the following:
    1. He was being asked to pay more than contractual rent, so that he stayed in credit. The resident also questioned the fact that one month’s rent was more than four week’s rent;
    2. There were arrears on the account, despite the resident applying for a debt relief order;
    3. Issues over the procedure for setting up the direct debit, and staff attitude when attempting to do this.
  2. While all of the above issues were raised at some point, by the time the resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the internal complaints process, the issues raised were how the direct debit was to be set up, and staff attitude.
  3. When the resident queried how he still had arrears after the debt relief order, the landlord explained how the arrears subject to the debt relief order were not being pursued, and it was only new arrears that the resident was being asked to repay. The debt relief order was granted in March 2022. The resident’s rent account shows that, from the date of the debt relief order, payments of contractual rent were made in April and May. However in June and July the resident made payments of £189 and £188, which led to arrears on the account. The resident explained that the reason for the lower payments was due to him starting a new job, and missing the cut-off point for payroll, which resulted in a lower wage than previous month.
  4. The landlord did provide an acceptable explanation of how the rent was calculated, and demonstrated to the resident how it had converted the weekly figure into a monthly sum. The resident did not dispute this and made an offer to repay £420 per month, which included the contractual rent of £407, plus an amount towards the arrears. The resident then raised this offer to £450 per month. From August 2022 the resident kept to the arrangement of £420 per month, which started to reduce the balance on the account.
  5. The resident made the offer to pay £420 per month on 9 August 2022, but on 12 August 2022 he got in touch, upset about a letter he had received concerning the arrears. Given the timing of this, it is possible that the letter was sent either before or around the same time the offer was made. The landlord is entitled to inform the resident of his account being in arrears and the evidence points towards this being an issue of timing.
  6. The resident’s receipt of the arrears reminder letter was what prompted him to make the initial complaint, which covered the landlord’s handling of the rent arrears. The stage one response showed sympathy towards the reasons behind the arrears, but did make it clear that having arrears on the account was not acceptable. On the evidence available there was no suggestion that the resident’s point of contact for the landlord, was abrupt, or handled anything incorrectly.
  7. The resident then raised a further complaint, with elements including the setting up of the direct debit, and the landlord’s attitude towards him, during this process. In the stage one response the landlord acknowledged that it had provided incorrect information and that the resident was entitled to set up the direct debit using a written form. An apology was offered to the resident, which was also reiterated in the stage two response.
  8. When the complaint was escalated to stage two, the main issue seemed to be around staff attitude. The stage two response, and copies of communication on file, show that the landlord did investigate the allegations, but could find no evidence of inappropriate behaviour from its staff. As there is no further evidence to suggest otherwise, this Service is unable to determine that there was any maladministration in respect of staff attitudes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the outbuilding window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an acceptable offer of redress, by way of apology, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the setting up of a direct debit for the resident’s rent arrears, satisfactorily.