Wythenshawe Community Housing Group (2) Limited (202117043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117043

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

28 September 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 rent account.

Background

2. The resident occupies a two-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement.
3. In 2018, the court made a suspended order for possession of the resident’s home. The court ordered the resident to pay rent arrears and awarded the landlord £250 costs. Following this, the landlord made an application for a warrant for eviction. The application was suspended in 2019 and costs of £121 for the application were added to the resident’s court costs account.
4. On 5 July 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that:
   1. his rent statement appeared to consolidate payments from his Universal Credit (UC) claim and payments made from his bank account
   2. he was dissatisfied that he had been told an adjustment had been made to a credit on his rent account which had been allocated to court costs
   3. he was dissatisfied the landlord had contacted him by telephone
   4. he believed the landlord was harassing him and intending to cause him distress and that this amounted to racial discrimination
   5. he believed inappropriate comments had been made about him during a telephone call from the landlord’s operative.
5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2021, the landlord:
   1. explained the consolidation of UC and bank account payments on the rent statement was due to a limitation of its IT system and that it could not change this
   2. acknowledged this had caused some confusion for the resident, and explained he could access more detailed rent statements via the landlord’s mobile app
   3. confirmed the resident’s court costs account was held separately from his rent account, and that the adjustment on the rent account was for court costs
   4. explained its debt recovery policy, and that credits on the rent account would be allocated to the court costs account to clear the debt
   5. explained it had made a telephone call to the resident as he had not responded to a letter about altering his standing order payment, and that this was standard practice
   6. explained many of its staff were working from home, that the comment that the resident heard was from its operative’s partner who was also working from home, and that the comment was not related to him
   7. acknowledged the resident’s concerns about racial discrimination, and assured him that it took its equality obligations seriously
   8. stated it was satisfied that it had treated the resident appropriately.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident:
   1. did not accept its explanations regarding the consolidated payments
   2. did not accept its explanations regarding court costs and adjustments to the rent account
   3. requested a copy of the landlord’s debt recovery policy.
7. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 August 2021, the landlord:
   1. stated it was satisfied that the explanations provided in its stage 1 response were accurate
   2. provided the resident with a copy of its debt recovery policy.
8. Between May and June 2022, the resident and landlord engaged in further correspondence regarding rent arrears on his account. On 13 June 2022, the resident raised a further complaint. He was dissatisfied that:
   1. he believed the landlord had added interest to the court costs awarded against him
   2. he believed he was not in rent arrears and therefore that the landlord had provided inaccurate statements.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2022, the landlord:
   1. confirmed interest had not been added to the court costs account
   2. reiterated explanations it had provided before the resident’s complaint that his arrears were because his UC claim was incorrect, in that his UC claim was based on 49 payable weeks, and that this should have been 50 payable weeks
   3. advised the resident to update the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) as a matter of urgency
   4. reiterated the rent statements were accurate and gave calculations of the monthly shortfall in rent, which it had previously provided
   5. advised the resident it could offer him further support if he needed assistance updating DWP.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident:
    1. believed all court costs had already been paid
    2. stated he did not need to update DWP because he believed his UC claim automatically adjusted
    3. was dissatisfied the rent statements did not separate payments from UC and his bank account
    4. raised a further complaint about a text message he had received from the landlord.
11. In its final complaint response on 28 June 2022, the landlord:
    1. confirmed that £342.41 remained outstanding on the court costs account
    2. reiterated its explanations regarding the arrears on the resident’s rent account and advised him to update the DWP as a matter of urgency
    3. reiterated its explanations regarding the consolidation of payments on his rent account statements
    4. explained the resident could access a more detailed breakdown of his rent account via its mobile app, or he could request more detailed rent account statements as and when he needed
    5. explained text messages were one of many ways it communicated with residents and that it was satisfied the text message complained about did not pose a security threat, as it was clearly identifiable as being from the landlord and contained no personal data
    6. acknowledged the resident’s communication preferences and stated it would communicate with him by email in future, with the exception of items of correspondence which it had a legal obligation to send by post.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

12. This service is not able to make a legal declaration on whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010. Section 114(1) of the Act states it is for the courts to make this decision. Therefore, under paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, this service will not investigate whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010, as it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue this claim, they would need to take independent legal advice.
13. This service will consider the landlord’s actions, including its correspondence with the resident, and whether these were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

14. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain accurate records of residents’ rent accounts. The Ombudsman also expects landlords to respond to reasonable requests for information, including about rent accounts, in an accurate and timely manner.
15. The landlord has provided the resident with prompt responses to his queries relating to his rent account. Although the resident has remained dissatisfied with these explanations, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord’s rent account records or responses to the resident’s queries were inaccurate. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s responses were appropriate.
16. It is positive to note that the landlord has identified the cause of the resident’s rent arrears, provided him with a clear explanation of how to resolve this, and offered him further support to achieve this. It is also positive that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication preferences and committed to following this where possible in future. These are consistent with this service’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes, being fair, and putting things right.
17. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been caused frustration by the fact that the hard copy rent statements do not include the level of detail that he would like. The Ombudsman also recognises that there can be unanticipated limitations to what landlords’ IT systems can achieve. In those circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to acknowledge the problem and be proactive in identifying how the impact on residents can be mitigated.
18. In its complaint responses, the landlord has acknowledged the limitations of its IT system, explained why this cannot be changed to achieve the outcome the resident wanted, and identified alternative solutions which would provide the resident with the level of detail he requested. This was appropriate.
19. It is the Ombudsman’s view that there is no evidence to support the resident’s assertion that the landlord had treated him differently to other residents due to his ethnicity or race. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would allow the Ombudsman to conclude that the landlord treated the resident in a manner which was heavy-handed, unsympathetic, or inappropriate.
20. Considering all the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rent account.