| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Tenant rent and service charges |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Ms E was an assured tenant who had moved to her flat in January 2005 as part of a mutual exchange. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her rent arrears; particularly its issuing of a Notice of Seeking Possession (NoSP).
The landlord had a clear and comprehensive 15 step arrears policy. The first three steps were warning letters and a home visit; if the tenant was still in arrears after that, step four, a NoSP was issued. Ms E received housing benefit but there was a charge for heating that was not covered by housing benefit. It was from the non-payment of this charge that the arrears had accumulated.
The landlord’s records demonstrated that the payment of the amenity charge had always been somewhat inconsistent but with minimal arrears. However it was not until 31 July 2007 that the landlord initiated its arrears procedure and sent Ms E the first stage arrears letter. This was in accordance with its procedure which required that accounts in arrears of over £25 and with at least two weeks net rent owing would normally be sent an initial arrears letter.
The landlord telephone Ms E on 14 August 2007 regarding her rent arrears and she said that she was applying for a loan and therefore should be able to sort out her rent account within the next couple of weeks. However, when by 13 September 2007 her arrears had not reduced the landlord issued Ms E with a second stage arrears letter, in accordance with its policy. The letter explained that as she had not cleared her arrears it required immediate payment. If she was unable to make a payment then she should contact the landlord within seven days; failure to do so would result in her being served with a NoSP.
Ms E did not clear her arrears and on 25 September 2007 the landlord telephoned her to discuss the situation. It asked her if she could afford to make her regular payment plus £3 to clear her arrears. Ms E told the landlord that she was getting a loan from her sister in November 2007 and hoped to clear her account then. However the landlord appropriately explained that it could not condone non-payment of rent and informed her that as she was not complying with her tenancy agreement it would issue her with a NoSP.
Stage 3 of the landlord’s arrears procedure required it make a home visit prior to serving a NoSP. According to the policy, the purpose of the home visit was to obtain income and expenditure details and seek to arrange an appropriate agreement to clear the arrears. The procedure stated that ‘A Notice of Seeking Possession must not be served until personal contact has been established or the officer can demonstrate that they have exhausted all possible means of doing so’.
Whilst Ms E did not receive a visit the landlord telephoned her and tried to arrange a repayment schedule. It also advised her of what could happen should she fail to clear her arrears. Good practice guidance is that whilst immediate contact should be made when a tenant falls into arrears this can be either face to face or in writing, face to face contact is not essential as long as direct contact is made.
Ms E was served with a NoSP on 26 September 2006. The Notice was hand delivered although she was not at home when it was posted. This was in accordance with its policy and reflected practice across the social housing sector.
Determination
We concluded that that the landlord followed its procedure and good practice when it issued Ms E with a NoSP. Whilst it should have visited her at stage three we were satisfied that in addition to the two warning letters she was given the opportunity during a phone conversation to arrange a repayment of the debt. It was Ms E’s responsibility to pay all parts of her rent and the landlord’s to secure its rental income, when she failed to pay her arrears the landlord was entitled to issue a NSP.
In her response to our Determination Ms E raised her concern that there was a clause in the Rent Payment and Arrears Recovery Procedure which gave the landlord discretion to act outside of the procedure. Ms E believed that this meant it could favour some tenants over others. Whilst under paragraph 16(b) of the his Scheme the Ombudsman will not generally consider complaints that wish to question policies that have been properly decided by the landlord we confirmed that a landlord would not be criticised for including such a clause so long as it keeps an accurate record of its decision making when it exercises such discretion.