The Housing Ombudsman has called on landlords to take a more empathetic and supportive approach to rent arrears, after a tenant was wrongly told she owed over £10,000 and threatened with eviction by Housing for Women.
The resident, who had evidence the rent had been paid, was issued a notice seeking possession just two days after Christmas. The landlord later reduced the figure to £2,000 but continued legal action. After her complaints went unanswered, the resident turned to the Ombudsman, saying the ordeal left her “struggling to cope”.
Following the investigation, the Ombudsman ordered an independent review of the landlord’s rent recovery practices. It found Housing for Women had ignored evidence, failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability, and maintained a “dismissive and unsympathetic” tone throughout.
Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “This case shows the importance of regular reviews of rent arrears management. It also highlights the need for landlord staff to put themselves in the place of a resident, show empathy and provide support when working with a resident in arrears, or at risk of losing their home.
“This has never been more important given the current cost of living challenges and demand for affordable housing.”
He said the landlord took an “adversarial and heavy-handed stance” despite the resident repeatedly raising the impact legal threats were having on her wellbeing. “Even were its actions right, landlords should consider how to adopt the right tone given the life-changing impact that eviction could have,” he added.
An internal review by Housing for Women blamed the failings in part on a staff member who was later dismissed, as well as poor oversight and limited understanding of rent processes within the finance team.
The landlord has since revised its complaints and arrears procedures, introduced staff training, and brought in new checks to ensure senior oversight of legal action and support for vulnerable tenants.
Housing for Women, another faux charity it seems. The headline use of the word landlord, suggests a PRS landlord, rather than this “charity”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Whilst I read this as yet another council/ charitable landlord pursuing a tenant wrongfully and then not listening when provided with evidence of rent payments, I think yet again this is a big landlord issue. Most small landlords would try to enter into a dialogue with a tenant but I also think there has to be empathy for the position non payment of rent puts small landlords in. The vast majority of these rogue landlords turn out to be charities or councils – why are all landlords tarred with the same brush ? I think it would be helpful if the distinction was made and ideally a separate category of distinction made between the two. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of offenders would then be very easily identified as large landlords and maybe better targeting of this category would be helpful for everyone involved. Too often as here the headlines do not differentiate .
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register