12. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.
13. If we think the failings had an impact that has not been put right, we will usually investigate in more detail.
14. Having done this, we are satisfied that the DWP is currently in the process of recovering the unpaid rent Ms R wants. Although this will take longer than she understandably would hope, it is an appropriate remedy. We also consider that even if the ICE had considered the email Ms R refers to, it would be unlikely to change its decision on her complaint.
Alternative Payment Arrangement
15. Ms R says that the DWP did not act on the details she provided for a new letting agent who would be managing her tenant’s housing. She also says that it did not tell her the APAs had been cancelled or that she could set one up if her tenant had unpaid rent. Ms R also complains that the DWP did not suspend the tenant's claim despite telling her it would.
16. As an outcome to her complaint, Ms R would like the DWP to reimburse her the rent she lost.
17. We acknowledge Ms R’s account that she has lost out on rent because of the DWP’s actions. We understand the impact this has on her day-to-day life as she relies on this as a source of income.
18. Having looked at the facts of the case we consider the debt lies with her tenant. They entered a contract with Ms R and have an obligation to pay her the money, not the DWP. We also consider there are several ways Ms R could recover the money she wants, which we will discuss later.
19. Having spoken to Ms R we understand there is currently a payment schedule in place. The DWP is deducting approximately £60 per month from the UC claim of Ms R’s tenant and paying this to Ms R. This money is to settle the debt her tenant has.
20. We recognise this arrangement does not provide Ms R with the lump sum amount she would like. Yet, we are satisfied it is an established and appropriate way of settling her tenant’s arrears and there is nothing further for us to achieve here.
21. We are aware this arrangement can only work while Ms R’s tenant remains at their current address. However, if they were to move out then we consider it would be reasonable for Ms R to take enforcement action through the courts.
22. We do not comment on the likelihood of the legal process succeeding. Instead, we look at if there is a route available and if it is reasonable for someone to pursue it. We consider Ms R has a business relationship with her tenant and may, therefore, have insurance that covers the shortfall or will fund legal costs. Ms R could also bring legal action herself, especially in the small claims court, which is an easily accessible option.
23. Ms R explained that her tenant is on UC so she feels it is unlikely a judge would recommend recovering the unpaid rent due to their low income. Ms R said for this reason it would cost a disproportionate amount to pursue in court. She also says that if the DWP had acted when first told then the problem would not exist, therefore the fault is with the DWP rather than her tenant. Ms R also said going to court is unfair on the tenant as it may impose a county court judgement on them resulting in a poor credit rating.
24. While Ms R believes a judge would not agree to recover the money in the way she wants we cannot know for certain. This is because a judge has not had an opportunity to make this decision on her case.
25. Further, we recognise Ms R may incur costs by pursuing legal action against her tenant, especially as she does not live in the UK and may need to travel for court hearings. However, Ms R is in employment and a landlord. Given the debt is approximately £1,000 it is not unreasonable to expect her to pay some money towards recovery, especially as this is a business expense.
26. Further, as mentioned above, she may also have access to insurance that would cover this. In addition, she can request the small claims court does a remote hearing meaning she would not need to attend in person.
27. In summary, the DWP is already taking action to resolve Ms R’s problem. If this arrangement stops then we consider she could reasonably take legal action. For this reason, we will not consider this part of her complaint further.
The ICE Report
28. Ms R complains the ICE report, dated February 2022, said it could find no evidence of the complaint she made to the DWP in May 2020. Ms R says she offered the emails to the ICE, and it failed to consider them. She says the ICE would have reached a different view on her complaint if it had looked at them.
29. Our Principles of Good Administration say that decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.
30. We have considered the ICE report and compared it to Ms R’s account. The report explains that Ms R claimed she complained to the DWP about its complaint handling in May 2020 but there was no evidence to prove this.
31. We have looked at the email dated May 2020. It expresses how unhappy Ms R is with the administration of the rent payments on behalf of her tenant. It names a DWP UC account manager and refers to the UC47 form, which is used by landlords when requesting an APA. It is reasonable to assume that Ms R wanted the DWP to handle this as a complaint.
32. However, Ms R addressed her email to a district council, which explains why the DWP did not respond. This also explains why the ICE did not consider the email when investigating what happened, because the DWP did not have a copy of the email to share with the ICE when asked.
33. Even so, Ms R did have a copy of the email and offered it to the ICE following its investigation. Our Principles say that organisations should account for all relevant considerations. It appears that the ICE did not accept Ms R’s offer of considering the email and missed an opportunity to look at potentially relevant evidence.
34. We recognise why Ms R is so unhappy with the ICE as she believes it ignored important information when investigating her complaint. This was no doubt frustrating and having considered the evidence we agree it seems the ICE did not act in line with our Principles.
35. Crucially, when looking at this complaint we have to consider that Ms R did not send the email dated May 2020 to the DWP. This means that even if the ICE did see the email, then it would likely not have changed its view on what happened. Although this does not justify what happened we cannot identify any serious impact stemming from it.
36. For this reason, we are taking no further action on complaint about the ICE.