Housing Solutions (202222020)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222020

Housing Solutions

30 April 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to apply a £400 rebate to his electricity account.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a licence with the landlord for a one-bedroom mobile home.
  2. The resident has told the landlord that he has vulnerabilities, including autism.
  3. The landlord has a direct relationship with the electricity provider for the scheme the resident lives in. The landlord receives a quarterly bill and invoices each household for their proportion of it. This is worked out by taking meter readings from a sub meter for each property. The licence states that payment is required immediately upon receiving the invoice.
  4. The Government ran an ‘energy bill support scheme’ over 2022 and 2023. Every household was entitled to a £400 discount on their energy bills. It was applied automatically to people’s energy bills.
  5. On 28 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that his most recent invoice for electricity had not included the government funded discount. The landlord contacted its energy provider and researched the government scheme to understand how the discount could be applied to residents who did not have a direct relationship with the energy provider.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 11 November 2022 explained that the landlord was actively working on ensuring its residents could get the discount by working with its energy provider and lobbying Government. It explained that at the time of writing there was no decision on the £400 discount for people without a direct relationship with the provider. The complaint was not upheld, and the landlord advised it would keep the resident updated and if it received the rebate directly it would ensure it was applied to each resident’s account.
  7. The resident was not happy with the response and escalated it to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. He was not satisfied with the way the landlord had managed the situation. On 22 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it was not progressing his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint’s process because the complaint was about a government incentive and not within the remit of the landlord. It offered support and advice on financial matters and the resident’s mental health.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. In late November 2022 the Government announced an alternative funding scheme for people who did not have a direct relationship with an energy provider, like the resident. The landlord wrote to all its affected residents with this information and produced information on its website.
  2. The resident contacted several different people working for the landlord throughout November and December 2022, to express his dissatisfaction with the way it had handled the situation. He was also in contact with his local MP. He asked the landlord if it would make the payments up front and the residents could pay the landlord back once they got the discount. The landlord considered his request but declined, because it was not yet known who would be receiving and administering the funds.
  3. On 8 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to restrict his contact with 2 of its staff members. It provided the resident with a point of contact and offered to meet with him to discuss his concerns. The letter also asked the resident to let the landlord know if he needed any adjustments in his service from them. The resident then contacted the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint.
  4. In February 2023 the Government announced that residents could apply for the £400 lump sum payment through their local authority and that it would be paid into the claimant’s bank account. The landlord advised all affected residents and gave them information on the application process.
  5. On 18 February 2023 the resident wrote an apology letter to the landlord for his behaviour. The landlord accepted the apology and wrote to the resident, lifting any restrictions on contact.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact, sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The landlord has not been given the opportunity to investigate this complaint through its internal complaint’s process.
  4. As detailed above, the Ombudsman has seen, in the evidence provided as part of this investigation, an apology letter from the resident to the landlord on 18 February 2023. He apologised for his behaviour and gave a clear explanation of why it happened. The landlord responded, thanked him for the apology, and lifted the restrictions.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve his complaint has impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide.
  2. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to apply a £400 rebate to his electricity account

  1. There is evidence that between October 2022 and January 2023 the landlord was actively communicating with its energy provider and the local MP. It was also communicating internally concerning the situation with the energy bill support schemes and mobile home residents. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and showed that it was customer focused.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 November 2022 explained that the decision as to whether mobile home residents would get the funding sat with the department for business, energy, and industrial strategy. The landlord agreed that if it received the rebate directly, it would apply it to the electricity bills. The complaint was not upheld. This was a fair and reasonable response from the landlord. Whether the resident got the £400 from the Government was out of its control, but it had done what it could to find out what was happening. It also provided reassurance that it would keep the customer updated, which was customer focused.
  3. The resident was understandably frustrated by the situation, and he expressed this in his communication with the landlord throughout October to December 2022. He told the Ombudsman on 16 December 2022 that the situation was making him feel depressed and angry. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s situation in its responses on 22,24 November and 7,8, and 20 December 2022. It offered support from its welfare and benefits team and encouraged the resident to seek medical advice for his mental health. The general tone of the landlord’s communications was empathetic. On the 19 December 2022 the resident met with the landlord face to face to discuss his electricity account. The landlord also offered a face-to-face meeting with the head of housing, and asked the resident if it could make any changes to the services it provided him, to better accommodate his needs. This was in keeping with paragraph 17 of the complaint and compliment policy around accessibility, which states that the landlord has an inclusive approach to engaging with its residents and will welcome making reasonable adjustments to reduce or remove barriers for people. This was therefore an appropriate and reasonable response from the landlord.
  4. On 24 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord if it would consider giving the resident access to the £400 before it came through from the Government. The landlord acknowledged his request on the same day and advised that it would consider it, but in the meantime the resident could apply for the landlord’s individual support fund. The landlord acted reasonably in responding quickly to the resident and offering support while he waited for the outcome of his request.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen internal emails from the landlord that evidenced his request was considered and investigated. The landlord worked out the total cost of giving £400 to all its affected residents. It also tried to confirm who the eventual payments would be made to (resident, landlord or energy provider) to manage the risk. This was reasonable of the landlord. It was fair to consider the cost and risk to the organisation, as it is accountable for what it spends and needs to consider all of its residents and its stock.
  6. On 1 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it had considered his request and it would not pay the energy bills support payment in advance. It had approached the MP and had been advised the payments would happen that winter and would be administered by the local authority. The landlord let the resident know in a timely manner the outcome of his request and explained its reasons for refusing. The landlord acted reasonably.
  7. The landlord updated the resident and the other affected residents in a timely manner when it had new information. It provided information on its website and wrote letters to all the residents on 7 December 2022 and in February 2023. The landlord provided evidence that showed it had checked which residents were affected. These actions were reasonable of the landlord. It showed that it understood the implications for a number of residents and that it knew its stock. The resident must also be commended for asking that the issue be looked at for everyone affected, not just himself.
  8. In summary, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to apply the £400 energy bills rebate to his electricity account. The landlord was not in control of, if, how or when the energy bills support scheme would be made available to the resident. It supported the affected residents and acted on their behalf in finding out what was happening and provided timely information. It also highlighted the case to the local MP that this group of residents were entitled to the money and should not be penalised for not having a direct relationship with their energy provider.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made a complaint on 28 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and sent its stage 1 complaint response on 11 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by adhering to its acknowledgement and stage 1 response timescales of 5 and 10 working days respectively.
  2. The landlord’s stage one response was in keeping with paragraph 5.8 of the Complaint Handling Code (CHC) in circulation at the time of the complaint:
    1. Landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language:
      1. The complaint stage.
      2. The complaint definition.
      3. The decision on the complaint.
      4. The reasons for any decisions made.
      5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
      6. Details of any outstanding actions.
      7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by providing a detailed stage 1 complaint response letter, showing the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that the landlord was focused on a resolution for all its affected residents.
  4. The landlord refused to consider the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint’s process. The landlord used paragraph 5.2.2 from its complaint and compliment policy that stated an escalation can be refused at senior management discretion, if the resolution required by the complainant is out of the remit or responsibility of the landlord. The resident’s desired resolution was to receive the £400 payment and as the payment was due from a government led scheme, the landlord used paragraph 5.2.2 and refused the escalation.
  5. The Ombudsman must consider if it was fair and reasonable of the landlord not to progress the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The alternative was to allow the complaint to progress and for the resident to have the opportunity for a different member of staff to review the complaint and how it was handled at stage 1. Progressing the complaint would have been customer focused and even if the same outcome was found, it may have shown the resident that the landlord was taking his complaint seriously.
  6. The decision not to progress the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process was inappropriate for the following reasons:
    1. The landlord accepted the complaint for investigation at stage 1 and the complaint had not significantly changed since that point.
    2. The resident escalated the complaint as he was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the situation and the way the landlord was treating him. As per appendix 1 of the landlord’s complaint and compliment policy, this was within the landlord’s remit to deal with as a complaint.
    3. The £400 energy support scheme payment the resident wanted as a resolution was outside of the landlord’s remit to directly provide. However, the complaint was wider than this alone and this could have been explained in a stage 2 response.
    4. The landlord was not responsible for delivering the service of the energy support scheme. However, the landlord had proactively taken on the responsibility to support its affected residents and advocated for them to receive the payments. In doing so the resident had the right to complain about the service the landlord was providing to him in the actions the landlord had taken.
  7. In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The stage 1 complaint response was a considered, well-investigated complaint response. However, it was inappropriate of the landlord not to provide the resident with an opportunity to have his complaint heard at stage 2 of the complaint’s process. An order has been made below to reflect this finding.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to apply a £400 rebate to his electricity account.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling service failure, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. This should be a direct payment to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.