Brent Council (201811888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201811888

Brent Council

19 August 2021

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 reports and complaints about costs and charges she incurred from her property’s communal lighting.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in 2006. The block contains a communal hallway. The parts of the communal lighting are connected to the resident’s own electric meter. Her rent also includes a charge for communal lighting, which has varied over the time of her tenancy.
3. On 26 February 2018 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she was paying for the communal lighting through her electric meter, and also as part of her rent. The landlord attended on 5 March to inspect. No evidence of any further action has been provided.
4. On 17 December 2018 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had removed the communal lighting charge from her rent. It asked her to provide copies of her electricity bills to see if a refund was due. On 2 January 2019 the resident sent the landlord pictures of her electricity statements. On 14 February 2019 the landlord asked her to provide scanned versions, which she sent the following day. 
5. On 10 May 2019 the resident emailed the landlord. She said “please find enclosed emails and correspondence letters”. The contents of these emails and letters are unknown. On 13 May 2020 the resident forwarded the landlord “previous emails and attachments sent”. The landlord acknowledged her email the same day. It thanked her for the statements she had provided, and apologised for the delay It said it would calculate the charges, and adjust her rent account accordingly.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 May 2020 (it is unclear whether it was responding to the resident’s 2018 complaint, or if she had raised a new one in the interim). It said it had been investigating the energy consumption related to the communal lighting and the “tariff charge”. It said it had estimated the tariff charge as £0.36 based on the bills the resident had provided. It reimbursed £56.52 into her rent account. It said it was awaiting confirmation on the “aggregate energy consumption” for the communal lighting, and would keep her updated. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response on 1 September 2020 (she did not receive the original in May). She was dissatisfied with its estimated tariff charge (It appears the resident may have mistakenly believed that the tariff charge was the same thing as the communal lighting charge in her rent, and was concerned because the estimated tariff was different to the rent charge she had been paying).
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 November 2020. She indicated that she had received a stage one complaint response from the landlord that day (evidence of this response has not been provided). She disputed the landlord’s apparent explanation that the £56.52 reimbursement went to her rent account because she received housing benefit. She said she had paid for the electric meter herself, and so the money should have been paid to her.
9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 February 2021. It apologised for the delay. It said that it understood the resident’s remaining concern to be that the communal lighting was continually left on, which caused her extra costs, and that she disagreed with its decision to pay the reimbursement to her rent account. It explained that on 1 February it had carried out work to the communal lighting meaning it would now turn off automatically. It apologised for the delays in handling her complaint. It said that based on an estimated usage of 12 hours per day it had calculated the daily use of energy as 0.018 Kilowatt-hours (KWh) per day. It explained that “having considered this in conjunction with your time and trouble in pursuing this complaint, I will ask the Complaints Service to award you additional compensation of £200 on top of the £56.52 that was previously credited to your rent account.” It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
10. The landlord has provided evidence for this investigation confirming that it based its calculations on 0.018 KWh daily use of energy, and calculated a reimbursement amount of £112.67. It is unclear why the landlord reimbursed the resident for £56.52 when its calculation was almost twice that amount.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge all stage one complaints within five working days, and respond to them within 20 working days.
12. In February 2018 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about what she was paying for communal lighting. The landlord attended in March to investigate. There is no evidence of any further action until it advised in December that it had removed the communal lighting charge from her rent. The landlord has not explained why it took so long to take action on the complaint. That delay was a service failure. The first formal complaint response to the resident was in May 2020. It goes without saying that that was significantly outside the landlord’s complaint time frames.
13. The landlord explained that it had estimated the £56.52 reimbursement based on electricity bills that the resident had provided. It deposited the money into her rent account, apparently because she was in receipt of benefits. This was unreasonable, as the resident had paid for the electricity meter herself. As such, the reimbursement should have been paid directly to her. This is a fundamental principal, regardless of any policies a landlord might have on the subject.
14. The resident explained on 1 September 2020 that she was confused how the landlord had calculated the estimated tariff charge (£0.36). It appears that she may have believed it was referring to the charge she had been paying as part of her rent. The landlord should have clarified, and clearly explained what the reimbursement was for, and how it had calculated it, including the specific time period the reimbursement covered. It was unreasonable for it not to have done so, especially in consideration of the length of time it had taken to issue the refund (16 months from when she first provided her bills), and in light of the fact that its own internal calculations arrived at a reimbursement amount of £112.67.
15. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in its stage two complaint response. It said that it was for her time and trouble pursuing the complaint, and in light of its further calculations of the energy usage. On the face of it, the offer does not appear unreasonable. However, the landlord should have clearly explained what the £200 comprised of. It did not say how much (if any) was reimbursement for energy costs, or how much was for the resident’s time and trouble. In doing so it missed an opportunity to provide the clarity to the resident she understandably needed in order to be able to consider whether its actions and decisions were fair and reasonable.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

17. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint, and failed to clearly explain its compensation and reimbursement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its service failures. This is in addition to the £200 already paid by the landlord.
    2. Provide the resident (and this Service) with a clear and logical explanation of its calculations of the total amount the resident should be reimbursed for her extra electricity costs (from the communal lighting) since the start of her tenancy. In the circumstances of the age of the issue, the Ombudsman would accept that estimates and assumptions will most likely have to be made in calculating this amount, and that the amount may be the same as previously calculated. The key outcome is that the calculations are clear and unambiguous, and also explain why the original internal calculation showed an amount of £112.67.
    3. Break down the £200 offered in its final complaint response to show how much was compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and how much was reimbursement for her energy costs.
19. Reimbursement for a tenant’s out of pocket expenses must be made directly to the tenant. Furthermore, the Ombudsman will generally only accept compensation (as opposed to reimbursement) being paid by a landlord into a rent account when the account is in arrears, and the responsibility for the arrears arising lies with the tenant. Accordingly, the reimbursement that has already been paid by the landlord, any reimbursement component in the £200, and any potential additional reimbursement needed following the further calculation ordered above, must be paid directly to the resident.
20. These orders must be complied with, and evidence provided to this Service, within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

21. If the resident’s electric meter is still connected to the communal lighting, the landlord should seriously consider separating the two, so as to avoid the problems illustrated in this complaint arising again in the future.