Camden Council (202106518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106518

Camden Council

11 March 2022


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 of an increase in energy bills following repairs to the heating system carried out by the landlord’s contractor.

Background and summary of events

  1. In December 2017 the resident became the tenant of the landlord (a local authority). The resident’s property is flat. The heating charges for the property are not included in the tenancy agreement. There are some gaps in the records provided by the landlord for this Service’s investigation.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home on several occasions in February 2018 to complete repairs in relation to the heating. The landlord’s contractor attempted to reattend on 28 February 2018 because the resident reported that one of the recent repair visits resulted in the thermostat that controlled the temperature not working. He reported that the temperature was on a very high setting and costing a lot of money. The landlord’s contractor was unable to gain access to the property and noted that it had sent the resident a letter regarding the repair appointment.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on several further occasions in 2018 to address the resident’s reports that his heating was not working and a job raised in July 2018, in relation to the boiler system using more power than usual, was cancelled.
  4. On 18 February 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the property in relation to the resident’s reports of having no heating and hot water. The landlord’s contractor reported back “low pressure refilled vented and tested system checked for leaks and left complete”.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord that the contractor left the immersion button on following the visit of February 2018, until another contractor noticed in February 2020.  In the landlord’s complaint response of 20 August 2020, it said that there were no notes on the relevant repair logs to suggest the engineer who attended in August 2020 spotted that the immersion button was possibly left on. Therefore, the landlord asked the resident to contact the relevant contractor directly with any evidence to show the difference in energy costs when the immersion was turned on and when it was turned off again.
  6. Further repairs were raised in September and October 2020 in relation to the resident’s heating and, according to the landlord’s records its contractor attended on 8 October 2020. The operative’s notes say “found service timer activated confirmed with office valid cp12 reset, replaced weeping filling loop valve tested all controls left working, all work complete”.
  7. On 27 January 2021 the landlord’s contractor responded to concerns raised by the resident. The contractor confirmed that energy earliest bill provided was from 7 September 2018, so it could only comment on the usage from that date. It confirmed that the resident’s gas bills were lower than average and there was a period where electricity bills appeared higher than expected. The contractor said that the average monthly demand for electricity fluctuated considerably and, if the immersion was on constantly, it would expect to see a more even spread over the period. The contractor said the usage suggested that the immersion was being turned on and off, rather than being in constant use. In addition, it said that “even with thermostatic control” the immersion element would likely fail after a period of time if kept in constant use and this was not the case for this property.
  8. The contractor confirmed it made several visits regarding a lack of heat in the flat and noticed the period between attendances tallied with the period that the electricity usage was at its highest. The contractor asked the resident to confirm whether he was using another heat source to keep the flat warm at that time.
  9. Finally, the contractor confirmed that during its visit on 9 September 2020 it found that the settings on the thermal store were not set correctly, with the timer not on. It said its engineer recorded a conversation with the resident, who mentioned he set the timer to only come on for a couple of hours a day, and would use the immersion to supplement if he required hot water outside the times the heating was on. The contractor noted that the water would stay hot longer during the summer if this was the case as the heating would not demand use and therefore the need for an immersion would lessen considerably. The contractor advised that this usage of the system would support the fact the energy bills were higher in the colder months rather than the summer, and the difference between the summer and winter bills was more than if the immersion had been permanently on. The contractor asked the resident to confirm if instructions on how to use all the appliances were made available to him when he moved into the property.
  10. On 24 February 2021 the resident asked the contractor to confirm if it received his previous email (a copy of this email has not been provided for this Service’s investigation) and how long it would take to conclude its investigation. The contractor replied that it had received the resident’s previous correspondence and was awaiting the landlord’s views on the matter before confirming any further actions. It confirmed that the gas bills were no higher than would be expected, given the resident’s living circumstances and, while the electricity bills appeared high for a period, they were lower than would be expected if the immersion was on permanently on as the resident believed.
  11. The resident pursued a response on 15 March 2021 and said that the contractor should take responsibility for its engineer’s mistakes (leaving the immersion on) and compensate him for this. The resident attached his most recent energy bill to show his usual, low usage for the month of February to March 2021.
  12. On 7 May 2021 the resident contacted a local councillor regarding the matter. The resident confirmed he reported the high bills to the landlord initially, and an engineer attended and told him that believed there might be something wrong with his meter; however, the energy supplier confirmed that the meters were not faulty. The resident explained that he was away between July and September 2019, leaving his home unoccupied and switching off all of his appliances including the boiler, but was billed £80 a month for electricity during that period. The resident confirmed that in February 2020 he reported issues with his boiler and at this time an engineer noticed that the emergency switch on the water tank had been left on and turned this off, which resolved the issue. The resident said that the only people who had touched this switch were the landlord and its contractor and they either provided inadequate explanations or ignored many of the resident’s communications.
  13. On 19 May 2021 the landlord’s contractor asked if the resident had an engineer’s report from the visit in February 2020, confirming it was not one of its operatives who attended on that date.
  14. The landlord forwarded its response to the councillor onto the resident on 24 May 2021. The landlord confirmed its contractor carried out a review of this case and was unable to confirm or deny whether its engineers or the resident left on or turned off the immersion for the two-year period in question. However, the landlord noted that the resident had not paid anything towards any of his energy bills and as he was unable to provide any bills to demonstrate his usage from the start of his tenancy, it was unable to use them for comparison purposes or to determine usage. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the contractor’s response and agreed that the energy consumption used was comparable with the average usage of a property of similar size to the resident’s. Considering this, the landlord confirmed it would not be making a contribute towards the cost of the resident’s energy bills.
  15. The resident replied to the landlord on 25 May 2021 that he had in fact paid towards his energy costs. He confirmed that he had a prepayment electricity meter for three months and he paid his first gas bill by direct debit in January 2018. The resident explained that after February 2018 his bills were high and he cancelled his payments to find out why they were so high. He set up a payment with the energy supplier after a year. He said that the landlord’s contractor was the only one who accessed the cupboard with the switch and therefore he believed the landlord’s contractor was responsible. The resident attached copies of his bills since the switch was turned off, which he said showed much lower charges.
  16. On 18 June 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord to pass on the resident’s concerns about his energy costs. We asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response by 2 July 2021.
  17. The landlord informed the resident on 18 June 2021 that it had logged a formal complaint and would respond by 2 July 2021; however, on 21 June 2021 it confirmed that it withdrew the new complaint and re-opened the previous complaint at the review (second) stage of its complaints procedure.
  18. On 15 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response and apologised for its delay in responding. It said that it had no evidence that its contractor turned on the boiler immersion button on 7 February 2018 and confirmed it advised the resident to contact the contractor with evidence to show the increased cost in his bills before the button was turned off in February 2020. It confirmed it would not contribute towards the resident’s energy bills

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

  1. In line with the tenant’s handbook, it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair appliances it installed to provide heating and hot water, the gas supply from the gas meter to the appliances it supplies, and the electricity supply between the meter and the electrical sockets in the property. The resident is responsible for ‘pay as you go’ payment methods such as electricity/gas keys; electrical plugs, including fuses; and failure of gas or electricity suppliers to provide the agreed services or maintain their equipment.

 

Assessment

  1. The resident maintains that in February 2020 the landlord’s contractor found that that the immersion switch had been left on, and that the contractor must have left this on since its visit in February 2018. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony but as an independent and impartial arbiter, we can only make decision on the basis of the available evidence. The landlord has confirmed it is unable to locate any evidence that its contractor had left the switch on and this Service has been unable to establish any evidence to support this from the information provided.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out its own investigation as well as asking the contractor to investigate the resident’s reports and reviewed the resident’s energy bills. The resident has been unable to provide evidence of his energy usage prior to the alleged event in February 2018 and, although he has been able to demonstrate that his usage has since reduced, this Service is unable to determine that this was the result of the contractor’s actions. Therefore, this Service would not recommend that the landlord contributes towards the resident’s energy costs.
  3. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s original complaint to the landlord and some contacts between the resident and its contractor. In this particular case the Ombudsman has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  4. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of an increase in energy bills following repairs to the heating system carried out by the landlord’s contractor.

Reasons

  1. Considering the lack of evidence provided to demonstrate that the landlord or its contractor had turned the immersion switch on, and that the resident’s energy bills were not proof of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to contribute to the resident’s energy bills. Although The Ombudsman was able to determine this complaint using the information that was available, the landlord’s omissions to provide some key pieces of information indicates poor record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail; therefore, it is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) is recorded and retained so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.