Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202001089)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001089

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 March 2023

 

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. This complaint is about:
    1. The electricity meter reading taken by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
    2. The subsequent complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. They moved into a flat provided by the landlord in October 2019. They subsequently moved from that property in June 2020. This complaint is in relation to the flat.
  2. On moving into the property, the landlord gave the resident a meter reading for the electricity meter. The gas meter was a prepayment type. On 25 November 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord alleging that there was outstanding debt towards the gas and electricity supplies respectively. They reported that they added a credit to the gas meter, however £15 was immediately taken from that credit. The landlord offered the resident £25 as compensation for this issue, but no further investigation took place.
  3. On 17 April 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a new complaint. They reported that the landlord’s initial electricity meter reading, given to them at the start of their tenancy, was incorrect which they believed would lead to additional charges. The landlord responded to the comments but did not raise a complaint as they believed the matter was resolved in December 2019. The resident then contacted this Service.
  4. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two of its procedure. In May 2020, the landlord investigated the concerns about the meter readings and contacted the supplier. The landlord then discovered that the account had not been transferred into the resident’s name. It did find that the supplier had used solely estimated readings since the previous August, which were inaccurate. The supplier corrected the account and changed the account into the resident’s name.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the complaint in relation to the meter reading. It found there was no evidence the reading they had taken at the beginning of the tenancy was incorrect, although it did acknowledge there was confusion over how to read the meter. It also stated that the resident had some responsibility to check the reading when they moved in and contact the supplier to update the account.
  6. The landlord did, however, acknowledge other failings. It said that it did not take the opportunity at the beginning of the complaint to ensure the resident knew how to read the meter properly. It also acknowledged it did not provide information about the electricity meter at the first opportunity. The landlord offered £50 compensation in its final response.
  7. The resident did not agree with the outcome of the complaint, asking for the meter reading element to be upheld and for personal apologies from individual members of staff at the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. This Service can only investigate whether there has been maladministration on the part of the landlord as a whole and can order a landlord to apologise.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord updated their complaints process in November 2020. The previous complaints policy has been reviewed for the purpose of this complaint and is further referenced in this report.
  2. The landlord used a two stage complaint process. Stage one, or Front Line Resolution (FLR), and stage two, or Investigation stage. FLR is primarily used to quickly resolve less complex complaints, where there is agreement from the complainant. Investigation stage is for more complex complaints, or ones where the complainant does not agree with the outcome. The policy says that a complaint can be escalated from FLR to Investigation stage where a complainant explains why they are unhappy with the resolution offered. There is no time limit noted for escalating a complaint. The policy does ask staff to ensure duplicate complaints are not logged.
  3. The landlord has provided a copy of their ‘moving home checklist’ provided to residents at the beginning of their tenancy. The first two items in this are:
    1. Contact gas, water and electricity suppliers to set up or change your utilities account;
    2. Take meter readings as soon as you move in.
  4. We would normally expect a landlord to assist a resident with their meter readings, but ultimately the relationship is between the resident and the electricity or gas supplier.

The meter readings

  1. When the landlord did investigate the resident’s complaint it found that the resident had not taken their own meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy or contacted the supplier to change the name on the account. The landlord did take steps to understand the operation of the electricity meter by contacting the supplier. It also agreed to take meter readings to ensure that the reading provided to the resident at the beginning of the tenancy was correct. The Ombudsman considers this good practice.
  2. Through discussion with the supplier, the landlord corrected the estimated readings that the supplier had on their systems. This ensured that the resident would only pay for electricity they had used. The readings taken also allowed the landlord to conclude that, based on the resident’s normal usage, the reading taken at the beginning of the tenancy was likely to be accurate. It should also be noted that the landlord has confirmed that the supplier subsequently agreed to waive debt remaining on the account.
  3. While the resident and the landlord agree that there was confusion as to how the meter should have been read and what type of meter it was, there is no evidence that the reading was incorrect. In any event, as the charges were subsequently waived there would be no financial detriment caused to the resident if it was incorrect.
  4. The landlord wrote its final response to the resident on 12 June 2020. It explained that it believed some of the responsibility for checking the meter reading and contacting the supplier fell to the resident. It therefore did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, it also acknowledged that it may not have provided clear information on the type of meter at the property and offered £25 compensation in relation to this. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not take the opportunity to provide information about the electricity meter at the point of the initial complaint in November 2019 and offered a further £25 compensation.
  5. There was some further discussion between the landlord and the resident after the conclusion of the complaint. Primarily, this was an extension of the resident’s enquiries about how to read the meter. The landlord determined it could offer no further advice to the resident and therefore directed them to the electricity supplier.

Complaint handling

  1. When the resident first contacted the landlord, they raised a specific issue with the gas meter, but also a general concern about potential debt left by the previous tenant. In the interest of a speedy resolution, the landlord offered compensation to the resident to cover the cost of the alleged debt on the gas meter. This was reasonable and accepted by the resident.
  2. According to evidence provided by the landlord, it appears that concerns over the electricity meter reading were first raised sometime in March 2020. There was confusion over the correct method of reading the electricity meter and whether it was a smart meter or not. The landlord accepted that it may have provided incorrect advice in relation to these two elements and apologised.
  3. However, in April 2020, when the resident raised their complaint about the electricity meter, the landlord responded that it had already dealt with the complaint and would not log another. The resident asked the landlord a number of times to log this issue as a complaint before contacting this Service. Following a request from the Ombudsman, the landlord escalated the original complaint to stage two of its procedure.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. It may refuse to investigate a complaint where it is one that has already been considered under its complaint process. If this is the case it should explain to the resident why it has determined the complaint is one it cannot look at.
  5. The evidence provided by the landlord does not indicate why it believed the alleged debt on the electricity meter had been previously investigated. While it was briefly mentioned as part of another complaint, the landlord should have realised that no investigation or resolution was offered in relation to the electricity meter. The landlord’s initial refusal to log this complaint is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and is considered a service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in respect of the meter readings as there is no evidence that the reading was incorrect.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure in respect of the complaint handling. The landlord’s refusal to log the complaint when it was raised in April 2020 was unreasonable and is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord, within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise to the resident for failing to log the complaint when initially raised.
    2. Pay £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in logging a complaint. This is in addition to the amount offered in its final response.
  2. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service once the payment has been made.

Recommendations

  1. Although the landlord has updated its complaints policy, it should consider further review to ensure that it is clear when a complaint can be considered a duplicate. It should also share learning with relevant staff within the organisation.
  2. The landlord should consider whether further guidance could be made available to residents and staff in relation to taking accurate meter readings when moving into a property.