Clarion Housing Association Limited (202127428)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127428

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of high utility bills due to the bypassing of an immersion heater switch.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a three-bedroom house. The tenancy agreement commenced in November 2011.
  2. After multiple callouts for boiler repairs, the landlord’s contractors identified that the immersion heater switch was bypassed. This meant the immersion heater power switch had no practical benefit, as the switch was bypassed making the immersion heater the primary source for heating the water.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord about his energy bills being too high between 2012 and 2021, as a consequence of the immersion heater being permanently on. The landlord requested evidence such as bill payments for energy usage covering the period that the resident was complaining about and seeking compensation for. The resident reportedly provided bank statements for the majority of the timeframe, rather than itemised utility bills, and details for March to May 2013, and November 2013 to April 2015, were also not provided.
  4. In complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £215.21 compensation for a difference in the bills it calculated; £100 compensation for the time and inconvenience in relation to supplying bills; and £100 goodwill for the period where it did not have enough information to calculate any difference in bills.
  5. Following the outcome of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident brought the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service, as he remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint and wanted the compensation applied retrospectively to cover from 2012 to 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman notes that following the resident’s complaint, the landlord progressed the complaint in a relatively timely manner and awarded compensation. We will not find a failing on the part of a landlord if it has offered an appropriate remedy to resolve a complaint, and therefore we will go on to consider if the total compensation award of £415.21 was fair in the circumstances.
  2. Following the identification of issues with the hot water at the property, these were clearly rectified promptly. The landlord has not disputed the claim that the immersion heater was wired to be permanently switched on, therefore a statement in its response that there was no evidence to suggest the resident was told to keep the immersion permanently on is not satisfactory. This indicates a lack of understanding of the complaint on the landlord’s part, as whether or not the resident was told to keep the immersion on was not relevant if he was unable to switch it off.
  3. The landlord accepted that it may be fair for it to refund excess charges incurred by the resident as a result of the issue, which is shown by its offer for him to supply it with previous bills; its consideration of the evidence he supplied, and its setting out of compensation offers after review of these.
  4. On receipt of the complaint, the landlord requested nine years’ worth of evidence, in the form of utility payments, to calculate if the resident was entitled to compensation. Whilst the resident thought that the request for nine years’ worth of evidence was excessive, the landlord was ultimately entitled to request evidence covering the period about which the resident complained.
  5. The evidence provided for usage over nine years comprised mainly of bank statements, which will not have allowed the landlord to compare the resident’s usage, as it would be reasonable for it to do to reach a fair assessment of any compensation. We note that the resident says his usage will have been £300, but there is no evidence to clearly show that the usage was £300 more than it would have been in each of the previous nine years. However, the £215.21 difference that the landlord identified suggests that there may have been some difference in other years, which the landlord was positive and customer-focused to recognise in a goodwill payment of £100. The resident may have incurred more; however, it is reasonable to expect him to be able to clearly evidence this, by providing or obtaining previous utility bills, as the landlord invited him to do.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £215.21 plus £100 goodwill compensation for any excessive bills. The evidence says that a comparison of information provided by the resident was conducted, and based on the wording of the landlord’s response letter, the £215.21 compensation awarded was for the years 2019-21 and the £100 goodwill payment was for the years that could not be compared. The evidence provided for recent usage was not for easily comparable periods and it is not entirely clear how the landlord reached the £215.21 difference in utility bills. However, the information provided says this involved a review of the fluctuation of usage, unit costs, costs per day and the dates provided. This shows the calculation was done in an appropriate way and accordingly, it seems a reasonable amount. The £215.21, and the £200 for time and inconvenience supplying the bills and the years that could not be compared, shows the landlord was striving to put things right in a fair way.
  7. While the above is the case, the reason for the excessive energy bills was that the immersion heater switch had been bypassed, and it is not satisfactory that this was not also recognised by the landlord in its compensation offer, as this was a service failure in itself. We cannot say how easy it would be to identify that the immersion heater was permanently switched on, with no way of turning it off. However, there was an initial failure to carry out appropriate checks before the resident moved in, in order to identify that the immersion switch was bypassed. The landlord’s contractors also attended the property to fix the boiler on multiple occasions, but the problem with the immersion switch was not identified until a more recent visit. It is not satisfactory that there were multiple opportunities to identify the issue, which the landlord should have demonstrated it reviewed in more detail. This was ultimately a failing which it is not disputed led the resident to incur higher electric usage than he may otherwise have done.
  8. Overall, while the landlord’s responses were positive and customer-focused to a large degree, it does not demonstrate it appropriately considered the wider root causes of why the complaint was brought – the immersion switch being bypassed and causing the high utility bills. The landlord should have considered this and appropriate service improvements to try to avoid such issues in future. This leads us to make a finding of service failure and award a further amount for the failings in respect to the immersion heater being wrongly wired.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of high utility bills due to the bypassing of an immersion heater switch.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the additional inconvenience of the immersion switch being bypassed.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to show it has taken steps to comply with the above within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £415.21 it previously offered if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord to review the case and consider, with its contractors, any process changes to help identify in future whether a property is relying on an immersion heater for its hot water supply rather than an in-situ gas boiler.
  3. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of its intentions in respect to the above within four weeks of this decision.