East End Homes Limited (202005303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005303

East End Homes Limited

21 December 2020

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 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

The complaint concerns:
1. Information provided by the landlord about the electric meter of the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of an electric bill for the void period.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and Summary of events

The residents are assured tenants of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a communal building. The residents started their tenancy on 25 November 2019.
The residents have been supported by their daughter and son-in-law in their correspondence with both the landlord and with this Service. For reasons of clarity, the parties have been collectively referred to as ‘the residents’ within this report.
On 6 March 2020 the residents visited the landlord’s housing office with an electric bill which had been delivered to them. The invoice was addressed to the local authority and was for a total of £4,037.10, of which £4000.50 was for the period from 5 November 2019 to 1 December 2019.
The landlord’s notes of the visit state that the residents were upset by the bill. The notes go on to state that it informed the residents that the invoice was addressed to the landlord and for them “not to worry” as it would resolve the matter directly with the energy provider.
The landlord called the energy provider on 6 March 2020, and on 9 March it sent photographs of the two meters located on the ground floor of the building. The landlord told the energy provider it had tried to identify the meters by checking which had stopped turning when it turned off the electric supply to the residents’ property.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 10 March 2020 and informed it they had been in contact with the energy supplier, who had asked them to confirm the meter serial numbers and what date the property became empty.
The landlord replied on 11 March 201. It informed the residents that it would arrange a visit from an electrician to confirm which meter belonged to which property. It said that it had already liaised with the two energy providers for the two properties.
The landlord sent a further email to the residents on 11 March 2020. It informed them that the electrician would attend on the morning of the 13 March. The residents told the landlord they were not be available that day.
The landlord wrote on 13 March 2020. It informed the residents that it had rearranged the electrician visit for 16 March. It said he would test both meters to confirm which one belonged to which property. It also said it had liaised with the energy provider and had sent them all the relevant information.
The residents replied on 13 March 2020. they said that they were disappointed that the landlord was not helping them resolve the matter with the energy provider. They said that the energy provider had informed them that the landlord had sent photographs of the meters. He requested that the landlord provide him with copies of the photographs and a description of the locations of the meters.
The landlord sent a further email on 13 March 2020 and informed the residents that it was actively working to resolve issue, it had kept them updated, and that it would be in contact following the electrician visit. The landlord also informed the residents that it was unable to disclose the meter information of another tenant (the neighbour).
The residents replied, also on 13 March 2020. They said they had been informed by the energy provider that they had been submitting readings from the wrong meter. They asked again to receive the photographs to enable them to resolve the matter. They said that the landlord had failed to acknowledge the “serious inconvenience” and “unnecessary and undue stress” this matter had caused. They also requested that the landlord provide a key to the correct meter box during the 16 March visit.
On 18 March 2020 the residents complained to the landlord about the information it had provided for the electric meter. They said that when they viewed the property on 15 November 2019 that they were shown the location of the meter in the communal hallway of the building. They had then visited the neighbourhood office on 2 December to collect a key to allow access to the communal hallway (within which the meter was located). They said they were able to take a reading from the meter on 2 December with the help of a neighbour, as they were never provided with a key for the meter box.
After they had submitted the reading to their energy provider, the residents received the bill addressed to the local authority. They said they had since received contradictory advice as to whether the meter they had read was the correct one for their property, and they felt the landlord was more concerned with disputing the bill with the energy provider than in identifying the correct meter. They said that it was their correspondence with the energy provider that resolved the matter, when this should have been the role of the landlord.
The residents also said they were dissatisfied with the visit by the electrician and a landlord housing officer on 16 March 2019, because they had not informed them that they had arrived and had instead gone straight to the meter, and that it was the electrician who handed over the key to the meter and not the housing officer. The residents noted that it’s the landlord’s responsibility to provide the location of the electric meter and provide access to the meter. He further noted that the page in the tenant’s handbook for useful information, such as the meter location, was blank.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 1 April 2020 and informed the residents that:
1. The residents were shown the location of the ground floor meters during their viewing, but the staff member was unable at the time to show them the actual meter or provide a key to the communal hallway.
2. When the residents were provided with a key, they had informed the landlord’s housing officer that a heating engineer had helped them find the correct meter.
3. When post was forwarded to the residents from their previous address, an electric bill for the current property’s electric bill was mistakenly included.
4. When the residents took the bill to the housing office on 6 March 2020 they were assured that bills during the void period were the responsibility of the landlord, and that it would be investigating the £4,037.10 invoice.
5. The housing officer contacted the energy provider in order to resolve the issue with the bill on 6 March, and visited the property with an electrician on 16 March to confirm the correct meter information for the property.
6. It did not believe compensation was warranted in this case.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 3 April 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
1. The incorrect meter was highlighted by the landlord during the viewing on 15 November 2019, therefore the issue was the fault of the landlord.
2. It was not the landlord that resolved the issue with the energy provider, but rather the residents. They noted that they can provide “documentary evidence” to support this.
3. Without this intervention, the residents would have been liable for the bill and would have been put in “financial ruin”.
4. They informed the housing officer on 13 March 2020 of the location of the correct meter, not the electrician on 16 March.
5. They were dissatisfied with how the situation was handled by the housing officer and the lack of support.
6. The landlord did not explain why his request for compensation under the terms of its compensation policy was not applicable in this case.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 17 April 2020. It explained that:
1. It could not comment on the documentary evidence they said they had, as they had not provided it, but that it had not disputed that the residents were in contact with the energy supplier.
2. It was the responsibility of the tenant to take an opening meter reading upon occupation, and submit this to an energy provider of their choice. It said it is not always possible to provide all the information regarding a meter to a prospective tenant
3. It contacted the energy supplier on 6 March 2020, and that the supplier has a record of the enquiry.
4. It disputed that the housing officer was only interested in resolving the bill. They had also worked to identify the correct meter.
5. It apologised for the worry experienced, but it was satisfied that it dealt with the matter appropriately, and that a compensation payment was not warranted.
The landlord concluded the response by advising the residents on the steps to take to request a stage three panel review if they remained dissatisfied.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2020 and requested an escalation to stage 3. They said that:
1. The landlord’s staff members in their responses had accused them of lying.
2. The seriousness of the mistakes by the landlord had not been recognised.
3. The landlord had not acknowledged that it was only aware of the issue as it was brought to their attention by the residents.
4. They did not believe the complaint handler had been impartial.
5. The landlord did not provide an explanation as to why section 7.3.2 in its compensation policy is not applicable in this case.
On 6 May 2020 the landlord’s CEO wrote to the residents to inform him that their request for a stage three panel review had been declined. The landlord explained that it was satisfied with the explanations provided to the residents at stage one and two of the complaints process, and that a compensation payment would not be appropriate. Therefore, further investigation “would not be a productive use of resources”. It explained the steps to bring the complaint to this Service as the landlord’s complaint process had now been exhausted.

Assessment and Findings

Location of electric meter

Section 3 of the landlord’s tenant’s handbook addresses gas and electric meters and states as follows:
1. As soon as you move in you should read the meters and let the gas and electricity supply companies know that you are the new tenant. This will ensure that you are not charged for power that the previous occupiers have used. You will need to give the supply companies the exact meter readings. If you are not confident about reading the meters, you can ask them to send someone to read them for you. Even if your home has pre-payment meters for gas and/or electricity you will still need to inform the supply companies that you are the new tenant. If there is a ‘smart’ meter in the property you are moving into, you will not need to provide readings as these will be taken by the gas or electricity supplier direct. You will still need to contact your preferred supplier to let them know you are moving in.
The residents explained that when they visited the property on 15 November 2019 the landlord showed them the incorrect meter. This was disputed by the landlord, who said in the stage one complaint response that the residents were shown the general location of the meters, but not given an access key during the visit.
There appear to be no independent witnesses, so it is not possible to say what information was provided to the residents at the 15 November 2019 visit. However, there was clearly some confusion as to which meter belonged to which property on the ground floor. Based on the residents’ explanation to the landlord, they gained access to the meter with help of a neighbour to take a reading prior to receiving keys for the communal area and meter box. Accordingly it does not appear that the landlord identified the incorrect meter.
On being informed of the issue with the meter, the landlord attempted a test by turning off the electricity at the residents’ property to observe which meter stopped turning and then informed the energy provider. That test was not definitive, and the landlord then arranged for an electrician to visit to confirm the correct meters for the two properties. The appointment was arranged from 16 March 2020, which was the soonest that both the electrician and the residents were available.
The residents stated their unhappiness at the conduct of the housing officer during the 16 March 2020 visit and stated that it was the engineer who handed over the meter box key to them and their request. In investigating this element of the complaint the landlord contacted the engineer, who wrote to it on 6 April 2020. The engineer stated that it was the housing officer who handed over the key without any prompting.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in respect of this aspect of the complaint. It is not disputed that there was confusion as to which meter belonged to which ground-floor property. However, when it was notified by the residents the landlord contacted the energy provider, supplied the information that was requested from it, and kept the residents updated on its progress in determining the correct meter. It sought to gather this information quickly, first offering the resident’s an appointment for 13 March 2020 and then for 16 March when this was not convenient.

Electricity bill

On 6 March 2020 the residents’ visited the landlord’s housing officer with an electric bill it had received requesting payment of £4,037.10 by 13 March. The residents said, in their letter of complaint to this Service on 10 July 2020, that this bill caused great shock to and that they could have also potentially been put in financial difficulty as they had been informed by the energy provider that if they had paid the bill “they would have been out of pocket as the energy company would have deemed it their landlord’s responsibility”.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the electric bill and with its correspondence with the energy provider. The bill is addressed to the local authority and the invoice is mostly for the void period. This makes the bill the responsibility of the landlord to resolve.
When presented with the bill by the residents on 6 March 2020, the landlord noted that it was addressed to the local authority and the residents were not liable. It explained it was a matter for the landlord to resolve. The landlord then called the energy provider to inform them of the issue, and on 9 and 10 March it wrote to the energy provider and provided them with the information it needed.
The residents’ surprise upon seeing such a large utility bill is understandable. However, the bill was not addressed to them and was in large part for a period before their occupation of the property. When they brought the matter to the landlord’s attention, they were correctly informed it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the issue with the energy provider, and that they were not liable for the invoice. Nothing in the evidence indicates the residents could have reasonably inferred that the bill was theirs to pay.
Overall, the landlord immediately took ownership of the issue when informed by the residents, assured the residents that it was not their responsibility, and notified the energy provider on the same day the residents visited the housing office. The steps the landlord took were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

In correspondence with the landlord, the residents said they should receive compensation as per sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of its compensation policy, and that the payment should be at the highest recommended level. Section 7.3 of the landlord’s compensation and payments policy states:
1. 7.3 Ex gratia compensation payments are not an automatic entitlement and are designed to recompense tenants in exceptional circumstances, for example where processes have not been properly followed.
2. 7.3.1 Where appropriate, for the issue of distress caused to complainants, it is recommended appropriate sums to be in the range of £500 to £2000 per calendar year, adjusted pro rata to match the length of the inconvenience. Where the distress is related to intermittent periods they will be collated to produce a total figure.
3. 7.3.2 With regards to ‘time and trouble’ payments, to reflect both the financial cost to the complainant and the time spent on pursuing the complaint (but separate from distress caused), it is recommended that where this is appropriate payments should normally be in the range of £50 to £250 per case, and only higher in ‘exceptional cases’.
The landlord explained that it was satisfied it had dealt with the matter appropriately and that compensation was not warranted. This in line with section 7.3 of its compensation policy, as it would only consider a payment if it had accepted that it had not correctly followed its processes, or had otherwise failed in its service provision.
No evidence of service failure has been found in this investigation, and so the landlord’s decision that it had no grounds on which to consider providing compensation was reasonable.
Sections 2.15 of the landlord’s complaints and compliments policy concerns the circumstances in which it would reject a panel review at stage three. This states as follows:
1. 2.15 [The landlord] reserves the right not to convene a Stage 3 Panel in certain circumstances, as defined by [the landlord’s] Vexatious, Frivolous or Unreasonably Persistent Complaints Policy. These are:
  1. The complaint has not been upheld at Stage 1 or 2.
  2. The complaint is of a frivolous or trivial nature such that it would be inappropriate to respond further under the formal Complaints Procedure.
  3. The complaint is vexatious in that it is not deemed to be a genuine complaint and would consume an excessive amount of resources to investigate.
2. Where the decision is taken not to convene a Stage 3 panel, the response sent to the complainant will indicate that the [landlord] internal complaints procedure has been exhausted and explain to them their options for external complaint resolution if they wish to pursue the matter.
In its letter of 6 May 2020, the landlord explained that it would not escalate the complaint to stage three, as its position on the outstanding issues described by the residents had not changed from its stage one and two responses. This position is in line with the landlord’s policy as described above, and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to make the decision not to escalate the complaint to stage three.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. information provided relating to the electric meter of the property.
2. How it handled an electric bill for the void period.
3. Its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord worked with both the energy provider and an electrician to confirm the correct meter for the property.
The landlord informed the residents that the electric bill was its responsibility to resolve and contacted the energy provider to inform them of the situation.
The landlord correctly followed its policies and procedures both in regard to the residents request for compensation and their request to escalate the complaint to a stage three panel review.