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

Hackney Council (202210348)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210348

Hackney Council

7 July 2023

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about being overcharged for water services.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident holds a tenancy with the landlord for flat located on a block, for which the resident previously paid his water bill to the landlord as part of his service charges for the property.
  2. Prior to April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain it would stop charging all residents for water and wastewater charges from 1 April 2021. It explained that the water company would send a separate bill from that date.
  3. On 4 April 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. He said that the landlord was now separating water charges but had previously made a profit from the wholesale purchase of water from the water company which was not passed on to the tenants. The resident stated that the tenants were due this money back.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 April 2021, and provided its stage one response on 19 August 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, but said that it was aware of recent court judgements regarding the reselling of water, was taking legal advice on how best to implement these, but had been delayed by a cyber-attack on it in October 2020, and so it would update the resident on its decision in the next few months. The resident therefore made a stage two complaint on the same day, as he explained that his complaint about being overcharged for water had not been answered.
  5. On 18 September 2021, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord as he had not received a response to his stage two escalation request. The landlord merged this new complaint with the resident’s previous one, and wrote to him on 21 September 2021 to explain it had no further update on his complaint points, but it invited him to contact its complaint handler directly if he still wanted the complaint escalated.
  6. On 25 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update. On 8 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to raise a new complaint. The landlord then escalated his original complaint to stage two.
  7. On 16 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response after taking legal advice. It stated it was of the opinion that no tenant had been overcharged for water, as they were charged the same rate that would have been payable to the water company. For the complaint handling, it said it had made no errors as it had informed the resident about lack of progress on the issue following his stage one complaint, and had asked him to contact its complaint handler directly if he still wanted the complaint escalated. As it did not hear back from him until 25 February 2022, the landlord thought the resident was happy to wait.
  8. Subsequently, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman that he had been overcharged by the landlord for water and was seeking to be refunded by it, as there had been court cases that had found landlords liable for this, but the landlord disagreed.

Reasons

  1. Under paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
  2. The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of the amount of water charges that he feels he overpaid through a service charge increase. However, complaints concerning the level of rent and service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine the level of rent or service charges in the way that a court or tribunal might. For this reason, the complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.