Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Lambeth Council (202115655)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115655

Lambeth Council

28 February 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 water bill.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2021, following a conversation that day. It said it had stopped collecting water rates on behalf of the water provider on 31 March 2020. It had sent a number of letters to residents prior to the change, however, as his tenancy only commenced on 9 March 2020, it acknowledged he was not sent any of the notices. It said the information “should have been passed onto you when you signed for the property”.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2021. He said when he began his tenancy he was informed that the water rates were included in his rent payments, and this was also stated in his tenancy agreement (we have not been provided with the original copy of the tenancy agreement). After receiving two quarterly statements, he noticed that the water rates were not included in his payments, and the landlord stated he needed to pay the water company directly. He had set up an account with the water company but was in arrears as no payments had been made since 31 March 2020. He said he had made several calls to the landlord regarding the issue and had been advised it had been escalated and he would receive a call back, which he had not. He requested a final response. The landlord raised this as a stage one complaint on 9 April 2021, there is no evidence to suggest the resident was sent an acknowledgement.
  3. The landlord sent a rent statement to the resident on 19 April 2021 showing it had compensated him £24.68 that day. An internal email the same day stated the compensation was for the water charges paid at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy; it stated he had been informed of this.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 10 May 2021. He said the landlord had asked him to send a copy of his water charges, which he had, but he had not received further correspondence.
  5. The landlord sent its stage one response on 10 May 2021, following a phone call on 12 April 2021 to discuss the details of the complaint. It said it refunded him for the water rates charged from 5 March 2020 to 31 March 2020, which totalled £24.68. It said it would provide further staff training to ensure all new tenancy start-ups are referred to the water company. It gave him options to manage his water bill arrears with his rent payments, advising him that as his rent account was in credit, he could either pay his water bill in full and go into arrears for the upcoming month’s rent, or pay half of the upcoming month’s rent towards the water arrears. It advised him to discuss the options with his income officer, and provided a direct contact number. It said the only instance of contact from the resident it had recorded was on 25 March 2021, which it had responded to in full.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2021. He did not feel the landlord’s response was fair, as he said it was not through fault of his own that he had gone into arrears. He requested the landlord either cleared his arrears with the water provider, or helped him in maintaining his rent account. He said that the situation had caused him stress, and he was worried about his credit score and the security of his tenancy, if he missed payments. He said if he had received the correct information when his tenancy started, the situation would have been avoided.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2021 and asked whether he wanted the complaint to be escalated, which he confirmed he did.
  8. The landlord sent its stage two response on 24 June 2021. It said the resident had been “notified that water rates were not included in your rent account as per rent statements issued to you in April and July 2020”. It said it recognised that he was given inconsistent information at the start of his tenancy and there “could have been more clarity” regarding whether the water rates were included. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused and offered a goodwill gesture of £50 as it had not followed correct procedures. It incorrectly signposted him to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGSCO) if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for paying rent and “other charges”.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states “From the start of your tenancy you will be responsible for organising and paying all your charges for gas, water and electricity”.
  3. The landlord is responsible for providing accurate information regarding payments and charges at the beginning of the tenancy. Although the resident was not correctly updated regarding the method of payment for the water bill, it is not disputed by the resident or the landlord that the resident was responsible for paying it, in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord sent regular rent statements, which from April 2020 did not include the water bill, meaning the resident’s weekly payments had decreased. Therefore, although the resident was not explicitly informed, he was provided with the relevant documentation to see he was no longer paying for the water company through the landlord. While the issue was clearly stressful and inconvenient for the resident, he was liable to make the outstanding payments. No evidence has been provided of a direct financial loss to the resident as a result of the landlord’s mistake, because although it resulted in a larger bill when the resident set up his account with the water provider, he would have been liable for the same amount if he was paying it through the landlord, but in smaller increments over a longer period of time.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failure to inform the resident of the change in March 2020, offered a £50 goodwill gesture, and reimbursed the £24.68 he paid towards the water payments at the beginning of his tenancy. This Service’s remedy guidance states that compensation in the range of £50-£250 should be made when there is a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. The landlord has therefore compensated for its failing in line with this Service’s remedy guidance. The landlord also acted appropriately by giving the resident options to manage the arrears, and giving a direct contact number to discuss it with. It also learnt from its failings and provided staff with further training to ensure new tenancies are correctly signposted to the water company to make payments.
  5. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately when it was notified of the issue, reasonably compensated the resident and supported him by providing options to manage the outstanding balance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. While there was service failure with the landlord’s miscommunication of the water bill method of payment, the landlord appropriately compensated for the mistake and the resident is ultimately responsible for the payments. It has also offered the resident options for managing the payment, and has provided further staff training to avoid similar issues.

Recommendation

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord incorrectly referred the resident to the LGSCO, rather than to the Housing Ombudsman. It is not apparent if this caused confusion or delay on the resident’s part, but the landlord should take steps to ensure that it always provides the correct escalation information.