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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202011982)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011982

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

19 November 2021


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to change the energy supplier for the provision of communal heating in the building.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its decision to change the energy supplier for the provision of communal heating, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraphs 39(a) and 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’).
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that:
    1. “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”.
  3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that:
    1. “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder.
  2. The available records are not entirely clear, but it is noted within the correspondence that in March 2020 the landlord wrote to all affected tenants notifying them of its decision to change the energy supplier with effect from 1 April 2020.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that this change went ahead on 1 April 2020 and the landlord entered into a new contract and all the tenants were asked to sign up with the new energy supplier.
  4. The records show that on 11 November 2020 there was a meeting between the landlord and all the tenants in the block to discuss the appointment of the new energy supplier and to address any concerns.
  5. It appears that the resident did not attend this meeting, and on 12 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord wanting to know why it had chosen this particular energy supplier over others, and she requested sight of ‘the facts and figures’ surrounding this decision in terms of the benefit to her.
  6. The landlord responded on 12 November 2020 and referenced the meeting with the tenants and said that it still had some work to do to reassure the tenants and be more transparent in its communications. It said that her concerns had been passed on to the relevant team who were dealing with this issue and this would be taken into account when it reviewed the matter again.
  7. There is reference within the papers to further meetings between the landlord and the tenants in early January 2021 with a view to providing more information about how the new energy supplier was selected.
  8. On 14 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and copied in her local MP, the Energy Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman. In this email the resident reiterated her concerns about the choice of energy supplier and she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s failure to explain why it chose this supplier. She also queried the energy supplier’s decision to unilaterally increase her monthly direct debit.
  9. As far as can be ascertained from the available information, the issue referred to this Service was about the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s appointment of the new energy supplier, and also the new energy supplier’s handling of her billing.
  10. The resident was advised to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process prior to any referral to this Service. In response to this, the resident submitted further information. This consisted of a Stage 2 final complaint response dated 6 November 2019 addressed to another tenant about a complaint to do with the communal door locks and entry system repairs. There was also another separate Stage 2 complaint response dated 17 February 2020 about a different repair and associated service charges.
  11. The resident has also sent in correspondence from various different tenants liaising with the landlord on various issues such as leaks, noise, staircasing process, repairs, scaffolding, and pest control.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman understands from the information presently available, that the substantive issue in this case is about the landlord’s decision in March 2020 to change the energy supplier for the provision of communal heating to the building. The resident has said that she is unhappy with this decision, and the landlord has failed to explain why it chose this particular energy supplier; and she believes that she is now having to pay more for her energy usage.
  2. As quoted above, paragraphs 39(a) and 39(e) of the Scheme, require the resident to complete the landlord’s own internal complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate the complaint. In this case, from what can be seen so far, the resident has not provided any evidence to show that a formal complaint was logged with the landlord about this particular issue within six months of the landlord’s decision to appoint the energy supplier. Nor has the resident evidenced that she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process for this particular complaint issue.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord has checked its records and has not found any formal complaint having been logged from the resident in respect of the issue of the appointment of a new energy supplier.
  4. It is noted that the resident has provided considerable correspondence showing that other tenants have been liaising with the landlord about lots of different issues affecting the building and individual tenants. However, none of this correspondence (including the complaint responses from the landlord) relate to a formal complaint from the resident about the new energy supplier.
  5. In light of all the above, the complaint about the landlord’s decision to change the energy supplier for the provision of communal heating in the building, falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraphs 39(a) and 39(e) quoted above.
  6. Finally, with regards to the comments raised by the resident about the energy supplier’s handling of her billing account and her monthly direct debits, this Service understands that the Energy Ombudsman may be able to assist her with these issues if she is still unhappy after completing the energy supplier’s own complaints process. The Energy Ombudsman can deal with matters such as problems that arise as a result of switching energy supplier.