Optivo (202001344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001344

Optivo

16 March 2021

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 request for compensation for her electricity bills and damaged goods following a leak. 

Background and summary of events

2. The resident previously raised a formal complaint concerning her immersion heater and electrical issues in 2018. A fault was identified, and she was offered £1,700 compensation for this at the time. In the landlord’s earlier final stage complaint response for that complaint, it advised her of more efficient ways to use her heating and hot water system. In July 2018, its “Gas Contract Services” carried out a safety assessment of the immersion heater and concluded that this was compliant and not a fire risk.
3. According to the landlord’s records in January 2020, the resident reported an issue with her immersion heater. A contractor then attended the property and confirmed that there was no problem with this.
4. On 20 May 2020, the landlord asked the resident to send it copies of her electricity bills after she had raised concerns that her immersion heater was causing excessively high bills. However, is not entirely clear when she first made the landlord aware this issue.
5. The landlord also said that it would send the resident a public liability form to complete regarding her damaged belongings following a leak.
6. On 27 May 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint over the telephone to the landlord. She reported her damaged belongings. According to the landlord’s records, it advised her to make a claim on her contents insurance.
7. On 26 June 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said that the resident’s issue relating to her high electricity usage had previously been dealt with as a complaint in 2018. It said that it had not found any fault with her heating system or electrics and that her bills were “an accurate reflection of [her] electricity usage”. The landlord explained that, as the resident had previously mentioned that her household ran “8-10 baths a day”, this would explain an increased energy consumption and higher electricity bills. It said that it would not offer her any further compensation for this and referred her back to the advice it had given her in its previous final stage complaint response from 2018.
8. The landlord also reiterated that the resident should make an insurance claim for her damaged belongings from a leak from the flat above her that it had repaired on the same day that she had reported this to it on 29 May 2020, as it did not offer compensation in these circumstances. It explained that this was because damaged items should be pursued through an insurance claim that it had sent her a public liability form to complete and return to it, for which it did not offer compensation in line with its compensation policy.
9. The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint to the final stage two of the complaints process if she was not satisfied with this outcome.
10. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 July 2020. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had rejected her request to be compensated for her electricity bills. The resident said that the landlord had “blamed” her for how she used the hot water but had not accepted responsibility itself. She asked to be compensated for the money she had spent over the preceding seven years on her electricity bill (which she had calculated as £36,000).
11. On 18 August 2020, the landlord issued its final stage two complaint response to the resident. It said that no issues had been found with her immersion heater when this was checked in January 2020. The landlord said that it had asked its “Financial Inclusion Team” to contact her and help with “managing [her] electricity bills and general budgeting”.
12. It said that, as per the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out contents insurance and reiterated that it was not liable for any damages to personal belongings.
13. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

14. The resident asked to be compensated for excessive electricity bills as she believed that they were due to a fault with her immersion heater. The landlord explained how her immersion heater had been previously assessed in January 2020 when the resident raised her concerns and also in 2018. Neither investigation had found any faults with the heater. According to the report of 2018, the “installation wiring is in a good, safe, useable condition”. The report also said that another assessment would not be due until five years’ time (2023).
15. The landlord had not been provided with any evidence to suggest that there were mechanical issues causing excessive electricity bills aside from the resident’s claims. It was therefore limited with what reasonable action it could have taken to satisfy her complaint, as the resident contested the landlord’s explanation that her bills were an accurate representation of her energy consumption. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have at least carried out a further investigation for reassurance that there was no merit to the resident’s reports.
16. It is plausible for the resident to have had reservations about her immersion heater following the issues she had in 2018. Nonetheless, high electricity bills are not necessarily always a direct result of defective heaters. The landlord explained that there may have been alternative reasons for her excessive bills and offered her advice on how she could manage her bills more effectively. In short, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate her concerns but was unable to find evidence to support her claim that the heater had caused her excessive electricity bills.
17. It is understandable that the resident requested to be compensated for her damaged belongings as the leak from the flat above her on 29 May 2020 had not been caused by any damage or action by her. However, the landlord’s responsive repairs and compensation policies stipulate that a resident is responsible for insuring the contents of their property and only that its insurers “may consider these”.
18. Therefore, following the resident’s reports of damaged possessions, the landlord’s suggestion to her to make a claim on her contents insurance and to send her a public liability form to complete and return to it for its insurers was an appropriate response. The landlord explained throughout the complaint procedure that that it was not obliged to compensate residents for damaged items. It effectively managed her expectations and offered appropriate advice as to how she could on obtain the outcome that she was seeking.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her electricity bills and damaged goods following a leak. 

Reasons

20. Ultimately, the landlord relied on its previous investigations of the immersion heater and concluded that there was no correlation between the resident’s high electricity bills and the heater. Also, the landlord would not be expected to pay the cost or replace the damaged items and its advice to refer the matter to insurers was therefore correct in the circumstances.

Recommendation

21. It is recommended that the landlord arranges a further investigation of the immersion heater in order to reassure the resident and itself that there is no fault which is causing elevated electricity bills.
22. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
23. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.