The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Regenda Limited (202321067)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321067

Regenda Limited

15 April 2024

 

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 request for assistance in relation to the issuing of two meter point reference numbers (MPRN).

Background

  1. A MPRN is a unique number that identifies a property’s energy supply meter. Each property is allocated one MPRN, which is recorded on energy suppliers’ data base. Energy suppliers use the MPRN to identify a property for which they supply the energy, in this case it was the gas supply meter.
  2. In 2021, both the resident and the landlord attempted to resolve an issue with a MPRN attached to the resident’s property in error. It transpired that when the block was built in 2003, the landlord decided not to build one of the originally planned flats. This created a “spare” MPRN, which should have been “extinct” and remove from the energy suppliers‘ data base. However, in this case, this did not happen, instead the MPRN was allocated to the resident’s property, in addition to her own MPRN. This created 2 separate energy supplies for the property. It is unclear how this happened. The ‘spare’ MPRN will be referred to as the MPRN in this report.
  3. In 2021, the landlord contacted the energy supplier and requested it removed the MPRN from its data base, it also provided its contact details. The landlord said the energy supplier confirmed in June 2021, that it would remove the MPRN from its data base.
  4. On 21 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she continued to experience issues with the energy supplier. She said she received reminders to pay utility bills and letters from bailiffs relating to the account associated with the MPRN.
  5. Between April 2023 and July 2023, the landlord made several attempts to resolve the issue of the MPRN with the energy supplier. It explained the problem to them, it confirmed that the MPRN was attached to the resident’s property in error. It provided its contact details and requested that, going forward, they contacted the landlord directly to discuss the matter. It also requested that the energy supplier remove the MRPN from its database. The evidence did not show that the landlord received a reply to its request.
  6. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023. The complaint was about the landlord failing to support her in resolving an issue with a MPRN allocated to her property by error. She said the landlord had not communicated with her effectively and this had caused delays in resolving the matter. She described the landlord failing to have a handover when there was a staff change. She said because of this, staff had been unaware of the issue and she had to explain it to them. She also asked the landlord to explain why it had not removed the MPRN in 2003. The resident explained how the issue affected her and the distress and inconvenience it caused her. She said she spent a lot of time trying to resolve the matter and lived in fear of bailiffs knocking her door.
  7. On 25 July 2023, the landlord made a formal complaint to the energy supplier about their handling of the case. The energy supplier contacted the landlord the following day and confirmed that it had updated its system with the landlord’s contact details. The energy supplier did not confirm that it had removed the MPRN from their database. The landlord informed the resident on 27 July 2023, that further correspondence from the energy supplier would be directed to its address.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2024. It said it could not confirm what happened in 2003 to cause the problem. However, it acknowledged that it had failed to handover information between staff, which may have delayed resolving the issue. It recognised its failing to communicate effectively with the resident, it said it had not always responded to her emails as soon as it should have. It accepted that it failed to take ownership of the issue and ensure it was fully resolved. In recognition of its failings, it offered to pay £250 compensation to the resident. It said it was equivalent to:
    1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. £100 for failing to promptly update its contact details with the energy supplier;
    3. £50 for failing to handover information during the staff change.
  9. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 3 August 2023. She said the level of compensation did not reflect the time it took to resolve the issue and the impact it had on her.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. It said that after reviewing her complaint, it concluded that the level of compensation offered was appropriate. It reiterated its offer of £250 compensation to the resident.
  11. In escalating her concerns to the Ombudsman in September 2023, the resident said that the landlord had not taken into consideration the full detriment caused to her. As a resolution, she wanted consideration of a greater amount of compensation.
  12. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 20 October 2023, that she was having difficulties changing her energy supplier. She said this was because the energy supplier had not removed the MPRN from its database. It is unclear whether she informed the landlord at that time.
  13. In January 2024, the landlord contacted the energy supplier several times and requested the MPRN to be removed from its database.
  14. On 29 February 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that after reviewing the resident’s complaint, it improved its procedures for handover to ensure any issues were highlighted when there is a change of staff.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is recognised that the resident spent time and effort researching and resolving the matter. It is also acknowledged that the resident experienced significant distress during that time and described living in fear of bailiffs knocking her door. In this case, several agencies were involved in dealing with the issue. It might be useful to clarify that the Ombudsman cannot consider matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of the landlord. In this case, the Ombudsman cannot consider the actions or failings of other agencies involved, such as the energy supplier. This is because their actions would have been outside of the landlord’s control.
  2. It is acknowledged that issues arising from the MPRN occurred in 2021 and both the resident and the landlord took steps to resolve the issue at the time. While this offers some context, it will not be addressed in detail as part of this investigation. This is because while the resident made the landlord aware of the issue in 2021, it was not until July 2023 that the resident raised it as formal complaint. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. However, the events of 2021 offer some context to what happened and have been considered in that capacity.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged and attempted to resolve the issue as soon as it became aware of it in 2021.The evidence shows that the landlord had been in touch with the energy supplier and provided the appropriate information to resolve the matter. The landlord assumed the matter was resolved in 2021 when the energy supplier said it would remove the MPRN from its database. It was reasonable for the landlord to trust that the supplier would do what it said it would, especially as no further issues were reported for approximately 2 years.
  4. However, it became clear in April 2023 that the issue had not been resolved. The resident informed the landlord in April 2023 that the energy supplier was requesting payment for a large bill on that MPRN account. She also said she had received letters from bailiffs, which caused her some distress. It is unclear why the energy supplier continued to chase the resident after 2021, given that it had the landlord’s contact details. Once the landlord became aware of this, it promptly reassured the resident that it was taking actions to resolve the matter. This was reasonable from the landlord, it demonstrated that it had heard the resident and was committed to addressing the matter.
  5. It is recognised that it would have been distressing for the resident when the problem resurfaced in 2023, as she believed it had been resolved 2 years earlier. Between April 2023 and July 2023, the landlord contacted several agencies to resolve the problem. The evidence shows that the landlord had difficulties engaging the energy supplier, who was instrumental in completing the steps to fully “extinct” the unused MPRN and permanently resolve the issue. It is also recognised that the action required to fully resolve the matter was outside of the landlord’s control. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the issue.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in July 2023. In its response, the landlord said it did not have records of the communications it had with the energy supplier in 2003. It explained that it could not confirm whether the issue was caused by some of the actions it took when it built the flats. This was understandable, as it would not be expected to keep such records for 20 years. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether there were any failings on the part of the landlord at that time.
  7. The landlord acknowledged that it took a long time to resolve the issue and the impact this caused the resident. It recognised that it had failed to take ownership of the matter and it could have done more to ensure the issue was resolved. It said that while it made a formal complaint to the energy supplier in July 2023 about their handling of the case, it could have taken that step sooner. It said that if it had, the issue may have been resolved sooner. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise it could have done more to resolve the matter.
  8. The landlord also accepted in its stage 1 response that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It explained that while it aims to respond to residents’ emails within 5 days, in July 2023, it failed to consistently respond to the resident’s emails and queries within that time frame. It recognised that this caused some inconvenience and frustration to the resident, who had to contact the landlord several times for updates.
  9. Additionally, it is expected that landlords would ensure new staff are provided with the information they need to work on a case. It is also accepted that having to repeat ‘your story’ to different staff from the same organisation can be frustrating. It was reasonable for the resident to expect that the new staff would have been aware of the details of the issue. However, in this case, the landlord recognised in its stage 1 response that it had failed to handover information about the issue. This caused frustration to the resident who had to explain the history of the problem to the new staff.
  10. The landlord informed the Ombudsman in February 2024, that following the resident’s complaint, it had improved its procedures for handover to ensure any issues are highlighted when there is a change of staff. It also evidenced learning and showed that it had taken steps to improve its service based on what it learned from the complaint. This was appropriate from the landlord and was in keeping with its complaint policy.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying up to £600 compensation when a service failure occurred and had “moderate” impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord offered to pay £250 compensation to the resident. It said it was to reflect its failings and recognise the impact those had on the resident. It accepted that the resident suffered significant distress as a result of the issue with the MPRN. It acknowledged how distressing it has been for her to live in fear of bailiffs turning up and how much time she spent trying to resolve the matter. In this case and in keeping with its compensation policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation as a form of redress.
  12. Overall, it is accepted that the landlord could have handled the situation better. It could have done more to ensure the matter was resolved and communicated more effectively. The landlord acknowledged its failings as part of the complaint process, it apologised to the resident and offered compensation. It recognised that the resident does not feel the level of compensation reflects the time it took to resolve the matter and the impact it had on her. However, it is the Ombudsman opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, the Ombudsman determined that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation was a reasonable redress.
  13. Since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, she advised the landlord that she was having difficulties changing energy suppliers. She said this was because 2 MPRN remain attached to her property, which suggests that the energy supplier had not removed the MPRN from the database, as agreed. The evidence shows that the landlord is actively communicating with the supplier to remove the MPRM from the data base.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.