Southampton City Council (202203451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203451

Southampton City Council

26 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to disconnect his property from the communal heating system.
2. Request for it to waive heating charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to waive heating charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
The resident made a request for his property to be disconnected from the landlord’s communal heating system, in March 2020, and again in September 2020. The landlord refused in November 2020, and the resident made a complaint. Shortly before it issued its stage 2 complaint response, in July 2021, the landlord changed its decision and agreed to the resident’s request.
The landlord disconnected the resident’s property from the communal heating system around 25 August 2021. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 August 2021 to confirm his property had been disconnected, and he would no longer be charged for the communal heating. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 August 2021, and asked if it was willing to backdate its decision and refund historical heating charges. The landlord responded on 30 August 2021, and said it was unable to backdate it, and would not issue a refund.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 May 2022 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to refuse a back dated refund of the heating charges.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
It is evident that up until August 2021 the resident was paying a contractual charge for a service he received. The reasonableness of the decision not to offer a back dated refund requires a binding decision on the level of charges which should be paid. The request to waive the heating charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
The appropriate body to decide such complaints is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First Tier Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a determination on the reasonableness of the service charges from the First Tier Tribunal.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a studio flat in a block, and his tenancy started in July 2014. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2020 to ask for an update about his request to disconnect his property from the communal heating system. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day stating it was aware the resident had made the request in March 2020, but it could not “be sure” what action was taken.
The landlord called the resident on 11 September 2020, and said that all disconnections were “put on hold” at the start of the year. This was due to the complexity of the issue, and the need to create an appropriate procedure. The Covid-19 pandemic had meant that the work was “put on hold”. It said that this was not communicated to the resident, and it apologised. The landlord advised that it was not able to agree to the disconnection at the time, but its decision “could change”. The resident asked the landlord to outline its position in writing, and was told the landlord did not have access to the information. It asked him to “make a formal complaint”, as the complaints department had the “power” to ask for more information about such issues.
The landlord called the resident on 23 November 2020, and the notes from the conversation state:
1. Senior managers had taken the decision that disconnection from communal heating would no longer be available for residents.
2. The resident asked how the decision was reached and was told that the officer explaining the decision was “not party to the discussions” and could not answer his questions.
3. The resident asked for information about the decision in writing, and was told to submit a “detailed complaint”, as all his questions “would need to be answered” in its complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2020 to make a complaint about its decision not to allow him to disconnect his property from the communal heating. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 December 2020, and said:
1. It apologised he had not had responses to his “initial complaints”.
2. It explained that the reason it had reached the decision not to allow any residents to disconnect from communal heating were:
  1. Any new tenant would need to pay to reconnect, which would disadvantage them.
  2. There was a cost associated with disconnecting.
3. Long term it was considering replacing the communal heating with a resident controlled storage heater system.
4. It apologised for the delays in providing responses, and an explanation of its decisions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2021 and said he was unhappy with its decision, and felt it should “honour” what he was told back in 2020. He asked for a breakdown of the costs involved, and a formal explanation of its position “in writing”.
The landlord called the resident on 5 March 2021 and restated its position that it was not prepared to disconnect his property from the heating system.
The landlord sent internal emails in July 2021 that discussed the resident’s concerns, and that the issue had been “dealt with” in December 2020. Its emails noted that he had never submitted a “formal stage 1 complaint”. A senior officer for the landlord instructed it to open a stage 2 complaint, and said it should have recorded the response, of December 2020, as a formal complaint response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 July 2021 and said it would allow the resident to disconnect his property from the communal heating. It advised that there was a £120 charge to disconnect, but it had decided to waive it.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2021, and said:
1. It had agreed to the resident’s request to disconnect from the heating system, and was therefore “unable to find fault” and the complaint was “satisfactorily resolved”
2. It found there was “some fault” in how it dealt with the complaint at stage 1, and apologised.
3. It planned to give refresher training to its staff to ensure complaints were appropriately responded to.
The resident’s property was disconnected from the communal heating system around 25 August 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 May 2022 and asked us to investigate his complaint, and said he was unhappy with the amount of time he had to wait for a decision on the matter.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he is responsible for paying for charges that form part of the rent, such as communal heating.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is “any expression of dissatisfaction with our services”, and it will acknowledge complaint within 3 working days. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The resident’s request to disconnect his property from the communal heating system

It is apparent that around the time it made decisions about this issue, the landlord did not have a formal policy or procedure about such matters. The evidence indicates that the landlord sought to create a procedure, but this was put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As such, the evidence also shows that the landlord’s decision making in the resident’s case lacked transparency and appropriate explanations. It is apparent that the officers communicating decisions were unaware of how such decisions were reached. It is reasonable to conclude that a lack of an appropriate policy/procedure contributed to the lack of understanding of its staff. Considering this, an appropriate recommendation is set out below.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to follow up on the resident’s initial request to disconnect from the communal heating system in March 2020. The resident was inconvenienced by this, and was cost further time and trouble in needing to raise the issue again in September 2020. The landlord appropriately apologised for not updating the resident about its position, and provided an update, that it would not disconnect the property, in September 2020.
That the landlord appeared to refuse to provide its decision in writing, or provide the reasons for its decision, in September 2020, was unreasonable. Its comment that the resident would need to raise a formal complaint, in order to get an explanation, is of particular concern. This caused the resident frustration, as he had been waiting 6 months for a response to his request. When the response came it lacked detail, and transparency about the landlord’s decision making. This caused further frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord failed to learn from this failing in its later response, of November 2020. Again, it called the resident to inform him of its decision, and when asked to provide its response it writing it advised him to make a complaint. It is apparent the officer informing the resident of the outcome of the decision was unclear why it had been reached, and could not give further explanation. This was inappropriate, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced the disappointment of a decision that went against what he wanted, without an appropriate explanation.
The landlord’s email of 15 December 2020 went some way to putting right its earlier failings, and gave an explanation of the reasons for its decision. The Ombudsman appreciates that the decision, at this time, was disappointing for the resident. But, the landlord, after an unreasonable delay, had provided some explanation of how it had reached its decision. However, its response lacked detail and it is noted the resident sought further clarification about costs, that was not forthcoming. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and the landlord’s approach lacked transparency.
The landlord used its email of 15 December 2020, as its response to the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s approach to the complaint is assessed later in this report in more detail. However, in terms of its handling of the substantive issue, the response at stage 1 was inappropriate. The landlord’s response admitted a failing in that there were delays in communication and explanations of its decision. It would therefore have been reasonable to offer appropriate redress for its admitted failings. The response also lacked a meaningful assessment of its own actions, why the failing had occurred, and what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This caused the resident an inconvenience as he failed to receive a meaningful complaint response, that offered appropriate redress.
The resident was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s decision, and asked for further clarification about its decision making, and costs, in March 2021. The landlord’s response to this request was dismissive and lacked transparency. The landlord simply restated its position, without providing further explanation. This showed a lack of accountability for its decision making process. The Ombudsman appreciates that the decision itself was not an unreasonable one, and a decision the landlord was entitled to reach. However, the lack of engagement with the resident was dismissive, and was evidently frustrating for him.
After it opened a stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord reversed its decision, and communicated this to the resident. It is unclear why the landlord decided to reverse its decision. Again, its response did not give an explanation of why or how it had reached its decision. While it is noted the resident was happy with its decision, this is indicative of the fact its overall approach lacked transparency. That the landlord decided to waive the associated charges was appropriate, and went some way to putting its earlier failings right.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked learning, and failed to offer a meaningful assessment of its handling of the substantive issue. This was despite admitting failings in its response in December 2020. That the landlord cited it had agreed to the resident’s request as an adequate resolution to the complaint, was inappropriate. It is noted the resident was happy with its decision, but he was also unhappy with its overall handling of the issue, and the perceived delays. That it did not give a meaningful assessment of its handling of the issue, or its earlier admitted failings, caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
There was unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s initial request, in March 2020. The landlord accepted this failing, but did not offer appropriate redress. The landlord, unreasonably, refused to outline its position in writing in September and November 2020. The officer who explained the decision to the resident was unaware of why/how the decision was reached, which was also inappropriate. The response to the stage 1 complaint lacked detail, and it failed to offer further explanation, when the resident asked it to. The stage 2 complaint response disregarded its earlier failings, and lacked meaningful learning about its actions.
That it offered to waive the charge went some way to putting things right, but the redress the landlord offered did not fully put things right for him. Due to the frustration and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and inappropriate responses, a series of orders are made below.

Complaint handling

The resident explained to the landlord that he was unhappy with its handling of the substantive issue in this case, in September 2020. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time was inappropriate and a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), outline that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation on receipt of the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction was a failure to apply its own policy and the Code, and created a hard to access complaints process for the resident.
The resident expressed a frustration that he was being “fobbed off” by the landlord’s response. As outlined earlier in this report, it was inappropriate to ask the resident to make a complaint in order to get an explanation about the substantive issue. In terms of an approach to complaint handling, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have understood the resident was in fact making a complaint. That it expected him to formally outline his expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint was obstructive, and poor complaint handling practice.
The landlord opened a complaint investigation on receipt of further concerns from the resident, in December 2020. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint. This was a failure to apply its policy, and the Code, and caused an inconvenience. The Code states that, when acknowledging complaints, landlords must set out there understanding of the complaint. By failing to formally acknowledge the complaint, the landlord caused an inconvenience to the resident. This was because he missed the opportunity to ensure the landlord had the correct understanding of what he was complaining about.
The landlord’s email of 15 December 2020 appeared to be its response to the stage 1 complaint. However, its response failed to adhere to the expectations of complaint responses set out in the Code. The response did not explain it was its stage 1 response, neither did it explain how the resident could escalate his complaint if he was unhappy with its response. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, and its actions created a confusing and unfair complaints process for the resident.
The landlord’s email of 15 December 2020 admitted a failing in its complaint handling, and apologised that it had not responded to earlier complaints. It was appropriate to do so. However, it failed to show a meaningful assessment of its admitted failings, and what it would do to prevent similar issues arising again. This was inappropriate, and a further failing in its complaint handling. That it did not offer appropriate redress for its admitted complaint handling failings was a further shortcoming in its handling of the complaint at stage 1.
On receipt of the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident emailed in February 2021, and expressed a clear dissatisfaction with its response. He asked for further information in relation to the substantive issue, and said he was unhappy with its decision. That the landlord did not escalate his complaint to stage 2 at that time was a further failing in its complaint handling. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s complaint was obstructive and made it hard to access for the resident.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was obstructive in its approach to the complaint. It relied on the fact the resident had not submitted a “formal complaint” as a reason for not progressing with it. This was inappropriate and against the complaint handling principles set out in the Code, which states “must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure”. The evidence indicates it did, unreasonably, refuse to escalate the resident’s complaint in this case, which caused him further inconvenience. It is noted that a senior officer for the landlord became aware of its approach to the complaint, and intervened to ensure the resident received a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for the failings in its complaint handling, and showed learning. That it decided to conduct training with its complaint handling staff to remind them about appropriate complaint approaches was reasonable and went some way to putting things right. However, given the time and trouble experienced by the resident in trying to raise his complaint, it would have been appropriate to offer some financial redress. This was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord created an unfair and hard to access complaints process for the resident. Its approach at stage 1 was unreasonable, and failed to correctly apply its policy and the Code. Its stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right, but failed to offer appropriate redress. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling, and made a series of appropriate orders. However, the Ombudsman welcomes the learning shown, and that the landlord decided to conduct training with its staff. Had it not done so, a training order would have been made in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to disconnect his property from the communal heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s initial request, in March 2020. The landlord accepted this failing, but did not offer appropriate redress. The landlord, unreasonably, refused to outline its position in writing in September and November 2020. The officer who explained the decision to the resident was unaware of why/how the decision was reached, which was also inappropriate. The response to the stage 1 complaint lacked detail, and it failed to offer a further explanation, when the resident asked it to. The stage 2 complaint response disregarded its earlier failings, and lacked meaningful learning about its actions. That it offered to waive the charge went some way to putting things right, but the redress the landlord offered did not fully put things right for him.
The landlord created an unfair and hard to access complaints process for the resident. Its approach at stage 1 was unreasonable, and failed to correctly apply its policy and the Code. Its stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right, but failed to offer appropriate redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £425 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to disconnect his property from the communal heating system.
  2. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble cause by its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord creates a policy/procedure relating to residents’ requests to disconnect from communal heating systems (if it has not already done so). This is to assist it in having a more transparent and consistent decision making process.