Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202209514)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209514

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 February 2025


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:
    1. The resident’s reports that her electric meter was incorrectly wired.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The lease began in 2001.
  2. On 4 August 2022, the resident informed the Ombudsman she had reported to the landlord there was incorrect wiring of her and her neighbour’s electric meters. This meant each property was charged for the wrong electricity usage. She said she had raised the issue with it over 3 years ago, but it had not done anything to resolve the problem. The Ombudsman contacted it on 5 August 2022 asking it to provide a response to her.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident and raised a complaint as she had requested compensation and admission of fault from it. It informed her it raised the complaint on 16 August 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2022. It explained the circumstances surrounding the meter installation. It found failures in its services including that it should have notified her quicker that the meter was the responsibility of the energy provider and offered her £200 compensation.
  5. The resident, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, wrote to it on 13 October 2022 asking for it to admit liability and increase its offer of compensation. The landlord increased the offer of compensation to £250 on 6 February 2023. It said the earlier offer was insufficient to recognise its delays and the impact to her. It informed her on 17 February 2023 that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 17 April 2023, the landlord found no failure in its service and did not uphold the complaint. It stated that the period of liability had passed. It re–offered the resident the £200 from its stage 1 response.
  7. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has requested the landlord admit responsibility and provide documents she has requested from it. She also wants it to apologise for the error and increase the compensation to reflect 22 years of incorrect billing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. The issue in this case had been ongoing for many years before the events covered in this investigation. The installation of the electric meters took place around 2001. The evidence provided shows the landlord and energy provider had differing views regarding responsibility for the fault. This report has not sought to ascertain who was responsible for the fault with the meters. At the time of this investigation the utility provider had resolved the meter issues. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the matter.
  2. The resident has stated that she made a formal complaint to the landlord over 3 years ago. There is evidence that she complained to the landlord in May 2021. However, there is no evidence of the matter completing the landlord’s complaint process, or the issue being brought to the Ombudsman at that time.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Which at the time of the resident’s complaint would have normally been within 6 months of the matters arising. Thus, this investigation has focused on its handling of her recent complaint from August 2022 as that has completed its complaint process.

The meters

  1. Following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman on 4 August 2022 regarding her electric meter, the landlord wrote to her on 16 August 2022. It said the complaint was regarding her electricity meter wiring issues as the electricity supplier had incorrectly assigned the wrong meter to her property and her neighbour. It apologised for its delays in communicating with her about who was responsible for the electric meter issues.
  2. The landlord said after speaking with the resident on the telephone she told it the energy supplier had amended the meters, correcting future billing. She advised it the energy provider said stickers needed to be added so she could confirm which meter belonged to her property. She had also contacted it as she was unsure of the responsibility for those meters, was told someone would contact her, but it had failed to do so.
  3.  In its stage 1 response of 3 October 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay to acknowledge and resolve the resident’s complaint. It confirmed the conversation it had with her when she raised the complaint, including her stating it had failed to contact her. It apologised for her having to pursue the issue and that it had failed to communicate with her that the responsibility for the issue was not the landlord’s. It said it did contact her by telephone to advise its policy and she had said she had evidence from the supplier that it was its responsibility. It had requested she send that information but had not heard from her. Its policy did not cover utility electric meters, and the issue was with her utility provider. It agreed it could have advised her quicker the issue was the responsibility of her utility provider and upheld her complaint.
  4. The landlord offered compensation of £200 consisting of £50 for time and trouble, £50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for the delay acknowledging her complaint and £50 for miscommunication. It said the offer was in line with its complaints policy that stated it was only able to investigate and consider service failures that may have occurred up to 6 months prior to receipt of her complaint.
  5. In response to the stage 1 decision, the resident emailed the landlord on 13 October 2022. She said she was forwarding to it the letter from her energy supplier. This email from the supplier of 4 October 2022 explained how the meter mix ups could have occurred between her and her neighbour’s properties. The email stated the problem was due to mislabelling, which did not match the routing of the cabling to the flats. When the properties were developed the builders/developers were responsible for routing the wiring from each flat and then labelling the area with the flat that each supply cable would run to. That was in advance of the energy supplier installing the meter and energising the supply to each flat.
  6. The resident said that it was the landlord’s responsibility, and not the supplier’s, to conduct the necessary quality assurance checks to prevent the problem. Had it done so it would have identified the issue under snags and defects. She had requested documents relating to the sign off of the meters during construction of the building. It had told her she could not see them due to them being sensitive. She felt that was a deliberate attempt to withhold evidence of fault. She wanted it to admit responsibility and provide the documentation requested. She also requested it compensate her for 22 years of incorrect bill payments and 3 years of work she did to get the matter taken seriously by it. She expected an offer in the region of £10,000. She declined its offer of £200.
  7. There is no further evidence provided of any investigations or correspondence from the landlord following the stage 1 response until 6 February 2023 when it issued a letter about the resident’s stage 1 complaint. In that letter it acknowledged she was not happy with the compensation offer and apologised for its delayed response. It said following further investigation it was not responsible for checking if an individual electric meter supplied the property. That was something for the energy provider to confirm. It referred her to the tenancy agreement.
  8. We note that the landlord did not specify in its response the section of the tenancy agreement it was referring to or acknowledge that the resident was a leaseholder. This was a careless handling of the matter, which may be part of the cause of delays in the landlord’s communications.
  9. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident and advised that the energy provider needed to label individual meters as it did not fall under its remit due to not having the information. It had however revised the compensation offer and concluded its previous offer did not fully reflect the delays she experienced and the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It increased its offer to £250.
  10. The resident confirmed to the landlord the same day she was reforwarding the response from her energy provider to it. They had explained how the mix up of the meters between properties happened and supported her stage 2 complaint. The landlord asked the resident to provide the reasons for her escalation on 9 March 2023. She responded on 15 March 2023 that the stage 1 response did not understand what her complaint was about, furthermore:
    1. Her complaint was never to make it responsible for “checking whether an individual electric meter is correctly supplied to the property”, as stated in its letter dated 6 February 2023.
    2. She had also not said it was responsible for the labelling of individual meters in the property.
    3. The mix up of the meters was caused by the incorrect routing of the wiring from each flat and the subsequent incorrect labelling.
    4. The landlord’s builders/developers were responsible for that job. That was the reason it was responsible for the eventual problem with the mix up of the electricity supply between the 2 flats.
    5. The energy supplier installed the meters in the property based on the installation certificate provided by the qualified electrician that it used for installing the cables and labelling.
    6. It was responsible for the defects in the installing and labelling of the cables, as the problem happened at the construction stage of the property and had nothing to do with the installing of the meters.
    7. She wanted it to accept full responsibility for the issue.
  11. The landlord’s records show it concluded on 4 April 2023 that its records for new builds would not go back to the build date. It noted there would normally be a schedule of meters and the relevant reference numbers provided with each plot. It was not unheard of for there to be mix ups with meters, although was unusual. The meters were correctly wired but had been incorrectly labelled. It was also unusual for the problem to be undiscovered for 22 years. It noted there would be no come back to the original contractor/installer after 22 years under the Defective Premises Act 1972. This was the first evidence provided by the landlord demonstrating the investigations it had taken regarding the issue since it had raised the complaint.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 13 April 2023. It found that it had not failed in the service it provided to her and did not uphold her complaint. It said:
    1. The electrical testing/certification took place after installation of the meters. It would not pick up whether the plot was connected to the correct meter, therefore the statement about the energy supplier installing meters based on an installation certificate was inaccurate.
    2. Under the Defective Premises Act 1972, the limit of liability for those sorts of problems in construction contracts was a maximum 12 years.
    3. In its stage 1 response it did not respond to her calls when it should have.
    4. It had explained regarding the meter mix-up that it is the energy provider who installs and connects the meters. For a possible over or under charge of utility costs, the electricity supplier held the required information.
    5. It asked her to confirm if she wanted to accept the £200 from her stage 1 complaint.
  13. The landlord’s handling of the meter issue was appropriate. The issue had been resolved at the time of the complaint and initially occurred over 20 years ago. It provided responses to her regarding her points raised. It also advised her to contact the energy provider regarding any recalculations of her bills. Once it had received the letter from the utility provider it provided its responses at stage 2. Although its conclusions differed from that of the energy supplier, it has demonstrated it considered the points raised by the resident and provided its responses to her.
  14. The evidence indicates that all bill payments were made by the resident to the energy supplier and not to the landlord. Thus, it is reasonable that the landlord expects the resident to contact the supplier regarding over-payments. She may wish to consider contacting the Energy Ombudsman regarding the energy bills. We can only consider complaints about the actions of the landlord including how it responded to her concerns about the meters.
  15. The energy supplier and the landlord had differing findings on who was responsible for the error. As stated earlier, this is not a matter on which this Service can come to a conclusion. We find that the landlord provided reasonable explanations, fully acknowledged its failings in communication and responded to all the resident’s questions in the matter. Thus, we conclude that there was no maladministration in its actions. However, in assessing its handling of the resident’s formal complaint in the paragraphs below, we have considered the confusion in its offer of compensation and decision at various stages.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord advised the resident on 16 August 2022 that it had raised the complaint. It aimed to provide the response by 31 August 2022 and would keep her updated if it were unable to do so.
  2. The landlord informed the resident on 24 August 2022 that it needed more time to provide the response and would aim to provide it by 14 September 2022. It requested an extension again on 6 September 2022. It also said it was waiting for information she had advised the energy supplier was sending her. It hoped to provide the response by 28 September 2022.
  3. However, on 28 September 2022 the landlord again wrote to the resident to further request an extension. It said it had tried to contact her by telephone as it was waiting for the information she advised the energy supplier was sending to her. It hoped to issue the response by 12 October 2022.
  4. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. This was 33 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint and 23 days beyond the timescales of its complaint policy. As stated, it did keep her informed of the delays. However, the repeated delays would have caused some inconvenience to the resident.
  5. It is acknowledged that the landlord was waiting for the resident to supply information from the energy provider. There is no evidence she provided the information from the provider before it issued the stage 1 response. It was therefore appropriate that it could not provide a response to that information.
  6. However, the landlord has not evidenced the actions it took between raising the complaint and issuing its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine the extent of the landlord’s actions or investigations during that time or for the reasons in its delay issuing its stage 1 response.
  7. The compensation offered to the resident did reflect the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter for the period covered in her recent complaint.
  8. In writing to the resident on 6 February 2023, it was appropriate the landlord acknowledged her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. It was also positive that it made an offer of increased compensation. However, it has not clarified why it failed to initially escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  9. On 17 February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident it had received her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and was reviewing the request. It informed her of delays in it responding to complaints, but did not provide her with an expected response date.
  10. On 17 March 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident it had escalated the complaint to Stage 2 and would provide its outcome by 14 April 2023. The decision to escalate the complaint to stage 2 came at least 21 working days after it had received her request to escalate the complaint.
  11. When the landlord provided the stage 2 response, it did not suitably explain to the resident why its decision to uphold the complaint at stage 1 was different to its decision not to uphold the complaint at stage 2. It also failed to recognise it had previously contacted her in February 2023 to increase its offer of compensation to £250. This meant the final offer made to her was either incorrect or it had revised its decision and failed to inform her of that decision. Its records do not provide clarity on this matter
  12. Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It had acknowledged its failings in its communications with the resident in its stage 1 response and provided appropriate compensation at that time. Those failures however continued beyond the stage 1 response.
  13. The stage 2 response was delayed, and in the interim the landlord made an increased offer of compensation that was not referred to in its stage 2 response. Given there is evidence this was a long-standing issue, and she had been in contact with it before the period covered in this investigation the delay was not appropriate. This unnecessarily prolonged the process for the resident. This was service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her electric meter was incorrectly wired.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation for its handling of the complaint. This includes the £250 it offered prior to its stage 2 response.
    3. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.