West Kent Housing Association (202226103)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226103

West Kent Housing Association

12 December 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the electric debt left on the meter at the start of the tenancy.
2. Concerns about the gas debt left on the meter at the start of the tenancy.
3. Concerns about the gas supply being left on at the property while it was void.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 15 August 2022.
On 29 January 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint she said that she was dissatisfied with the following:
1. She had problems with the electric supply when she moved in because of a debt caused by the previous resident. She had been assured by the landlord that the debt issue had been resolved but she was still receiving letters.
2. She had no gas supply due to a large debt left on the pre-payment meter. She had not been able to stay at the property due to the cold weather. She did not have sufficient funds on her meter due to delays in the new card being sent out. She had to continue to pay rent during this period.
3. A debt also accumulated on the gas pre-payment meter while the property was void and this had been passed on to the resident.
4. She wanted to know how the landlord had satisfied itself that the property was ready to be re-let. She wanted a copy of the evidence showing the property had been signed off and a copy of the landlord’s policy and procedure.
5. She had made complaints to the utility providers but considered that this could have been avoided if her landlord had ensured everything was in order when she moved into the property.
6. She felt that there had been no support from her landlord. She also said that her and her daughter’s health had been impacted as a result.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said:
1. In respect of the electric debt, it had assisted by contacting the electricity provider. It had advised the resident that there was an issue with the meter end point not being connected. This meant that the meter was not sending readings to the utility provider. The utility company would need to install a new meter to correct the issue. Because of this it could not have been aware of a debt on the meter. It had asked the electric company not to send further letters regarding the debt, but the company had done so in error.
2. In respect of the debt on the gas meter when the property was vacant. The gas company would bill the landlord once the resident informed them that she was the new resident. It had contacted the gas company, but they advised they could not discuss the account as it was in the resident’s name. The landlord asked the resident to contact the company so that it could send them the bill for the void period.
3. It was not aware of the issues with the gas meter until 12 January 2023. It had been unable to speak to the gas provider as the account was in the resident’s name. On reflection It could have offered to sit with the resident when she called the gas provider to support and offer advice. This was something it was looking to implement when residents first move in. It had notified its community support team to contact the resident to offer additional support.
4. It was satisfied that it had dealt with the resident’s enquiries adequately and in a timely fashion. It was however looking into providing gas and electric meter guidance sheets in its sign-up pack. It was also going to consider officers going into residents’ homes to support with contacting utility companies when they first move in.
On 10 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. In summary she said:
1. The landlord had not correctly identified what her complaint was about.
2. Her complaint was that the property should not have been let to her with the problems it had. The landlord had also failed to support her with those issues.
3. She was concerned that a property had been left vacant for 6 months and the gas had been left uncapped.
4. She was unhappy that the landlord had made a referral to its support team which she did not know about. When the support worker did contact the resident, she was rude and did not know who the resident was.
5. In her stage 1 complaint she had requested a copy of the sign off document for her property and a copy of the landlord’s policy and procedure, but this had not been provided.
On 25 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. It had reviewed the correspondence at stage 1, and it did not agree that it had not investigated the resident’s initial concerns raised.
2. It had contacted the energy suppliers to let them know the previous resident had moved out. It was not made aware of any difficulties with the changing over of the energy supply.
3. It could not investigate the fact that the utility supplier had continued to send letters chasing the debt as it could not accept a complaint about an organisation it had no control over.
4. It also had no control over the action of the gas company and its management of the previous energy debt.
5. The gas debt for the void period would be billed to the landlord once the gas company are told by the resident that she had moved in.
6. It did not routinely cap gas supplies in its empty properties, and it explained why.
7. It did not agree that it had not provided support to assist with the issues the resident raised.
8. It apologised for referring her to its support team without her knowledge. It believed however that it was done with good intentions to try to assist her further.
9. It could not provide a copy of its signing off sheet, policy, and procedure. It confirmed that all properties were inspected before handover by its void contractor. It was reviewing its policy once this was in place it would be available for the resident to view on its website.
10. In respect of contact to the resident by its support team this was a new complaint It asked the resident to advise whether she would like it to investigate it at stage 1.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled the issues raised. She also considered the landlord should have taken over the bills while the property was empty.
The resident made a formal complaint to the energy ombudsman in respect of the gas suppliers handling of the matter and her complaint was upheld.
On 6 November 2024, the landlord reviewed its complaint responses. It said it had not promptly responded to an email sent by the resident on 10 March 2023. It should have considered this in its stage 2 response. In addition, it could have been more supportive and offered a copy of its policy to be sent to her rather than directing her to its website. It apologised and offered £250 compensation for the delays in responding to her complaint escalation and not assisting her by sending a copy of its policy.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement states that the resident must pay all bills in relation to the property including gas and electricity.
It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. Its adverse impact on her and her family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around her and her family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment the Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the electric debt left on the meter at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord’s void report shows that it had inspected the property and had recorded the reading of the electric meter. Its sign-up check list showed that it had explained where the meter was situated, and it had provided the meter reading to the resident. It was silent however on what advice was given about what the resident needed to do to transfer the utility bill into her name.
To avoid confusion the landlord should reasonably set out what action would be required on the resident’s part to get the utilities set up. That it did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. The landlord’s complaint response did however address this issue as part of its own learning which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 18 October 2022 to enquire who the electricity supplier was. She said that she had recently moved in and was trying to source a supplier. She was concerned that she would be billed for the period the property was empty.
The landlord responded the next day by telephone and email. It said that it had contacted the utility provider. It had been advised that there was an issue with the meter not sending readings to the utility company. It advised her that she now needed to contact the company and arrange for a new meter to be installed.
It confirmed that it had informed the company that she had moved into the property and when the tenancy had begun. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It had responded promptly. It clearly set out what the resident needed to do and ensured that the utility company had a record of when she had moved in.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 December 2022 regarding a bill she had received for £4543 addressed to the landlord. The landlord responded the next day confirming it had contacted the utility provider. It explained that it had ensured that the address had been changed on that account. This was again a prompt response from the landlord and showed that it had listened to the resident, taken her concerns seriously and had tried to resolve the issue.
Within its complaint responses the landlord went further and explained that it would not have been aware of the debt when the tenancy changed because of the issue with the meter. It also explained that it had not been made aware of any difficulties with the changing over of the energy supply until the resident contacted it in October 2022. It went further in its response and explained what action it takes in respect of the meter readings when a property is void which was appropriate.
It also said it was sorry that she had received correspondence for the landlord and the previous resident but that it was unable to investigate this as it did not have control of the utility company and the letters that they send. This was an appropriate response and in accordance with its policy.
In summary the landlord’s shortcoming was its failure to show that it had provided sufficient information about how to set up the utilities. It is unclear whether the shortcoming would have changed the outcome of the case due to the issue with the meter in this case. The landlord has also addressed its shortcoming in its stage 1 response and considered how it could put this right moving forwards.
Overall, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and took appropriate action. It communicated its findings and then clearly set out its position within its complaint response. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the electric debt left on the meter at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas debt left on the meter at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord’s void report shows that it had inspected the property and was aware that the gas meter was a pre-payment meter and that the card was missing. It also showed that it was unable to read the meter and that there was a small debt on the meter at that point. Its sign-up check list completed with the resident shows that it had explained where the meter was situated but it was again silent on what advice was given about what the resident needed to do to ensure that the meter was set up for use.
This Service acknowledges the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident because she had not received the prepayment card and when she did it was faulty. This meant that she was without heat over Christmas causing her to have to stay with a relative. The issue of the prepayment card was however beyond the control of the landlord as it was the responsibility of the utility company to provide the appropriate card.
The evidence provided supports the landlord’s version that it was not aware of any issues with the gas meter until 12 January 2023. When the resident reported the issues, the landlord responded on the same day. It explained that it had tried to contact the utility provider, but they had refused to speak to the landlord as the account was in the resident’s name. It advised her to contact the utility provider directly. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial concern. Its explanation that the utility company refused to discuss the resident’s account was in accordance with data protection and reasonable.
The landlord assessed its handling of the matter within its stage 1 response. It said that it could have potentially offered to sit with the resident to support her and offer advice when she spoke to the utility company. That it did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. Its complaint response however showed that it had assessed this in particular and was trying to put matters right and learn how to improve its service moving forwards.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred the resident to its community support team so that it could offer additional support. It is however acknowledged that the resident had not consented to the referral as stated in her stage 2 complaint. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. Its explanation in its stage 2 response that it did so with good intention was reasonable. However, it agreed that moving forwards it should ensure that any referrals made should be agreed with the resident which was appropriate.
The landlord reassured the resident that her credit rating would not be affected This showed that it had listened to the resident and had sought to alleviate her concerns.
In summary the landlord responded, took action and offered support as soon as it was put on notice that there were issues with the gas meter. Its records did not show that it had provided sufficient information to the resident at the commencement of her tenancy. It is unclear however whether this shortfall contributed to the issues caused. The landlord also acknowledged this shortcoming within its complaint response and sought to include factsheets in its sign-up process moving forwards.
The resident had already set up her gas account at the point she contacted the landlord. The issue was the delays in the utility provider re-setting the account for the resident and providing the card to enable her to top up her meter. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement it would be the resident’s responsibility to arrange payment of the gas. It would be the responsibility of the utility provider to ensure that any debts or subsequent charges are managed correctly.
While it is acknowledged that there were delays these were outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord acknowledged that in addition to what it had done it could have considered sitting with the resident to assist her to try to resolve matters. It then offered to do this to put matters right. The resident refused this referral, and the landlord acknowledged that it should have ensured that the resident consented to any support referrals made. This Service considers that this was a shortcoming by the landlord but has found no maladministration in its overall handling of the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas supply being left on at the property while it was void.

The landlord set out its position in relation to why it does not cap off the gas supply while a property is void. Its explanation was reasonable. It went further to explain that even if the gas supply had been capped off there still could have been a potential issue with the meter. This was because daily standing charges would continue even when capped. This response was also reasonable in the circumstances. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It states an officer will contact the resident within 2 working days of the complaint being made. It will then provide a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days.
The landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint request on 30 January 2023. It sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 1 February 2023 and advised that it would respond by 14 February 2023 which it did. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy and procedures.
The resident requested information in her stage 1 request. This was not addressed by the landlord within its stage 1 response. This was a shortcoming by the landlord and a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 response went some way to put this right. It said that it was unable to provide a copy of the signing off sheet, but it set out its process of how it checks its properties at the end of the void period. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It said that its policy and procedure was currently being reviewed but once this was in place it would be published on its website.
The landlord then re-visited its complaint handling again just over 18 months after the stage 2 complaint response in November 2024. It acknowledged that it had delayed in acknowledging and raising the resident’s stage 2 request made on 10 March 2023. It had taken 31 working days in which to issue its stage 2 response on 25 April 2023. It said that it should have considered this within its stage 2 complaint response.
In addition, it acknowledged that it should have been more supportive to the resident by offering to send a copy of its policy rather than directing her to its website. It offered the resident £250 compensation for its delays and failure to offer to send information.
Whilst the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. This Service considers the revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation on that basis.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling shortfalls in this case were minimal and amount to a service failure. It failed to address the information request in its stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response did put this right as it clearly set out its position relative to how it checks its void properties. It could have however as it acknowledged later offered to send its policy to the resident. It also failed to adhere to its timeframe at stage 2 and consider this within its complaint response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the debt on the electric meter at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the debt on the gas meter at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas supply being left on at the property while it was void.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 6 weeks:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation as offered by the landlord in its review of the case dated 6 November 2024 if it has not done so already.