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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202119927)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119927

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of high electricity bills.
  2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a studio flat. The tenancy began on 26 December 2016.
  2. The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident told the landlord that she thought her electricity bills were too high due to her immersion heater being too large several times in the years prior to her formal complaint.
  4. On 29 June 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she had been charged £3905.31 by her electricity supplier. She felt it was the landlord’s fault as she had been told by its contractors that the immersion heater was too large for her studio flat.
  5. The landlord accepted the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2021. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it did not have a record of whether it issued a stage 1 complaint response.
  6. On 3 December 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  7. On 14 June 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response by 20 July 2022.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2022. It said:
    1. It acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures. It recognised that it failed to acknowledge the complaint within its set timescales at stage 1 and 2, and that its poor communication left the resident chasing an update several times. It said it would raise these issues with its electrical, direct maintenance and customer service teams.
    2. It acknowledged that the issues with the electrics impacted the resident’s health and wellbeing. It said it could have identified her needs and assisted her better. It added additional flags to the resident’s account so that future repairs could be treated as a priority.
    3. It referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team, and ‘We Are Digital’. It also gave links to local help groups, claiming assistance, electricity information, fuel poverty and local charities. The landlord also discussed the pros and cons of the resident getting a smart meter installed.
    4. It apologised for the customer service the resident had received. It acknowledged that it missed 3 appointments in 2020 and 2021, and the electrics were not checked as she had requested.
    5. It had checked the electricity bills the resident provided and felt they were correct for the size of her property. It highlighted to the resident that the bills she provided were based on estimated readings. If she provided her meter readings and the latest bills it would assist her to see if she was eligible for a refund from her supplier.
    6. It said it had spoken to her energy supplier on her behalf and asked how she could reduce her bills. The supplier said:
      1. She was registered for a smart meter.
      2. She could go onto a pay as you go scheme.
      3. She was on the cheapest tariff.
      4. She could apply for a warm home discount to get £150 off her bills.
    7. As the resident had mentioned there was a drug factory in another flat a few years ago and raised concerns that they were using her electricity, it would continue its discussions with the neighbourhood housing team about whether it had any record of this.
    8. It agreed to replace her electric heaters with storage heaters, replace the immersion heater to a smaller one, and install an off-peak timer.
    9. It had asked the tenancy sustainment team to liaise with its revenue department to cancel the payments she was paying towards her rent arrears. It will also assist with food vouchers and offered to assist her to complete a fuel poverty form.
    10. It offered the resident £800 compensation, which was broken down as:
      1. £190 for the distress, time, effort, and inconvenience caused.
      2. £450 for the right to repair and service failure.
      3. £60 for the missed appointments in 2021 and 2022.
      4. £100 for the late stage 1 acknowledgement and its stage 2 response.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss its stage 2 response. It told her it was unsure if replacing the immersion heater and installing storage heaters would reduce her electricity bills, but it wanted to see if these improvements would help.
  10. In referring this matter to the Ombudsman, the resident stated that she still had high electricity bills.
  11. The landlord’s records state that it could not replace the immersion water tank, as there was no way of removing the tank without damaging the fabric of the building.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
    1. be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges that the resident had reported she was struggling with high electricity bills since moving into the property, however, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of these issues from 6 June 2021 until the final complaint response on 12 July 2022. This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the residents health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlords actions or lack of actions had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the installation of electricity in repair and proper working order. A landlord is not responsible for a defect in an installation they do not own or control.
  2. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint by the end of the next working day. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states for service failure it will make a payment of £10 for a failure to respond to a query or complaint. It will make a payment of £20 for the failure to keep an appointment. And it will offer discretionary payments to acknowledge the impact, inconvenience, distress, and time and effort of the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of high electricity bills

  1. On 29 June 2021 the resident told the landlord she was concerned her electricity bills were too high and asked it to check the electrics in her property. The landlord inspected the electrics on 8 September 2021 and found no issues. On 9 September 2021 the resident told the landlord her electricity supplier had attended the property and confirmed there was nothing wrong with her meter or the electricity supply to her property. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman to show the landlord communicated with the resident about whether it was going to carry out further investigations or take any further action. This was unreasonable and left the resident in a position where she did not know if she would get a resolution to the issues she raised.
  2. The landlords records show that the contractor told the landlord on 8 September 2021 that the resident said she had not used the immersion heater for 18 months. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate with the resident and discuss her concerns around using the immersion heater and the costs this would incur. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and offered her no advice or support on the issue until July 2022, 10 months later. This was a significant failing.  
  3. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a further electrical inspection on 8 July 2022. The electrician reported no issues with the electrics and said there were no signs that anyone had tapped into the resident’s electricity supply. The electrician also reviewed some of the resident’s electricity bills and said the amount of electricity used and the amount she had been charged looked correct for the size of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the electrician’s findings.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said she has been told that her immersion tank was too large and she thought this could be the cause of her high electricity bills. The landlord inspected the immersion heater on 8 July 2022, this was 259 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay. The contractor recommended that the immersion water tank was replaced with a smaller one and the panel heater was replaced with a storage heater. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging for these recommended works to be carried out despite the fact the electrician had said it may not reduce the resident’s bills. The landlord effectively communicated with the resident about the works and managed her expectations well.
  5. When making her complaint on 29 July 2021 the resident told the landlord her energy supplier was taking legal action against her because she could not afford her electricity bills. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident at this time to ask if she needed support or advice on how to manage this debt. The landlord asked the resident to provide her electricity bills and meter readings so it could assist her on 24 June 2022, this was 11 months later. The was a significant delay that caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In the landlords stage 2 complaint response it did take steps to put this right. It offered to review the resident’s bills to see if she was entitled to a refund, it contacted her energy supplier to ask how she could reduce her bills and provided the resident with information on how to get a smart meter, apply for grants and seek specialist advice.
  6. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. When the resident made her initial complaint, she told the landlord the high electricity bills were impacting her mental health and she felt like giving up her tenancy as she could no longer cope. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that showed the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, showing a lack of empathy towards the resident. The landlord acknowledged this failing when it escalated the complaint to stage 2 and took steps to put things right. It listened to the resident’s request to be contacted by phone, it updated her regularly, and made referrals to get her support with her electricity debt and tenancy management. The resident’s vulnerabilities were already recorded, however, the landlord acted appropriately by updating its records to ensure future repairs could be dealt with as a priority.
  7. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records, which contributed to delays in the landlord taking action to investigate the issues and offer the resident the necessary support.
  8. After the internal complaints procedure, the landlord’s records show it could not complete all the improvement works it promised in its stage 2 complaint response. On 5 September 2022 the contractor said it could not replace the immersion tank without damaging the fabric of the building. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman makes it unclear if the landlord went back to its contractors to discuss why this was and if there were any alternative options. There is also no evidence that it communicated with the resident about this issue and discussed whether it was going to take any further action.  
  9. In summary there were significant delays in the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns about the immersion tank being too large. There was evidence of a lack of communication and poor record keeping. At the time of the residents initial complaint, it failed to offer her any support, and it failed to consider the impact on her health and well-being. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its stage 2 complaint response. Once it escalated the complaint it showed learning and put steps in place to improve its communication and took action to support the resident. However, at the date of this report the landlord has failed to show it has carried out the actions it promised in its stage 2 complaint response.
  10. The £700 compensation offered to the resident was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, and reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
  11. Based on the above the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of high electricity bills.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint outside its target timescale. The landlord told the Ombudsman it had no record that it sent the resident a written stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to adhere to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). 
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2021 and asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 13 December 2021, which was outside its target response timescale. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about her complaint until 15 June 2022. It is noted this was after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 14 June 2022. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to escalate the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. This left the resident in a position where she did not know what was happening with her complaint, caused her time and trouble chasing updates, and delayed her ability to refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
  3. This complaint concerned a monetary impact on the resident. The landlord was aware of the residents vulnerabilities. The longer the landlord delayed the complaint, the more the resident felt she was being disadvantaged. This would have caused her increased distress and inconvenience.
  4. Once the landlord had accepted the complaint at stage 2 its communication with the resident significantly improved. The landlord used the resident’s preferred method of contact but always confirmed what was discussed in writing, it provided regular updates, and offered her on-going support. The landlord stayed in contact with the resident after the complaint until the actions it said it was going to take were completed. The landlord acted appropriately by showing it had learnt from its mistakes and took steps to put things right.     
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 July 2022, this was 143 working days after it had acknowledged the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. This was a significant delay. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and offered compensation for its complaint handling failures. It acted appropriately by responded to all the resident’s complaint issues, but it also went beyond this and recognised the resident’s concerns that she was struggling to afford her bills and offered to support her to try to increase her income and manage her tenancy.  
  6. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there is no evidence the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, and there were significant delays in the landlord issuing its 2 complaint response. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. Once the landlord accepted the complaint at stage 2, the landlord showed learning and took steps to put things rights. It improved its communication with the resident, investigated all her concerns and offered her on-going tenancy support. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failings and offered the resident £100 compensation. The Ombudsman feels this did not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the significant delays.
  7. Based on the above the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of high electricity bills.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. If it has not already done so pay the resident the £800 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. The landlord must investigate the contractors comments that it could not replace the immersion tank. If the tank cannot be replaced it must consider all alternative options available to it. It must discuss its findings with the resident, and if further works are needed it must arrange an appointment with the resident for the works to be carried out. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with an update on its findings.