Glover’s Trust Endowed Fund (202340175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340175

Glover’s Trust Endowed Fund

3 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of applications for energy bill relief and discount schemes.
2. handling of concerns about utility billing.
3. response to concerns about staff conduct.
4. response to concerns about its policies and procedures.
5. handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a licence to occupy the property as a beneficiary of the almshouse trust. The property is a 1-bedroom cottage. The almshouse is a charity organisation. For this report, we have referred to Glover’s Trust Endowed Fund as “the landlord.” At the time of the complaint, the landlord only had 1 employee: the scheme manager. The other “staff” are volunteer trustees. The resident pays a weekly maintenance contribution towards the upkeep of the property. The property is on a heat network, and the landlord is the supplier, and the resident is the end user receiving the heat. The resident is responsible for paying utility bills for the electricity and gas (heat) she uses.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2024 through a support service. She said:
1. It had not provided her with energy bills between 2019 and 2023. It had a “poor process” for billing with no communication given. She described the billing process as “chaotic and without order.” She said this caused her stress and impacted her health.
2. It was unclear how it calculated her utility usage, and she wanted proof of her consumption figures. She also noted that she could not find her electricity meter to see her meter readings. Additionally, she was concerned that the heat meter had an error message and therefore queried whether it worked correctly.
3. It had previously offered a discount of £57.50 per quarter since 2017. However, she did not know whether it still offered this.
4. She felt the scheme manager (SM) was “rude and unhelpful” with “disgraceful” behaviour. She gave 4 examples of where the SM did not respond to her.
5. She felt it had a “lack of” policies and procedures. She said it was also a struggle to get repairs completed.
The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the lack of response from the landlord. On 12 March 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 4 April 2024. It:
1. Apologised for wrongly stating that it had not received information from her representative within its complaint acknowledgement. It said it had since found that her representative provided this information on 5 February 2024.
2. Explained that it secured a favourable utility tariff rate at cost price. It then calculated her bills by multiplying the rate by her individual use and adding the standing charge. It explained that it remotely logged her usage figures from the meter readings each day.
3. Acknowledged previous issues with providing timely bills. To resolve this, it had outsourced the billing process to a third-party contractor from January 2024.
4. Would investigate her concerns about different tariff rates and standing charges paid by different residents.
5. Said the SM had previously shown her the location of the electricity meter, and it offered to show her again. It said this would be in her airing cupboard.
6. Apologised for not responding to her concern with the error code on her heat (gas) meter sooner. It said the error code did not affect the accuracy of the billing process. However, it would arrange for an engineer to check this within 2 weeks.
7. Confirmed it could not offer the quarterly discount any longer as it was not “sustainable.”
8. Considered her concerns with the SM and spoke to them about this. It noted she no longer acknowledged the SM’s greetings. It said the poor relationship between her and the SM did not benefit either of them and “hope[d]” this could improve.
9. Said it had a “strong and positive” relationship with the SM. It was concerned that the resident “appear[ed] so mistrustful” of the landlord and the SM. It offered to meet with her to discuss this further.
10. Said that “Ultimately, if you remain unhappy with the arrangements for living contentedly…you may wish to consider your future here.”
11. Provided her with a copy of its complaint’s procedure. It “noted” her views about other policies and procedures. It explained that her occupancy agreement explained the rules and responsibilities for both her and the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2024. She said:
1. She had just found out about being on a heat network. She felt the landlord was not transparent as it had not explained this to her when she became a resident in 2013.
2. She disputed that the SM had shown her the location of her electricity meter. She said she still did not know where it was so she could not check the accuracy of the readings shown on the bills.
3. She was unhappy that its contractor had not attended within the 2 weeks as it had agreed.
4. She asked for copies of its energy contracts to “prove” the tariff rates. She also asked for copies of her utility bills between 2019 and 2023 to see if it had applied the quarterly discount.
5. She felt it had not addressed her concerns about the SM not responding to her. She noted its comment about her not responding to the SM’s greeting was “condescending.” She added that the SM came across as “aggressive” and she felt “bullied.”
6. She felt its comment about considering her future was a “horrible response.” She believed this blamed her for being unhappy, she found the tone “threatening” and felt “victimised” by the landlord.
7. She was unhappy that it mentioned its relationship with the SM. She felt it was “biased towards” the SM and it was “discriminating” against her because of this. She added “there is no hope” of receiving a “fair response…with this bias.”
On 7 May 2024, the resident added to her complaint to the landlord. She said she had found the electricity meter in the living room, not the airing cupboard as it had previously advised. She said the meter readings did not match those on her bills and provided examples of this. She also repeated her concerns with whether her heat meter gave accurate readings because of the error message.
Following a further lack of response from the landlord, the resident contacted us to express her concerns. On 5 September 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response within 5 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 December 2024. It:
1. Explained its contractor had checked both the electricity and heat meters on 3 June 2024. On 29 July 2024, its contractor confirmed it needed to replace her electricity meter as it was faulty. It also recommended replacing the battery to resolve the error code on the heat meter. It said it had raised these works, and it would complete it that day.
2. Explained that its volunteer treasurer had previously managed the metering and billing process. It said that it had since discovered this trustee had a cognitive impairment which it was unaware of at the time. It explained it had since introduced measures to ensure more than 1 person managed this process. It apologised and acknowledged for the concerns this issue caused her as it:
  1. Delayed in issuing bills up to 2024 (when it outsourced this process to its contractor).
  2. Had not completed regular checks to the meters.
  3. Had not noticed issues with the incorrect meter readings.
  4. Gave the wrong tariff rates to its contractors which meant it had overcharged residents. It apologised for this and applied credits to those affected, including the resident. It also provided a copy of the tariff rates.
3. Repeated its earlier advice that it could no longer offer the quarterly discount to her utility bills.
4. Explained that it had introduced the heat network following refurbishment in 2017.
5. Offered to put things right by:
  1. Crediting her heat and electricity usage charges for 2024 to address her concerns about the accuracy of the bills. It said it would only bill her for the standing daily rate for both electricity and heat throughout 2024.
  2. Ensuring a single monthly bill to include all utility costs until 2027, when its contracts run out.
6. Said the recollections of interactions differ between the SM and the resident. It advised the SM to ensure they conduct themselves respectfully and asked her to do the same. It asked her to raise any further concerns to the trustees going forward.
7. Gave her the option of copying in its new treasurer to any emails with the SM if she wished to.
The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the issues with the utility billing and conduct of the SM. The complaint became one we could investigate on 8 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction.

When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case. There are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.
Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns about the landlord’s application to the energy bill relief and discount schemes. Both the landlord and the resident have advised that this is already being considered by the Energy Ombudsman. This would be the most appropriate body to consider this aspect of the complaint. As such, we will not consider it further as part of our investigation.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of applications for energy bill relief and discount schemes is outside of our jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme.

Scope of investigation.

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of her billing and staff conduct issues impacted her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
During the complaint, the resident raised concerns about discrimination. We cannot make a legal finding of discrimination. The courts are best placed to assess whether this occurred. If the resident believes the landlord has unlawfully discriminated against, bullied or harassed her, she can seek legal advice about this. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and how it responded to her concerns.
Similarly, we cannot consider the levels or amounts of the utility tariff rates or standing charges. Instead, we will consider how the landlord explained this to the resident after she raised concerns with this.
The resident has experienced issues with her utility bills since at least 2019. She also raised concerns about the heat network installed in 2017. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. Additionally, she has experienced new issues with her heating after the complaints process ended.
For fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and try to put things right. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. She may wish to make a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about utility billing.

On 17 December 2023, the landlord wrote to all residents. It explained that from January 2024, a third-party contractor would be responsible for the utility billing. Previously, the landlord had managed this in-house. Following this, the resident asked the SM for further information and raised concerns with her meters and the billing process. There is no evidence to suggest that the SM provided a meaningful response to her. We will refer to this later in the report.
Due to the lack of response from the SM, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s first response to her concerns about the billing and meter issues was within its complaint responses.
The landlord is a charity organisation with one sole employee, the SM. A volunteer treasurer managed the billing and metering process solely up until January 2024, when it outsourced this. After January 2024, the volunteer treasurer held responsibility for managing this process and sending relevant information to its contractor.
Unfortunately, the landlord’s volunteer treasurer developed a cognitive impairment which the landlord was unaware of at the time. It explained this to the resident within its complaint responses. It said that this created quality and accuracy issues. When it became aware of this, it took appropriate steps to investigate any issues and put things right.
The resident asked the landlord for copies of her electricity and heating bills between 2019 and 2023 as it had not provided this at the time. The records show that it tried to find copies for this period, but it did not hold these within its archives. It is noted that this may have been related to the volunteer treasurer’s health.
The landlord acknowledged issues it had with providing timely bills. It explained that it hoped to resolve this going forward by its contractor managing the billing process. It was appropriate for it to take responsibility for this issue and explain how it would put things right for her.
The resident also raised concerns about the difference between the tariff rates and standing charges paid by different residents. The landlord explained it would raise this with its contractor and investigate this issue. Its contractors later identified it had failed to apply standing charges to some residents. On 2 April 2024, its contractors confirmed that it would ensure it charged this to all residents. The landlord acted appropriately by promptly investigating this issue as soon as the resident notified it of this.
When investigating the resident’s concerns with the tariff rates, the landlord found that its volunteer treasurer provided incorrect information to its contractor. This caused increased bills to some residents. Following this, it again acted promptly to provide the correct rates to its contractor to amend the residents’ bills. It also showed transparency in explaining this to the resident and took accountability by apologising for this. This was appropriate.
The resident’s concerns with the tariff rates also included the affordability of the rates. The records show the landlord spoke with its external energy broker to ensure it was on the best rate. It also sought advice about how to best explain this to her. This was good practice. The landlord then explained to her that it negotiated a “favourable” tariff at cost price. It then multiplied this by her usage taken from the meter readings, adding on the standing charge. It was reasonable for it to explain this process to try to offer reassurance to her.
Related to this, the resident asked for a copy of the landlord’s utility contracts to see the tariff rates. In its initial response, the landlord said it was not obliged to share this. However, following her escalation, it shared this as part of its stage 2 response. While there was no obligation to share this, it was helpful that it later provided copies to the resident to help ease her concerns.
Following issues with supplying incorrect tariff rates and the application of the standing charges, the landlord arranged an independent review of the billing process. In June 2024 and July 2024, its independent auditor wrote to the resident. The auditor explained it would complete a review of the energy costs and billings recharged to her.
However, it is unfortunate that the landlord later said it could not locate the required information. This meant its auditors could not complete the review. As previously explained, the reason for the poor record keeping has been noted. Nevertheless, it was good practice for the landlord to try to do this to investigate the issues further.
The resident also raised concerns about a discount that the landlord offered each quarter. She asked whether it would continue offering this, as it had done since 2017. On 19 March 2024, the landlord met and discussed this. It noted that it would stop offering this as it only offered the discount to some, and it needed to treat everyone equally. It wrote to all residents on 29 March 2024 to confirm this.
The landlord also explained its position within its complaint responses. It said it could no longer sustain the payments. It said the final discount offered was for the November to December 2023 utility bill. We note that the landlord should have updated residents sooner, rather than waiting until the end of the next quarter. This would have understandably left residents with an increased bill at short notice. However, we also acknowledge that the volunteer treasurer was responsible for managing this previously. The landlord therefore had to meet to make decisions about this in the volunteer treasurer’s absence.
On 8 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord whether it used a heat network to supply the utilities. The landlord asked her why she wanted to know this and what her understanding of a heat network was. It said it would check with its trustees and the SM to respond to her the following week. It later confirmed that it did supply the utilities through a communal heat network.
While the landlord may have wanted further information to make sure it answered the resident’s query fully, it should be mindful of the phrasing used. Furthermore, it should have communicated its reasons for needing this extra information. By not doing so, it implied the resident could or should have known this herself. This could have appeared as obstructive. This was a shortcoming in its communication.
In the resident’s complaint escalation, she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication about being on a heat network. She said it should have informed her of being on a heat network when she signed the tenancy in 2013. However, the landlord later explained that this occurred in 2017 when it refurbished the site. It therefore did not inform her of this at the start of her tenancy as it was not in place at the time. This was a reasonable response to her concern.
While the resident remains concerned about the landlord’s communication back in 2017, we cannot consider this within this report. This is due to the issues occurring in 2017, which is beyond the remit of our investigation. This is in line with our scope of investigation set out above.
The resident raised concerns about the accuracy of her consumption figures for both heating and electricity. We will consider the landlord’s response to both meters separately.
Within the resident’s complaint, she asked the landlord for the location of her electricity meter. She wanted to be able to see her own meter readings to check it billed her correctly. The landlord told her that it remotely logged the meter readings daily. It said it had asked its contractor for a guide to explain how to read the meters. It would then share this when it was available. While this was good practice, it would not help the resident’s issue of not being able to locate the meter.
In the landlord’s initial response, it said the SM had shown the resident the location before. It offered to show her again and explained it would be in her airing cupboard. In her escalation request, she disputed that the SM had shown her this previously. We would not expect the landlord to document such a visit. As such, the landlord had no way to confirm whether the SM had shown the resident or not. It could only relay what the SM had said. However, the offer to show her was reasonable.
After the resident’s escalation, she contacted the landlord and said she had since found the electricity meter. She explained it was in the living room, and not the airing cupboard. This understandably would have caused her frustration that the landlord could not give her correct information – and concern that it did not know the correct location.
On 7 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that the meter readings on the electricity meter did not match the readings on her utility bills. She provided examples of this. The landlord was aware of this already as on 24 April 2024, its contractors said the resident had reported this concern. During this time, the landlord had already asked its contractors to send an engineer to inspect other meters at the scheme. It was therefore reasonable for it to ask its contractor to check the resident’s electricity meter too.
On 8 May 2024, the landlord confirmed internally that it had arranged the inspection for 3 June 2024. Its internal emails suggests that it updated the resident with details of this appointment. However, the landlord has not provided us with evidence to show whether it did so. On 17 May 2024, the landlord tried to bring the appointment forward, but its contractors said it did not have availability any sooner. The delay in arranging the inspection was therefore not solely the landlord’s fault.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s electricity meter on 3 June 2024. The landlord later asked twice for updates on its findings. On 22 July 2024, its contractors confirmed that it needed to replace the electricity meter as it was not working correctly.
Between 22 July 2024 and 26 November 2024, the landlord chased its contractor on 9 occasions for an update on when it would replace the meter. It later completed this on 2 December 2024. It is evident that the landlord chased its contractor regularly and monitored the progress of this. Therefore, the delay was outside of its control and not the fault of the landlord. However, there is limited evidence of its communication with the resident. It is a failing that it cannot show whether it provided meaningful and proactive updates about its efforts to resolve the issue.
The resident also experienced issues with her heat meter. She reported an error code shown on her heat meter. She was concerned whether it worked correctly and if it impacted the accuracy of her bills. In the landlord’s initial response, it apologised for not answering her concern sooner. It said the code did not impact the billing but that its contractor would check the meter within 2 weeks. However, this did not happen.
As noted above, the landlord experienced difficulties with communication and timely appointments from its contractors. Between 3 April 2024 and 24 April 2024, it asked its contractor for updates on 4 occasions. After its contractor confirmed the appointment for June 2024, it tried to bring the appointment forward. However, its contractors could not do so. Its contractor later inspected the heat meter on 3 June 2024. It explained it could either replace the battery in the heat meter or complete a full meter replacement to resolve the error code.
The landlord chose to replace the battery in the heat meter. The landlord can choose the most cost-effective method of resolving a repair. It also can complete a repair in the way that it believes would resolve the issue. It would also be fair to try other repairs if it turned out that its initial attempt was not effective.
This decision was also in line with the landlord’s obligation to complaint repairs, as set out in the resident’s occupancy agreement. Generally, there is no obligation for landlords to offer improvements or upgrades. An exception is where an improvement or upgrade is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair. This is standard across the housing sector.
The landlord’s contractor replaced the heat meter battery on 2 December 2024. The landlord explained this to the resident within its final complaint response on the same day. However, the completion report from its contractor included a picture of the heat meter after the replacement. It is evident that the error code remained after doing so. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to complete a further inspection. It could then assess how to resolve the error code. Especially given the resident has reported issues with her heating after the complaints process ended.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it considered the impact of both meter issues on the resident’s bills. To address her concerns about whether it billed her accurately during this time, it offered to credit her usage charges for 2024. This was appropriate as neither the landlord or resident could assess the accuracy of the bills due to both the issues. It explained that she would only pay the standing daily charges for both heating and electricity throughout 2024 instead. The landlord’s offer showed it was sympathetic to her concerns and tried to put this right.
The landlord also explained it would ensure the resident would receive one monthly bill going forward. It said this would include all the utility costs. This was appropriate given the issues with billing leading up to and throughout the complaints process. It had previously agreed to not change the resident’s consumption figures throughout her occupancy. However, it explained it could not honour this as it would be unfair to other residents. This was a reasonable decision. However, it did not consider the impact caused by raising this expectation to the resident.
Our spotlight report named Cold Comfort gives recommendations to landlords about heat networks. Within this, we note it is critical that landlords have a “clear plan for maintenance” and for it to ensure this information is available to residents. In the landlord’s final response, it explained that it unfortunately missed the issues with the meters due to the ill health of its previous treasurer. It acknowledged that it should have completed regular checks and apologised for not doing so. This was overall a reasonable response.
To put things right, the landlord explained it had introduced new measures. This included more than 1 person checking and reviewing the meters and information from its contractor. This was appropriate and good practice to learn from its mistakes and improve this process going forward.
Overall, it is evident that the landlord took steps to investigate and try to resolve the billing issues for the resident. It regularly chased its contractors for updates about its inspection and the repairs needed following this. It is also unfortunate that the cognitive impairment of its previous volunteer treasurer impacted the service it provided.
However, while taking positive action, there is limited evidence to show whether the landlord communicated updates to the resident during this time. This understandably caused her time and trouble in asking for updates. She also understandably felt that it was not managing the issues appropriately. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about utility billing. To put this right, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the time and trouble this caused. It should also repeat its offer of crediting her usage charges throughout 2024.

The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.

Within the resident’s complaint, she said the SM was “rude and unhelpful.” She also explained that the SM had ignored her on 4 occasions between 22 December 2023 and 3 January 2024. We have not seen evidence to show the landlord, or its SM provided a meaningful response to her concerns.
In the landlord’s initial response, it said it had considered the points the resident had raised. However, it did not respond to her concerns about the SM’s lack of response. This understandably caused her to feel as though it had not listened to her concerns fully.
Following concerns about staff conduct, we expect landlords to conduct a fair and objective investigation. It should take appropriate action where necessary and clearly relay its findings to the resident. While the landlord noted it had spoken to the SM, it has not provided such evidence to us, which is a concern.
The landlord told the resident that it had a “strong and positive” relationship with the SM. This statement caused understandable concerns to the resident about whether it completed an objective investigation or not. She later added that it was “bias” towards the SM. While we have not found evidence of bias, the resident’s concerns of this were understandable. The landlord should be mindful of its communication and how residents may perceive this.
The landlord explained that the SM noted the resident no longer acknowledged passing greetings such as “good morning.” It is unclear how this was relevant to her concern and again a reflection of poor communication. Similarly, it also told her that the poor relationship between her and the SM did not benefit either of them. It said it “hope[d]” this improved. It should be mindful of its tone within its communication.
It was good practice for the landlord to offer a meeting to discuss the issues further with the resident. This would allow an opportunity for the resident to feel listened to. However, it also added “ultimately, if you remain unhappy with the arrangements for living contentedly…you may wish to consider your future here.”
The landlord’s wording of this was poor. Our Scheme states we may find failings if the landlord treated the resident in a “heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.” The landlord’s response was not sympathetic to the concerns raised by the resident. In her escalation request, she said the tone was “threatening” and that she felt “victimised” for complaining. She added that it therefore was “discriminating” against her. She also said she felt “bullied” by the SM.
As explained previously, we cannot make a finding of discrimination as this would be best suited to a court of law to determine. However, it is important to note the resident’s concerns with its wording and communication. By suggesting she could consider her future living there, it understandably caused her to think it was suggesting she considered leaving because of the issues. The landlord’s final response did not respond to her concerns about “discrimination,” “bias” or feeling “victimised.” This was a failing.
The landlord instead explained that the recollections of the interactions differed between the SM and the resident. It said it had advised the SM to ensure all future conduct was respectful. It also asked her to do the same. The landlord acted reasonably by suggesting this so it could work together to improve the relationship. It said she could copy in its new volunteer treasurer to any future emails with the SM, if she wished to. This was good practice given that the SM was its sole employee so she would have to maintain further communication.
Overall, the landlord took action to investigate the resident’s concerns with the staff conduct of the SM. It also tried to put things right by offering to include others within future contact. However, due to a lack of evidence, we cannot assess whether it acted appropriately by objectively investigating her concerns. It also missed an opportunity by not offering to meet with her, the SM, and its trustees to discuss the issues. If it had offered to meet, it may have been able to try and resolve the issues. It also had poor communication throughout its response to her concerns with the SM.
As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response. It should pay the resident £25 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this.

The landlord’s response to concerns about its policies and procedures.

In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said it had a lack of policies and procedures. The landlord explained that it reviewed its policies and procedures regularly and it follows good practice for almshouses. The resident later added that she was unaware of any other policies apart from its complaints policy. She asked for a copy of its repairs policy and the resident handbook.
It would be good practice for the landlord to share its policies and procedures to promote transparency and openness. However, there is no obligation for a landlord to share anything business-related, sensitive or that would not be relevant to the resident’s occupation of the property. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for copies of its repairs policy and the resident handbook. We therefore recommend the landlord to confirm its response to her request in writing.

The associated complaint handling.

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. It must then provide its response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. Landlords must also acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It must provide its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy explained how residents can submit a complaint. This included over a phone call, by post or email. As the sole employee, it is noted that the SM would have sight of any complaints received. Part of the resident’s complaint was about the conduct of the SM. It is understandable that she was concerned about how to make her complaint to the landlord in the circumstances. On 19 January 2024, she made a complaint through her representative. She sent the complaint to one of its volunteer trustee’s directly to avoid the risk of the SM seeing her concerns. However, following a lack of response, her representative asked for an update on 5 February 2024. Her representative sent this to both its main enquiries mailbox and the volunteer trustee.
The landlord’s SM responded on the same day and explained it had not received the original complaint. This was understandable given the resident had sent the complaint to an individual and not its main mailbox. However, the resident’s representative responded on the same day to explain they had sent this to the individual. Her representative also noted this was due to sensitive information within her complaint. They asked the SM to ask the individual to check for the complaint.
It took a further 12 working days for the landlord’s SM to respond to the resident’s representative, on 21 February 2024. It was good practice for it to apologise for this delay and explain why this occurred. It said it had an IT issue and noted that it did not regularly monitor the volunteer trustees’ mailboxes. While it was appropriate to offer this explanation, it raises concerns about how residents can make complaints about staff conduct or any sensitive issues. The resident told the landlord this was a “flaw” in its complaints process.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that residents can also raise complaints online. However, we cannot see this option on its website. Additionally, it states that it can arrange an appointment for the resident to meet with a trustee to make a complaint. However, it does not explain how to arrange this. Similarly, it said within its initial response that residents can make complaints at coffee mornings too. We note this may not always be appropriate given the sensitive nature of complaints. It would be good practice for it to review its policy to consider how it can make its complaints process more accessible.
Despite being aware of the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not act to investigate this. It should have discussed ways for her to send her complaint again without going through the SM. It could have also considered ways to retrieve the complaint from the volunteer trustee’s mailbox. The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the lack of response to her complaint. As such, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide its response by 4 April 2024.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 March 2024 but provided incorrect details within this. It said it was only aware of the resident’s complaint through our contact. However, it was appropriate for it to later correct this and apologise for its mistake within its stage 1 response. Nevertheless, it took the landlord 53 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint, on 4 April 2024. This was 38 working days beyond the period set out in its policy and the Code. This was a failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 April 2024. This was in line with its policy and the Code. It said it would provide its response within a further 20 working days, but it did not do so.
It is evident that the landlord communicated with the resident following her escalation request. It met with her on 28 May 2024 and explained it needed more time to investigate the issues. It said it would update her by the end of June 2024, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did so. By not communicating with her, this caused her time and trouble in contacting us for advice. We wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2024 and asked it to respond within 5 working days.
On 12 September 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised for the delay in gathering the relevant information to resolve her issues. However, it said it still needed further time. It later met with the resident to discuss the complaint on 8 October 2024. While this was good practice, it is a shortcoming that it seemingly only improved its communication following our contact.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 2 December 2024. It was appropriate for it to explain that the delay occurred because of difficulty in obtaining information. It explained this was due to the record keeping and quality of information kept by its previous volunteer treasurer.
While this was understandable, the landlord did not acknowledge the impact its delayed responses had on the resident. It took the landlord a total of 158 working days to respond to her complaint at stage 2. The resident understandably experienced considerable time and trouble by repeatedly making contact about this. It also caused delays in its consideration of her complaint at stage 2, and her referral to us.
Within the resident’s complaint, she felt the landlord had withheld repairs because of her complaint. The landlord disputed this. We have not seen evidence to suggest that it mismanaged her repairs during this time.
The resident also noted that the issues in her complaint impacted her health. We would expect landlords to be sympathetic to such concerns. The landlord could have also signposted her to support available to her. It is a failing that the landlord did not respond to her concerns about her health within its responses.
Overall, the landlord did not act in line with the Code or its policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. It delayed in responding to her complaint at both stages. While it provided limited updates about its progress, it was a significant departure from the Code and its policy. Additionally, it did not fully address her concerns with how to submit a complaint of a sensitive nature.
Considering the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It should pay the resident a further £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of applications for energy bill relief and discount schemes is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about utility billing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about its policies and procedures.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the poor communication identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples within this. It should share a copy of this with us.
2. Pay the resident £125 compensation. This consists of:
  1. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of concerns about utility billing.
  2. £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to concerns about staff conduct.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident to confirm its offer of crediting her usage charges for her heating and electricity throughout 2024. It should then provide us with a copy of this.
4. Arrange an internal meeting to discuss its complaints policy and how it could make this more accessible. It should then provide us with a brief summary of what it discussed or proposed.
The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord considers arranging a further inspection of the heat meter. This is to assess how it could resolve the error code.
We recommend the landlord provides a response in writing to the resident about her request for copies of its repairs policy and resident handbook.