London Borough of Barnet (202312340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312340

London Borough of Barnet

17 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 management of, and charge for, communal heating.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. Her tenancy at the property began on 18 December 2019. The property is a ground floor studio flat within a sheltered accommodation building for older people. The heating in the property is provided by a communal heating system. The resident is charged for this as part of her service charge.
3. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2023, after its repairs contractor had attended to inspect her bathroom radiator, which was not working. The resident said the contractor had informed her the landlord switched the communal heating off during the summer. She expressed dissatisfaction with this, saying that there were still cold days during the summer and as residents were paying for the heating throughout the year, they should be able to use it at all times.
4. The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 July 2023. She complained that she was paying the landlord a weekly charge for heating and hot water but was also paying an energy supplier for hot water.
5. The landlord logged a complaint on 7 July 2023. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023. It said that:
   1. The communal heating was regulated by the external temperature. This was a design feature which only allowed it to work when the temperature outside was sufficiently low.
   2. This helped to reduce usage during warmer periods and consequently the cost to residents.
   3. Although the weekly charge on the resident’s service charge bill was listed as being for heating and hot water, this was an “oversight” which it would amend. The charge was only for heating, and it apologised for any inconvenience caused.
   4. The resident had her own gas boiler which provided hot water to the property. She paid her energy supplier directly for this.
6. The resident responded on 31 July 2023. She expressed continued dissatisfaction that the heating was not available during the warmer months. She said that the landlord charged her the same amount for heating during that period, so should have access to it. She pointed out that the radiators in the building had temperature control valves allowing residents to control the temperature themselves. The resident said that she suffered with arthritis and was having to wear extra layers in the current temperatures. The landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2023. It explained that the heating charge was an annual charge which was spread throughout the 48 weeks that rent and service charge were payable. It said it had arranged for the settings on the heating controls to be changed so that it switched off at 30 degrees Celsius, rather that the previous setting of 23 degrees.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on the same day. She said she felt landlord’s charge for the heating was excessively high and she remained dissatisfied that the communal heating was not constantly available.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the amount the landlord was charging her for communal heating. She said she felt this was excessively high for a studio flat with only 3 radiators. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints about the level of rent or service charge.
10. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) is the appropriate body to consider disputes of this nature. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about making an application to the FTT is she wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the landlord’s heating charge. This investigation is only able to consider the landlord’s administration of the charge and its communication about this.
11. Within her original complaint, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the communal laundry room in the building had been out of use for a period of several months. The landlord provided a response to this as part of its stage 1 complaint response. The matter did not feature within the resident’s email of 31 July 2023 or the landlord’s subsequent stage 2 complaint response. Due to this the Ombudsman is unable to consider the matter as part of this investigation.

Communal heating

12. The resident’s complaint centred on the fact that the communal heating system was regulated by a temperature control which switched off the heating when the outside temperature reached a certain level.
13. The landlord explained that this was a design feature of the system which it could not remove. This feature would appear to have been in place since the resident’s tenancy at the property began in 2019. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this investigation to consider events that far back, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained how the communal heating worked to the resident when letting her the property. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation regarding this below.
14. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the heating switched off during the warmer months to “reduce usage during warmer periods and reduce cost”. It is appropriate for the landlord to attempt to keep the heating costs, which residents pay for via their service charge, reasonable in this way.
15. The resident has complained that although she pays the heating charge all year round yet the heating is not available all year. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that the charge reflects the annual bill, which it divides across the 48 weeks that the resident’s rent and service charge was payable. The weekly charge reflects a portion of the total annual charge, rather than the expense of that particular week.
16. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, says that service charge amounts must only reflect costs which the landlord has “reasonably incurred”. The heating charge would therefore reflect the total expenditure incurred by the landlord in fuelling the communal heating system throughout the financial year.
17. Were the landlord to make the heating available at all times, this would lead to an increase in the costs, which would then be passed on to the residents. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to consult with all affected residents before making such a change. A recommendation is made in this regard below.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord showed appropriate regard for the resident’s reports that she was struggling with her arthritis due to lower temperatures during the summer. It amended the system controls to ensure the communal heating was available until the outdoors temperature hit 30 degrees Celsius. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord says it has several buildings which have communal heating and has advised that the previous setting of 23 degrees “is a standard temperature to set a communal heating system to”.
19. Within her original complaint the resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was charging her for “heating and hot water”, whilst she was also paying her energy supplier for the latter.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the description of the charge on her bills was an oversight – which it would amend. It said that it only charged the resident for communal heating and the boiler within her property provides her hot water, for which her energy supplier bills her. It appropriately apologised for any inconvenience caused. There is no evidence that the landlord ever incorrectly charged the resident for hot water.
21. In summary, the landlord’s utilised the communal heating’s temperature controls as designed, to try and keep costs reasonable for its residents. The landlord recognised the resident’s concerns and reasonably adjusted the controls to provide increased thermal comfort. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised for the error in its description of the heating charge. There is no evidence that it collected any charges for hot water from the resident, and so the detriment experienced by her due to its error was limited. There is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s management of, and charge for, communal heating.

Recommendations

23. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its lettings procedure for properties with communal heating which is “regulated by external temperatures” to ensure it appropriately explains this feature to new residents.
24. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord considers consulting with all occupants of the resident’s building about further increasing the external temperature at which the communal heating switches off. The landlord should make clear the cost implications of doing so as part of any consultation.