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

Places for People Group Limited (202122124)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122124

Places for People Homes Limited

30 January 2023


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:
    1. Offer of reimbursement (amount) to the resident for the service charge of the communal light and power.
    2. Response to the resident’s request that the landlord reimburse her for the communal electricity charges she had incurred since 2006.

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
  3. The landlord’s offer of reimbursement to the resident for the service charge of the communal light and power.
  4. This is in accordance with Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase. This would instead need to be disputed at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First-Tier Tribunal is able to consider disputes about levels of rent and service charges including increases to such charges and the reasonableness of such charges.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats, with a shared communal area. The resident’s tenancy began in October 2006.
  2. The resident discovered that she had been paying for the communal electricity via her property meter at some point in 2020. The landlord confirmed that the electric meter had been adapted to separate the supply of electricity to the communal area and her individual property in September 2020. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint in October 2021, as she believed she had been overcharged for the communal lighting and power since her tenancy began in October 2006. The resident stated that although the electric supply had been rectified in 2020, it did not detract from the fact that she had been paying additional charges previously. She requested reimbursement for the additional electricity usage from October 2006 to September 2020. She advised that her service charge was £2 per week every five calendar days. The resident noted that the landlord had assured her the charges would be investigated, but that she had not received any written correspondence regarding this. She questioned how the landlord intended to reimburse her for the overcharge of the communal lighting and power, and noted that the situation had caused her stress.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. It upheld her complaint on the basis that its property maintenance and electrical planned works team had confirmed the completion of an electrical test and transferal of the power supply from the resident’s meter to its supply meter in September 2020. The landlord declined to reimburse the resident from 2006, as it explained that the service charge for the communal light and power was only introduced to the resident in April 2012. The landlord offered compensation of £719.48, including reimbursement of £669.48 and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the matter.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not explained its decision to only reimburse the charges for the communal area from 2012, when she had been incurring the costs since her tenancy began in 2006. She believed it should reimburse the charges for the communal light and power from 2006 onwards.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the landlord offered £669.48 in compensation for the overpayment of service charges for the communal light and power. However, as explained above, this Service is unable to investigate whether the landlord’s offer of reimbursement was reasonable as this aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Nonetheless, consideration has been given into the overall distress and inconvenience caused by any errors in communication by the landlord, and whether or not the landlord’s offer of £50 in view of this was proportionate in the circumstance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it reimburse her for the communal electricity charges she had incurred since 2006

  1. In this case, the landlord’s compensation of £50 was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced in discovering that she had been charged for the communal light and power for multiple years. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its recognised failure. However, the landlord’s £50 offer of compensation does not reflect the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified. This constitutes maladministration.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out the level of compensation that should be paid under particular circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman has assessed the level of compensation which should be paid using our own remedies guidance, which is published on our website. The landlord should pay the resident £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by being overcharged for electricity for a significant period of time. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation in the range of £100- £600 where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  3. Although this Service would be unable to comment on whether or not the reimbursement of service charge offered was reasonable, consideration has been given into the landlord’s decision to only reimburse the resident from 2012 and whether this was reasonable. The landlord appropriately explained its position that; because service charge for the communal light was only introduced in April 2012, it had reimbursed her from that time period. In the landlord’s correspondence to this Service, it provided its letter issued to the resident on 20 February 2012, in which it had informed her of the additional service charge for the communal light and power to be introduced on 2 April 2012. The tenancy agreement signed by the resident in October 2006, details the service charges to be paid by the resident excluding communal light and power. Nothing in the evidence showed that service charge for communal light and power had been included in the resident’s tenancy from 2006. Therefore, it was adequate to reimburse the resident from 2012, when the service charge for the communal light and power was introduced.
  4. The landlord also acted appropriately in advising the resident (42 days) in advance of the introduction of service charge for the communal light and power, and by confirming the date in which the charges would come into effect. This was in accordance with the tenancy agreement which states that; the landlord may increase or decrease the service charge by giving the resident not less than one calendar months’ notice in writing. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with its planned maintenance and works team who confirmed that the electric supply had been transferred from the resident’s meter to the landlord’s meter in September 2020. While it is not disputed that the resident was overcharged for the communal light and power, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing, apologise and ensure that the electric supply was transferred to its meter in 2020.
  5. The resident also raised concern about charges incurred to her utility bills for usage of the communal light and power. However, it is unclear when the communal light and power was connected to the resident’s personal meter, or the specific amount in additional charges incurred to the resident’s utility bills. The onus would be on the landlord to; investigate and provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself regarding, the period the communal light and power was connected to her meter, and to reimburse for additional charges incurred to her utility bills. The landlord has not done so in this case, and as such it failed to acknowledge all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This constitutes maladministration and compensation as detailed below should be offered in view of this. The landlord should now investigate the increase in charges to the resident’s utility bill and offer additional compensation where necessary.
  6. The landlord should pay the resident £300 in compensation for its failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation in the range of £100- £600 where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s offer of reimbursement to the resident for the service charge of the communal light and power is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of communal electricity charges she had incurred since 2006.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and its failure to wholly address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.
  2. The landlord is ordered to investigate when the communal light and power was connected to the resident’s personal meter and to reimburse her for the additional charges incurred to her utility bills where necessary. This should also be done within 28 days of the date of this letter, and a copy should be sent to the Ombudsman for our records.