Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202221861)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221861

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

21 June 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 handling of the resident’s enquiries in relation to the hot water and heating system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of the property since 13 May 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat and is in a block. The flats heating and hot water supply comes from a communal heating system owned by the landlord. Each flat has its own meter, managed by a third-party company for readings and payments.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 4 October 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident had moved into the property in May 2021 and had noted at the time, that in the lease there was a note about a heating supply agreement which had not been provided.
2. The landlords marketing information mentioned communal heating but the resident was unaware of the associated cost or rate. She believed it was a “monopoly” that she never agreed to.
3. She had received a letter from a third-party company but it had not clarified that they were not the supplier of the heating.
4. She felt that the landlord had treated her with a condescending tone and the information given was factually incorrect.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would respond within 10 working days.
On 18 October 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. At the time the resident had bought the property, the resident was given the best information that was available.
2. The third-party company managed monitoring, meter reading, and billing for heating and hot water on behalf of the landlord. The resident received this information in the handbook upon moving in.
3. The resident’s agreement to pay for energy was with the landlord, not the third-party company, as specified in the lease.
4. The energy tariff rate, determined by the landlord, included a small standing charge for third-party services and a main tariff based on actual gas supply costs.
5. Although the current practice was to provide tariff rates to new residents, this was not the case when the resident’s account was set up. Details are available online, and the resident was an active user of the online account. Any new tariff rates would be communicated to the resident when available.
On 22 October 2022, the resident sought clarification from the landlord about utility costs not specified in the lease. Although she was content with the cost, she found the lack of transparency “concerning”.
On 31 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again, as she had not received a response. The landlord logged this as a further formal complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 November 2022. It apologised for the lack of response and confirmed the charge information relating to heating and hot water was provided in sections 3.26 and 5.11 on the resident’s lease.
The resident followed up the next day, seeking confirmation from the landlord about service costs, including the standing charge, charge per KwH, and third-party payment. She also inquired about tariff reviews and the possibility of installing her own boiler.
On 12 December 2022, the resident followed up with the landlord for a response. After not receiving a complaint response, she contacted this Service on 14 December 2022. The landlord was given until 11 January 2023, to provide a complaint response. Due to a system error, the landlord did not receive this correspondence. On 26 January 2023, the landlord confirmed, to the resident, the tariff rate.
On 16 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord, as no complaint response had been given to the resident. The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 30 June 2023 ordering the landlord to provide a stage 1 response. The landlord, to date, has not provided a formal complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease includes covenants from the landlord. These include that the resident will enter into a supply agreement with the landlord/utility service provider in respect of the supply, metered usage of, and the payment for heating and hot water supplied via the customer interface unit. It further says that the resident agrees to pay the landlord/utility service provider all costs, charges, and tariffs payable for the supply of heating and hot water into the property.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days, and it will include information about requesting a review. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days and will include information about referring to this Service.

Scope of investigation

In accordance with section 32 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may decide that a member’s complaints procedure has been fully utilised. In such cases, the complaint may be duly made, provided it meets specific criteria. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that repeated failures in its handling of the complaint have occurred. Although no formal stage 1 or stage 2 responses have been issued in this instance, the Ombudsman concludes that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Consequently, it has been investigated under paragraph 32 of the Scheme.
The resident said that she had not been provided with or signed a heat supply agreement as per the terms of her lease. While this Service has considered the lease terms as part of its assessment of the resident’s complaint, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make a legally binding decision on the correct interpretation of those terms. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she could obtain independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on whether the landlord’s more general handling of the resident’s concerns about the heat supply was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, with particular reference to its service delivery, communication, and adherence to relevant policies and agreements.

Heat and hot water supply.

On 4 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had never been told of the cost for heating and hot water in her property. In response, the landlord appropriately indicated that the tariff was accessible through the resident’s online account. It also helpfully provided a screenshot highlighting the relevant information.
Further to this, the landlord appropriately set out how the tariff rate was set. It confirmed that it was made up of a standing charge and the main tariff based on actual usage. It was reasonable of the landlord to provide clarity on the tariff.
The resident informed the landlord that she had never consented to the costs associated with heating and hot water supply. She highlighted the absence of a heat supply agreement as outlined in the lease. Although the Ombudsman cannot interpret lease terms, the landlord gave its position and reminded the resident of her agreement in the lease. Subsequently, the landlord provided the specific lease terms; however, it would have been beneficial to direct the resident to these sections earlier. Not doing so prompted the resident to contact the landlord again and await a further response.
In the same correspondence, the resident said she had received a letter from a third company about the heating supply, but it had not clarified the company’s position in the supply of the heating. The landlord appropriately explained the role of the third-party company in the supply of heating and hot water. This would have provided clarity to the resident who was unsure of how the system worked.
On 22 October 2022, the resident expressed that she had further questions about the lease. She believed that both she and the landlord should have agreed on a cost for the utility, which had not occurred. While the Ombudsman cannot interpret lease terms, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided further clarity. Providing a clear response outlining the agreed terms would have shown commitment to resolving the resident’s issue and offered clarity.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord finally responded to the resident. Although it apologised for the lack of response and attributed it to a staff member leaving the business, this delay was unacceptable. Landlords must ensure they have effective and robust systems in place to monitor resident correspondence and address outstanding issues promptly, even when staff members leave. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident.
Following the landlord’s response on 24 November 2022, the resident posed a series of questions about heat and hot water supply and the lease. Unfortunately, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord ever replied to this email or addressed the resident’s inquiries. This situation highlighted the need for the landlord to set up efficient systems for tracking and responding to resident queries. Failing to do so prompted the resident to seek help from this Service to receive a response.
Overall, the landlord’s response fell short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman and lacked clarity. Initially, the landlord explained how the system worked, the nature of heating supply agreement with the third-party company and highlighted the resident’s current tariff. However, later communication lacked clear answers to the resident’s questions. Giving such answers would have been helpful and could have addressed the resident’s information needs.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about the heating and hot water system.
Taking into account the above, a compensation order has been made for £100, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not responding to the resident’s questions raised on 25 November 2022.
2. £50 for the time taken by the resident to pursue a response.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 October 2022. In line with its policy, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and said it would respond within 10 working days.
While the landlord provided a response to the resident on 18 October 2022, within 10 working days, its response was not in line with its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out that a formal complaint response must have the following information:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for the decision made.
5. The details of any remedy offered.
6. Details of outstanding actions.
7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if necessary.
While the landlord’s response had information on the complaint raised by the resident, it did not include the other information as required by the Code. By not providing a clear complaint response, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
On 22 October 2022, the resident responded to the landlord. However, she did not receive a reply and followed up on 31 October 2022. The landlord logged this follow-up as another formal complaint. This situation highlights the landlord’s lack of an effective system for tracking and monitoring complaints. It was another opportunity for the landlord to respond according to its policy, which it did not do. The absence of a robust complaint handling system not only prompted the resident to spend further time and effort chasing a response but also further delayed a resolution of the issue.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 May 2023 after not receiving a response. This Service chased the landlord for a response a further 4 times which led to the issuing of a CHFO on 30 June 2023 ordering it to respond. Despite ample opportunities, the landlord did not investigate and formally respond to the resident’s complaint. This behaviour contradicts the Code, which emphasises that landlords should adopt a resident-focused approach to complaint handling. Ignoring the many requests showed disregard for the resident’s complaint and significantly delayed the resolution of her queries.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell well below the standards expected by the Ombudsman. While it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it did not provide an adequate response and then chose to ignore the many requests made by this Service for a complaint response written. The Code sets out clearly the expectations of landlords when dealing with complaints. By not responding to the resident the landlord has denied the resident the opportunity to pursue a complaint. Further to this, it has denied itself the chance to highlight any actions it could have taken or that which it intended to take to put things right.
Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Considering the above, a compensation order has been made for £500, made up of the following:
1. £200 for not responding to the resident.
2. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about the heating and hot water supply.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £600, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the failings found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about the heating and hot water system.
2. £500 for the failings found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff at the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must contact the resident and set out clearly how the heating and hot water system works, including explaining how and when the charges are set.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.