TBG Open Door Limited (202316362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316362

TBG Open Door Limited

19 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:
   1. handling of the resident’s personal data
   2. communication about the resident’s water charges

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 25 June 2020. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord holds records that the resident has primary progressive multiple sclerosis and stress/anxiety.
3. On 11 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that he had been receiving mail addressed to the landlord from the water supplier since he moved into the property. He said that he recently received water bills addressed to himself. He said that according to the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible and liable for water charges. He also raised concerns because the landlord shared his personal data with the water supplier.
4. On 23 June 2023, the landlord confirmed that his rent did not include water rates, and that he was responsible for these payments. It confirmed that the charges included in his rent were for caretaking, door maintenance, and ground maintenance. 
5. On 26 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint. He disputed the landlord’s interpretation of the tenancy agreement based on the definition of ‘rent’ in the agreement. He also raised concerns about how the landlord uses his personal data because it shared his information with the water supplier.
6. On 4 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that the definitions section of the tenancy agreement provides an overview of all charges that may be provided under the term ‘rent’. It said that his rent charge does not include water rates. It said that it would have explained this at tenancy sign up. It advised the resident to speak with the water provider about affordable tariffs if he had difficulty with the payments. It explained that it had not breached data protection laws because it had a legitimate interest to provide his information to the water supplier.
7. On 4 July 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint investigation. He said that the landlord never provided him with a breakdown of other charges included in his rent. He said the definition of ‘rent’ in the tenancy agreement includes water charges. He said that the landlord targeted him because of previous complaints about poor, unprofessional, and discriminatory service.  
8. On 3 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It reaffirmed its position set out in its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the tenancy agreement does not specify that water charges are payable to the landlord. It also said that it verbally provided this information at tenancy sign up and provided a manual within the property which provided details with utility providers. It offered to explore possible funds that may be available to support the resident with household costs.    
9. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his personal data and the outstanding water charges which he said he is not liable for. The resident said that the landlord discriminated and targeted him because of his disability and ethnic background. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted an apology from the landlord, dismissal of the landlord staff responsible for the error, and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

10. Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
11. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of personal data. This matter will not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The landlord’s communication about the resident’s water charges

12. There is a dispute about the interpretation of the tenancy agreement, specifically around how service charges are included in the rent. The resident believes that the tenancy agreement says that water rates are included in his rent charge. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to support the resident’s belief. When the resident raised this concern, the landlord advised him to seek legal advice. This was appropriate advice in the circumstances.
13. When the landlord became aware of the dispute it clarified that water charges were not included in his rent and provided a list of service charges that were included. It advised the resident to discuss affordable tariffs with his water supplier. This was reasonable advice.
14. The landlord’s lettings procedure sets out that it will issue the resident with a welcome pack at tenancy sign up and go through all items in the welcome pack. The welcome pack sets out that payment of water is not usually included in rent and advised the resident to take meter readings to agree payment with the water provider. Based on this information, the landlord took reasonable measures at tenancy sign up to inform the resident that he was responsible for the water charges.
15. While the landlord did not uphold the complaint, it recognised the resident’s concerns and offered to explore possible funds that may be available to support him with his household costs. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
16. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord discriminated and targeted him because of his disability and ethnic background. Discrimination is the less favourable treatment of a person based on a protected characteristic including disability and race. The landlord has a duty to ensure that its staff operate in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns around discrimination.
17. When the resident escalated his complaint, he alleged that the landlord targeted him because of previous complaints about discriminatory service. While the landlord did not address this specific allegation in its complaint response, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord targeted the resident. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and provided advice, which was appropriate in the circumstances. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns about discrimination.
18. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s communication about the water charges. This is because the landlord took reasonable measures to ensure the resident was aware that he was responsible for the water charges at the start of the tenancy.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s communication about the resident’s water charges.