From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Stevenage Borough Council (202416582)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416582

Stevenage Borough Council

26 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about water charges within their rent.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. They live in a 3-bedroom terrace house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded but understands the resident is elderly.
  2. The resident has authorised their son to act as a representative on their behalf. For the purposes of this report the resident and their representative are referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. The landlord is appointed as an agent for the collection and recovery of charges payable for water and sewage services. It has a bulk account with the water company, meaning the water company charge the landlord for all its housing stock in one charge. The landlord distributes this charge based on property type which is collected through the rent.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 24 May 2024 after they became aware that their water charges would be lower with a water meter. They said the landlord had a duty of care to inform them they could have been paying a lower water charge.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. It explained how it includes water charges within the rent. It apologised for the lack of communication about the installation of a water meter as an option for lower water charges. The landlord agreed there had been failings and it should have been more proactive. The response highlighted learnings.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the response, they said the landlord had a duty of care towards elderly residents to ensure they were not being overcharged for water services. They said that with only 2 people living in the property the landlord would know the water charges may have been less if on a meter. The resident felt it was wrong for the landlord to only help those who have known vulnerabilities or in arrears. They said they wanted a refund for all the years they were overcharged as they had struggled financially.
  7. On 9 July 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. The response confirmed in 2016 the water company started a 10-year programme known as the Water Saving Programme (WSP). This was a programme of compulsory metering all households but excluded those paying water rates through the landlord. The landlord explained it was through this programme that its residents started to contact them to see if water meters could be installed.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that it should have done more to advertise the WSP option to its residents especially due to the possible cost savings. It apologised for the impact the water charges had on the resident and acknowledged that they should have been referred to a Hardship Application if experiencing issues. It confirmed the water charges collectedby the landlord were sent to the water company so a refund would not be possible. However, it offered £150 for the time and trouble, and confirmed learnings.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord and asked them to review the response and financial compensation. The landlord confirmed the offer at stage 2 was its final response. Therefore, the resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 March 2025. They said that the landlord had a duty of care towards old and vulnerable residents. They said that since the landlord was aware of cost savings from the WSP in 2016, financial compensation around £1000 to £1200 would be a more acceptable offer to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy allows discretionary payments to residents where the landlord has failed. The policy highlights factors, including time and trouble, that decision makers should consider when determining the payment amount.
  3. Within the landlord’s role as an agent for the water company, there is no statutory obligation to inform residents about water meters, but it is good practice. It is undisputed by both parties that the landlord should have been more proactive in signposting the resident to the water company for a water meter as a cost saving option. The landlord agreed information should be more accessible. The landlord has implemented the learning, and the evidence provided shows:
    1. Rent letters include more information on water meter options.
    2. Signposting and updates on the website regarding water meters.
    3. Raised internal awareness so teams who regularly visit residents’ homes can discuss options.
    4. Email signatures in the income team now include water meter information.
  4. These actions show a positive step and commitment to learning and service improvement, which are in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations as set out in the Code. While the lack of these measures prior to the complaint meant that the resident may not have been fully aware of the option and its potential benefits, there is no evidence that the landlord did not respond to any concerned raised by the resident about their financial situation and water cost prior to May 2024.
  5. The resident has explained to this Service that although the landlord has admitted service failures it has not gone far enough to put this right. The resident explained the impact of this has meant that they have suffered financial hardship whilst paying more for their water than needed. The resident said that the point in which the cost saving benefits were known to the landlord should be taken from the 2016 WSP by the water company. The resident said this should have been the point in which the landlord informed the resident about the water meter option. The resident explained that from 2016 they calculated that the compensation owed should be nearer £1000 to £1200.
  6. The resident benefited from the service they paid for and received during this period. It cannot be known and is outside the skill of this Service to show if the resident would have made any savings. The landlord had explained that it passed the charges collected back to the water company in its stage 2 response. When the resident queried the compensation offered after the stage 2 response it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it was unable to offer more, as it had no way to identify how much water was used in this period.
  7. There is no evidence to show the landlord was made aware of any financial concerns or the resident’s request for a water meter before May 2024. When the resident did approach the landlord in May 2024, it was appropriate that the landlord signposted them to the water company and provided advice. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord intentionally prevented the resident from exploring the option of a water meter.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged its service failures and the financial impact it may have caused for the resident. It also apologised and offered £150 for time and trouble. It also demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman finds that the compensation awarded was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. The compensation offered falls within our range for complaints where there were failures that adversely affected a resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered fair and reasonable compensation to recognise and apologise for the resident’s experience.
  10. The Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint as the landlord has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the residents concerns about water charges within their rent.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident £150 previously offered in compensation if it has not yet done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding the landlord pays this compensation.