Gloucester City Homes Limited (202311899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311899

Gloucester City Homes Limited

30 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the implementation of a pre-payment meter for heat and hot water in the property, and the associated costs.

Background

2. The resident lives in a one-bedroom, fourth floor flat under an assured tenancy which began on 28 November 2019.
3. The resident has a range of physical and mental health conditions including agoraphobia, depression, anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome. The landlord said it became aware of these conditions during the stage 1 complaint process.
4. The resident’s complaint relates to the fitting of pre-payment meters into each of the flats within his block. The resident’s heating is provided via a district heating system. The resident says that the landlord was not clear in its communication about the change of meter and the differences in billing. The resident also feels that the costs, following the installation, were much higher than he can afford and that this left him in financial hardship which, in turn, negatively affected his mental and physical health.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 March 2023 in which he said that there had been a lack of consultation and information by the landlord prior to installing the new pre-payment meters. The resident also felt that the new meters were unaffordable and sought an explanation as to how and why these had been installed, financial assistance and the option to change to a different type of meter.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on 21 April 2023 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it had to install the meters due to changes in the law and because its previous system was not keeping pace with increased energy costs. It said that this led to the landlord subsidising these costs. The landlord also said that it had communicated with all residents directly in writing and via two public consultations, along with communication with tenant and leaseholder representatives.
7. The landlord said that the increased costs experienced by the resident were due to paying directly for his energy usage, which it said was “significant.” The landlord arranged support from two internal teams to assist the resident with using his heating system more effectively and budgeting to meet these additional costs.
8. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 May 2023 as he felt that the communication from the landlord was not adequate and that it had not considered his health needs and affordability prior to making the change of meter.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 May 2023. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said:
   1. It did communicate with residents in writing, in two public consultations and via tenant and leaseholder representatives prior to implementing the changes to the meter.
   2. The resident positively accepted the new meter and therefore the landlord “reasonably assumed” that he had no further queries or concerns about the process.
   3. At the time that the meters were installed the resident had not informed the landlord of any health needs. Since the resident identified these, as part of his formal complaint, the landlord had made referrals for support from its Tenancy Sustainment Team and an Enhanced Support Coach. The landlord also said that it had arranged a visit with a gas engineer to support him with better understanding the use of his heating system.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 July 2023 seeking compensation for the additional charges that he had incurred as a result of the meter change.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the level of charges for energy that he experienced after the meter was changed by the landlord.
12. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that 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.
13. The setting of energy prices by energy providers is not within the remit of this Service to consider as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Energy Ombudsman.
14. On this basis, the Ombudsman will not consider the pricing of energy supplied to the resident by the energy provider. This Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the meter installation, its communication with the resident and any support offered to address his concerns raised in the complaint. 

Installation of a pre-payment meter in the property and the associated costs.

15. The resident complained that the landlord had installed a pre-payment meter in his property without consultation or clear communication. As a result, the resident incurred additional costs. The resident also felt that this breached the landlord’s legal obligations to provide a safe and warm home.
16. The resident said that these additional costs caused him significant financial hardship, which resulted in him accumulating debt or opting not to use his heating for periods of time, due to the costs incurred. The resident was on a limited income o around £600 per month as he was awaiting the outcome of a benefit appeal for his Universal Credit ‘limited capability for work and work related activity (LCWRA)’ element.
17. The resident also said that the stress of this situation caused a deterioration in his physical and mental health. The evidence shows that the resident was, at times, aided by a support worker in progressing his complaint. The evidence indicates that the landlord was not aware of the resident’s health conditions prior to his formal complaint, as these were not indicated on his tenancy sign up information. On this basis, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to be expected to have made reasonable adjustments for the resident until it was notified of his needs.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 April 2023, the landlord said:
    1. The flats had previously had a centralised meter reading system installed in 2012 and the costs for heating were covered by a flat-rate service charge.
    2. This system began to fail, so was replaced by a weekly charge based on estimated usage.
    3. The estimated usage did not keep pace with the increased energy costs and the landlord was subsidising this cost for residents. The landlord decided to install separate pre-payments meters in each flat in 2019, following consultation with tenant and leaseholder representatives. This work was delayed due to the pandemic and began in 2022. This was reasonable, as the landlord could not be expected to subsidise resident utilities indefinitely, particularly given the increasing energy costs within the market at the time.
    4. That it would have had to install individual meters (even without the increased energy costs), following the introduction of the Heat Network (Metering and billing) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. These regulations amended the Heat Network (Metering and billing) Regulations 2014, to require landlords with particular types of properties to install meters that accurately measured individual property usage. The landlord was correct in asserting that this type of metering became a requirement following this change in the law, for the majority of properties.
    5. It had communicated with all residents in writing on 16 September 2022 and through two public consultations on 28 and 30 September 2022 prior to changing the meters. Given the earlier communication with tenant and leaseholder representatives, this level of communication was appropriate, accessible and gave all residents sufficient opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns about the proposals.
    6. The increased costs experienced by the resident were because of his usage no longer being subsidised. The landlord also noted that the resident’s energy usage was very high for the size and type of property.
19. In response to the resident’s concerns, particularly around affordability, the evidence shows that the landlord:
    1. Arranged for a gas engineer to attend the resident’s property on 14 March 2022 to provide advice around using the heating more efficient. The landlord noted that the resident’s usage halved after this visit but despite this, his ongoing usage “would indicate that the heating is used at high temperatures constantly, all day, every day.”
    2. Made internal referrals to its Tenancy Sustainment Team and an Enhanced Support Coach. These teams provided the resident with several fuel vouchers over the course of his complaint and beyond. Alongside this, there is evidence of wider support being explored, such as offering the resident budgeting advice and supporting him with an application to move to a different property.
    3. Made external referrals to the Gloucestershire Welfare Fund and the ‘Warm and well’ project, which supports with the installation of energy efficiency measures in homes.
    4. Engaged with the resident’s support worker to better understand his particular needs and to assist him with accessing the support it was offering.
20. These measures show the landlord took a positive approach to supporting the resident with his health needs and affordability concerns, once it was made aware of them. On balance, the landlord made suitable and sufficient referrals both internally and externally to support the resident and worked with his appointed support worker.  
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response upheld this position on the grounds that it had communicated effectively with the resident and provided additional support once it was notified of his additional needs.
22. After the conclusion of the complaint, in January 2024, the energy provider and the landlord wrote to residents separately to advise that energy prices had dropped over the previous year, but that this had not been applied as a price reduction to their account. The energy provider committed to backdating this reduction to January 2023, a period of around one year and the resident confirmed to this Service that this had been completed around April 2024.
23. Overall, the Ombudsman appreciates the significant financial pressure that the energy crisis placed on households over this period and empathises with the resident’s specific health and financial needs. In this case, however, the evidence shows that the landlord communicated effectively with all resident’s prior to changing the meters, particularly given that it was not aware of the resident’s specific health needs at the time. Once notified of this, the landlord took reasonable steps to provide advice, reassurance and financial support to the resident; engaging with his support worker as appropriate.
24. On this basis, the Ombudsman can find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the implementation of a pre-payment meter for heat and hot water in the property, and the associated costs.
25. The Ombudsman strongly recommends that the landlord continue to provide any suitable support to the resident, to assist him with maintaining his tenancy in an affordable and sustainable way.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the implementation of a pre-payment meter for heat and hot water in the property, and the associated costs.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should continue to offer support to the resident including:
    1. Advice and guidance around his heating usage.
    2. Practical support with energy saving devices or practices, where possible. This could include a renewal of the property’s EPC to identify energy saving measures.
    3. Fuel vouchers or referrals to similar financial support, when eligible.
    4. Advice around moving to another property, if the resident still wishes to do so.