Norwich City Council (202411044)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202411044 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Norwich City Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Introductory Tenancy |
|
Date |
3 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident is vulnerable and has mental health conditions. The landlord became aware of this in December 2023. The resident gave notice to quit (NTQ) on 27 September 2023, and the landlord began switching the property energy supplier. The tenancy was due to end on 29 October 2023, but the resident told the landlord 2 days earlier that his circumstances had changed and he would remain in the property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The change of the property energy supplier.
- The resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the change of the property energy supplier.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord did not follow its procedure for changing energy suppliers when the tenancy ended or when the resident signed a new tenancy. It did not communicate effectively with the resident or the void energy management service about the changes. These failings adversely affected the resident.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 31 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay £100 to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to him by the failings in its handling of the changes of the property’s energy supplier. |
No later than 31 March 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
16 April 2024 |
The resident complained that the landlord switched his energy supplier without his consent. |
|
19 April 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond by 30 April 2024. |
|
22 April 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had followed its procedure when switching the energy supplier after receiving the resident’s NTQ. It confirmed that on 27 October 2023, the resident said he no longer wanted to move, but the switch was already underway. When the resident received the switch notification on 6 October 2023, he contacted the supplier to cancel it but did not inform the landlord. It said that if he had, it could have tried to stop the switch. |
|
3 May 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said he only became aware of the energy supplier switch in March 2024, and the landlord shared his details with the new supplier without his consent. He also said the complaint acknowledgement was unclear, and he thought it was the stage 1 response. |
|
10 May 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. |
|
5 June 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated its stage 1 findings that it had correctly followed its procedure for switching energy supplier when a tenancy ends. It confirmed that, although the resident refused to move out, his tenancy ended on 29 October 2023. It said that both the old and new suppliers would have notified the resident about the switch and provided details on how he could stop it. It clarified that it had a lawful basis for sharing the resident’s details with the new supplier and confirmed this did not amount to a data breach. It added that it had correctly acknowledged the stage 1 complaint when it wrote to him in April 2023. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought his complaint to us because he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. He wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failings, apologise, and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
Change of property energy supplier |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we did not consider
- The resident said the landlord shared his details with its new energy supplier without his consent, which he believed was a data breach. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) enforces data protection law and investigates complaints about data breaches. Therefore, we cannot investigate the resident’s complaint about the potential data breach. He may wish to refer his concerns to the ICO.
- We may not consider matters that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. Therefore, issues relating to the energy supplier’s actions or communications about cancelling the switch, registration or who was responsible for the energy costs fall to the Energy Ombudsman. We understand the resident has already raised a complaint with them.
What we did investigate
- The landlord has a procedure for switching the energy supplier when residents end their tenancy. When it receives a NTQ, it provides the address and the tenancy end date to the void energy management service. The service used by the landlord requires it to provide that information as soon as the resident gives notice so they can begin switching the property into the landlord’s name. This action ensures the utility supply switches into the landlord’s name with its chosen supplier on the tenancy end date, allowing accurate billing.
- The resident provided notice to the landlord on 27 September 2023. The landlord said that it then informed the void energy management service of the tenancy end date to start the process of switching energy supplier. This was reasonable and in line with its procedure.
- In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not informed the resident of its actions. It said that, going forward, it would tell outgoing residents that it requests an energy supplier switch when it receives a NTQ. This shows that the landlord learned from the resident’s complaint and wanted to improve its service. We did not see evidence that earlier communication about the switch would have changed the outcome for the resident, because the energy switch was already in process when he decided not to move. The evidence also shows that the resident knew about the switch because his energy supplier contacted him about it 10 days after he gave his notice.
- On 15 November 2023 the landlord told the resident that, although his tenancy had ended, it expected him to pay a charge equal to the rent because he remained in the property. However, we did not see evidence that it clarified who was responsible for the energy costs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this and ensure the resident knew he needed to register with the new supplier. We also did not see evidence that the landlord informed the energy supplier or the void energy management service that the resident remained in the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take those steps, in line with its procedure, to ensure correct billing.
- The resident refused to move out when his tenancy ended and continued to occupy the property between October 2023 and January 2024. On 9 January 2024 he signed a new tenancy with the landlord. The landlord says that when it signs a new tenancy, it informs the void energy management service that it is no longer responsible for the utility supply. It also says that at sign‑up it advises residents that they can switch from the incumbent supplier and confirms who that supplier is. We did not see evidence that it did so in January 2024, when it signed the new tenancy with the resident. This was unreasonable and not in line with its procedure for dealing with such matters.
- In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to fully identify its communication failings with the resident and the void energy management service. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint earlier. These failings contributed to delays in attributing the correct energy costs and billing to the resident. The resident said this caused inconvenience, time and trouble and impacted his credit score.
- In line with our published remedies guidance, we also consider mitigating factors against the landlord’s failings. The resident was responsible for registering with the utility supplier and knew about the supplier switch in October 2023. In February 2026 he told us he had not received any energy bills between October 2023 and March 2024. We did not see evidence to suggest that the resident had difficulties with managing bills and it is unclear why he did not question the lack of bills.
- Nonetheless, the landlord failed to communicate effectively and these failings adversely impacted the resident. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to him.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
- At both complaint stages, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy. In its stage 2 response, it correctly advised the resident that the letter sent on 19 April 2024 was the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. In that letter, the landlord said that it was writing to acknowledge the complaint. This was in line with its complaint policy.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Although the landlord kept accurate records, it did not follow its system process for alerting the void energy management service to tenancy changes.
Communication
- The landlord said it would inform residents, when they provide notice, that it will start the process of changing the energy supplier under its void management procedure. This is a positive step. We recognise that this case fell outside its usual practice because the resident chose to remain in the property when his tenancy ended. However, in such cases, the landlord should ensure processes are in place to tell residents that they remain responsible for energy costs. It should also ensure that it communicates any tenancy changes to the void energy management service.