Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202424830)

Background

1. After a repair on 18 March 2024 the resident queried the pre‑pay heating system. The landlord sent some information on 11 April 2024, but the resident then complained as he was concerned about the payments requested. After the landlord completed the complaint process, the resident asked us to review the outcome. He remained unhappy with the explanation of the pre‑pay system, the charges, and why he could not use the immersion heater in his property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to queries regarding communal heating and the pre-pay system.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to queries about communal heating and the pre-pay system.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The key issue is whether the landlord could charge for the pre‑payment system through the service charge. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to pay a variable service charge, which allows the landlord to recover costs for services to the home and shared areas. As the building uses a communal, landlord‑managed heating and hot water system, the “Heating/Hot Water Prepay Facility” charge in the final accounts falls within the agreement. The resident can access the prepay system, so it was reasonable for the landlord to include it in the service charge.
5. In its complaint responses in June 2024 and September 2024 the landlord explained why it could apply the charge and what it covered. It provided supporting documents, including the annual itemised breakdown, and sent these to the resident. These actions were reasonable and its explanation of entitlement to make the charge was clear.
6. On 11 April 2024 the landlord gave written answers about the pre‑payment system. It told the resident that the prepay company owned equipment on the roof that heated communal water. At stage 2 it corrected this, explaining the company did not own any heating or hot water equipment and only managed payments. This contradiction caused confusion and some inconvenience.
7. In the same 11 April 2024 email the landlord said the resident could use either the communal pre‑pay system or the immersion heater in his property. It repeated at stage 2 that the immersion heater was available. However, in its response to us the landlord clarified that the immersion heater could not be used. It said most units in the block were not connected to the electrical supply and had no working heating elements. It said making the immersion heater usable would require major electrical upgrades, be intrusive, and would only provide hot water, not heating. It also said this would not be cost‑effective.
8. This incorrect and unclear information was a failure. The resident was led to believe a viable alternative existed when it did not. This caused some distress and inconvenience. He was left unsure why he could not use his immersion heater and has told us he has lost trust in the landlord’s handling of the issue.
9. Considering all circumstances, we order the landlord to pay £150 compensation in addition to any sums already paid. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused, while noting there was no lasting impact. Even if the landlord had provided accurate information from the start, the resident would still have been required to pay the service charge under the tenancy and would not have been able to use the immersion heater.

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.