London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202402636)

Decision
Case ID	202402636
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. The landlord previously had an arrangement with a water company in that in exchange for commission, it would collect and forward residents’ payments for water services. This was collected alongside rent. Following a court ruling involving another landlord in 2016, the landlord changed its position and agreed to repay the commission received to residents. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord has administered this payment.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The refund of the water commission to the resident.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refund of the water commission to the resident.
4. We have found no maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the refund of the water commission to the resident

5. The landlord explained the basis for the refund amount both before and during the complaints process. Its explanation was clear and consistent with the tenancy terms and the amount refunded was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (The Code).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 March 2024	The resident raised a complaint as she was unhappy that she did not receive the full water commission rebate when her refund was issued.
18 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It received her rent refund application on 15 February 2024 for £450. As part of the process, it needed to consider the obligations in the tenancy agreement, relating to rent. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that rent is due in advance every Monday. The refund calculation carried out, reflected the rent direct debit on 15th of the month. Its calculation was based on the credit on her rent account for week 46 of the financial year where there was £342.65 credit on the account. The weekly rent at the time was £132.69. Deducting a week’s rent from this gave a maximum allowed refund of £209.65. This ensured that prior to the direct debit, her rent account was in credit for a week’s rent. It calculated if there was an additional refund that could be credited to the resident before the next payment on 15 April. But found there was insufficient credit to do this. In conclusion, it had investigated the complaint in full and found it had acted correctly.
18 and 19 March 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said: She felt this was extra money that should have been separate from her rent account. The landlord had made it sound like she was behind on rent. She understood her tenancy agreement and the extra credit had no relevance with the rent balance. She would take the landlord to court for lying.
10 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It reaffirmed its position in its stage 1 complaint response. It wrote to the residents and explained it would be crediting rent accounts with commission that it received for charging water rates from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2020. The commission was not for overpaid water rates from residents. It had noticed a typo in the month when projecting the future payments and apologised. It did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she does not agree with how the landlord refunded this money and wants the full amount.

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	The landlord’s handling of the refund of the water commission to the resident
Finding	No maladministration

7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 January 2024. It explained that it had credited her rent account with £449.39 on 28 January 2024, following the repayment of water commissions. This brought her balance to £740.72 in credit. The landlord said that if the rent account held sufficient credit, the resident could apply to have part of the balance paid into her bank account.
8. The landlord also appropriately explained that under the tenancy agreement, the resident must always keep her rent account at least one week in credit. It said that before making any refund, it would first deduct any debts owed to other council departments. This communication set clear expectations about how any refund would be calculated and the conditions that needed to be met.
9. The tenancy agreement explains the resident’s obligations with rent. Specifying that a tenant is required “to pay the weekly rent and other charges as heating, water rates, and so forth by way of additional rent, regularly and promptly without making any deduction or set off for any reason whatever. Rent is due every Monday. Any payments will be firstly applied to any current weekly charges and then to any current arrears pertaining to these charges.” Therefore, demonstrating that calculations for any refund made, had to consider these responsibilities.
10. On 15 February 2024, the resident provided the landlord with her bank details and asked for a refund of £450 from the additional credit in her rent account. She received a refund of £209.96 on 8 March 2024 and so questioned why she did not get the full amount.
11. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord provided a clear explanation as to why some of the money would be held on the rent account.
12. The resident raised a complaint because she remained dissatisfied with this explanation. In its complaint response, the landlord reiterated its position and provided a copy of the tenancy agreement. It directed the resident to sections that set out her responsibilities to pay rent and maintain sufficient credit on the account.
13. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, it is good practice for a landlord to ensure that it has preventative measures in place to prevent resident’s from falling into rent arrears. We note that the resident was not in arrears, and there was no suggestion from the landlord that this was the case. However, it was overall reasonable for it to ensure that when refunding the resident, her rent account remained in credit.
14. The landlord explained the basis for the refund amount both before and during the complaints process. We find that its explanation was clear and consistent with the tenancy terms.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (The Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
16. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement response on time as well as its stage 1 complaint response, which was consistent with the Code. However, when the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord told her to contact a different department. There is no evidence it caused any detriment but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to pass on her email to the relevant team, rather than have her email again. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s overall handling. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the escalation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. There is evidence of good record-keeping in this case especially around how the landlord calculated the refund.

Communication

18. The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear and thorough throughout the complaint.

Complaint handling

19. Under 3.2 of the Code, residents must be able to raise their complaints in any way and with any member of staff. However, when the resident first escalated her complaint, she was told to contact a different department. This may be an area where the landlord could improve its complaint handling.