Clarion Housing Association Limited (202342974)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block where the electricity meter for her property is located inside another flat in the same building. She did not have access to the meter when she moved in. This meant she could not set up or manage her electricity supply. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her request to access and move the meter.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. the residents request to access her electric meter
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to access her electric meter.
4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request to access electric meter

5. The landlord did not take a coordinated approach to managing access to the electricity meter, despite controlling access within the building. It did not set out a clear or reliable arrangement for the resident to access and manage her electricity supply. This left the resident unable to effectively control an essential service.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged delays and offered compensation which was proportionate to the impact of the complaint handling failure.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

7. We have not made a finding on the resident’s energy charges or whether her bills are correct. These matters sit with the energy supplier. We recognise the resident’s concern about higher charges is linked to not being able to access the meter. We have considered how the landlord responded to this impact.

What we have looked at

8. The meter for the resident’s property is located inside another flat, and she cannot access it. This limits her ability to take readings, set up an account, and manage her electricity use. In the circumstances, this arrangement was not reasonable, as it did not allow the resident to access or manage her electricity supply in practice. The landlord said the electrical system was working before the tenancy started. However, this does not demonstrate the supply was reasonably usable.
9. The resident asked the landlord to move the meter to an accessible location. She said the current set up meant she could not monitor or control her electricity use. She also said this issue had been present from the start of the tenancy. She said she would not have accepted the property if she had known.
10. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep installations for the supply of electricity in working order. In our view, this includes ensuring the supply is reasonably usable in practice. While the landlord was not responsible for relocating the meter, it retained control over access within the building. In the circumstances, it needed to take reasonable steps to ensure the resident could access and manage the electricity supply. This included putting in place a clear and reliable arrangement for access and supporting the resident where third‑party involvement was required. The landlord did not demonstrate that it did this. It did not establish a consistent access arrangement or take a coordinated approach with the resident and her energy supplier.
11. The landlord’s records show it knew from the start of the tenancy that the resident could not access the meter or set up her supply. The records also show the meter was not checked during the void process. The landlord did not take sufficient steps to ensure the property was ready for occupation. This meant the resident could not use an essential service at the start of the tenancy.
12. At stage 1, the landlord accepted the meter was in another flat and that access had been an issue. It arranged a meter reading but said it could not move the meter until the neighbouring flat became empty. It said the resident should arrange any move of the meter through her supplier. However, it did not explain how the resident could access the meter on an ongoing basis or how it would support this in practice.
13. The landlord offered an apology and compensation. However, it did not fully address the resident’s circumstances. The resident said she could not access the meter, set up a supply, and had vulnerabilities. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether additional support or a more proactive response was required.
14. The stage 1 response did not address a key barrier. The resident said her supplier required the landlord to arrange and approve any relocation. The landlord said this was the resident’s responsibility but did not explain how she could progress this.
15. At stage 2, the landlord accepted the resident could not properly use the electricity supply at the start of her tenancy and offered more compensation. It said it would give consent for a meter move but still told the resident to arrange this with her supplier. This clarified the landlord’s position, but its approach remained reactive. It continued to expect the resident to act, despite access depending on the landlord and the supplier requiring its involvement. The landlord did not demonstrate how it had addressed this barrier.
16. The landlord suggested the resident could arrange to move the meter during a period when the neighbouring property was empty and offered temporary access. These steps did not provide a reliable or lasting solution. Access depended on another property being empty, which was outside the resident’s control and uncertain in timing. Temporary arrangements also did not provide consistent or on‑demand access. The resident also explained that her energy supplier required the landlord’s involvement and consent to progress any relocation. This meant she could not arrange the works independently. In addition, relocation could involve costs, which may not have been reasonable for the resident to bear in the circumstances.
17. n the circumstances, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to resolve the issue. While it did not need to relocate the meter itself, it was reasonable to ensure the resident could access and use the electricity supply. This required a coordinated approach and a clear plan for access, which was not provided.
18. The landlord gave inconsistent advice, did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and did not take ownership of the issue. While it took some steps, these did not resolve the problem. This caused ongoing inconvenience and uncertainty.
19. There is no clear evidence the issue has been resolved. Without reliable access or coordinated action, the problem has continued. The landlord offered £100 at stage 1, £760.68 at stage 2, and £50 for complaint handling delays. This recognised the loss of use of the electricity supply at the start of the tenancy. However, it did not fully address the ongoing impact of limited access. The resident continued to experience uncertainty and a lack of control. We have therefore ordered an additional £150 to reflect this.

20. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Under its policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. These timescales may be extended for complex cases, but the landlord must explain the reason for the delay and provide a clear revised date, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
21. The resident made a complaint on 12 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2024. This was outside the timescale set out in its policy. There is no evidence the landlord agreed an extension with the resident.
22. The resident requested escalation on 3 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day. The landlord later extended its response deadline to 14 February 2024 which was appropriate as it communicated a revised timeframe. However, it issued its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 after the extended deadline had passed.
23. The landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 1 response and offered £100 compensation. At stage 2, it offered a further £50 for complaint handling delays. This shows the landlord recognised that its complaint handling did not fully meet its policy requirements. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process. However, the landlord acknowledged these failings and offered compensation in line with its policy.

Learning

24. Clearer ownership of cases would support faster resolution where multiple teams are involved. Early identification of practical barriers, such as access and third‑party involvement, would help avoid delays. Recording and responding to vulnerabilities at the outset would support a more tailored approach to service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Maintaining clear and consistent records of actions and decisions would improve oversight and case progression. Recording a defined plan with next steps would support coordination across teams. Accurate records of property arrangements, such as meter locations, would reduce uncertainty in decision making.

Communication

26. Providing consistent information on responsibility and next steps would reduce confusion for residents. Clearly explaining how issues will be resolved, including any dependencies, would support resident understanding. Setting out agreed actions and responsibilities in communications would help manage expectations and progress.