Clarion Housing Association Limited (202125676)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125676

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 April 2023


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 concerns:
    1. How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns relating to the communal electricity in the building being suppled from the resident’s meter.
    2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building. The building does not have a separate electric meter for the communal areas and the communal electrics are connected to the meter in the resident’s property. As part of the tenancy agreement, the resident receives a weekly credit to cover this additional usage.
  2. Since at least July 2019 the resident has informed the landlord of his concerns relating to his electric costs. He noted that he was aware he was paid a credit for the use of communal lighting, but he was not sure if this also covered the use of fire alarms and doorbells. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on his behalf on 7 May 2021. The solicitor asked the landlord whether the meter was correctly recording the electric usage or if it was faulty, what the outcomes of its inspections of the meter and electric in the building were, whether the resident would be properly reimbursed for the communal electric usage and what plans it had in place for the communal electrics moving forward. The Solicitor wrote against on 10 September 2021 and asked the landlord to open a formal complaint into the matter as it had not received a response to its original letter.
  3. The landlord opened a formal complaint on 10 September 2021, sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 October 2021, and (following the intervention of this Service) sent a stage two complaint response on 22 April 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
    1. Explained that the building was a Victorian house converted into flats in the 1970s and that conversions of this type normally did not have a separate electric meter for the communal electrics, which were run off the electrics of one of the flats. The landlord further explained that the tenancy agreement signed by the resident in June 2006 provided a 90p per week credit, known as a lighting credit, in recognition of this extra usage. Up to November 2019 this was paid to the resident through a secondary account. From April 2021 onwards, this was not possible due to changes in the landlord computer system and the credit (which now stood at £1.39 per week) was paid as a rent abetment on the resident’s rent account.
    2. Noted that it was contacted by the resident following an increase in his electricity bills from the summer of 2019 which he believed was a result of the communal electric usage. The landlord noted that around this time as part of safety improvements, interlinked fire alarms, smoke detectors and emergency lighting had been installed in the building. An inspection was undertaken in October 2019 that confirmed the resident’s meter covered communal electrics and recommended a further technical inspection to determine if a separate communal meter could be installed. The inspection also recommended several minor repairs to the electrics in the building to upgrade and connect the earthing wire and to replace the fuse box.
    3. Stated that it was not clear if the recommended work had been completed. The landlord apologised to the resident for this poor service and accepted that it had not properly investigated or kept him updated on the status of the electrics in the building. The landlord also explained that the meter in the resident’s property was the responsibility of his utility provider and advised the resident to contact his provider if he thought the meter was faulty.
    4. Stated that following the complaint being opened, it arranged a visit to the building on 7 October 2021 where its staff member took videos of the communal areas. It explained that during this visit a standard form should be completed by the staff member, added to its system and an update then provided to the resident on its findings. This did not happen in this case and the landlord apologised for the further delay and inconvenience this oversight caused.
    5. Explained that its fire safety team had informed it that the costs of running the lights are £21.60 per light per year and the costs of running smoke detectors are £1.13 per year. This would result annual costs of £68.19 per year, which was under the £72 per year lighting credit paid to the resident. The landlord then informed the resident that if he believed that his energy costs had increased above this level he could provide copies of utility bills and it would look at the figures again. The landlord also advised the resident that he may have a separate “check meter” alongside his electric meter that tracks the communal electric usage and stated that if the resident could provide it with a photograph of his meter cupboard it would be able to confirm if a check meter was present.
    6. Offered the resident £525 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £50 for the delay in providing the stage one complaint response.
      2. £200 for the delay in providing the stage two complaint response.
      3. £75 for the delay in updating the resident on the 7 October appointment.
      4. £200 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication and having to chase the landlord for updates.
  4. On 9 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that following a review of his lighting credit, this would be increased to £2.10 per week for the upcoming financial year and it would pay the first six months of credit in advance.
  5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident explained that the outstanding issues of the complaint are that he had yet to receive any copies of the reports made by the landlord’s contractors following the inspections to the communal areas and he had not been given the opportunity to provide the landlord with evidence of the increase in his energy usage since the smoke detectors and emergency lighting was installed.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Page 4 of the tenancy agreement signed on 5 June 2006 sets out the weekly net rent charges that are payable by the resident. This includes a credit of 90p that covers the costs of communal electrics.
  2. Section 2 of the tenancy agreement’s terms and conditions relates to the landlord’s duties. Section 2.8 states that that the landlord has a duty to “keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and other common parts, including electric lighting in reasonable repair and fit for use by the Tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the Premises”.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress “for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act”. The policy’s remedies guidance categorises its payment levels at £50 to £250, £250 to £700, and over £700. The policy recommends a compensation award at the level of £250 to £700 in circumstances where there has been “considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the landlord suggests “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant” and “a complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and / or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for subcontracted services”.

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns relating to the community electricity in the building being suppled from the resident’s meter

  1. Once the landlord had been informed of the resident’s concerns that he was not being properly reimbursed the costs of communal electric usage, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord has accepted that it did not respond appropriately. It has acknowledged that the resident received poor communication when he raised the matter and that he was not informed of the results of its inspections at the time they were undertaken and due to its poor record keeping it was unable to provide this information during the complaint process.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation for its service failures and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £275 compensation (excluding the £250 compensation it offered for failures in complaint handling which are considered in more detail below). It looked to improve its service by taking steps to ensure that its operatives properly recorded their inspections. The landlord has provided an internal email chain from April 2022 where it discussed a meeting it held relating to the inspection of the communal areas of the building and its failure to properly record the inspections and raise any necessary follow-on work. The emails state that manager responsible would ensure the correct steps were followed in the future. The landlord also wrote to the resident to provide information on how much lighting credit he was due and how it would be paid.
  3. The £275 compensation offered by the landlord was calculated in line with its policy and payment guidance detailed above. The payment is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the compensation offer by the landlord of £275 to recognise its poor communication, its poor record keeping and the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a formal complaint in order to receive information on the communal electrics and the lighting credit was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  4. The resident has requested copies of the reports following the inspection of the communal electrics and noted that he made this request to the contractor’s operatives at the time and was informed that any report would have to be provided by the landlord directly. The solicitor’s letter sent to the landlord on 10 September 2021 also requested that the resident receive copies of any inspection reports held by the landlord into this matter. Therefore, this request should have been responded to by the landlord in its complaint process. While no further compensation is warranted for this element of the complaint (the landlord has already acknowledged its poor communication and recorded keeping and offered compensation) it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with any information and reports it holds relating to the inspections of the communal areas undertaken since 2019.
  5. The resident has also expressed his dissatisfaction that he has been unable to provide the landlord with evidence of an increase in electric usage since the smoke detectors and emergency lighting was install in the communal areas. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord would be expected to cover any expenses accrued by the resident as a result of its service failure. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord provided information to the resident about check meters. It explained that if one was present it in his meter cupboard it would likely be recording the communal electric usage and it would be able to determine if the communal usage costs was higher than the lighting credit provided. From this meter. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to request any evidence he has for the increase in electric usage, such as utility bills and the presence of a check meter. It should then determine if the lighting credit is covering this usage and write back to the resident to explain its findings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 10 September 2021 and requested to raise a formal complaint. A stage one complaint response was then sent to the resident on 5 October 2021: eight working days outside of its ten working days target. The resident’s solicitor wrote again on 20 October 2021 requesting an escalation of the complaint. A stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 April 2022:  109 working days outside of its 20 working days target. Moreover, it took the intervention of this Service, who wrote to the landlord on numerous occasions, before the complaint was escalated and a stage two response provided.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and offer compensation as there had been clear inconvenience caused to the resident in the delays he experienced and in having to seek the intervention of both his solicitor and this service in order to progress the complaint. The £250 compensation offered by the landlord was made in line with both its and this Service’s remedies guidance detailed above and therefore represents reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.
  3. The internal correspondence provided by the landlord shows that when it received the various requests from this Service, the resident and his solicitor to escalate the complaint that these were acknowledged internally and passed on to the relevant team. However, no action was taken. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord review the current procedures it has in place to ensure that complaint escalation requests are being properly actioned.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint in respect of:
    1. How it handled the resident’s concerns relating to the community electricity in the building being suppled from the resident’s meter.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord write to the resident and provide all information and reports it holds for the inspections undertaken to the communal areas of the building since 2019, when the resident first raised his concerns. This should be provided within four weeks of the date of this report.
    2. As the findings of reasonable redress were based on the landlord’s offer of £525 compensation, this should now be paid to the resident if the landlord has not done so already.
    3. The landlord write to the resident to request any evidence he has for the increase in electric usage, such as utility bills and the presence of a check meter. It should then determine if the lighting credit is covering this usage and write back to the resident to explain its findings.
    4. The landlord review the current procedures it has in place to ensure that complaint escalation requests are being properly actioned.