From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Concept Housing Association CIC (202346982)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346982

Concept Housing Association CIC

16 September 2025

 

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Excessive electricity payments.
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident had a licence for supported accommodation provided by the housing association landlord from 2021. The property is a self-contained flat, powered solely by electricity and heated by storage heaters. The resident no longer lives in the property.
  2. On 8 November 2023 the resident told the landlord she was frightened she was using too much electricity. The landlord replied and said her usage was low and she had been spending around £4 a day. It referred her to a local organisation for financial support with electricity costs.
  3. The resident reiterated her concerns on 21 December 2023. She asked the landlord to check her storage heaters were working properly. The landlord inspected them the following day and arranged for them to be replaced on 3 January 2024.
  4. On 5 January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould around the window. The landlord visited and noted the property was very warm. It advised her to reduce the temperature on the storage heater and turn off all the electricity switches she was not using.
  5. The landlord reiterated this caution on 9 January 2024. Also that day, the resident’s bank contacted the landlord as they were concerned the resident had spent £250 in 30 days (on electricity). The landlord spoke with the electricity provider which said the payments were in line with the resident’s described energy usage.
  6. The landlord treated the damp and mould on 17 January 2024.
  7. The resident complained about excessive electricity costs on 1 February 2024. She said they caused severe distress and she was spending £450 a month, despite being out all day. She said the landlord’s inaction had caused her financial loss and she stayed with friends as she could not afford electricity. She said she used her storage heater between 6pm and 11pm and her reports of damp and mould had been dismissed.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 March 2024 said the resident’s bills were high as her storage heaters were on all day. It described the property as a ‘sauna’ in terms of heat and humidity. It said it had offered the resident an extra duvet, budgeting support and another property, all of which had been declined. It said it had checked the electricity meter, replaced the storage heater and exhausted all options to help her.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. She said she declined budgeting advice as she disagreed her electricity usage was the cause of high payments. She asked for a refund of any excess payments and accurate usage figures. She said someone had viewed damp patches on 8 March 2024.
  10. The landlord attached detailed information about the resident’s electricity use and payments in its stage 2 response of 17 September 2024. It said it had analysed it and found the resident:
    1. Paid £2,760 for electricity between December 2021 and September 2024.
    2. Used significantly less electricity in spring and summer.
    3. Paid £275 in January 2024 when her usage peaked.
    4. Paid an average of £60 a month between 3 April to 3 September 2024 and this was not excessive.
  11. It said it had resolved the mould reported in January 2024 and advised the resident how to prevent it. It acknowledged a delay replying to the complaint and awarded £100 for this.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the reports of excessive electricity costs

  1. The resident has expressed concern about high electricity costs since 2022, but we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint until 1 February 2024. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from November 2023 onwards, which were addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
  2. It is positive the landlord took the resident’s concerns of 8 November 2023 seriously and checked her electricity usage to determine if it was excessive. Its referral to support for financial assistance was appropriate, given the resident was concerned about her spending.
  3. The landlord also acted reasonably following the resident’s report of 21 December 2023, by arranging to inspect her storage heater the following day. This was in line with its repair policy which says it will attend repairs that put the health and safety of residents at risk within 24 hours. It says full repairs will be carried out where possible but, if not, a new appointment will be made. The landlord went on to replace the storage heaters within 6 working days which was reasonable.
  4. However, the landlord’s responses of 5 and 9 January 2024 were unsympathetic and inappropriate. It should not have told the resident to reduce the temperature in the property, without an appropriate investigation as to whether it was excessively high. Previous enquiries had shown the resident was not using an excessive amount of electricity, but the responses inferred she was. Again, this was inappropriate.
  5. It is positive the landlord offered alternative accommodation on 16 January 2024. We would not expect it to do so in these circumstances. This shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously, offering over and above what was reasonable. Records show the resident declined the offer as she felt safe in the property and preferred the view. The landlord also offered a duvet on several occasions which was appropriate, given the resident said she was cold.
  6. The crux of the stage 1 complaint was the resident’s belief she was spending up to £450 a month on electricity. However, the landlord has provided a copy of her electricity statement which does not support this. This shows she credited £175 and £275 in the winter months of December 2023 and January 2024 respectively. The resident has also provided bank statements for these 2 months which correlate with the electricity credits (albeit a credit of 31 January 2024, did not leave her account until 1 February 2024).
  7. Although the resident complained she needed to stay with friends because she could not afford electricity, her bank statements do not support this. She first reported this on 22 January 2024 but, as of 23 January 2024, her bank statements showed a balance of £1,775.80. The statements also do not show she had been spending £25 on electricity every other day.
  8. That being said, the landlord’s stage 1 response was again unsympathetic. It should have investigated the resident’s electricity usage and established if it was excessive before inferring that it was. Its assumption that she was using too much electricity appeared to be based on anecdotal evidence from a previous visit. We have also not seen evidence the landlord had checked the meter at that point.
  9. It is positive the landlord did make further enquiries before providing its stage 2 response. It obtained a ‘MeterPay’ statement of 16 July 2024. The landlord explained the data and that it contradicted the resident’s claim she was spending £450 a month and topping up £25 every other day.
  10. The landlord said the resident’s electricity consumption in the month of January over the last 3 years was higher than they would expect. It said records showed she consumed a lot of electricity overnight which was consistent with her heating the property at nighttime. The landlord also explained there was a seasonal difference between consumption. It is reasonable to expect electricity costs will increase during winter months when temperatures drop. The landlord’s explanation was appropriate to help the resident understand why her costs increased in winter months.
  11. Again, the landlord provided advice on how the resident could reduce her consumption. This was appropriate, now it had an accurate reflection of her usage. It said she paid £60 a month between 3 April and 3 September 2024 (during warmer months) and this was not excessive. It said the electricity prices were outside of its control and there was no evidence they were excessive.
  12. Overall, the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns that her electricity costs were too high reasonably and appropriately. It established her usage, replaced storage heaters, referred her to appropriate support, gave advice on reducing electricity costs and offered an alternative property and duvets. While the resident believes she was spending £450 a month on electricity each month, the evidence does not support this. Records show she spent significantly less, even in peak months. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was spending an excessive amount on electricity.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 5 January 2024, the landlord inspected the property that day. It then arranged for the mould to be treated on 17 January 2024. We have seen the before and after pictures of that day showing the mould around the window was remedied.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says it will carry out non-emergency repairs (such as this) within 10 working days. The landlord treated the mould within 9 working days of it being reported. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
  3. However, within the stage 2 escalation, the resident said she had shown a Visiting Officer damp patches on 8 March 2024. We have not been provided with details of this visit or whether the resident had formally reported the issue at that time. Nevertheless, the landlord should have acted on this information and established if there was damp in the property, remedying it if appropriate. There is no evidence it did.
  4. Further, it did not address this issue in the stage 2 response, other than to comment on the previous repair and to say the resident’s lifestyle may be contributing to damp. This was a failing. Our Spotlight Report on this issue says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Had the landlord done so and investigated whether there was damp and mould once it was put on notice, it may have avoided this failing.
  5. We therefore find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We order it to apologise and pay £100 compensation for its failures dealing with her reports of damp and mould. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive electricity payments.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 previously offered for its complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made based on this being paid.