We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Newham (202420997)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420997

London Borough of Newham

28 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. Collection of water charges on behalf of Thames Water.
  2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in March 2009. The landlord has a record that the resident has a mobility impairment and a visual impairment.
  2. From the start of the tenancy until 31 March 2021 the landlord had an agreement with Thames Water for the supply of water to its properties. Under the agreement, the landlord collected water charges on Thames Water’s behalf at the same time as collecting rent from its tenants. The landlord’s records indicate that Thames Water calculated each bill and the landlord collected this from tenants within its rent payments framework.
  3. On 15 March 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, saying she had been over-charged for water. She asked the landlord to calculate the water charges she should have paid and refund any excess.
  4. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 12 April 2022. It said its rent services team were looking into the water charges paid by all tenants and would respond separately.
  5. Between August and October 2022 the resident corresponded with the landlord about the water charges. She said Thames Water were charging her less than she had paid to the landlord as she was on a lower tariff due to having a disability. She asked the landlord to respond to her request that it recalculate the water charges she had paid it, and refund any excess.
  6. On or around 20 February 2024 the resident made a new complaint to the landlord. She said she was supposed to have been on a lower water tariff during the time the landlord collected the water charge, and the landlord had not responded to her queries about this.
  7. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 8 April 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said during the time it had collected water charges on behalf of Thames Water, Thames Water set the water charges, and it was not aware of any special arrangements for lower water charges for vulnerable residents, or those with medical conditions. It advised the resident to contact Thames Water if she had any further queries.
  8. The landlord gave a stage 2 response on 13 May 2024. It said it “partially upheld” the complaint. It apologised for not responding to her correspondence in October 2022, and for delays in complaint handling. However, it said it was not aware of any special arrangements regarding lower water charges for residents with special medical conditions or vulnerabilities. Thames Water had set the water charges during the time the landlord collected them. It advised the resident to contact Thames Water with any further queries. It offered a total of £150 compensation in relation to communication and complaint handling.
  9. On 14 May 2024 the resident told the landlord Thames Water had told her the landlord had set the water rates during the time it collected them.
  10. On 28 August 2024 the resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  11. On 3 March 2025 the landlord refunded the resident £497.52 for the commission Thames Water had paid the council (minus an allowable administration fee of 1.5p per day), during the time it collected the water charges.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern terms and operation of a commercial/contractual relationship not connected to application for, or occupation of property for residential purposes.
  3. Therefore, after careful consideration, it has been determined that the landlord’s handling of collection of water charges on behalf of Thames Water is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days, and respond in full within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The policy allows an extension of further a 10 working days with good reason. In this case the landlord will explain the reason for the extension to the resident, and provide the contact details for the Ombudsman.
  2. The policy says the landlord will log and acknowledge requests to escalate to stage 2 of the procedure within 5 working days, and respond in full within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If extra time is needed the landlord will explain the reason for the extension to the resident, and provide the contact details for the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s 20 February 2024 complaint on 27 February 2024, within the 5 working days required by its policy. However, it did not provide a response until 28 working days after acknowledgement, in breach of its policy timescale. Furthermore, it had not previously contacted the resident regarding an extension, as required.
  4. The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s 8 April 2024 request to escalate the complaint on the same day. However, it did not provide a response until 24 working days after acknowledgement, in breach of its policy timescale. Again, it had not previously contacted the resident regarding an extension.
  5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the complaint handling delays as part of its stage 2 response. It offered compensation of £50 for the delays at stage 1, and £50 for the compensation at stage 2. This was appropriate.
  6. The landlord also apologised, as part of the stage 2 response, for not responding to the resident’s 26 October 2022 email to it. It offered £50 compensation for this. This was appropriate.
  7. At both stage 1 and stage 2 the landlord clearly explained the reason for its decision not to refund any of the water charges the resident had paid. This was that Thames Water had set the water charges and not the landlord. The landlord had not been aware of any special arrangements for vulnerable residents.
  8. The resident has provided this Service with a copy of an email she received from Thames Water dated 14 July 2022, which stated: “When Newham Council were billing on our behalf, they were the ones billing their tenants. As such, they would be responsible for applying any discounts.” We appreciate the resident’s frustration with the apparently conflicting statements from the landlord and Thames Water. However, it is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate and account for this apparent disparity.
  9. There is no evidence that the resident forwarded the email from Thames Water to the landlord. While the resident told the landlord on 14 May 2024 that that Thames Water had told her the landlord had set the water rates, and she had this in writing, this was after the landlord had already provided its stage 2 response. It therefore would not have been reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to the statement from Thames Water as part of its complaint investigation.
  10. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers any failings identified as part of our investigation, the extent to which the landlord has acknowledged these, and the appropriateness of any steps it has taken to offer redress. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  11. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for delays in its handling of the complaint, and for not responding to the resident’s 26 October 2022 email to it. It also demonstrated it had learned from the complaint, by telling the resident as part of the stage 2 response that it had a program of training on complaints handling for all staff in housing to ensure it complied with complaints timescales. The landlord also made a suitable award of compensation. The Ombudsman has, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint as the landlord has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.g. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of collection of water charges on behalf of Thames Water is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. There was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.