Newcastle City Council (202302767)

Decision
Case ID	202302767
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Newcastle City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	08 December 2025

Background

The resident moved into the flat in January 2023. The landlord operates a district heating system. The resident pays the landlord for his heating and hot water through weekly charges. The resident raised a complaint concerning a number of issues about the district heating charges and the landlord’s communication.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to queries about the heating system and charges.
2. Communication with the resident.
3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to queries about the heating system and charges.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

There were elements of the resident’s queries about the heating system and charges that the landlord did not fully respond to.
The landlord evidenced clear responses to the resident’s queries and was communicative with him during the complaint process.
There was a lack of attention to detail in the landlord’s complaint handling responses, including its initial refusal to accept the complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £125. This has been calculated as: £75 for the service failure in the landlord’s response to request for information about the heating system and charges. £50 for the service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

15 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £125. This has been calculated as:

£75 for the service failure in the landlord’s response to request for information about the heating system and charges.
£50 for the service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

15 January 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations
For the landlord to explain to the resident what makes the low rate energy a lower rate.
For the landlord to clarify whether it offers refunds after the end of financial year reconciliation or whether only offers to reimburse by adjusting future payments.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2024	The resident raised a complaint after an employee told him on 22 February 2024 the district heating charges were not increasing. He then received a letter which stated they were. The resident said the letter was misleading as it suggested he paid for water charges. The resident reminded the landlord he had complained about the letter in the previous year, and it should not be happening again. The resident asked the landlord to get back to him in 48 hours.
27 February 2024	The resident received an internal landlord email, we believe this was sent in error. This said, “speak to me before doing anything with this one please.”
27 February 2024	The employee who had said the charges were not increasing tried to call the resident. When there was no answer, he sent an email. He did say the energy charge was not increasing, but the infrastructure charge was subject to an annual increase, of 30p per week. He confirmed the letter cited a water charge, but this showed as £0 for the resident.
27 February 2024	The resident replied that he recalled the landlord telling him his charges would remain at £22.80pcm. He could not afford any more and believed it misled him. It needed to simplify the letter. The resident complained about waiting 10 days for a response, he believed it should be 48 hours.
29 February 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident it said in line with its complaints policy it would not formally investigate. This was because the charges had increased in line with government guidelines and its cabinet decision.
29 February 2024	The resident said it was a frustrating response, the landlord had ignored everything he raised, except the heating charge. He highlighted the reasons why it should accept his complaint.
12 March 2024	The landlord contacted the resident as it needed longer to provide its stage 1 response. It would do this by 27 March 2024.
21 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It had spoken with the resident twice and identified that the main resolution the resident wanted was clarification on the heating charges. We have listed the landlord’s responses to each complaint point: Poor communication and the resident feeling misled. The landlord advised it was correct to say the energy costs were not increasing. It was the energy infrastructure costs that increased. The landlord provided details of agencies if the resident was in financial difficulties. The letter referred to water as a standard, but as it did not include a figure, it would not charge the resident. It confirmed it had reviewed the letter and found it was fit for purpose. He was made to feel unimportant and not valued. The landlord apologised but could not find evidence of this. He wanted the landlord to impartially investigate the complaint. The letter writer confirmed they were an impartial investigator. A specific team’s communication was unacceptable, and the 10-day response time was not appropriate. The landlord believed the response time was appropriate. It apologised for excessive contact centre delays and then the specific team not being available. A staff member did not have a direct phone number or email address. The landlord noted the staff member had given the resident their telephone number and it gave the resident his email address. The specific team did not have a direct phone number with long wait times from the contact centre. It was sorry for delays. Many teams use the contact centre, but it reviews this, and it would pass his comments to the reviewing group. Incorrect mobile telephone numbers on emails. The landlord was satisfied it had explained this to the resident. Residents may not be able to speak to its employees if they are in meetings or on leave. People can use the team email address. No automated email acknowledgements from some staff. The landlord was satisfied its team always used the out of office notification when they were away. If someone emails more than once, they may not get the notification again. The letter did not give enough notice for residents to budget. The landlord said it believed it gave reasonable time. Poor and misleading statement letters which the resident complained about last year and nothing had improved. It reviewed the letters and believed they were fit for purpose. It asked the resident for any specific suggestions for improvement. The resident felt this needed investigating by an Associate Director. The landlord gave the ‘next steps’ guidance if he was dissatisfied. The resident believed the landlord was happy to increase charges but not to communicate with residents. The landlord was satisfied it was willing to help him by the evidence the resident provided. There was a delay while an employee was on leave, however the out of office was on during this time. The resident believed he may have more success contacting his Member of Parliament (MP). The landlord said the resident was free to go to his MP. The resident did not get automated acknowledgements from emails to an employee. The landlord referred to its previous answer about the out of office. The resident left a voicemail on an employee’s landline as their mobile number did not work. The landlord said phone numbers have voicemail options. The mobile number works, but the resident may have used an old number. A letter dated 9 February 2024 said the resident was £43.21 in credit. The account balance is the difference between charges raised and payments made. The statement balance is the difference between charges applied to the account and the cost of the heat and hot water. It, and stakeholders had reviewed these documents. The resident said if the landlord had incorrectly charged over the last year and there was a shortfall, he will look to take legal action. The landlord believed it was charging the resident correctly. The resident had proof he was on the lowest rate as a low user. Based on consumption the resident is on a very low heating charge. The resident submitted a meter reading and did not get a response. He believed it was wrong he could not do this until 31 March 2024. The landlord needs meter readings at the end of the financial year (31 March 2024). The meter should always be on, to avoid estimates. The resident believed his charge would remain at the same level. The landlord will review this in April/May 2024. The landlord had told the resident he was in debt, possibly due to underpaying or not paying the correct amount. The landlord said there were times when his account was in arrears. The landlord included a district heating leaflet.
25 March 2024	The resident was deeply unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said: What happened after he submits his meter reading. He found the landlord had little empathy for the fact he had not been living there long, its bill explanation was some of the worst he had experienced. When he sought help, he experienced barriers. He asked the landlord to keep open his case until after 31 March as he did not think things will be clearer after he submitted his readings. The landlord had not explained why he cannot give a reading until 31 March 2024, while he had to keep his meter switched on so the landlord could take remote readings. This was a contradiction. He asked the landlord to look at everything including the lack of call recording when it used mobile phones to speak to him. He said there were inaccuracies he had not received an email with the employee’s work number and no out of office from the other employee. It was the landline that did not work, not the mobile. The specific team should record calls to show its customer service. He did not want to discuss his bill with the employee who said his charges were not increasing. As the landlord said it was happy with everything, he believed he would suffer similar contact problems. The contact centre was not fit for purpose with unacceptable wait times. In the resident’s opinion some internal policies and guidelines are not fit for purpose, so were not relevant when considering his complaint.
27 March 2024	The landlord said it would provide its final response by 23 April 2024.
18 April 2024	The landlord sent its final response after discussing the complaint with the resident. We have listed its responses to each complaint point: The resident wanted clarity regarding the heating charges: What happens after he submits his meter reading? The landlord reconciles the account in April. The resident should get a statement in May/June 2024. Why can he only give a meter reading annually? The landlord calculates the heating charge across the financial year. Why is the bill calculated annually? There is only a requirement to provide account balance statements once a year. Therefore, this is how the landlord does it. Why keep his meter on if readings are only taken once a year? The meters remotely transmit readings. If the resident turns off his meter it cannot transmit a reading. The landlord will see a 0, and it will have to use an estimated reading. Is he in credit or deficit? If credit he would like a refund. The meter accurately measures individual consumption. When someone moves in, the landlord uses averages to base its charges for the first year as it would not know their usage. Once it had the readings for a year, it bases charges on this. It reconciles meter readings in April, and actual bills are issued to residents to determine an under or overcharge. They will know if there has been a change in May/June time. If there is a credit on the account, this will be reimbursed to him. If a debit, the charges may go up. The landlord will send out the account balance. Is the resident still on the lowest rate, he believed the landlord was overcharging him for the heat and hot water he uses. The landlord confirmed he is on the lowest rate. This is 87p per day. Why is this low rate not communicated to other residents? Each account is on individual usage. The landlord cannot discuss or provide information about other accounts, so it cannot address this. The letter implied he had to pay for water when he does not. The landlord reviewed the letters and was happy they are fit for purpose. If someone is not liable for water charges, there is a £0. The resident believed the lack of recorded calls were against General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The landlord said the lack of recording was not a GDPR breach, but recording without informing people they are being recorded is. The resident did not believe the landlord addressed his difficulties contacting two employees. It said as a result of the complaint it had: Found the phone numbers on the emails were correct. Given the resident contact details for both employees. Set up an auto response for the team email address. Confirmed only one out of office notification would be received. Confirmed the 10-day response time was appropriate. Agreed with the resident he could speak to an alternative team about his bill and provided contact details for them. There was no direct dial telephone number for the specific team the resident wants, and the contact centre wait times are too long. It apologised for delays. By contacting the new team, the resident should not need to use the contact centre. The landlord did not provide an apology or explanation for why it blocked his complaint after the email dated 27 February 2024. The landlord said some of its staff job share and leave messages when handing over cases. This was not related to it refusing the resident’s initial complaint. This happened because it incorrectly believed the complaint only concerned a charge increase. It confirmed an employee had spoken to the resident and apologised and explained this error.
22 April 2024	The resident wanted the landlord to elaborate on its responses.
24 April 2024	The landlord said it had responded. If he had further issues, he could come to us or his MP.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us. He said the landlord refused to charge him for his actual meter readings. The landlord took an annual meter reading, then applied a lower rate. This was still higher than the energy he used so the landlord overcharged him. This was evidenced by a credit after the reconciliation. He sought the following resolutions: An apology for poor communications and misleading him on billing prices, leaving him in financial difficulties. The specific team should have a public phone number, so calls can be recorded and retrieved for training purposes. Address why there was such a difference in communications and customer service between teams. The landlord to change the heating letter to be clearer and provide more notice of financial increases. Find out if all low rate energy users are aware of the lower rates. The landlord to recalculate charges on actuals rather than estimates and to reconcile the meter so the resident has an accurate bill.

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 response to queries about the heating system and charges.
Finding	Service failure

In line with the Ombudsman’s Scheme, we may not investigate complaints which concern the level or amount of service charge increase. Therefore, this report will make no comment on the reasonableness, level, or calculations of the service charge increase. Rather, we will look at the landlord’s response to the resident and whether it provided an appropriate and reasonable explanation to satisfy that it acted appropriately.
Should the resident seek to challenge the reasonableness, level, or calculations of the service charges, he should obtain independent advice. The resident may wish to pursue this via the Courts or the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
The landlord said its employee was accurate when they told the resident the energy costs were remaining the same. We can recognise this was factually correct. However, the fact was the overall cost was increasing to the resident, whether this was due to infrastructure or energy costs. The landlord did not recognise the frustration caused by the discrepancy between what it told the resident and the letter he received. This was the catalyst for the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for not recognising that regardless of the reasons why, it was increasing the amount it was debiting from the resident’s account and for not recognising this through its complaint process.
In response to the resident saying he did not understand the heating charges, the landlord appropriately confirmed what happened when he submitted a meter reading, why he should only give a reading annually, on 31 March 2024 specifically, and that he was on the lowest rate. It also advised it calculated the bill only once a year as this was its legal requirement. It said it was not practical to charge on a weekly or monthly basis.
We note it is common practice for landlords to reconcile variable service charges annually. As such this is a reasonable approach from the landlord. We do not believe it is appropriate to make an order for the resident’s desired resolution for the landlord to recalculate the service charges on actual readings rather than estimates. This is because we believe the landlord does this annually. So, if the resident’s meter was on and/or he submitted a reading, the landlord will provide an accurate bill annually.
The resident queried why his meter must remain on if the landlord needs readings only once a year. The landlord advised these are transmitted remotely. If they are not on, it gives a 0 reading, the landlord would then use an estimated reading. We believe the landlord remotely reads the meter each quarter. We recognise the landlord and resident have agreed, for medical reasons, he does not need to keep his meter on constantly. The landlord agreed to inform the resident of dates when he should turn his meter on.
The resident wanted to know whether the landlord would refund if there was a credit on his account. In its final response letter, the landlord said if there was a credit it would reimburse this to the resident. In the paragraph that followed, it said any discrepancy between the annual amount it had charged a resident over the year, and the actual heating/hot water costs would be factored into the following year’s charge or applied to the account depending on the balance.
We believe this caused confusion for the resident as he continued to raise this query after the complaint period ended. He also complained to us, he had not received the refund, despite asking for it. The lease states for maintenance charges the landlord will adjust any overpayment by crediting against future payments due from the resident. We believe the landlord applies the same principle to heating charges. Therefore, when the landlord said it would reimburse the resident it meant it would adjust future payments, however we have made a recommendation for the landlord to clarify this point.
The resident asked the landlord why it had not communicated the low rate to other people in the block. The landlord said it could not provide information about other people’s accounts, and it would not address this part of the complaint. The resident did not ask the landlord to disclose other residents’ information. He asked why the landlord had not communicated the low rate to other lower rate users. The landlord should have explained the steps it takes to publicise this low rate, or if this was something residents had to query before it advised them about it.
In our conversation with the resident, it is clear there is still confusion around what the lower rate means. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to clarify what makes the low rate a lower rate. Is this based on the unit price per hour, or a lower charging bracket.
There were many elements to this complaint point. The landlord responded well in part, however, did not fully resolve them all despite engaging with the resident through the stage 1 response, subsequent emails, and the final response letter. As such we find a service failure in the landlord’s response to queries about the heating system and charges.
We have ordered the landlord provide a written apology for the omissions identified. We have also ordered the landlord to award £75 to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	The landlord’s communication with the resident.
Finding	No maladministration

In line with our Scheme, we may not investigate complaints which fall in the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Therefore, this report will make no comment on whether the landlord should record all telephone calls. This would be more appropriate for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to consider. Rather, we will look at the landlord’s response to the resident and whether it provided a reasonable explanation to satisfy that it acted appropriately.
We found the landlord considered the resident’s query and advised him that it enquired internally and was satisfied it acted in line with GDPR. It explained what did and did not fall in GDPR. Therefore, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation to the resident’s query. The resident may wish to seek further advice from the ICO. We cannot order the landlord to record all calls, which was a resolution the resident wanted.
The resident raised a query regarding the fact a specific team did not have a direct dial number. This meant he experienced long hold times with the landlord’s contact centre. The landlord apologised for any delays. It evidenced appropriate and resolution-focussed changes in response to the resident’s complaint when it:

Set up an auto response email for this specific team.
Provided the resident with the contact details of a separate team so he did not need to go through the contact centre. This was due to the other specific team being small and unable to resource answering the phones.

The resident raised concern over two employees not having out of office notifications on and incorrect phone numbers on emails. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for why he may not have seen the out of office notifications. It reviewed the contact details on the emails, and it was satisfied these were correct. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
The landlord was satisfied that a 10-day response to the resident’s query was appropriate. We agree that the landlord needs to manage its communications by having realistic response times in place. While recognising the resident wanted to have answers as soon as possible, we believe a 10-day response was appropriate.
The resident said he found the bill difficult to understand and the landlord’s explanation of it was not good. We appreciate the resident wanted a resolution for the landlord to give more notice of the charge changes and to alter the letter. The landlord gave the resident over a month’s notice of the change. We note the lease says the resident is to pay the landlord on demand the costs, therefore we will not alter this.
The landlord said, it and stakeholders had reviewed the letter, and it was happy with it. The letter mentions water charges, however if residents are not liable to pay them, these appear as £0 on the bill. This was an appropriate response, and we do not believe the landlord needs to further review the letter. However, we have seen the landlord advised the resident in a previous complaint that it would review the letter in time for next year. It would have been good customer service to illustrate why it did not carry out any changes.
We find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
The resident wanted us to address why there was such a difference between the landlord’s different teams. The resident did not raise this in his initial complaint or escalation request. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to respond to this. As such we cannot investigate this in the report.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord initially tried to deal with the complaint informally and responded the same day. This was a positive, prompt, and resolution-focused response.
The landlord said the email the resident received dated 27 February 2024 was a handover between job-sharing colleagues. It said this had no influence over its refusal, 2 days later, to investigate the complaint. We believe it is reasonable to accept this as we have not seen evidence the landlord was trying to block the resident’s complaint.
The landlord did not respond to this complaint point in its stage 1 response. However, it did in its final response letter. It confirmed a staff member had spoken to the resident and apologised and explained the error. We have not seen evidence of this but recognise the resident did not dispute this with us or the landlord.
The resident had to appeal to the landlord to explain his complaint points and outline why it should accept his complaint. While we recognise the landlord then opened a case, its lack of attention to detail led it to initially refuse the complaint. We can understand the frustration the resident expressed to the landlord in his appeal.
The landlord extended the time to provide its stage 1 response, this was in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord’s escalation letter said it would respond in 10 working days. It then gave a date which was 20 working days away, which was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, we believe this was a mistake. However, it illustrates a lack of attention to detail.
This lack of attention to detail continued with the incorrect date of the landlord’s final response letter. The landlord dated the letter 18 April 2023, not 2024. It also referred to phone calls held between the resident and landlord on 9 and 10 March, later referring to phone calls held on 9, 10, and 11 April. The March dates would have been prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to accept these took place in April and this was a mistake.
Due to its lack of attention to detail, we find there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord pays £50 compensation and issues a written apology to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As previously identified, the landlord did not provide evidence of contact with the resident when it apologised and explained its error in closing the initial complaint. We have not seen records of phone calls held between the landlord and the resident, though the landlord or resident often referred to them in emails. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate, contemporaneous records.