Ongo Homes Limited (202124519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124519

Ongo Homes Limited

22 August 2022


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 about the affordability of his heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord in a three-bedroom house, which is heated via electric storage heaters.
  2. In January 2021, the resident reported that his storage heaters were faulty, and causing a smell. An electrician attended the heaters in January 2021, and concluded that they were safe to use, and there were no faults. The resident made further reports about his storage heaters in May 2021 and requested an inspection, but no appointment was booked for that month. On 8 July 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint regarding his storage heaters. He had concerns that his heaters were faulty, and due to this, his utility bills were excessively high. He stated that he had no issue with his utility bills, until the storage heaters were installed, and he wanted to know why they had significantly increased.
  3. The landlord asked him to send images of the storage heater and to include the name of its manufacturer, and also asked him to show images of the immersion switch, along with recent bills showing consumption and usage. It also advised him to not turn the immersion on unless it was necessary, and informed him that it may contact the manufacturer to see if the fault was on their side. An appointment was booked for 22 July 2021 to check the heaters, but the resident was unable to provide access (due to work). The appointment was rearranged for 9 August 2021. The resident also informed the landlord that he was unable to provide the kilowatts (KW) usage that it requested as he did not have access to that information.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 11 August 2021. It stated that an electrician attended the property on 9 August, and found no faults with the heaters, as they were all working correctly. It further added that it had attended the heaters on several occasions and found no faults, and sent him a manual on how to use the heaters. It clarified that it would not uphold his complaint, as he was unable to provide evidence that his bills were higher.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord gave the resident suggestions on alternatives to keeping warm, such as closing all doors and windows, and having appropriate insulation in the loft. It also recommended that he get a smart meter or request his supplier to check whether the meter was faulty. It also acknowledged that it failed to check his heaters in May 2021, and offered him £50 compensation in light of its service failing in that regard.
  6. The resident requested a final complaint stage, stating that the electrician did not inspect the heaters properly on 9 August 2021. He further added that his meter was not at fault and his consumption increased as soon as the storage heaters were installed, and as a resolution he wanted his heating system to change. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued on 7 September 2021. It explained that it was unable to install a gas fired heating system because he has no mains gas supply. It further stated that its energy performance certificate (EPC) was rated D, which was above the standard required, and a new inspection was due in 2021/2022. It did not uphold his complaint, as it had responded to all of his concerns, but it increased its compensation to £100 for its service failure in May 2021.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response stating that his bills were increasing and he was struggling. It responded that it had no ability to control utility bills, but was able to signpost him to a financial support service, or could assist him in moving and bidding for another property. The resident brought his complaint to this Service, as he remained dissatisfied with the cost of his bills, and remained concerns that the storage heaters were faulty.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service cannot consider a complaint about the size of the resident’s electricity bill, as this would require an investigation of a complaint about his electricity provider. This Service only has the authority to consider complaints about the actions or omissions of member landlords under the Scheme, and not third parties such as utility companies. We can however, look at how the landlord handled his concerns of the heating system, including its affordability.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with and the affordability of his heating system

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for paying his utility bills, this includes gas and electricity. However, as he expressed concerns that his heating system was causing excessively high bills, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure it took all reasonable steps to investigate whether there was a causal link between his heating system, and his excessively high bills.
  2. Under the landlord’s maintenance policy, the resident’s individual needs or circumstances are considered when booking appointments. Therefore, he had a reasonable expectation that his lack of flexibility due to work commitments would be considered when appointments for inspecting the heaters are booked. The landlord met this expectation by rearranging his appointment from date July 2021 to date August 2021, as it recognised that he would not be available that month due to work commitments. However it is also noted all residents have an obligation to provide reasonable access for required repairs.
  3. Furthermore, the electrician concluded in its inspection that there was no fault with the storage or immersion heaters. In the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its electrician, who advised that there was no issue with his storage heaters. It was therefore reasonable for it to take no further action in relation to his heating system, as the heaters were deemed to be in working condition.
  4. The landlord has no responsibility under its tenancy agreement, or compensation policy, to pay for the resident’s utility bills. However, it was appropriate for it to advise him of the information it required, if it were to use its discretion and compensate him for his utility bills. It also demonstrated a willingness to resolve his concerns regarding affordability, by offering multiple suggestions on how to keep warm. It also suitably offered to signpost him to a financial support service. To ensure that it continues to address his concerns, it has been recommended below that it contact him to re-invite him to submit details of his KW usage, for it to further investigate the reported rise in heating costs.
  5. This Service’s remedies guidance states that compensation is appropriate in cases where there is a “duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience” including from £50 for a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. The landlord in its final stage complaint response, offered the resident £100 compensation, for failing to inspect his storage heater in May 2021. The £100 compensation was proportionate to put things right, as its failing to inspect the heaters in May 2021 did not severely impact the resident, and the amount that was offered was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  6. It is noted however, that the landlord did not adhere to the timescales dictated in its complaint policy, which is ten working days for a stage one complaint to be investigated. The resident sent a stage one complaint on 8 July 2021, but its stage one complaint response did not reach him until 11 August 2021. The timescale was exceeded by 24 working days. This may have been affected by the time taken to find the mutually agreeable repair visit, however if so the landlord should have updated the resident about when the complaint response would be sent, and that it was waiting for the outcome of the visit.
  7. Ultimately the landlord’s offer of compensation is sufficient when everything is considered together as an acknowledgement of the inconvenience experienced by the resident for he missed May visit and the delayed stage 1 response. This is particularly so given the other ongoing communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the affordability of his heating system satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it previously awarded him, if it has not already done so.
    2. Contact the resident to re-invite him to submit details of his KW usage to it, for it to further investigate the source of his heating costs.