Orbit Group Limited (202224036)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224036

Orbit Group Limited

23 September 2024

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 concern that her communal electricity charge included the cost of a tumble dryer she had not been able to use.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block that contains a mix of supported living and general needs accommodation. The block contains 31 supported living flats, and 5 general needs flats. The resident lives in a general needs flat. Her tenancy agreement with the landlord sets out that she will pay for communal electricity through a service charge.
4. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out that it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says that it will discuss complaint response extensions with the resident.
5. Records we have seen show the resident made contact with the landlord on 7 January 2022, questioning what she paid for under the communal electricity charge. The landlord responded on 11 January 2022 explaining that the charge was to cover the cost of various external and internal equipment, such as lighting and fire systems. The resident replied that day. She said the landlord had not mentioned the tumble dryer on site, which she said was “one of the costliest use of electricity”. She expressed dissatisfaction that she was paying for this.
6. In responding to the resident the following day, the landlord said it understood the reason for the resident’s query, as she was paying electricity for equipment that was “designed for the independent living scheme”. However, it said there was no option to split the communal electricity cost as there was only 1 meter on site. The resident raised further concerns that the tumble dryer was “open to abuse” as residents were using it on sunny days. In responding to the resident on 19 January 2022, the landlord said it had spoken to its utility team and it was not possible to split the communal electricity cost. It said it had recommended that its scheme manager speak about electricity saving during the next residents’ meeting at the block. It directed the resident to raise a complaint if she remained unhappy.
7. The landlord recorded that it had received an online complaint from the resident on 20 January 2022. She said she was unhappy that she was being charged for electricity that she did not use.
8. Internally, on 21 February 2022, a customer relations manager for the landlord noted he spoke to the member of the service charge team who had responded to the resident’s earlier enquiry. They noted that the landlord’s utilities team had said it would be difficult to separate the electric charge as the “tumble dryer charge would likely fluctuate on a monthly basis”. That day the landlord’s customer relations manager spoke to the resident about her complaint, and they noted she remained unhappy.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 March 2022. It said that there was only 1 meter on site and so no option to split the electricity cost. It said:
   1. its service charge team had discussed the matter with its utilities team, who had decided that it was not practical to separate the tumble dryer power from the remainder of electricity used.
   2. it could arrange for the resident to have access to the tumble dryer but that she would then also need to pay an increased service charge for maintenance of this.
   3. It had reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement and could not see that it was acting outside of this, as this said the resident would pay for communal electricity.
10. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 23 March 2022. She said she was being charged for electricity that was “not communal”. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint on 21 April 2022. It said that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It said the tenancy agreement was clear that the resident would pay communal electricity, and there was no practical way of metering the tumble dryer separately.
11. The resident had further correspondence with the landlord about the service charge for communal electricity in November 2022. On 17 November 2022 it told her it was exploring the option of fitting a separate meter to the tumble dryer. In later internal correspondence the landlord noted that a separate meter was installed in April 2023.
12. Following an additional complaint from the resident which covered aspects of the resident’s earlier complaint, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response dated 15 March 2024.
13. The response confirmed that the resident was dissatisfied with the electricity costs associated with the running of a communal tumble dryer which she was not able to use. It also confirmed that she was dissatisfied with the 2024/25 budget, which showed that her electricity charge was the same as an independent living customer.
14. The response confirmed that it had focused on the usage of the tumble dryer and it was not investigating the resident’s previous complaint about charges associated with the tumble dryer from June 2022. However, the landlord’s compensation offer related to both issues. In order to put things right, the landlord offered the resident:
    1. £200.00 for distress and inconvenience caused by reporting the issue on numerous occasions without receiving an acceptable outcome.
    2. £150.00 for poor complaint handling on previous complaints, as they were not upheld and did not provide any next steps to resolve the resident’s complaint.
    3. £127.30 for the annual electricity costs for the tumble dryer, made up of 10 years at £12.73 per year.
15. The resident told us she had been asking for a separate meter for the tumble dryer for several years. She expressed her belief that the landlord had only installed this after she told it she was raising the complaint with the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. The resident said that she raised concerns about the communal electricity and the metering of the tumble dryer for several years. We have not seen record of any contact the resident made about this prior to January 2022. However, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with landlords in a timely manner. As such, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the matter since January 2022.

Handling of the resident’s concern that her communal electricity charge includes the cost of a tumble dryer she was not able to use

17. The resident’s lease is clear that she will pay for the cost of communal electricity through a service charge. It would be appropriate for residents to ensure they are content to pay the associated costs of the service charge at the time of signing up to the tenancy agreement.  However, the resident raised concerns that this charge included the cost of running a tumble dryer that she could not access.  She said that this had previously been coin operated, but was then connected to the communal meter. As noted by the landlord, the tumble dryer is intended for use by those in supported living accommodation.
18. In responding to the resident’s enquiries and complaint, the landlord said that it was not possible to separate the cost of running the tumble dryer as it was not practical to install a separate meter. It noted that it had discussed this matter with its utilities team. However, records we have seen do not contain a contemporaneous note of those discussions. That was a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. It would have been appropriate to note these discussions. This would have provided a clear record of the landlord’s considerations at this time and why it considered it was not practical to install a separate meter. It is unclear whether the landlord had consulted, or considered consulting, with an electrician about the practicality of installing a separate meter at that time. In December 2022 the landlord told the resident that an electrician had attended, and it was now looking into the cost of installing a separate meter for the tumble dryer. Subsequently, in April 2023, it installed this meter.
19. It is acknowledged that, in general, it may not be practical or appropriate to separate or split communal electricity. But in this case, the resident had raised an understandable concern that she was being charged for running a tumble dryer that was costly to run, and to which she did not have access. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to fully explore as it later did whether it was possible and practical to separate this charge.
20. The landlord has since used readings from the new meter to estimate usage for 2022/2023, which covers the period since January 2022. It has also said that the resident will not be charged for tumble dryer electricity costs going forward. It is positive that the landlord has now found a way to do so, but it would have been reasonable for it to explore this fully when the resident initially raised her concerns in January 2022. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. With consideration to the circumstances, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered to appropriately recognise this failing.
21. The Service is content that the landlord has sought to put things right for the resident, however, the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord to resolve matters through its complaints process rather than at a later stage.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was 4 weeks beyond timescales set out in its complaints procedure. The reasons for this are unclear. But, in line with its procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it have reasonably should agreed any extension in advance with the resident. The landlord also failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its eventual response. It would have been reasonable for it to do so.
23. The resident expressed her belief that the landlord had only investigated installing a separate meter after she said she was going to refer her complaint to us. We have seen no evidence that is the case. The landlord told her it was looking into installing a separate meter prior to her stating she planned to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. However as noted earlier, there was more the landlord could reasonably have done to explore whether a separate meter could be installed. It missed the opportunity to identify this during its complaint handling. In light of this, and the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
24. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered to appropriately recognise this failing, which takes into account the landlord’s previous compensation offer in March 2024.
25. We note that the resident has since asked that the landlord refund her for the electrical cost of running the tumble dryer in the years prior to 2022/23. The landlord has said that it could not do so as it did not have a sub-meter in place during this time. In view of the scope of our investigation, outlined above, this does not form part of our investigation. However, we have recommended that the landlord reviews this decision to consider whether it would be appropriate to offer the resident a lump sum of compensation in lieu of a proportionate refund for the years prior to 2022.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that her communal electricity charge includes the cost of a tumble dryer she was not able to use.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings we have identified. This apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. Pay compensation to the resident of £150, made up of:
       1. £75 for the impact of failings in its handling of her concerns about the communal electricity charge.
       2. £75 for the impact of complaint handling failings (this amount is part of the landlord’s £150 compensation offer for complaint handling shortfalls from March 2024) and can be deducted if the £150 has already been paid.
    3. Remind complaint handling staff of the importance of agreeing complaint response extensions in advance, and of acknowledging and apologising for delayed responses.
    4. Remind complaint handling staff of the importance of agreeing complaint response extensions in advance, and of acknowledging and apologising for delayed responses.
29. It is recommended that the landlord confirms it has paid the resident £127.30 for the annual electricity costs for the tumble dryer (made up of 10 years at £12.73 per year), as offered in March 2024.