Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peter Bedford Housing Association Limited (202447782)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447782

Peter Bedford Housing Association Limited

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from October 2023 to December 2024.
    2. The resident’s concerns about communal electricity charges linked to her own electricity meter.

Background

  1. The resident is a licensee of the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a first floor flat.
  2. The resident has reported ASB issues to the landlord since the start of her tenancy in 2020. Issues she had reported include drug dealing and misuse, loud noise, aggressive behaviour from neighbours and their visitors and concerns about other potential criminal activity in the building.
  3. In November 2023 the resident also told the landlord that the communal area electrics were being charged to her electricity meter. The landlord confirmed she was correct, and apologised for not addressing this at the start of her tenancy. It offered to reimburse her for additional costs she had accrued since she moved in. It also offered to reduce her communal area service charge by £1 per week to cover the ongoing cost. She said she would prefer a separate meter for the communal electric supply.
  4. On 9 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports and the meter. She wanted it to deal with the ASB, install a communal meter, and give her the promised reimbursement.
  5. In response, the landlord advised it was continuing to tackle the ASB and could find no fault with how it staff had handled the resident’s reports. It advised it had previously informed her it had paid the reimbursement to her rent account. It said it was awaiting a quote for installing a separate electricity meter. Once received, it would assess whether the works were viable and would update her accordingly.
  6. In July 2024 the resident filed injunction paperwork against the landlord over its handling of her ASB reports. The case was heard at court in September 2024 and her claim was dismissed. She appealed this decision and an appeal hearing has been scheduled for September 2025.
  7. On 12 September 2024 the Service issued our determination on a separate complaint the resident had brought to us (case 202310962). That complaint also involved the landlord’s handling of ASB in the period up to September 2023. We found maladministration and made orders to the landlord. We also asked it to open a new stage 1 complaint as the resident had informed us the ASB issues were still ongoing.
  8. The resident confirmed the details of her new complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2024. She felt it was still not dealing with the ASB issues she had been reporting since October 2023. She also said it had refused to install a separate communal electricity meter.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 October 2024. It provided a timeline of the resident’s ASB reports and its actions from October 2023 onwards. It concluded it had properly followed its policies and procedures. It did not respond to her complaint about the electricity meter.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She disagreed with the landlord’s findings and complained it had not responded to the meter issue.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 December 2024. It maintained its stage 1 findings but acknowledged it had not responded the meter issue. It apologised and explained it did not have the budget for the quote to complete the works. It apologised for not updating her on its decision sooner. It said it would continue to reduce her service charge by £1 per week to cover the cost she was incurring for the communal lighting.
  12. The resident remained unhappy and brought her ASB and meter complaints to the Service. She said the ASB was affecting her ability to live peacefully in her home. She wanted the landlord to take stronger action against her neighbour and to either install a separate meter, or increase the amount of money it was reimbursing her.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. When the resident brought her most recent complaint to the Service we initially decided to open two separate cases (202447782 and 202346314) to cover each element of her complaint separately.
  2. Once the Service received evidence from both the resident and the landlord, we reviewed this decision. We concluded that both issues should be considered in one investigation instead. As such we combined both cases into one, under case number 202447782 to ensure we could issue a determination more promptly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports from October 2023 to December 2024

  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 the service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings.
  3. The resident took legal action against the landlord in July 2024 for its handling of her ASB reports. The case was heard at court in September 2024 and her claim was dismissed. The resident appealed the court’s decision in April 2025 and a permission hearing has been scheduled for September 2025.
  4. The resident has informed us her court case is regarding the landlord’s handling of the ASB during the period considered by our previous investigation (up to September 2023). However, the papers she submitted to court in July 2024 refer to ASB events in 2024. Accordingly, the complaint with the court covers the same period as the complaint the resident has brought to the Ombudsman. Because of that we cannot consider the ASB complaint in this investigation as it is outside our jurisdiction.
  5. As part of her appeal request the resident will be able to ask the court to consider any further issues she wants to raise about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.

The resident’s concerns about communal electricity charges linked to her own electricity meter

  1. The resident complained twice in 2024 that the communal electricity was connected to her personal meter. She made her initial complaint on 9 February 2024, which the landlord responded to at both stages of its complaint process. She made her second complaint on 7 October 2024, which also completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. In both complaints the resident said an electrician notified her in 2023 that her electricity meter was connected to the communal electricity supply. She said she had not been made aware of this when she moved into the property and was concerned that it had connected the wiring to her meter after her tenancy started. She said it had previously offered her reimbursement of £236.51 for her additional electrical costs, but it had still not paid this. She wanted it to pay her this reimbursement and install a separate communal meter.
  3. The landlord’s response was that it had not changed the source of the communal electrical supply in the building at any point. Its understanding was the communal electrics were the same as when it acquired the building in 2002. It acknowledged it had failed to communicate the electrical arrangement to the resident and apologised. It understood that it was only the communal lighting that was connected to her personal meter. It was appropriate for it to recognise its communication about the meter arrangement had been poor and apologise. However, while the landlord had offered to reimburse her extra costs, it did not consider compensating her for the inconvenience caused by its poor communications. That was a missed opportunity to remedy the complaint, and in turn a failing.
  4. The landlord also confirmed it had paid the agreed reimbursement of £236.51 to the resident’s rent account in January 2024, after confirming this by email with her. It also provided a thorough explanation of how it calculated the reimbursement by using an online resource to work out the energy unit price at the time the charges occurred. This was appropriate to do as it showed it wanted to refund her as accurately as it could in the absence of an exact bill.
  5. The landlord also offered to reduce the resident’s service charge by £1 per week to cover the ongoing communal lighting charges. It never provided an explanation as to how it calculated this amount. In the circumstances of the resident disputing that £1 was sufficient, explaining its thinking in the way it had for the earlier reimbursement would have been helpful. It potentially also would have shown that £236.51 over the 4-year period the landlord based its calculation on equals approximately £1.13/week, slightly more than the landlord was offering.
  6. In its final response the landlord said it would review this offer if the resident provided evidence of higher costs. The ongoing reimbursement, and its openness to future review were reasonable and practical solutions given that the landlord was not able to move the meter at that time. But, in the absence of an explanation of the amount it would pay for her ongoing costs, £1 does not appear to be quite enough.
  7. In the landlord’s response to the resident’s first complaint, it advised it would investigate the work, and costs, involved to install a separate meter for the communal electrics. If the work were viable, it would look to complete this by September 2024. When the resident complained a second time, in October 2024, she said it had not completed the works or provided a reason for not doing so.
  8. The landlord confirmed it had obtained a quote for the works, but it did not have the budget for them. It acknowledged it should have updated the resident sooner and apologised. It said it felt its existing arrangement to reduce her service charge by £1 per week to cover the lighting cost was sufficient. It said it would review the amount if the resident provided evidence that this did not cover her costs.
  9. The landlord recognised there had been a level of service failure in how it handled the issues around the communal lighting. Across both complaints, it acknowledged it had not communicated that the communal lighting was being charged to the resident’s personal meter or put in place a plan to address this. It was appropriate for it to recognise this was not correct, apologise and reimburse her for the additional electrical costs she had incurred since the start of her tenancy. This approach was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right.
  10. The landlord also correctly identified it had not updated the resident about its decision after receiving the works quote, despite promising to do so in its first complaint response. Evidence shows it received this quote in June 2024 but failed to update her in good time after this. That was a failing.
  11. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its second complaint response, apologised and explained the reasons for its decision. This was reasonable, given that landlords are responsible for the management of their properties, which includes decisions about budgets and what services it can provide. It explained it could not afford the work, and offered an alternative solution in reimbursing the resident for the electricity cost instead.
  12. However, while the landlord’s apologies and reimbursements were appropriate remedies, there is no evidence it considered offering the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused by its lack of updates to her. The reimbursement of her costs was not compensation because it was for expenses she was incurring. Accordingly, to put things right the landlord should have at least considered offering compensation.
  13. Overall, the were some failures in the landlord’s handling of this issue. It acknowledged these failings in its responses to both complaints. Additionally, it offered both reimbursement for the extra charges she had incurred, and an ongoing service charge discount to account for future charges. The situation with the meter is clearly not ideal, but the landlord’s decisions and solutions were reasonable in these circumstances. Nonetheless, the landlord should have considered offering compensation for. Not doing so left the complaint incompletely resolved, and was an unremedied failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal electricity charges linked to her own electricity meter.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from October 2023 to December 2024 are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation. This comprises of:
    1. £75 for its failure to update the resident on its decision to not install a separate electricity meter in good time
    2. £75 for its failure to recognise the inconvenience the electricity meter issue had on the resident.
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord should recalculate its ongoing £1 reimbursement to ensure it is in line with its earlier reimbursement, or explain how it otherwise decided the amount was reasonable. It should ensure any increase is backdated to the point it started paying.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their respective deadlines.