Southern Housing (202446433)

Background

1. The resident received a letter from the energy billing provider in September 2024 about a shortfall of £508.63 for the period 2019-2023. He said the debt went back 5 years and he was not liable because the tenancy changed in June 2023. He asked the landlord to recalculate the bill based on the tenancy changes. He contacted our service in February 2025 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy costs and its billing provider.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy costs and its billing provider.

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

Reasons

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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about energy costs and its billing provider.

4. The landlord confirmed there is an energy billing provider for the property. The landlord is charged for gas usage, and the billing provider collects payment on its behalf. The landlord also said there was a managing agent who acted on behalf of the superior landlord, who owned the freehold.
5. The billing provider wrote to the resident in September 2024 and addressed the letter to him and the former tenant. The letter said the billing provider and the managing agent had completed a reconciliation for 2019 to 2023. A shortfall of £508.63 was calculated based on the metered consumption for the property.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2024 for advice because he said he had no control over the communal energy supply provider. He complained to the managing agent on 30 September 2024 and to the landlord on 18 November 2024. He disputed the costs because the billing provider had not explained how or why he owed over £500 over 5 years. The resident said, during the period in question, a different tenancy was in place and that he should not be liable for previous occupants’ costs. We note that the resident remained in the property but shared the tenancy agreement with another person at the time.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 November 2024. It said it had no authority to act on the issue and told the resident to contact the billing provider about the debt. The landlord should have provided a more detailed response which may have avoided escalation.
8. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day because he said the key points of his complaint had not been addressed. He said the billing agreement had been set up through the landlord, and he had no say in the matter. He said the billing provider had confirmed to him that they were working to specific instructions of the landlord. Evidence shows the billing provider told the resident on 1 October 2024 that the landlord had requested the back-bill for the site and demanded funds be sent to clear the shortfall.
9. The resident also said he signed a new tenancy in June 2023 on the understanding he would not be liable for earlier bills. However, the tenancy agreement dated 22 June 2023 said the landlord could ask the resident to repay previous arrears through a repayment schedule.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025 and said it was not the legal heat supplier. It said the resident was liable for the costs under the tenancy conditions. The landlord reiterated that it had no authority to act on the issue. It said the resident would need to speak to the billing provider who was acting on behalf of the managing agent who purchased energy for the scheme and were therefore the suppliers.
11. The tenancy agreement said the landlord had an agreement with the billing provider, and the resident could not opt out of the service. Emails from October 2024 show the billing provider sought the landlord’s approval to discuss the debt and liabilities with the resident. The billing provider told the resident in April and May 2025 that they were unable to make amendments to the bill without approval from the landlord. Since the complaints process has concluded, the resident has been able to negotiate a repayment plan that was agreed by the billing provider following approval from the landlord. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did indeed have a relationship with the billing provider.
12. In light of this, the responses from the landlord to the resident’s queries and complaints were deemed insufficient. The landlord could have sought an explanation for the charges and considered the tenancy concerns given that the billing provider was its agent. The energy agreement was one that was arranged via the tenancy. It also shows how the landlord will pass information to and from the energy supplier / billing agents for the supply of energy and for charging.
13. In this case, however, there was a lack of accountability from the landlord, and this led to stress and complications in the resident accessing the information he requested. He has still not been provided with an explanation about why he owes the debt despite a change in tenancy. The landlord also could have sought to establish why the shortfall was only brought to the resident’s attention years later.

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.