The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202307644)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property on 16 May 2014. He said he contacted the landlord because he was unable to locate his gas meter. He said the landlord told him that the meter was in a garage beneath the property which he was able to rent. In 2022, he discovered that other residents in the block had their gas meters in accessible locations within their properties.
2. He raised the issue with the landlord and his local councillor, who also identified that the resident was paying a service charge for communal electricity that was supplied from his flat. The resident referred both issues to this service in May 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. He sought reimbursement for the garage rental he said he needed to pay for eight years and for any communal lighting charges applied in error.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of concerns about the resident’s gas meter.
   2. Response to concerns that the resident was paying for communal lighting supplied from his property.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the resident’s gas meter.
5. There was maladministration in the response to concerns that the resident was paying for communal lighting supplied from his property.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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. 

Handling of reports that the resident had to rent a separate garage to access his gas meter.

7. The resident said that shortly after moving into the property he was unable to locate the gas meter and asked the landlord for help. He said he was told the meter was in a garage beneath his property that belonged to the landlord, and that he needed to rent the garage to access the gas meter. Although we have seen no evidence to confirm this, we have seen an application from the resident dated 23 June 2014. The application shows that the resident requested a specific garage because he needed to obtain gas meter readings. There was no evidence that he raised concerns with the landlord about the location of the meter at that time. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the reason for the request and the placement of the gas meter.
8. The resident told us that in 2022 he learned that other residents had gas meters located inside their homes. Evidence shows that in October 2022 he contacted the landlord about the issue. He said the other flats had internal gas meters and questioned why he had to rent a garage to access his own. He said a gas engineer advised him that not having access to his meter or shut‑off valve could present safety issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact him to discuss the matter, but we have seen no evidence that it provided any response. Internal communications show the concerns were discussed internally though did not refer to the safety issues he raised.
9. We have not seen further evidence of any correspondence until January 2023, when the landlord contacted the resident’s local councillor in relation to the gas meter relocation. The landlord agreed to move it and pay the associated costs. The work was confirmed as completed on 7 March 2023.
10. The resident complained on 24 July 2023. He said that although the meter had been moved, he wanted a refund for the 8 years he had rented the garage. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 August 2023. It said the resident was still renting the garage despite the meter relocation. It also said there was no record of anyone telling him that he had to rent it. The landlord stated that he chose the garage because he knew the keys had been handed in and that the electric meter was inside. This was incorrect. The resident’s application referred to his gas meter and the need to obtain readings. However, there was no evidence that he raised concerns about the location of the meter at that time. We note he is still renting the garage despite the relocation in 2023.
11. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 August 2023. He disputed the landlord’s account and repeated his concern about the safety implications of the previous meter location. The landlord responded on 11 April 2024. It said the meter had been moved and that it was willing to consider reimbursement. There is no evidence that the landlord took further action. It did not address the resident’s challenge about inaccuracies in the stage 1 response, nor did it respond to the safety concerns he raised.
12. The landlord should have provided a clearer explanation of why it was unwilling to refund 8 years of garage rental. As there is no evidence that the resident was led to believe this was the only way he could access his gas meter, we would not necessarily expect the landlord to refund earlier payments. The resident raised this issue with the landlord in October 2022. If, at this time, the resident demonstrated his misunderstanding that he believed that he needed the garage to access his meter, the landlord should have promptly clarified this for him, so that he could consider ending the rental at the earliest time. We note that in 2022 the resident told the landlord he wished to stop renting the garage yet continues to rent it. This suggests that the garage was not rented exclusively for access to the meter.
13. The landlord provided limited responses throughout. Although it explained why it would not refund the rental costs, it did not explain why the resident’s gas meter had been located in another property. It also did not respond to the safety concerns the resident raised on multiple occasions. The landlord did not show that it followed up its statement of 11 April 2024 that it would consider reimbursement. The resident has remained unhappy with the lack of information and poor communication.

Response to concerns that the resident was paying for communal lighting supplied from his property.

14. Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains that where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, we may decide that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time and consider the landlord’s complaint’s process exhausted. We included this issue in our investigation because we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 26 March 2024 and it did not. We informed the landlord on 20 May 2024 that we would consider this matter as part of our investigation.
15. The resident told us that his local councillor told him in 2023 that he was paying for a service charge in relation to communal lighting that was supplied from his property. The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on 20 April 2023 to request an investigation into the service charges. Internal communications show the landlord discussed the issue but did not respond to the councillor or the resident. The resident later raised this with us on 21 November 2023. We have not seen evidence that he contacted the landlord directly about the service charges. However, he did contact the landlord on 20 April 2023 to report a lack of lighting in the communal area because the supply was linked to his neighbour’s property. The landlord did not respond.
16. We asked the landlord to respond to the complaint on 26 March 2024. The landlord’s response on 11 April 2024 acknowledged the issue but provided no comment on it. We informed the landlord on 20 May 2024 that this matter would be included in our investigation. The landlord provided a statement to us on 6 November 2024. There was no evidence that this response was provided to the resident. It said the property had been incorrectly classified and that a charge for communal electricity had been applied. It said reconciled accounts were corrected annually and estimated charges were refunded each year. It did not provide statements to support this.
17. The landlord said it intended to reclassify the property to prevent further communal electricity charges. It said estimated charges for 2024/25 included £64.16 for communal electricity and that this would be credited to the leaseholder’s account, together with £75 compensation. We requested evidence of these actions. The evidence provided did not show any refunds or credits to the account in relation to electricity and did not show that compensation had been paid or that the resident had been informed of the intended actions.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaint policy requires acknowledgement of stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It also requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The policy requires acknowledgement of stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of escalation. It requires stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
19. The resident complained about the garage on 24 July 2023 which was acknowledged the following day. This complied with the complaint policy timescales. The stage 1 response was issued on 1 August 2023, which was five working days later. This met the required timescale.
20. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 August 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation and did not respond until after we contacted it on 26 March 2024. Although the landlord provided a response on 11 April 2024, this was not considered a formal stage 2 response as it did not specify it was a stage 2 response, it did not address all points raised in the complaint definition and did not provide details to escalate the matter to this service if the resident remained unhappy. This did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code. It is important that the landlord responds to all aspects of the resident’s complaint and acknowledges failures. The failure to follow the complaints process delayed the resident in bringing this case to our services.
21. The landlord’s response of 11 April 2024 did not acknowledge the delay. It also did not address the additional complaint we raised on 26 March 2024 about the communal electricity service charges. This issue should have been raised as a new complaint. The landlord’s failure to do so was a failure to follow section 6.8 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that any additional complaints raised during the investigation must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new 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.