Wandsworth Council (202002164)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002164

Wandsworth Council

30 April 2021


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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a partial refund of the water charges she had paid since the start of her tenancy.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in February 2019.
  2. The landlord collected water charges (or rates) on behalf of the water provider. In January 2020 the landlord notified its residents that this agreement would end. This would mean that residents would pay their water rates directly to the water provider. The resident has explained that she was told by the water provider, in February 2020, that she was entitled to a 50% discount on her water charges, as part of a scheme it offered. The resident subsequently asked the landlord why she had not previously been offered this scheme, and how she could claim a refund on the charges she had paid since the beginning of her tenancy.
  3. We do not have records of a telephone conversation between the resident and landlord on 20 February 2020. However, the resident has advised that the landlord informed her that she could not claim a refund as her rent account was not in credit. It also said that the resident should have been advised about this scheme when she signed her tenancy, and that a refund could not be backdated. The resident made a complaint on 20 February 2020 that the landlord had not informed her of the discount scheme, and that she had paid an incorrect amount of water rates.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2020. It said that it had collected the water charges on behalf of the water provider, and there was “no policy of [an] automatic 50% reduction”, meaning that she was not eligible for a refund. The resident told the landlord on 12 March 2020 that she had been told by the water provider that the landlord was responsible for offering the discount.
  5. The landlord formally responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 March 2020. It explained that it was “never requested, nor given to understand that [it was] expected to offer” the scheme “as a matter of standard”. It said that the scheme was originally introduced by its water provider to help those who received “certain benefits and who were struggling financially”. It said it would refer its residents to this scheme if it became aware they were struggling financially, or if they had fallen into rent arrears.
  6. The resident submitted a complaint to this Service on 22 June 2020. She said that the landlord had failed to notify her of this scheme in February 2019 when her tenancy began, and had refused to refund her 50% of the water payments she had made. On 9 July 2020 we contacted the landlord and asked it to formally respond to the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 July 2020. It said that all new residents were invited to “a new tenants workshop”, and that its records indicated that the resident did not attend the workshop scheduled for her for 21 March 2019. It said that during this workshop the resident would have been advised of the scheme “including eligibility criteria and how to apply”. It said that she would have also been advised that it was her responsibility to apply, and that the landlord could not have applied on her behalf. It explained the eligibility criteria. It said that as the resident did not make an application no refund could be made. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
  8. On 24 July 2020 the resident escalated her complaint. She confirmed that she had attended the workshop and provided the landlord with proof. She said that during the workshop there had been no mention of the scheme. She said that she had been led to believe that the landlord would have only informed residents of this scheme if they had been “flagged up as being in arrears”.
  9. On 31 August 2020 this Service contacted the landlord to ask it to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response. The landlord then apologised to the resident on 3 September for its delay in acknowledging her complaint. It said that it would issue its response within ten working days.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 17 September 2020. It apologised for its stage one complaint response, and agreed its explanation had not been satisfactory. It confirmed that the resident had attended the workshop, and explained that its computer records had “not been updated to show” she had attended. It said that during the workshop it was “explained verbally” that if residents had difficulty paying their rent, they may have been eligible for the scheme. It said that the attendees had also been advised how to contact it if they had any issues that they needed help with, “such as rent arrears, debts or welfare benefit issues”. It said that if the resident had disclosed at this point that she faced financial difficulty with her water charges, it would have discussed the scheme with her. It said that the scheme was run by its water provider, and it could not “act to backdate any claim of earlier eligibility”.
  11. It said that it had informed its team to ensure that its “training booklet” included information about this scheme and to ensure that there are no further issues regarding attendance records.
  12. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
  13. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 September 2020. She said that the landlord’s previous responses had been contradictory. She said that she had not been informed of the scheme during the workshop, and that there had been no verbal explanation of it.
  14. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 6 October 2020. It again acknowledged the error made in its stage one complaint response. It reiterated what it had said in its stage two complaint response. It said that its stage two complaint response gave a clear explanation and addressed all the matters that the resident had raised. It said that if the resident had disclosed that she had difficulties paying her water charges, it would have discussed the scheme with her.
  15. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a water charge refund

  1.  In view of the fact that both the resident and the landlord have separate and opposing accounts of what was explained during the workshop on 21 March 2019, we are unable to determine whether the scheme was in fact discussed. There appears to be no clear evidence supporting either version. In the absence of such evidence we cannot conclude if the resident was informed about the scheme or not.
  2. Nonetheless, in its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it had been her responsibility to apply for the scheme and that it could not have done on her behalf. Therefore, the resident would have needed to be aware of this scheme in order to apply for it. There is no indication in any of the landlord’s publications (for example, its “managing a successful tenancy” or “tenancy conditions” booklet) of it advising residents that such a scheme existed. On its own, a verbal explanation of the scheme during a one-off workshop was not a reasonable approach to publicising the scheme, either specifically for the resident, or generally for all tenants. The landlord has not provided any evidence or explanation that the scheme was advertised in any way other than at the workshop.
  3. The landlord explained that the scheme was offered by the water provider. However, the landlord, at the time, was collecting water charges on behalf of the water provider. It stands to reason then, that, as it was collecting the charges, it should also have been actively and widely explaining to residents any options they had for reducing their costs.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident that it was her responsibility to apply for the scheme, and that it had informed her of it at a meeting, was not a reasonable one.

Complaints handling

  1. From the evidence provided for this investigation it is apparent that the landlord did not take a consistent approach when dealing with the resident’s queries and requests. It initially advised her that it had referred residents facing financial difficulties to the scheme, and had not been asked to offer the scheme “as a matter of standard” by the water provider. Then, in its formal stage one complaint response it explained that as the resident had not attended the workshop on 21 March 2019, she would not have been made aware of the scheme and how to apply for it. In its stage two complaint response it then explained that attendees had been made aware of the scheme and what to do if they faced financial difficulties.
  2. Although it acknowledged and apologised for this mistake after the resident proved her attendance, it cast doubt on its own reliability. It disagreed with what the resident believed was said at the workshop, but did not provide evidence or information explaining its position.
  3. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, it aims to acknowledge complaints (it does not specific at what stage) within five working days and respond within ten. The resident asked to escalate he complaint on 24 July 2020, and the landlord issued its response on 17 September. It only updated the resident after intervention by this Service. A delayed complaint response may have been reasonable if the landlord had provided the resident with regular updates. This delay and the confusing responses to the resident’s complaints shows service failings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a partial refund of the water charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has not provided evidence of it taking reasonable steps to make its residents aware of the scheme. and it was unreasonable for it to rely one on verbal explanation without providing residents with other sources of information. 
  2. The landlord’s responses to the resident were contradictory and it disputed what the resident’s account of the workshop without offering proof or information supporting its view. Its stage two complaint response was delayed as it failed to act in accordance with its target timeframes.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £175 for the resident’s inconvenience and time and trouble as a result of its handling of her request for a refund of her water charges.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience experienced because of its poor complaints handling.
  3. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.