Wandsworth Council (202004707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004707

Wandsworth Council

16 February 2022

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 response to:
   1. Repairs to communal lighting.
   2. The payment of service charge for electricity.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’, the resident’s concerns about the reasonableness (payment) of the electricity service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident queried the recharging of the communal electricity initially in September 2019 as he believed that this was being supplied and thus billed from one resident’s property’s meter instead of a communal meter.  The resident therefore considered that the landlord had been recharging for costs it had not incurred as these were being met by one resident, and therefore not payable by him and other residents.
5. The landlord identified that the communal electricity for the block was being provided by a meter in a neighbouring block, and whilst this was currently apportioned across all leaseholders, this needed to be re-directed so each block had its own meter.  It obtained a quote for the works which was later revised. The resident also disputed the reasonableness of the cost of work and how it had been apportioned amongst leaseholders.
6. Consideration of whether a service charge is reasonable or not is a matter which falls properly within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Property Tribunal (FTT), this is as the Ombudsman is unable to make a binding decision on the amount or level of a service charge which residents should be paying. As such the Ombudsman will not be considering this aspect of the complaint any further. If the resident believes the charges incurred are higher than necessary, or charges have been incorrect billed, he will need to seek independent advice, or subsequently contact the FTT who will be able to make a binding decision on the reasonableness of the charge and whether it is indeed payable.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident is a leaseholder, and his property is in a block with a total of four flats.
8. In November and December 2019, the landlord confirmed that the communal lighting to two blocks was being provided through one meter in another block, but this would be split so each block had its own meter. The landlord received quotes for the works to do so and shared this with leaseholders. The original quote received was later amended and electrical fire safety works were included within this.
9. In January 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint stating that the lighting on the fire escape stairs to the building had been disconnected since June 2019.  He disputed that the landlord needed to install a new electrical supply to be able to provide the lighting and believed it could be operated from the current circuit.  The resident explained that another flat in the block had stated their demised circuit had been supplying the electric and they had therefore disconnected the hallway light from their supply.
10. The landlord explained that the communal supply for the properties needed to be separated and it had consulted on the cost of completing this work. The landlord noted that the initial scope of work was not required, and revised costing would be provided. The resident continued to dispute the configuration of the electricity supply.
11. In February the landlord clarified its earlier correspondence to explain that the electric supply had not been from one property but from a central distribution board in another block and costs then shared between residents. The resident highlighted concerns with the fire safety of the communal hallway and stairs, namely the provision of the emergency lights, requesting that the light sensor be replaced.
12. In October, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, apologising for the delay.  In respect of the fire safety, it confirmed the works carried out were linked to upgrading the communal lighting system ensuring they were metered separately to his block, but it would be carrying out a detailed assessment of fire safety within all its blocks and this would include fire doors. The landlord explained the sensor system associated with the lighting, noting that the new lighting system did include emergency lighting, which had been identified following a risk assessment. It explained that the communal lighting had been provided to several blocks via a meter in the lobby of another block and provided photographic evidence of this.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and on 23 October, requested the complaint be escalated. He noted that the new light fittings were activated by a green-coloured sensor inside the cowling. He asserted that the light on the stairs worked perfectly but the light over the main door was on permanently and the switch to turn it off had been removed. He requested that the landlord adjust or replace the sensor or switch.
14. On 4 January 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response clarifying there was no statutory requirement to upgrade other non-associated fire safety elements to a building as part of the renewal of the communal electric supply lights. It explained the senior electrical engineer had inspected the works and confirmed that the lights over the main door were turned off and would be activated in case of emergency and the illuminated fire escape sign above this door was a legitimate safety requirement as part of an emergency lighting system. It advised that the engineer would be happy to meet with the resident to address any further queries around the matter.
15. On 5 January, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 3 stating he was unhappy that the fire safety work had not been completed. He disputed that fire exit signs needed to be permanently illuminated.
16. In March, the landlord provided its final response. It noted that the previous responses adequately reflected its position in relation to the communal lighting, and it had been confirmed by its senior engineer that there was no statutory requirement to upgrade other non- associated fire safety works as part of the electrical works and the works undertaken fully met current regulation. It reiterated its offer for the resident to meet with the engineer to discuss any specific technical queries.

Assessment and findings

17. The Ombudsman is aware that whilst the building met previous building regulations, the landlord sort to ensure that the fire safety met current regulations.
18. Prior to the resident’s formal complaint about the absence of lighting in the communal hallway, the landlord advised residents that electrical work would be completed which would address the fire safety issue in relation to lighting in the communal stairway.
19. The works proposed were completed and whilst the resident raised concerns about additional fire safety work, this did not form part of the electrical aspect and the landlord reasonably explained the actions it would be taking to address this.
20. While there was an issue with the lighting in the communal area, the landlord reasonably considered this in line with work it needed to undertake. Following completion of the work, the communal lighting for fire safety purposes was confirmed to be working in line with current regulations. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord also reasonably offered the resident the opportunity to meet with its senior engineer to discuss the technical aspects of the electrical fire safety and this again was reasonable.
21. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its suitably qualified operative in concluding whether the communal lighting met current regulations in relation to fire safety and the subsequent works confirmed as making the building compliant was in line with the landlord’s obligations.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to the communal lighting.
23. In accordance with paragraph 39i of the housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the payment of service charge for electricity is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.