Wandsworth Council (202015540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015540

Wandsworth Council

14 January 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 administration of the resident’s rent account, in relation to the amount charged for water rates. 

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 39 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
4. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.’ This means that we cannot assess whether a charge levied by a landlord is excessive.
5. In addition, this investigation does not consider the historic water charges, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider issues which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.  The resident has queried water charges back to 2014 but this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2020. Some historic issues are referenced for context, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made via this Service in March 2021.

Background and summary of events

6. The resident has a secure tenancy for a one-bedroom flat on the eighth floor where he has lived for over ten years. He has no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
7. The introductory tenancy agreement provided for the property dated July 2011, showed a water rates element of £7.34 per week.
8. The landlord’s ‘your rent explained’ booklet, at page seven, explained that the landlord collected water rates on behalf of the supplier. No mention is made of the reduced tariff. Page 26 of the booklet says that if tenants have rent worries, they should call or text the number given.
9. The landlord’s online complaints guidance says complaints will be responded to within 20 working days at stage one, and 15 working days at stage two of the internal complaint process.

Summary of events

10. The landlord has provided a draft example of a letter sent on 30 December 2019 which advised residents that the water supplier would collect charges directly from residents with effect from 1 April 2020.  The letter enclosed an application to apply for a reduced tariff, available to those on low income and in receipt of benefits.
11. The resident was issued with a water rates bill for the property direct from the supplier on 28 April 2020. The bill was for £261.96 and said that the payment plan was ‘Watersure Plus’.
12. On 16 November 2020 the resident asked the landlord to give permission to the water supplier so he could get details of water bills prior to 2020. 
13. The landlord advised the resident that water bills prior to 31 March 2020 were paid via the rent account, there were no individual bills, and all monies were forwarded by the landlord to the water supplier.  It explained that water charges were part of an account consisting of 15,000 accounts, and there were no separate bills. All water rates paid up until 31 March 2020 were collected via the rent account and paid on to the water supplier. 
14. The resident asked the landlord why he was paying so much less for water rates than he was prior to 31 March 2020. In its response of 20 November 2020, the landlord confirmed that the sum paid by the resident in 2019/20 was £513, at £9.68 per week. The resident said he was now paying £23 monthly, which equated to £276 a year. The landlord said that it appears he had applied for the lower tariff which the supplier had invited all residents to apply for when they issued introduction packs in February 2020. The resident said that he had not applied for the reduced tariff and asked again why he was paying so much less now.
15. The landlord replied on 23 November 2020 that it had no control over the sum billed for water rates as it acted in an agent capacity only. It recommended that the resident discuss the matter with the water supplier.
16. The landlord queried the issue with the water supplier on 28 December 2020, stating that the resident confirmed he had not applied for a reduction in his tariff since transferring to the supplier direct, which might have accounted for the reduction. The supplier stated, on 6 January 2021, that it could not discuss the resident’s water charge due to data protection but confirmed that the charge of £513.01 for 2019/20 was correct, based on the standard rate.  
17. Following contact from this Service on 11 March 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 12 April 2021 as follows:
    1. The complaint was regarding the water rates paid for the resident’s property for the period 2019/20 and how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the payments collected from them on behalf of the water supplier.
    2. The resident stated that before 1 April 2020 they paid water rates to the landlord, and direct to the supplier after that date, when they noticed they had paid more to the landlord. The water supplier would not discuss the earlier account it had with the landlord.
    3. The resident wanted a breakdown of what was paid to the water supplier by the landlord, evidence that they were collected by the water supplier, and to know what would happen if the resident had overpaid the supplier.
    4. The landlord confirmed the weekly charge between April 2019 and March 2020, was £9.68 (annual £513) and this was what was paid by the landlord to the supplier. The landlord did not receive individual bills for each property.
    5. The landlord contacted the supplier who confirmed the figures to be correct.
    6. The landlord concluded that the resident was not overcharged water rates for this property for the period 2019/20 and that the annual charge was in accordance with the guidelines from the water supplier.
    7. The complaint was not upheld, and further appeal rights were given.
18. The resident remained dissatisfied and on 6 May 2021 asked to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. He asked for the amounts paid in respect of water rates from 2010 to March 2019 and on what basis the charges were calculated. The resident said that at some points he was in arrears, and he wanted to know if the landlord had calculated the charges for someone on a low income, such as himself, and if he had not been on a low income, how much more he would have paid.
19. A stage two complaint response was issued on 25 May 2021:
    1. The complaint was about the water rates charged by the landlord under its agency agreement with the water supplier.
    2. In the original complaint, the resident raised the issue of the water rates for the year 2019/20 and this was the period investigated.  
    3. The stage one response included the email from the water supplier which showed the water rates were paid in full and there were no outstanding sums due. Permission had been given for the resident to discuss the account with the water supplier if they wished.
    4. The landlord had no information as to why the resident was paying less now directly to the water supplier but directed them to the supplier.
    5. The landlord did not set or calculate the water charges as these were controlled by the supplier. The tariff that the resident had paid for water rates was the standard tariff from the water supplier.
    6. There was a tariff called ‘Watersure Plus’ which the landlord directed residents to if they were known to be in financial difficulties. This tariff would be applied by the water supplier and was at their discretion. Any application had to be made directly to the supplier but was often supported by the rent officer.
    7. Apart from a short period of a small amount of arrears in 2014/15, the resident had no arrears on their rent account.
    8. The parameters of financial difficulties were at that time related to tenants who were in ongoing arrears, regularly unable to meet their water rates and rental liabilities, regardless of whether they were facing repossession action. 
    9. There was no indication on the account that the resident was facing financial difficulties or struggling to pay their charges.
    10. The landlord said it had not overcharged the resident for water rates for the period 2019/20, the charge was appropriate and in line with guidance from the water supplier and with information the landlord had regarding the account and the resident’s ability to pay.
    11. The complaint was not upheld.

After the final response

20. On 10 June 2021 the landlord provided the resident with the previous water bills for the property. The resident remained dissatisfied and queried why the landlord did not take his low income into account and apply to the water supplier for help. He wanted the landlord to apply the 50% discount to his account for the period 2014 to 2020 and to provide a full refund of the overcharges for the related period. He said the rent officer was aware he was on social security, and he would expect the landlord to provide him with the information he needed, or direct or refer him to the appropriate agency or department for assistance. 
21. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had no evidence prior to December 2019 that the resident was informed of the cheaper water rates tariff which could be applied for with the water supplier.  The ‘rent explained’ booklet for 2019/2020 encouraged residents to contact the Financial Inclusion Team (FIT) if they were struggling financially, but if the resident’s circumstances were not known to the FIT he may not have been specifically identified as a resident who was eligible.

Assessment and findings

22. As outlined above, this investigation does not include the water charges made from 2014 to 2019, or the level of service charges set by the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about challenging the amount he was charged by the landlord, and for periods before the remit of this Service. 
23. The investigation has considered whether the resident’s enquiry about the amount charged by the landlord, at the time the rates were paid directly to it, was appropriate. It would seem from the evidence provided by the water supplier that the sum charged in respect of the resident’s water rates was correct, and that the landlord did not charge the resident more than it paid to the supplier in respect of the property.
24. Given the above, this investigation will not be making a comparison with the current amount now charged directly by the water provider. The resident had stated initially that he did not apply for the reduced water rates tariff, and his 2020 bill from the supplier was not reduced because of this, however the evidence provided indicates that this was incorrect. The water rates bill for 2020/2021, dated 28 April 2020, showed the ‘WaterSure Plus’ payment plan. This is the scheme referred to in the landlord’s final response as being a social tariff recommended to its tenants who were in ongoing arrears, and regularly unable to meet their water rates and rental liabilities.
25. The WaterSure Scheme was not previously applied in the resident’s case, as his rent account had been in good order, bar a short period in 2014/15, which precedes the period being considered in this report. The landlord has said it did not suggest the tariff specifically, which in any event was at the discretion of the water supplier.
26. The resident’s frustration that he may have been entitled to a reduction in his water rates previously is understood. From the landlord’s account, it would not ordinarily provide residents with information about the reduced tariff unless they were in arrears on their rent. This indicates that it based its assessment of the financial situation of its tenants solely on their defaulting in fulfilling their rent payment obligations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider that some tenants may pay their rent while experiencing considerable financial difficulties. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that it did not adhere to its policy or the terms of the resident’s tenancy by not informing him about a likely lower tariff.
27. This Service notes that the tenancy booklet advises tenants to contact the landlord if they are experiencing financial difficulties and they will be provided with support. The booklet applies to the period considered in the complaint, 2019/2020, however, it is not clear to this Service whether the resident was aware of this information. The landlord has provided no evidence to this Service that this document was made available to the resident, and its mere existence cannot be taken as evidence that he was aware of this provision. However, this Service also has no evidence of the resident being unaware of the information in the booklet.
28. The water rates were controlled, set, and calculated by the water supplier and the correct sum was collected by the landlord. Once the resident raised the issue, the landlord made enquiries to the water supplier and explained the sums previously charged, and this was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. That the resident now pays under a lower tariff indicates that he may have been eligible for the lower tariff if he had been aware of it and thus made an application, but it is impossible to determine that this would have been the case.
29. In the landlord’s final decision, it stated that it routinely recommended the reduced tariff ‘to tenants as part of the rent account management function by the Rent Collection Service during their day to day work’. As the resident’s rent account was not in arrears, he would not have been informed by the landlord’s rent collection service about the availability of the scheme. Ultimately, it would have been more helpful if the landlord ensured that all its residents were aware of the scheme regardless of their rent situation. However, there was no obligation on it to do so.
30. Although it was not for the landlord to decide whether the resident’s application for the reduced tariff would be approved, it would have been good practice for him and all other tenants to have been advised of its existence. However, it must be clarified that the resident’s original complaint is that the landlord had overcharged him for water rates, but this report has found that this was not the case. It is noted that he also would not confirm to the landlord that his lower water rate was due to the supplier approving the reduced tariff for him. This Service has considered these further factors in arriving at its decision in this case.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its administration of the resident’s rent account, in relation to the amount charged for water rates.

Reasons

32. The landlord has shown that the sum charged and collected in respect of water rates was equal to the sum paid to the water supplier in respect of the property. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord had an obligation to inform the resident about applying for the reduced tariff without him being in rent arrears.

Recommendations

33. The landlord should consider being proactive in ensuring that its residents are aware of any available support that they could access, even when this is discretionary.