Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lewisham Council (201912664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912664

Lewisham Council

29 June 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the managing agent’s response to the resident’s request that his Thames Water, Watersure Plus, discount be backdated to 2015.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under Paragraph 39(m).

Summary of Events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 26 May 2008. The property is a one bedroom flat on the sixth floor of an eight storey building, which is managed by a social housing provider on behalf of the Council. For this report the social housing provider is referred to as ‘‘the managing agent’’.
  2. The Council’s website states that between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2017, the Council had a contract with Thames Water for the supply of water to its properties. The Council’s website explains that ‘‘Thames Water calculated each bill, and the Council passed the bill onto tenants and collected payment along with rent. Thames Water paid the Council a small commission to carry out this function, to account for the risk of non-collection of charges’’.
  3. In 2015 Thames Water introduced its Watersure Plus discount scheme. At some point prior to June 2017, the managing agent said that it became aware of the scheme though its financial inclusion work and promoted the scheme via its newsletters and website. This service has had sight of the managing agent’s ‘Home’ magazine in June 2017 which provides information about Thames Water’s Watersure Plus discount scheme. The managing agent said that its Welfare Benefits Team also promoted the scheme to any residents they came across who were eligible.
  4. On 25 November 2019, the resident called the managing agent to advise that he had received a letter from Thames Water informing him that as of October 2019 he was now on its Watersure Plus discount scheme. The resident said he was advised by Thames Water that its Watersure Plus discount scheme started in 2015. The managing agent advised the resident to call Thames Water to ask if they would consider backdating his discount with effect from 2015.
  5. The following day the resident logged a formal complaint with the managing agent. The resident said that the managing agent had lied to him when it told him that he needed to speak to Thames Water regarding the backdating of its Watersure Plus discount
  6. The managing agent issued its stage one complaint response on 6 December 2019. The managing agent said that it did not believe that its officers had set out to give the resident false information. The managing agent said that its officers had relayed the information it had received from Thames Water, that residents could apply to Thames Water for its Watersure Plus discount scheme and to request that the discounts it offered be backdated, believing it to be true. The managing agent said that, as there seemed to be conflicting information, it had written to Thames Water to ask it to clarify the rules on backdated applications for its Watersure Plus discount scheme. The managing agent advised this service that it asked Thames Water if they would allow customers to apply for backdates but Thames Water confirmed that it did not allow backdated applications.
  7. The managing agent issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 16 January 2020. The managing agent said that its position remained the same in regard to the resident’s request for a refund relating to the Water Sure discount scheme. The managing agent explained that residents have to apply directly to Thames Water to access the scheme and as such the managing agent nor the landlord had any responsibility for the scheme. The managing agent went on to confirm that it did assist some residents to apply for the scheme if they requested its assistance and that it had informed all residents about the Thames Water scheme in its residents “Home” magazine, and provided further information on its website. The managing agent said that it had spoken to Thames Water who confirmed that it will not backdate any applications to its Watersure Plus discount scheme. The managing agent said that it appreciated that the resident would be disappointed by this but that it could not offer any further assistance in this matter.
  8. The managing agent issued its Stage 3 and final response on 9 March 2020. The managing agent noted that there had been some initial miscommunication regarding the backdating of the Thames Water Watersure Plus discount but this had been quickly addressed. The managing agent said that it was highly regrettable that the resident had not seen the advert in its magazine, however, it had no responsibility for Thames Water’s discount scheme and that it had no jurisdiction over Thames Water’s decision to refuse to backdate the resident’s Watersure Plus discount to 2015.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. The Watersure Plus discount is a scheme offered directly by Thames Water to its customers. Applications for the scheme have to be made directly to Thames Water and it is Thames Water that assesses applications and makes decisions as to eligibility for its scheme.
  3. It is unfortunate that the resident did not see the advert in the managing agent’s ‘Home’ magazine in June 2017. However, neither the assessment of applications nor the decisions as to eligibility for the Thames Water Watersure Plus discount scheme are the responsibility of the managing agent or the landlord. Nor do either the managing agent or the landlord have any responsibility for the decision made by Thames Water to refuse to backdate the resident’s Watersure Plus discount to 2015.
  4. As the resident is clearly dissatisfied with Thames Water’s decision to refuse to backdate his Watersure Plus discount to 2015, he would in the first instance need to make a complaint to Thames Water. More information about Thames Water’s complaints policy can be found at https://www.thameswater.co.uk/help/how-to-complain.
  5. If the resident remained dissatisfied on completion of the Thames Water’s complaints process, he could take his complaint to the Consumer Council for Water (CCW). If he remained dissatisfied at the end of the CCW process, he would then be able to take his complaint to the Water Redress Scheme (WATRS) for a final resolution.