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

bpha Limited (202011346)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011346

bpha Limited

20 May 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 is about:

  1. Changes made by the landlord to the resident’s electricity supplier.
  2. The landlord removing the resident from the electoral role register.

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.

Removing the resident from the electoral role register

3.     The resident complained on 8 December 2020 to the landlord that it prematurely removed her from the electoral role. She said this had a negative impact on her credit score.

4.     Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.

5.     The resident raised this issue after the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 December 2020. Because of that, the issue has not been considered by the landlord through its complaints process. In line with paragraph 39(a), this Service is unable to consider this matter at this time, and it first needs to be raised with and investigated by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

6.     Following the landlord seeking possession of the property through the courts, in November 2019 the resident was served with an eviction order. She then made a payment on her arrears on 4 December 2019, and the eviction order was suspended. The landlord had already started the reletting process for the property. As part of that process, it changed the property’s electricity supplier on 12 December 2019 and opened a new account in the landlord’s name with a new supplier. This meant that the resident remained in the property and paying for electricity, but the electricity account was in the landlord’s name.

7.     The new electricity provider informed to the landlord in April 2020 that the resident could ask to switch back to her previous supplier. According to the landlord’s later correspondence with the resident, it informed her of this at the time, in a voicemail.

8.     Between 29 July 2020 and 13 August 2020, the landlord and resident corresponded. The resident asked to be compensated for the electricity charges she had paid between 10 December 2019 and 28 April 2020, explaining that she did not believe she was liable for this because the electricity account was not in her name. The landlord explained that ordinarily it would not change energy suppliers when applying to the courts for possession of a property, apologised for the mistake, and offered her £30 for the inconvenience it had caused. It said it would review the amount if the resident was able to provide information on the tariff difference between the providers, or the additional costs she incurred.

9.     The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 August 2020. She said she only discovered the change in her electricity supplier in March 2020, after weeks of putting more credit than usual into her meter, and the account was changed back into her name on 6 August 2020. The resident asked for compensation for the additional costs she incurred, as the rate charged by the new supplier was higher than her old supplier. The resident said that, as the account was not in her name during this period, she could not access her usage information, but she believed she had incurred approximate additional costs of £21 per week for 36 weeks.

10. The landlord replied on 9 September 2020. It asked why the resident’s account was not changed back into her name until August 2020, when it had told her she could change her energy provider in April 2020. It reiterated its offer of £30 for the inconvenience of changing supplier, and to review this if the resident could provide evidence of additional costs incurred. The landlord said the results on a price comparison website showed that the resident’s previous supplier predicted an annual electricity spend for the property of 4p more per year than the new supplier.

11.  The landlord asked the new electricity supplier for information on its prices. The supplier replied that it gained the resident’s electricity supply on 12 December 2019, and it still supplied the property, but the account had been transferred into the resident’s name. It informed the landlord of its tariff prices, explained that it charged for the supply on estimated meter readings, and said how much money was paid on the meter while the account was in the landlord’s name.

12. The landlord sent its complaint response on 21 September 2020. It explained what it had learnt from the supplier and that, without meter readings to confirm the exact usage, it could not calculate the exact cost difference between the two providers. The landlord said that, based on its investigation and the information the resident provided, its understanding was that the cost difference between the provider’s tariffs was relatively low.

13.  The landlord offered to compensate the resident a further £70, in addition to its offer of £30 compensation for inconvenience. This equated to 50p per day for 140 days (between 12 December 2019 and 1 May 2020) towards any additional cost the resident might have incurred. The landlord also advised that its money advice team were available to support the resident, as she had reported that she was suffering financial hardship.

14. Following a stage two review meeting on 2 November 2020, the landlord sent the resident a final complaint response on 7 December 2020 (It is not apparent what led the landlord to escalate the complaint). It said that it reviewed the price difference between the two suppliers on a price comparison website, and this showed a difference of between £1 to £34 per year for the resident’s address. The landlord noted that its initial compensation was based on 140 days, but the resident said it took 36 weeks for the supply to be switched over, so it agreed to assess its compensation offer based on these dates.

15. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £300. This accounted for the difference between the providers’ prices; that the landlord changed the provider in error; that the resident was left without electricity for one day; and the amount of time and telephone calls it took the resident to resolve the error, as the landlord initially denied that it had changed the supply. The landlord confirmed that it had not seen evidence to support that the resident incurred an additional cost of £3 per day (£21/week). It suggested that, if the resident had a debit on her meter, the new supplier may have taken an increased payment which could account for the difference.

16. On 9 December 2020, the landlord explained that its response of 7 December 2020 was its final complaint response and, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could contact this Service.


Assessment and findings

17. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, if the landlord wants to end the resident’s tenancy, it is unable to do this without a court order. Therefore, the landlord must follow due process to evict the resident.

18. The landlord’s ‘ending a tenancy’ procedure confirms that, in the event of eviction, a notice form must be completed and given to the housing services team when the warrant application is made. The tenancy end date will be the date of repossession. When the housing services team receives a notice (this section of the procedure does not refer to when to do this for an eviction order) for a pre-payment metered property, they will log into an energy switch portal and input the property address followed by the expected ‘out’ date of the vacating tenant and the expected re-let date.

19. The resident paid her arrears by 4 December 2019, as set out in the court order, so the eviction order was suspended, but the landlord had prematurely changed the property’s electricity supplier. This was an acknowledged service failure on the landlord’s part, as it would not normally do this as part of the warrant application in case of situations like that of the resident’s.

20. Given that it had no evidence of the exact extra costs incurred by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to make its own enquiries of the electricity provider, and attempt to calculate an appropriate amount of compensation based on the information it received. The landlord found the difference between suppliers’ prices to be between £1 and £34 per year. Based on that, and also taking into consideration the amount of time it took to resolve the error; its original mistake in changing the supplier; the resident being left without electricity for one day, and the initial delay in the landlord accepting that it had had changed suppliers, the landlord calculated what it believed to be an appropriate level of compensation.

21. Overall, in the absence of specific evidence of the scale of the resident’s expenses, the landlord took a logical and appropriate approach to calculating compensation to resolve both any extra expense incurred, and its service failings and the frustration and inconvenience they caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.


Reasons

23.  There was an acknowledged Service failure by the landlord in its decision to change the supply of the property despite the resident’s tenancy not ending. The landlord has provided reasonable redress by way of an apology, explanations, and providing £300 compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.