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

Gateway Housing Association Limited (202000681)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000681

Gateway Housing Association Limited

10 March 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 resident complains about:
    1. the landlord’s administration of the service charge for communal lighting, and;
    2. its response to her requests for information about the electricity meters.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. In her complaint to this Service the resident has said that the landlord has made an error in apportioning electricity costs, and believes that it does not have an estimated bill for her property. The resident also states that as an outcome to her complaint she would like the landlord to “Recognise and acknowledge from a health and safety point of view, that if there was a fire and there was no lighting what the outcome could be.” The Ombudsman understands that this is in relation to a concern that the communal electricity is reliant on a neighbour’s key meter.
  3. However, these matters were not part of the complaint that she put to the landlord. As set out in this report, the complaint which was made via the landlord’s formal complaint process was in relation to the resident’s request for information about how costs were calculated and for the serial numbers and locations of meters. While she may have made these enquiries due to underlying concerns about how costs were calculated, no specific complaint was made about an error in apportioning electricity costs. Similarly, while the resident did mention that communal electricity was supplied via her neighbour’s key meter which sometimes ran out, no complaint was made about this and no safety concerns were raised. 
  4. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As concerns about errors in the apportioning of costs and the communal electricity supply/safety did not form part of the complaint considered via the landlord’s complaint procedure, these matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. Should the resident wish to pursue these issues further, she will need to make a formal complaint to the landlord about them in the first instance.
  5. However, this Service can investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information as this was escalated through the landlord’s complaint process.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 2 June 2019 the resident emailed the landlord about an increase in her service charge from 1 April 2019 and asked for an explanation as to how these charges had been calculated, noting “The increase is almost 3 times the previous year.” The resident explained that the communal lighting was available provided there was electricity from her neighbour, but sometimes their key meter ran out when they were away.
  2. The landlord replied on 14 June 2019 stating “The budgets mainly consist of the deficit from the previous year, lighting costs for the current year and a provision for day-to-day repairs. Our contractor has given us the consumption report for 2019 based on the invoices we received at £1528.56. Gateway has entered an amount of £750 in the budget for the lighting costs.”
  3. It went on to say that it had tried to contact the neighbour to ascertain if they were on a key meter and would arrange a visit to read the meter as “we think the cost may have been calculated on an estimated reading. Once I have the correct meter reading, Gateway will recalculate the cost base on actual usage.”
  4. The resident replied that same day asking for clarification on the estimate, where the consumption reports were obtained from, and what service was carried out. As the landlord did not respond, the resident raised a formal complaint on 11 July 2019.
  5. On 2 August 2019 the landlord provided a stage one response, apologising for the delay, and that the resident’s request for further clarification had not been responded to. It repeated that the budgets mainly consisted of the deficit from the previous year, lighting costs for the current year and a provision for day-to-day repairs, and said that the consumption reports were supplied by the energy supplier, Monarch. The charges for electricity were based on estimated readings, with the energy supplier estimating the annual consumption cost for 2019 as £1528.56, but the landlord had entered an amount of £750 in the budget for the lighting costs. If the actual bill was over £750 this would lead to an overall deficit for the scheme and this shortfall would then be incorporated into the budget for the following year and collected through weekly service charges over the course of 52 weeks. If the accounts showed a surplus, the amount would be credited to the scheme’s budget in the following year and paid back weekly through service charges. The landlord confirmed that there were no revised calculations and provided a breakdown of the current service charge year. £25 was offered for the earlier failure to provide a response to the resident’s enquiries.
  6. On 20 August 2019 the resident asked the landlord to supply the serial number of the electricity meter as she wanted to take a reading of this for personal reference and to confirm its actual location. She said, “To ensure there is no duplication of payments I would also like you to confirm the serial numbers to the other two meters situated in the property and confirm the location.”
  7. As she received no reply, the resident emailed the landlord again on 1 September 2019 asking that the matter be progressed to the next stage of the formal complaint process. As there was still no reply from the landlord the resident emailed again on 7 November 2019 asking for a response within five days.
  8. The landlord sent an acknowledgement email stating that the enquiry had been passed to the Finance Team. As she then heard nothing further, the resident emailed on 19 November 2019 again asking for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord responded that same day saying “We are aware you were contacted by…the Leasehold Officer, who arranged to visit the property and provide you with the serial number. Regrettably, she is presently not in the office, and we assumed she had provided you with the information and the issue had been resolved. We do apologise that this is not the case. We will arrange for someone to visit in the next few days and get back to you with the information you require.”
  9. The resident responded saying that she would like the complaint to be escalated due to the time it had been ongoing. On 25 November 2019 the landlord provided a stage two response. In this letter the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with the information that she had requested. While it had committed to visit the property and provide the serial numbers on the 19 November 2019 this had still not been done. The landlord said “Officers have been instructed that this should be provided to you within the next 5 working days… Please accept my apologies for this poor service. I accept that there are areas of learning in terms of improving our communications and actions with you, and ensuring that the correct officers are tasked to carry out requested actions.” It offered £50 for the failings identified.
  10. On 1 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that despite its response “…I have not received confirmation to the question I raised regarding the serial number and location of the meter whereby the service charges applied for lighting to the property have been obtained from.” The Ombudsman understands that to date she has still not received this information.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial 2 June 2019 request for an explanation as to how her service charges had been calculated 12 days later, which while not particularly quick, was not unreasonable. It provided an explanation as the resident had requested and said that it would arrange to read the meter and would recalculate the cost once the reading was obtained. However, there is no indication that this occurred, and it then failed to reply to the resident’s request for further information, resulting in a formal complaint being made.
  2. The response to the formal complaint (which was marginally outside the ten working day time frame for response) acknowledged the failure to provide the resident with the further clarification that she had requested and apologised for this, offering £25. It also provided further detail on the service charge. In her response, the resident did not challenge the information that the landlord provided or seek to raise further concerns, but asked for the serial numbers and locations of the meters as she wanted to take readings for personal reference and “To ensure there is no duplication of payments”.
  3. However, once again the landlord did not respond, and neither did it respond to the resident’s 1 September 2019 email escalation request nor her 7 November 2019 email (other than an acknowledgement). This was a failing on the part of the landlord, as it was not reasonable and was not in line with its Customer Service Standards Commitment that sets out that it will:
    1. adopt a ‘can do’ approach – if we cannot deal with your enquiry straight away, we will explain why
    2. keep in contact and communicate progress – you will not have to chase us
  4. It was not until the resident emailed again on 19 November 2019 that the landlord supplied a response and said that it would arrange for someone to visit in the next few days and provide the serial numbers and locations as requested. However, there is no indication that this happened, which given the continuing nature of her requests must have been frustrating for the resident.
  5. In the landlord’s 25 November 2019 stage two response it acknowledged that the action which had been promised had still not been carried out, and assured the resident that the information would be provided within the next 5 working days. It apologised and offered £50 for the failings identified.
  6. While it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered redress for this, this Service understands that it has still not provided the resident with the information that it agreed to, more than a year later. The Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure on the part of the landlord that has caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and suggests that the landlord has failed to monitor the outcome of the formal complaint to ensure that the actions it promised were carried out. 
  7. It is worth noting that the Ombudsman made three attempts over approximately five months to obtain information from the landlord to complete this investigation. This included the serial numbers and locations of the meters. The landlord has provided only one “Meter Serial number S82A 01213”. It is not clear if this is the resident’s meter or the meter that relates to the communal lighting.
  8. It took the resident three attempts over approximately two months for the landlord to respond to the complaint escalation and, even then, it did not follow through on the actions it had committed to. Given the landlord’s failure to provide information in both circumstances, a recommendation is made in this regard, below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme the complaint about the administration of the service charge for communal lighting is outside of jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for information.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to respond to the resident on several occasions, and despite providing assurances on more than one occasion that it would do so, the landlord has not provided the information that the resident requested.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble taken in pursuing this matter (less any amount that has already been paid via the complaint process).
  2. Attend the property, locate the meters and determine their serial numbers, and provide written confirmation of the locations and serial numbers to the resident (with a copy sent to this Service).

Recommendation

  1. Should the resident have any further concerns or complaints following on from the provision of this information, the landlord should ensure that it responds to these in line with its complaint policy, or signposts to the relevant body (if, for example, concerns about service charges fall under the remit of the First Tier Property Tribunal).
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not already done so as part of its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should review how it records and monitors correspondence about complaints, and what improvements might be made to avoid delayed and incomplete outcomes.