COMPLAINT

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a tenant who raised a complaint against their agent concerning the unauthorised change of a utility provider.

The tenant claimed that the agent changed their energy supplier without notice or consent, causing them considerable upset and aggravation.

In response, the agent said that they worked with the new provider who was well known in the industry and who sought to create good relationships with landlords.

The agent claimed that the energy supplier offered competitive prices and that the landlord could easily manage the cost of energy during any void periods between one tenancy and the next. The agent went on to argue that the energy supplier would have written to the tenant on several occasions and they therefore must have ignored this communication.

INVESTIGATION

Within the evidence provided, it was apparent that the tenant had received a bill from the new energy supplier following the transfer of the utilities at the property to this new provider. The tenant claimed that this was not instigated by them or the landlord and they had not known it was to happen. They explained that it had been very difficult and time-consuming to switch back to their original, preferred, utility provider.

As a result of the agent’s actions, the tenant experienced avoidable aggravation and distress.

The agent had been instructed by the landlord to let and manage the property a couple of years before this tenancy commenced. Neither the Terms of Business nor a copy of the tenancy agreement were provided to the Ombudsman. However, it was the understanding of the Ombudsman that the agent had been dis-instructed before the end of the tenancy and were therefore no longer involved in the management of the property.

Within the agent’s evidence, they provided the details of switching the property over to the new energy supplier. They said that they did discuss the provision of this service with the landlord. However, the agent did not provide any documentation to show that they had any communication with the landlord or the tenant in relation to the change in provider. It therefore appeared that the agent had discussed the matter at the beginning of the tenancy, but by the time the change was made, the agent had been dis-instructed and was not in a position to make decisions on behalf of the landlord.

The agent further contended that the tenant must have ignored letters from the new provider. This was not considered relevant to the complaint, but it was made clear to the agent that because they did not provide the name of the tenant to the provider, it was likely any letters sent to the property would have been addressed to ‘the occupier’. If this was the case, it was probable that the tenant did not open any of their letters. As far as they were concerned, the utilities were provided by a different company.

Whilst advising that there was no evidence to show that the agent had given the new energy provider the tenant’s name, the Ombudsman explained that any concerns the tenant had regarding a potential breach of the Data Protection Act should be directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This was not a matter that could be dealt with by the Ombudsman. What the Ombudsman does, and did do, was establish whether or not the agent’s service fell below that expected under the relevant Code of Practice, and whether any shortcomings caused financial loss, aggravation, distress and/or inconvenience.

OUTCOME

The Ombudsman was not persuaded that the agent was instructed by the landlord to contact the new provider or had any authority to do so once their contract had been terminated. Paragraph 1e of the TPO Code of Practice requires an agent to act in accordance with best practice; that had not happened here. As a result of the agent’s actions, the tenant experienced avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience sufficient to merit an award of compensation However, the agent was not held responsible for the subsequent delays in the actions of the provider returning the utilities to the original supplier.

This complaint was supported and an award of £150 was made for the aggravation caused by this matter. This was in full and final settlement of the dispute.