Shocked inhabitants expressed their anger after receiving an unexpected £200,000 invoice for heating and hot water. Residents of a prestigious London apartment complex, overlooking the Thames and close to a historic park, were informed of an increase in energy costs and a hefty six-figure charge due to outstanding debts. The River Gardens residents in Greenwich were notified of the rise in their energy tariff from 20p per kilowatt hour with a 55p standing charge to 37p and 39p, as reported by The Guardian.
The managing agent, Rendall & Rittner, further exacerbated the situation by revealing a substantial £198,986 debt that would be passed on to the residents. This accumulated sum was attributed to the network’s account with the energy supplier over a 15-month period. One resident, Calum Matheson, who owns a leasehold flat in the building, expressed frustration at being asked to pay an additional £500, stating that he had already settled his bills and should not receive an extra one.
Another resident, Anja Georgiou, a renter living with her family in the building, was surprised by an extra £337 charge. According to a letter from R&R, the energy supplier, With Energy, ceased gas purchases for the building in 2022, resulting in delayed adjustments to the residents’ tariff payments. R&R attributed the discrepancy in energy costs to the delayed review of tariffs and announced that debts ranging from £50 to £600 would be distributed among the residents.
Georgiou criticized R&R for attempting to retroactively raise tariffs on previously paid invoices without providing a bill, likening the situation to an unacceptable practice by British Gas. Refusing to pay the additional charges, she highlighted the existing terms and conditions of their energy contract. Matheson, challenging the unexpected bill, along with 56 other leaseholders, took the matter to a tribunal and emerged victorious. The tribunal ruled that the historical tariff increases could not be enforced as service charges under the respective leases.
Although some residents had made partial payments at the time, the tribunal lacked the authority to issue refunds for these amounts. A spokesperson for R&R acknowledged the tribunal’s decision, stating that they were reviewing the matter and would coordinate with their client regarding the heating charges, emphasizing that no additional fees related to heat services had been imposed at the River Gardens.
