When Calum Matheson received a shock letter telling him he owed an additional £550 for energy bills, he knew it was wrong and was determined to fight it.
Calum, a software engineer who owns a leasehold flat in the River Gardens development in Greenwich, south-east London, bought the two-bed home in 2022.
In early 2023, he received a surprise bill telling him he owed an extra £550 for energy usage – even though he had already paid for these bills previously.
Calum soon discovered he was not alone in being hit by the additional charges. Residents at River Gardens were notified in spring 2023 that they were being charged for an almost £200,000 debt of their heat network’s energy account covering a 15-month period spanning 2022 and 2023.
His development is connected to a communal boiler, and with this type of energy supply – known as a heat network – the landlord or freeholder typically buys energy on the commercial market for residents.
Rendall and Rittner, the managing agent for the development until only weeks ago, told residents in spring 2023 that their energy tariff would be going up from that summer.
However, it also told explained the extra charges were being added to their bills because of a £198,986 debt that had accumulated on the heat network’s energy account over the 15-month period.
It said this was because that the development’s energy supplier – With Energy – had ceased buying gas for the building in 2022, and Rendall and Rittner’s procurement arm took over.
However, while gas prices almost doubled, they did not get With Energy to review resident tariffs quickly enough. The delay resulted in a deficit between the cost of gas used to operate the heat network and the bills being paid.
Rendall and Rittner attempted to distribute the debt among homeowners and tenants based on their usage over that time.
Individual bills that the leaseholders were suddenly landed with ranged from £50 to £600, and even residents who had already paid their energy bills in full were told they had to pay additional charges.
“It felt unfair that they were now saying they had not charged enough and were now trying to come back for the extra money. I felt very strongly that it was wrong to ask for this money retrospectively,” Calum told The i Paper.
“These were all bills I had paid the year before and every bill stated what the unit price was and how many units I had paid and I paid the full amount that the bill said I owed,” he said.
“Even if it was £3, someone trying to take money from you retrospectively when you have already paid is not right. But they were trying to tell me I owed them an extra £550.”
Rendall and Rittner warned residents they could not move to a cheaper energy deal they had secured for winter 2023 until the debt was cleared.
Calum was determined to fight the bill and tried every avenue he could think of. Eventually, he realised his only option was to go to a first-tier property tribunal – an independent judicial body that resolves disputes over residential property.
He chose to represent himself and 55 other leaseholders, arguing there was no legal basis for charging historical tariff increases.
It took 18 months to get to the actual hearing but in January this year, his determination paid off when the tribunal found in their favour.
The tribunal stated that the money was “irrecoverable as service charges under the respective leases”. It also disallowed 20 per cent of Rendall and Rittner’s fees for the 15-month period when the debt arose.
However, despite their initial jubilation at winning the tribunal, Calum and the other leaseholders say that months after the decision, they still have not had their With Energy accounts corrected and have not received any response from Rendall and Rittnet about their management fee deduction.
Calum explained that many residents, including himself, had already paid the bills and are waiting to get money back.
“We had no choice but to pay the money at the time and that is why I had to go to tribunal to get the money back for me and the other 55 residents.
“I have a tribunal order that says that the money that myself and other residents paid was never due”
Callum says that as of 1 May, 2026, Rendall and Rittner are no longer the managing agents at their development. However, he says that no leaseholder received any communication from them before they departed and no refunds have been issued to any of the 56 named in the tribunal.
A spokesperson for With Energy said: “We understand the distress and frustration this situation has caused for residents at River Gardens. We recognise how concerning unexpected billing issues can be, and we understand why this has been a difficult experience for those involved.
“At the time these issues arose, With Energy’s role at the development was limited to providing billing services in support of the management company. We were not responsible for purchasing gas or setting tariffs, and decisions around how any deficits were addressed were not part of our remit.
“Our role was focused on administering billing in line with agreed arrangements for the development, rather than determining how charges were set.
“The River Gardens heat network is operated on a not-for-profit basis. The charges in question arose from an under-recovery of cost, driven largely by exceptional global energy market pressures at the time, rather than any commercial gain at residents’ expense.
“We appreciate that the outcome of the tribunal is important to residents and are engaged with the management company to seek clarity on next steps. In the meantime, no enforcement action has been taken in relation to the disputed amounts, and none would be pursued without a clear and lawful basis.
“We are committed to supporting a fair and transparent resolution and will continue to work with all parties to help bring this matter to a close as quickly as possible.”
A spokesperson from Rendall and Rittner said: “The tribunal findings relate to a case brought against our former client, which proceeded without our involvement.
“We would always wish to comply with the direction of a tribunal but in this case the findings are subject to ongoing legal discussions and we will comment further when these are resolved.”
Hence then, the article about we re leaseholders who fought a 200 000 energy bill and won we want our refunds was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( We’re leaseholders who fought a £200,000 energy bill and won. We want our refunds )
Also on site :