East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202110368)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110368

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

18 May 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of deficient insulation around the property’s extension;
2. The landlord’s handling of upgrades and repairs to the property’s central heating;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 29 July 2019. The property is a four-bedroom house with a single storey extension at the rear. The information seen suggests the property was built around 1993 but the extension was added later. The resident’s concerns were prompted by persistent cold temperatures in rooms at the rear of the property.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, along with installations for supplying heating, water and sanitation. It also shows the resident has the right to make improvements, alterations or additions to the property with prior written consent from the landlord.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. “Excess cold”, due to heat loss, is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. The relevant guidance shows health risks for people with vulnerabilities, particularly the elderly, begin to increase at temperatures below 16°C for long periods.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. Details of the procedure can be found online. The information shows the landlord will respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, a panel will review complaints within 20 working days of a review request.
The landlord’s compensation policy shows it can offer compensation if its representatives damage a tenant’s property or belongings. Evidence must be provided, and the resident should provide supporting quotes for any amount claimed. Any damage caused by the landlord’s contractors, or agents, should be covered by their liability insurance, which is a mandatory requirement for working with the landlord.
The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. His bedroom is in the extension because mobility issues make it difficult for him to use the stairs. The resident’s family includes young children, some of whom also have vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

From the landlord’s internal correspondence, the resident began raising concerns about the extension’s construction around September 2020. It suggests he became aware of a problem after engaging a contractor, with the landlord’s permission, to upgrade the property’s insulation. Ultimately, the resident’s contractor cancelled the works because it was unable to remove the existing insulation.
The correspondence shows the landlord’s “compliance surveyor” inspected the extension on 6 November 2020. Further, the resident enquired about adding a “second zone” to his central heating during the visit. It shows, following the inspection, the landlord attempted to obtain details of the extension’s construction from the local authority. It said the information was unavailable because the extension was over 15 years old.
Internal correspondence between 6 and 13 November 2020 said the property was rated in Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) band C. It was therefore unsuitable for external insulation since ‘the minimum legal requirement for rental properties was band D’. However, a lack of insulation could lead to damp problems and increased heat loss through the structure. The regulations the correspondence referred to were not applicable to the landlord as a social housing provider.
On 20 January 2021 an independent inspection of the extension found heat loss was occurring due to variations in the level of cavity wall insulation. The inspection report said the loss was caused by poor workmanship, or prolonged exposure of the insulation to water. It recommended removing the existing insulation and replacing it with a suitable alternative.
However, it said any remedial measures would be difficult because sections of external brickwork needed temporarily removing. This would allow the existing insulation to be extracted using industrial blowers and vacuums. It said specialist advice should be sought from a relevant contractor to establish the feasibility of the works, along with the required timescale.
It said an alternative option was to retain the existing insulation and insulate the external walls. However, both options would cost thousands and replacing the existing insulation would cause significant disruption for the resident.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord instructed a contractor to arrange an inspection of the property’s central heating. The correspondence said a second zone was needed to ensure the rear of the property was suitably heated in a “controllable manner”. It said the landlord would raise a works order when it received the contractor’s quote. Later correspondence shows a quote was received on
9 February 2021.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 March 2021. The landlord’s case notes show it concerned the landlord’s communication in relation to problems with the heating system. They said the resident advised he hadn’t heard from the landlord for around six weeks after several visits and an inspection.
The notes also show the resident said the extension did not comply with building regulations and the boiler was insufficient for the number of radiators at the property. Further, some of the radiators were either leaking or not working. They also show he said the flue discharged too close to a neighbouring property.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 15 April 2021. The timeline confirms a delay of around 13 working days. The main points were:
1. The landlord prioritised repairs for tenants with no heating. It was sorry the resident was not told this information previously. It had arranged to install a second zone to the property’s central heating on 16 June 2021.
2. A surveyor had been arranged to inspect the cavity wall insulation at the rear of the property. The insulation previously used could not be removed and replaced. A second central heating zone would help to regulate the temperature in this area.
3. The landlord would arrange an inspection of property’s boiler and radiators in response to the resident’s concerns.
A surveyor from a specialist insulation contractor inspected the property on 19 April 2021. The inspection report shows thermal imaging was used to assess heat loss from several areas around the extension. It said the extension was insulated to “varying degrees of completeness”. A significant variation in temperatures was also identified. The following works were recommended to address these issues:
1. Removal and replacement of loft insulation to the extension eaves to ensure a continuation of the thermal seal.
2. Extraction and replacement of the existing cavity wall insulation in the extension.
From the landlord’s later correspondence, the resident asked to escalate his complaint around 22 April 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of his escalation request. The landlord’s case notes from 28 April 2021 show a panel hearing was scheduled for 26 May 2021.
The case notes record multiple entries on 4 May 2021. Collectively, they show the property’s boiler had broken down and replacement parts needed ordering. They said the resident declined an offer of temporary hotel accommodation for the family. They show he asked for additional electric heaters because two were supplied to provide interim heating for the whole property.
The notes referred to the ‘illegal placement’ of the boiler. However, the information recorded was contradictory and the meaning was unclear. They show the resident was advised he could discuss any increased electricity costs following completion of the repair. Further, he asked for a copy of a previous inspection report to help him prepare for the panel hearing.
The landlord’s correspondence shows it received a quote for the recommended insulation works around 5 May 2021. The quote did not include costings for the installation of additional external insulation.
Notes between 5 and 7 May 2021 show Environmental Health (EH) contacted the landlord about the situation. They said the landlord advised the parts were expected to arrive within five days. They also show the resident again asked for a copy of the landlord’s survey. Further, he gave the landlord receipts relating to a smart heating control system (Hive), which he wanted considered as part of his complaint.
A note from 13 May 2021 shows EH asked for an update on the boiler repair. It said the landlord checked with its contractor who confirmed the works were complete. This indicates the repair took around nine days to complete.
Notes from 25 May 2021 show the resident gave the landlord video evidence to be considered during its review. The Ombudsman has seen several undated videos and was unable to confirm what information was supplied at this stage. The notes may refer to separate videos showing the boiler leaking onto a toaster and failing to start.
The Ombudsman has also seen a video of a conversation between the resident and a heating engineer. It shows the engineer advised him they would not have attended if they had known who the job was for. Further, they would not attend the property (even) if an emergency repair was reported. From the recording, the full context of the conversation is unclear.
On 26 May 2021 the stage two hearing took place as scheduled. The timeline indicates there was a delay of around three working days. The Ombudsman has not seen the minutes from the meeting.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 27 May 2021. No information was seen to show the resident was given the survey results before it was issued. The main points were:
1. Zoning works to the property’s central heating were completed on 25 May 2021. The landlord was unable to comply with its commitment to complete the works using a sole contractor. This was unachievable given the combined impact of the pandemic and a high volume of repairs. The landlord was sorry the resident wasn’t told its plan had changed as a result.
2. The landlord removed the resident’s Hive system during these works. Its removal was in line with the landlord’s objectives and the system was installed without its permission.
3. The property’s boiler had been subject to ongoing professional maintenance. Concerns around its suitability for the size of the property, were not raised during previous testing. A recent inspection confirmed its flue discharged in accordance with both gas safety and manufacturer standards.
4. The wording of the stage one response was misleading because the landlord had professional confirmation the existing insulation could be removed. Removal and replacement works were now arranged.
5. Survey reports the resident requested would be included with the landlord’s response. A goodwill payment of £250 was offered in relation to delays and inconvenience the resident experienced during the works. To regain the resident’s confidence the landlord had reassigned responsibility for coordinating the remaining works internally.
6. Due to water ingress into the boiler from outside, the landlord had decided to replace it. A new boiler would be fitted in the airing cupboard. Because the landlord identified communication issues during its handling of the repairs, it would review its processes to ensure it learned from the resident’s experience.
On 7 June 2021 the resident disagreed with the outcome by email. This was on the basis several issues were overlooked in the landlord’s response. He explained his reasoning further during phone calls with the landlord on 23 and 24 June 2021. His main points were
1. The boiler leaked over a period of two years and escaping water had broken toasters on the worktop below. The resident wanted £160 to reimburse the cost of four separate toasters damaged over this period.
2. A service incident involving the landlord’s heating contractor was not addressed. During this incident, the contractor told the resident they would not attend his address.
3. The distress and inconvenience caused by the boiler breakdown were not addressed. Overall, the family was without heating and hot water for 12 days. He was also concerned the landlord incorrectly told EH he had access to an electric shower, and it would supply additional heaters.
4. The landlord failed to address the resident’s excess gas usage. He felt around £300 would be sufficient to reimburse this cost.
5. The landlord gave verbal permission the resident could install the Hive system on the basis it wasn’t a “permanent fixture”.
Internal correspondence on 13 July 2021 shows the boiler works had been scheduled. However, the landlord was waiting for information from its insulation contractor to progress the recommended remedial works.
Correspondence to the landlord on 17 August 2021 shows the new boiler had recently been installed but related finishing works needed authorisation.
The resident updated the Ombudsman by phone and email between 24 and 26 August 2021. He said the boiler works were incomplete since a hole a had been left in the kitchen wall, by the cooker, and shelving had been removed. Further, he hadn’t heard from the landlord’s coordinator for more than four weeks.
A case note from 1 September 2021 shows the landlord attended the property that day with its heating contractor. It shows the resident reported a bedroom floor had been left in a dangerous state for two weeks (following relocation of the boiler). It said, during this time, the resident was “living off takeaways” due to dust from the hole near the cooker.
The Ombudsman has seen undated images showing two substantial holes in the kitchen wall following removal of the boiler. The holes were not located directly above the cooker.
Correspondence from the resident on 2 September 2021 suggests a contractor recently failed to attend a scheduled appointment. Around this time, the landlord advised its insulation contractor it was having “a few” communication issues and it needed to be kept updated. It is reasonable to conclude this meant communication issues with the resident about the works at the property. On
6 September 2021 the resident notified the landlord a contractor was two hours late and the property was a mess.
The Ombudsman has seen undated images showing sections of uneven flooring, along with a floorboard laid directly over a copper pipe. The resident later told the Ombudsman that the image displayed a gas pipe. The information suggests several quality issues arose during the central heating works.
The landlord exchanged emails with its insulation contractor between 9 and 20 September 2021. The initial correspondence shows a delay occurred due to a Covid-19 outbreak at the contractor. However, recommended bridging works to the to the loft insulation were completed by 9 September 2021.
In the later correspondence, the contractor said the remaining works were “a much different job to first thought”. It said replacing the existing insulation would require the removal of outer brickwork. Further, additional external insulation would be an alternative to this “excessive” measure. It said a further option would be to explain the current insulation ‘while not the best, was more than adequate’. The contractor said it would prepare a quote for the available options in due course.
Overall, the above correspondence confirms the landlord had made little progress in relation to the cavity wall insulation since the extension was surveyed on
20 January 2021.
The Ombudsman has seen an image of a snagging list dated 20 September 2021. It lists around 20 issues, arising during the boiler replacement and relocation works, which needed remedial actions including repair, cleaning and further investigation. It shows the new boiler was working but there were concerns around overheating. Overall, it confirms the works were disruptive and that multiple quality issues were identified.
On 28 September 2021 the heating contractor advised it was in the process of buying a replacement bedroom carpet. The resident replied the same day and said items stored in his loft were damaged during the works. Around this time, he told the Ombudsman a Christmas tree stored in the loft had been crushed and the contractor had left the property in a mess. He said this was difficult for him to clean given his disability.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its understanding of discussions during a recent visit to the property. It said:
1. The resident was happy that kitchen works were complete, along with repairs to the cupboard and downstairs pipework.
2. The parties jointly planned how they preferred to proceed with external wall insulation. These works were subject to planning consent and energy calculations.
3. The progress of works was discussed, and it was agreed they were nearly completed except for replacement flooring which was being arranged by the heating contractor.
4. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation previously offered to resolve his complaint and had indicated £1000 was more appropriate.
The email asked the resident to provide information that supported his proposed compensation figure. This included evidence to show £500 compensation was reasonable, along with proof of costs for increased gas usage (over two years) and the Hive system. The landlord said the resident should also provide information showing he obtained prior permission to install the Hive system.
In an email to the landlord the same day, the heating contractor said it previously advised the resident the Hive system would not work over two zones unless he bought additional equipment. It said Hive was removed following this conversation and the system it fitted gave the resident full control over temperatures and timings.
The landlord’s internal correspondence between 12 and 18 October 2021 shows it was unable to find any records showing the resident had requested authorisation to install the Hive system.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord updated the resident. The update included inspection reports which the landlord said were previously provided with the stage two response. The landlord said it was working on (planning) “application requirements for the rear elevation” and it would contact the resident in due course.
During a phone call on 10 May 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman the external insulation works were awaiting planning consent. He also said there were ongoing issues with the boiler since it was installed. These issues included a regular loss of pressure that was recently resolved. He attributed these problems to the workmanship of the landlord’s heating contractor. No outstanding flooring problems were raised during the discussion.
He said various issues began to be rectified after the landlord changed contractor. However, it had failed to make good plasterwork in the kitchen following relocation of the boiler, and several irreplaceable items in the loft were damaged during the works.
Overall, he felt he was paying rent for rooms that were uninhabitable. Further the landlord’s handling of the insulation and heating works warranted compensation given his overall experience.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation has been ongoing for a considerable period and key insulation works have not yet started. Further, the situation has been both frustrating and inconvenient for the resident and his family. While it is understood that boiler issues are ongoing, they fall beyond the scope of this assessment.
Generally, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. In this case, no information was seen to show the resident’s concerns, about ongoing problems after the boiler’s installation, completed the landlord’s formal complaint process. Nor has the Ombudsman seen sufficient information to fairly assess this issue to date.
As a result, the resident should raise a separate formal complaint with the landlord if he wants to pursue this matter. This assessment is focussed on the above timeline and includes the installation of the new boiler, which was agreed at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident’s concerns around historic boiler leaks are also out of scope for similar reasons.

The landlord’s handling of deficient insulation around the property’s extension

No information was seen to show excess cold was identified in any rooms at the property. Nor was any seen to show the extension failed to meet any applicable building standards. That said, the landlord did not dispute additional insulation would be beneficial given the difficulty regulating the temperate in rooms at the rear of the property.
On that basis, it arranged several professional inspections of the extension, in response to the resident’s reports. The timeline shows it intends to comply with the subsequent recommendations. However, it also confirms there were communication failures on the landlord’s part.
This is because the landlord failed to provide the full details of its January 2021 survey to its specialist insulation contractor. If it had, it is reasonable to conclude, the quotation received around 5 May 2021 should have included costings for external insulation. This is because the initial report made clear that replacing the existing insulation would present significant challenges. Instead, the contractor ultimately drew similar conclusions, to the January 2021 report, in September 2021.
This represents an avoidable delay of around five months based on the period between 5 May 2021 and 7 October 2021. This was when the parties agreed to obtain planning permission for external insulation. It was noted the overall delay could be longer based on the landlord’s failure to proactively manage the planning application. This assessment referred to the relevant local authority’s planning website to try and establish the applicable timescales. However, no information was seen to allow the Ombudsman to confirm or quantify any related delays.
There was also a delay in providing the resident with requested survey reports. From the timeline, the length of the delay is difficult to quantify. This is because the landlord said the reports were included with its stage two response on 27 May 2021. Though the resident later said this information was incorrect, no information was seen to show he raised the matter when he responded to the landlord’s findings, in detail, between 7 and 24 June 2021. As a result, the evidence points to a delay of around three weeks between 5 and 27 May 2021.
One of the resident’s key concerns relates to the cost of his energy bills while the situation is ongoing. It is understood he feels the landlord is responsible for any excess gas usage, due to heat lost through the property’s extension, since the tenancy began. However, the landlord cannot be fairly held responsible for this cost because there is no evidence to show it stems from a failure on its part.
Overall, the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns and agreed to recommended measures to improve his situation. However, it was responsible for communication failures, which resulted in a total delay of around six months. While it is noted that the bridging works took around four months to complete, based on the period between 5 May and 9 September 2021, no evidence was seen to show this was due to a further failure by the landlord.
The above identified delays were frustrating for the resident. Broadly, they represent a missed opportunity to promptly improve conditions at the property. However, the landlord was not obliged to pay for any excess gas usage during this period. The resident was also able to challenge the landlord’s stage two findings, including its interpretation of any reports, through this Service.
Given the overall circumstances, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of deficient insulation around the property’s extension.

The landlord’s handling of upgrades and repairs to the property’s central heating

No evidence was seen to show the location of the original boiler breached any required standards. Nor that the landlord gave incorrect information to EH, or that it failed to comply with any EH recommendations. It was noted the timeline shows the landlord, correctly, offered the family hotel accommodation when the boiler broke down and needed parts. It is reasonable to conclude the property was at risk of falling below a required standard at this point.
However, multiple communication failures were evident from the timeline. For example, the landlord acknowledged it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the timescale for the zoning works, in its stage one complaint response. More significantly, from the landlord’s case notes, there is no evidence to show it gave the resident a timescale for resolving the boiler breakdown, or that it responded to his request for additional heaters.
The landlord’s contractors failed to notify the resident of changes to at least two scheduled appointments in September 2021. The resident’s correspondence from this period confirms this was a source of frustration and inconvenience. The landlord’s correspondence suggests it was likely aware of similar issues around this time. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s communication prompted an unnecessary level of engagement from the resident.
The resident has consistently said the family were without adequate heating and hot water for 12 days when the boiler broke down. The landlord’s case notes show it correctly advised it could consider any increased energy costs he incurred during this period. Later, the resident reported flooring was left in a dangerous state for two weeks after a new boiler was installed in a different location. This is supported by further video and photographic evidence, along with the snagging list from September 2021.
The evidence therefore shows the resident experienced acute disruption for around one month, which the evidence suggests was either avoidable, in the case of workmanship issues, or could have been mitigated, for example by providing additional fan heaters. Though the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation at stage two, many of these issues were not addressed by its award.
This is partly because issues around workmanship and missed appointments had not yet occurred. However, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was aware of the circumstances around the boiler breakdown given the timeline. This will be considered during the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The timeline shows the resident experienced lesser disruption for around three months between 1 August and 7 November 2021. This is based on an estimated start date for the boiler replacement works and an estimated completion date for the outstanding flooring works. This is reasonable given the timeline shows the boiler was installed by 17 August 2021, and the parties agreed works were nearly complete on 7 October 2021.
The evidence suggests there were multiple contractor visits over both periods and associated issues including mess and dirt. It is reasonable to conclude the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced over this combined four-month period was exacerbated by his vulnerabilities, along with his family’s circumstances. Given the above, the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient to redress what went wrong.
In relation to the Hive system, the tenancy agreement shows the landlord is responsible for the heating system. It also confirms the resident needs written permission for alterations, amendments or additions. The tenancy agreement is a legal document which sets out the rights and responsibilities of both parties. The wording of the alterations section suggests this is a stringent term of the agreement.
No information was seen to show the resident obtained written permission prior to purchasing or installing the system. The timeline shows the landlord was unable to find any evidence confirming it authorised the installation. As a result, the landlord was entitled to remove it, and cannot fairly be held responsible for reimbursing any associated costs incurred by the resident. No information was seen to suggest the Hive system was damaged when it was removed.
From the information seen, it is unclear whether the landlord is aware of any damaged items in the resident’s loft. The timeline suggests this may be because the issue was reported directly to the contractor on 28 September 2021. The problem was also highlighted in the snagging list from around this time. It is noted the list appears to have been signed by a contractor rather than a representative of the landlord.
As a result, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for additional compensation in respect of damaged items. This includes his reports relating to damaged toasters. The landlord should obtain the relevant details to allow it to consider any damaged items in line with its compensation policy. The landlord is encouraged to show flexibility in respect of the information it requires to assess the resident’s request.
In summary, the resident was impacted by multiple communication issues during the timeline. The resident and his family also experienced significant disruption over a period of around four-months while works were ongoing. The evidence points to a number of quality issues during this time, which extended the duration of the works. Overall, the situation was a source of distress and inconvenience which was exacerbated by the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s previous compensation award was insufficient to address what went wrong, so the Ombudsman will order additional compensation in line with instances where ‘a complainant repeatedly had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement.’ This is a reasonable benchmark given the circumstances.
The above identified failings represent service failure on the part of the landlord. This is a reasonable finding because it acknowledges the landlord, in its stage two response, took some steps to address the resident’s concerns. Additionally, it recognises other issues did not occur until later in the timeline.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline confirms there were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, which amounted to around three weeks in total. No information was seen to show the resident was notified of these delays.
The landlord’s stage two response overlooked important issues. They included the boiler breakdown, and its impact on the resident, and the service incident with the heating engineer. These were matters of importance to the resident. The breakdown occurred several weeks before the panel hearing. Further, the wording of the response referred to water damage to the boiler. On that basis, the landlord was aware of this issue when it responded at stage two.
In relation to the staff conduct issue, it is reasonable to conclude the matter arose in the panel hearing if the landlord was not already aware at this point. As a result, the landlord should have addressed both matters in its response. If they needed further investigation, it should have advised the resident to raise a new complaint. This would have allowed them to complete both stages of the landlord’s complaints process if necessary.
The timeline shows the landlord’s complaint handling continued for several months after its stage two response. This is evident from the landlord’s request for supporting information in October 2021. While the landlord was entitled to request evidence of damages or expenses, in line with its compensation policy, it could have carried out its own investigation into its handling of the boiler breakdown at this point.
At the time of this assessment, these issues were unaddressed for around twelve months. This timescale was unfair to the resident. In the case of the staff conduct incident, it represents a missed opportunity to address conduct which may have impacted other residents. Section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, published in July 2020, says “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. In general, landlords are encouraged to address matters promptly while evidence is still available.
Given the above, this assessment found there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of deficient insulation around the property’s extension;
2. The landlord’s handling of upgrades and repairs to the property’s central heating;
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

In relation to the insulation, the landlord was responsible for communication failures which resulted in a total delay of around six months. This was avoidable and frustrating for the resident.
There were multiple communication failures in relation to the central heating works. The evidence also points to significant quality issues which extended the duration of the works. As a result, the resident experienced considerable distress and inconvenience over a period of around four months.
The landlord failed to address key complaint points in its stage two response or during subsequent communications. This was unfair to the resident and meant the matters were unaddressed for around twelve months.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £800 compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays in its handling of the deficient insulation.
2. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in its handling of the heating repairs and upgrades. This amount is to be reduced by £250 if landlord has already paid its goodwill offer from 27 May 2021.
3. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should contact the resident and gather information about his damaged items with a view to assessing his request for additional compensation. The landlord could arrange to inspect damaged items if this would help to resolve the situation.

Recommendations

The landlord to inspect the kitchen plasterwork and write to the resident with its findings. This is with a view to identifying any required remedial works.
The landlord to provide feedback to the relevant contractor and its complaints handling staff.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and recommendations within four weeks.