Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202126525)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126525

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

2 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The replacement of the resident’s windows and radiators.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has advised that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident has advised throughout her complaint that she suffers with COPD which can be affected by cold temperatures. She has also advised this Service that she has several other vulnerabilities which affect her breathing and mobility.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident has historically had multiple repairs undertaken to her window catches and hinges. In April 2021, the resident requested a heating assessment of the property as one half of the property was cold which was affecting her health conditions. She also asked when her windows were due to be replaced. She reported struggling to keep heat in the property and had experienced high energy bills which she believed was related.
  3. Operatives attended in May 2021 and identified that the windows needed replacement, noting that the double glazed units had blown and had gaps. The records indicate that no issues were found with the heating within the property. In June 2021, the resident was informed that the windows would be replaced as part of “this year’s” planned works programme. She continued to pursue updates from the landlord regarding the timescale as the property was cold and asked whether the radiators would also be replaced. In September 2021, operatives attended to check the heating system and noted that all radiators were of an adequate size. The resident continued to pursue her concerns in November 2021; she maintained that the property was cold which was affecting her medical conditions and her energy bills were high.
  4. The resident raised a complaint in December 2021 as she had been told that the windows were due to be replaced before the end of the year but had since been informed that this meant the end of the financial year. She added that she had previously been told that urgent repairs would be carried out in the meantime but that these would not be attended until after the Christmas period. She advised that the property was cold due to the windows despite her paying £180 a month on her energy bills, and was having an impact on her medical conditions. She was dissatisfied that she had needed to chase the landlord for updates and noted that she had been raising similar concerns for five years. She wanted the landlord to provide a full or partial reimbursement for her increased energy bills., repairs to be completed before Christmas and the windows to be replaced before the end of winter. She also raised a subject access request for repair logs and reports regarding the windows over the past five years.  
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that the correct procedure had been followed when adding the resident’s property to its planned works programme. It explained that the resident first raised concern about the condition of the windows in April 2021, all other previous repairs related to the windows had been in regard to the window catches. It acknowledged that the resident needed to regularly chase for updates on the repairs and that there had been miscommunication regarding when the replacement would be undertaken. It confirmed that it had brought the replacements forward in view of the resident’s concerns; the landlord’s records show that it completed repairs to the resident’s windows on 15 December 2021, the windows and radiators in the property were replaced in January 2022. It said that it would not offer a reimbursement to the resident as it was unable to tell whether the increased energy bills were a direct result of the windows needing replacement. It confirmed that it had referred the resident to a support service regarding her financial concerns related to her energy bills. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by its poor communication and offered the resident £451.16 compensation, which was equivalent to four weeks rent. It also acknowledged that the resident had advised that she had struggled to keep her home warm which had exacerbated her health conditions and apologised for the poor service she experienced.
  6. The resident then raised a separate complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of the initial complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to issue its stage two complaint response and that she had been advised that a member of staff had ‘forgotten’ to call her. In response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond to the resident’s initial stage two escalation and its poor communication.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she felt the landlord had ignored the impact that the cold temperatures had on her health and was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken for the landlord to replace the windows in the property. She also felt that her request to be reimbursed for high energy bills had been ignored, noting that the room temperature never met the thermostat level and therefore never turned off as a result of the window condition. She noted that the records from the landlord she had requested were also incomplete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the window repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues regarding the windows in the property. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from April 2021 onward, which is when the resident initially requested a heating assessment of the property due to the impact of the cold on her health.
  3. In her correspondence with this Service, the resident also raised concerns that she had requested information from the landlord, but that the records provided were incomplete. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to subject access requests and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (www.ico.org.uk). As per paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which properly fall within the remit of another Ombudsman or complaint handling body. As such, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this matter after taking the matter through the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may wish to approach the ICO.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows and radiators.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property including windows. It is also responsible for repairing installations provided for space heating. The landlord’s repairs policy states that appointed general repairs, such as repairs to window handles, should be completed within 11 working days. Larger works, such as the replacement of radiators should be completed within 21 working days. The landlord would be expected to confirm the details of each repair with the resident and provide an estimated timescale for the work in order to manage a resident’s expectations. The repairs policy also states that the replacement of individual elements such as doors, kitchens and windows would be carried out under its planned maintenance programmes. The landlord’s planned maintenance policy confirms that the landlord would ensure that all tenants are kept informed at each of the key stages of the process.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the replacement of the windows in the property was poor. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that the resident had spent time and trouble pursuing updates and repairs to the windows as well as information as to when they would be replaced. It apologised for its poor communication with the resident regarding the repairs and replacement, and offered £451.16 compensation (equivalent to four weeks’ rent). This amount went some way in recognising the resident’s experience.
  3. Following the resident’s initial reports that the property was cold and affecting her medical conditions in April 2021, however, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord had enquired further regarding the resident’s health conditions in order for it to determine how to support her more effectively. The landlord did not provide the resident with an opportunity to provide medical evidence to support her claim that the property was impacting her health. In addition, it is of concern that in its communication with this Service, the landlord advised that it had no formal record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  4. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. With this in mind, and noting the resident’s concerns about cold, the landlord was responsible for checking the thermal efficiency of the property and to determine whether the temperature in the property was adequate or not under the relevant regulations, especially given her vulnerabilities.
  5. Whilst operatives had identified no issues with the heating system at an earlier time, following the resident’s subsequent complaint and reports of inadequate heating, there is no evidence to suggest that any further assessment was completed until 30 September 2021, which was five months after. In addition, whilst operatives concluded that the radiators were adequately sized for each room in September 2021, it remains unclear as to whether the thermal efficiency or temperature of the property was checked to determine whether it was adequate. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s concerns about the impact of the cold on her health. Had an assessment been completed, the landlord could have confirmed for both the resident and itself that the property met the required standards, and / or followed up on any recommendations made to improve the properties energy efficiency.
  6. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as doors, windows, kitchens and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis – unless the item in question was beyond economical repair and posed an immediate danger to the resident.
  7. In this instance, the landlord sought to include the resident’s replacement in its scheduled planned works but agreed to bring the replacement of the windows forward from February 2022 to January 2022. It was reasonable that it showed some flexibility here. It might have been more reasonable, however, for it to have brought this forward further (than a month), in view of the resident’s medical conditions. At minimum, if it could not facilitate this, it could have offered an explanation as to why.
  8. Moreover, as the resident had reported that she was worried about the temperature in the property and the impact this may have on her health, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether any remedial works could be undertaken to lessen the impact in the meantime. Whilst some work to the casements of the windows was initially done in May 2021, the resident said she was dissatisfied with this work and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord undertook a post works inspection or carried out any action – such as sealing the gaps in the windows as a temporary measure – until December 2021. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed, at an earlier time, whether the temperature / heating efficiency was suitable enough for the resident to wait until the planned works, and / or whether some form of intervening action to increase the temperature / efficiency was required.  
  9. In consideration of all circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s offer of £451.16 compensation proportionately reflected the service failings as a whole. As such, this Service has ordered the landlord to increase its compensation offer to £600 in recognition of the additional inconvenience caused, and particularly in light of her medical condition / vulnerabilities. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts between £250 -£700 may be offered where there has been maladministration of this nature. Examples include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable levels of involvement by that complainant or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs or to make adequate adjustments.
  10. For completeness, the Ombudsman notes the resident’s dissatisfaction that she was not reimbursed for her alleged increased energy bills. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that it would not offer a reimbursement as it was not able to establish that the high utility costs for heating the property were a direct result of the issue relating to the windows, window repairs or the identified replacement of the windows. However, given that the landlord was advised by its contractors that the windows were the likely cause of heat loss, it may have been appropriate for it to have done so. The landlord was provided with expert opinion from which it could have deduced that the property would have been harder to heat up. It might have been able to assess this by considering whether there was any change in energy usage following the window replacement.
  11. The landlord would not be expected to consider reimbursing the resident for the energy costs prior to April 2021. This is as it would have been unable to assess the issue and to act on it without it being first brought to its attention. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, from the time it became aware that the windows were likely causing loss of heat, it should have taken reasonable steps to prevent this. In the absence of this, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered how the lack of action inevitably impacted the resident’s energy bills – particularly over the winter months – and whether compensation could be due. Its failure to do this was a missed opportunity to put things right.
  12. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to award an additional £75, specifically accounting for the period April 2021 (when the complaint was made) – January 2022 (when the replacement was completed). While this Service might usually ask a landlord to consider the average usage in previous years, and to compare this to the period within which the issue occurred, the resident’s suggestion that the matter had been ongoing for a number of years has been taken into account.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. It sets out that at both stages one and two, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale. In line with best practice, a landlord is expected to consider its handling of the complaint within its complaint responses.
  2. In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 8 December 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response over the phone on 17 December 2021 and in writing on 21 December 2021 which was within its policy timescales. The evidence shows that the landlord was initially made aware that the resident wished to escalate the complaint on 17 December 2021, following a phone call. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait to escalate the complaint until the resident had received a written copy of its stage one complaint response to ensure she had a full response to consider. The complaint was escalated on 22 December 2021; however, the landlord did not issue its stage two complaint response until 3 March 2022, which was 38 working days outside of its policy timescales. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord adequately managed the resident’s expectations and the resident needed to chase the landlord on a regular basis for a response which is likely to have caused inconvenience.
  3. With this, the landlord did not consider its handling of the residents complaint or its delayed stage two complaint response as part of its final response. As such, the Ombudsman notes that the resident took the decision to raise a separate complaint in order to have this matter addressed. This Service would expect landlord’s to use the second stage of their complaints process to consider whether it acted in accordance with its policy and whether its complaint handling was appropriate. Resident’s should not have to make further complaints in order to prompt the landlord to do so.
  4. While the landlord subsequently provided the resident with a further two responses, within which it identified that it could have managed the resident’s initial complaint better, and highlighted some learning points, ultimately, this further inconvenienced the resident. The landlord’s initial oversight meant that the resident had to pursue it in order for it to recognise its handling of the matter and also resulted in further delay in the resident achieving resolution as a whole.
  5. The landlord also made no offer of compensation to recognise the resident’s experience, which would have been reasonable in the circumstance. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was a service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint and has therefore ordered the landlord to award £100. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure, such as failing to meet service standards, but where the failing had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows and radiators.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord should award the resident £775 and should provide this service with evidence that it has done so. This is comprised of:
    1.  £675 in recognition of the landlord’s response and management of the resident’s window / heating issues.
    2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its processes for recording vulnerabilities to ensure that a resident’s vulnerabilities are not overlooked in communication. It should also ensure that staff are provided with information regarding the support services available to residents in order to signpost where appropriate.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and updates its records in relation to any vulnerabilities the resident has so that it can consider these when handling her housing and support matters in the future.
  3. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website). It should ensure that in future cases, it considers its handling of a complaint at the point of offering a response, and not after the two stage process has concluded.