Peabody Trust (201910758)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910758

Peabody Trust

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about the heating system and the removal of a solar panel connected to this.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. In the course of the complaint the resident was often represented by her mother, and in this report, both are generally referred to as ‘the resident.’
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obligates landlords to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling–house for space heating and heating water,” and the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible to repair or replace boilers and hot water heaters in the property.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that homes should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS and provide reasonable thermal comfort. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used by local authorities to assess homes for hazards such as excess cold. The HHSRS advises that a healthy indoor temperature is around 21 degrees and indicates more excess cold is 16 degrees and below.
The landlord handles initial complaints informally as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction,’ although its policy suggests this may depend on the complexity of a case, after which a two stage formal complaints procedure is operated. At stage one, a response is aimed to be provided within 10 working days by a case manager from a relevant service area. At stage two, a review is carried out by a separate team and a response is aimed to be provided within 15 working days. The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that before it issues a final stage one response which addresses all the issues raised, it sometimes needs to take actions such as carry out further investigation.

Summary of events

The information provided advises that on 5 and 6 September 2019, a new boiler and thermostat were installed at the property, after reports from the resident that her boiler was noisy and that she was awaiting a new one. This investigation understands that when the new boiler was installed, the existing heating system, including a cylinder, were disconnected from solar panels at the property.
On 10 September 2019, the resident emailed individual landlord staff and attached a complaint.
1. She raised dissatisfaction that the heating system had been disconnected from solar panels at her property, which she felt would affect the heating and future bills, and asked for the system to be reconnected to the solar panels.
2. She raised dissatisfaction with the new thermostat, which she said meant she had not had heating for five days and she was no longer able to turn on the heating as and when required. She noted an individual had attended and said the thermostat was temperature controlled. She said she wanted a ‘booster’ switch and a thermostat like the one she had before.
The resident’s account advises that the staff she had contacted subsequently attended and adjusted the thermostat on 13 September 2019.
On 16 October 2019, the resident emailed a further complaint in a letter dated 6 October 2019.
1. She raised dissatisfaction that she was not informed that the old solar water and heating system, which there was nothing wrong with, would be replaced.
2. She noted she had requested a ‘booster’ switch and a thermostat like before but this had been refused.
3. She raised dissatisfaction that the heating did not come on at programmed times due to the room temperature; came on during the day when no one was in; was too hot upstairs at certain times; and that she was unable to use the thermostat at other times without coming downstairs to keep changing the thermostat temperature up or down.
On 21 October 2019, the landlord responded that it had raised a repair about the heating not working as programmed, which would be attended on 25 October 2019. It said that in order to raise the complaint the resident should confirm her desired outcome. The resident clarified that the complaint was about the installation of the new boiler and the removal of the solar system, and that she wanted a separate booster control upstairs and a non-room controlled thermostat downstairs as before. The landlord then confirmed on 28 October 2019 that it had raised an ‘expression of dissatisfaction,’ which it explained was the first stage in its complaints process.
On 29 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident after speaking to her. It explained a boiler plus controls had to be fitted to comply with current building regulations, but it recognised the one she had did not meet her needs. It noted it had suggested it fit ‘Nest’ or ‘Hive’ controls and would await her decision after she had looked into these. It advised that it was investigating why the old solar panel system was removed, and if it was found that the system was removed incorrectly, it would look at solutions to reinstate the system the way it was before the new boiler was fitted.
On 30 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord that she wanted the old solar panel system back regardless of the outcome of the investigation. She expressed agreement to installation of a ‘Hive’ thermostat, requesting an installation date for this, and also requested confirmation that this would be a temporary measure pending the investigation and reinstatement of the solar panel system. She also said she should be compensated as the issue had caused distress.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident that it would like to visit to get a full understanding of what it needed to do, and it requested her availability.
On 8 November 2019, the resident responded. She did not provide availability for a visit, and said that the landlord should speak to staff who had attended on 13 September 2019. She noted she had agreed to a ‘Hive’ thermostat on a temporary basis and requested confirmation of this and for a job to be raised to install this. The landlord confirmed it would arrange for the ‘Hive’ thermostat to be installed, but advised that it still needed to visit the property to understand what had happened with the solar panel system. It was noted that relevant staff were away the following week and a visit was suggested after they returned. The information provided advises that a ‘Hive’ thermostat was subsequently delivered to the property but this was not installed, as the resident said she would need to get a new phone to install the software to control the ‘Hive’ thermostat.
The same month, the resident contacted this Service to complain that the landlord had not responded to her complaint dated 6 October 2019; addressed her heating problem; or addressed why it had removed her solar panel system without her being informed beforehand. On 8 January 2020, this Service contacted the landlord about the complaint, after which the landlord logged a complaint.
The landlord notes that on 20 January 2020 it spoke to the resident who advised she would be away until mid-February 2020, so it would ‘park’ the issue until she returned. It was noted that she was unhappy about lack of explanation and information about why the solar panel system was removed, and reported issues with when the heating came on and turned off. The landlord subsequently noted that in order to progress matters it needed access to fit the ‘Hive’ thermostat controls, assess the installation and investigate why the solar panel system was removed, which it had not been able to do.
On 25 February 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, which it noted followed a recent conversation with her. It advised that to move forward with the investigation about the removal of a cylinder connected to the solar panels, it needed to access the property. It also noted that the ‘Hive’ thermostat had been delivered to the property but it needed to arrange an appointment to install this. It acknowledged the information it provided was limited, but it emphasised that it needed access to the property in order to progress and resolve the matter. It asked the resident to make contact if she was happy for the landlord to proceed.
On 6 March 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, which it noted followed a conversation that day with her. It noted that it was yet to receive a suitable date for a surveyor and contractor to assess the boiler and install the ‘Hive’ thermostat. The landlord subsequently informed the resident that it had closed the complaint, which it had advised it would do if it did not receive suitable dates.
On 17 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord following a conversation and asked for the complaint to be reopened. She noted that the landlord wanted access to investigate why the solar heating system had been removed and to check the thermostat. She also noted the landlord had confirmed there was a possibility the cylinder for the solar heating and hot water to be replaced. She asked the landlord to call or email her to arrange a date for access. She noted she had still not received a written response to the issues she had raised in her original complaint.
The landlord internally discussed arranging a visit but it was noted this was not a priority at that moment in time (due to the Covid-19 pandemic), and the resident was informed on 16 April 2020 that a visit would be discussed when normality resumed.
On 13 May 2020, the resident noted no one had visited since she had agreed for a visit and said that she experienced erratic heating patterns, increased bills, and the boiler made a banging noise when taps and toilets were used. She noted that her complaint was still outstanding and she had not received a written response to her original complaint letter. The same day, the landlord responded that the case was put on hold as it was not classed as essential works, but that it would revisit outstanding cases and contact her when lockdown lifted.
In June 2020, the information provided advises that the contractor inspected for the noisy boiler and was unable to confirm the noise. The same month, the landlord notes it contacted the resident and she advised she did not want anyone in her home due to Covid-19. The following month, the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to let it know by 14 July 2020 if its gas team could visit, and advised that if it did not receive a response, it would assume she no longer wanted further action and would close the complaint.
It is not evidence that the resident responded and in September 2020, she emailed the landlord about the boiler being noisy. The contemporaneous information provided advises the resident reported she had not responded to prior attempts by the contractor to contact her as she was unsure whether she wanted the ‘Hive’ installed after all, as the resident was not able to download the app and would not be able to use the ‘Hive’ when her mother was out. The landlord confirmed it had referred the noisy boiler issue internally, and requested a visit in respect to the complaint issues. The resident agreed to this, provided some availability in mid-September 2020, and requested that the landlord respond to her complaint.
The contractor subsequently attended on 16 October 2020 in respect to the noisy boiler, after initial appointments for 9 and 14 October 2020 were cancelled due to Covid-19 related issues. The contractor reported that the controls worked fine and that the resident had never been without heating since the boiler was fitted, however she was not ‘clued up’ on how to use the new controls and did not want the new controls, or the ‘Hive’ which was reportedly agreed to be fitted so that the resident/her mother did not have to walk too far to change settings. The contractor suggested a joint visit for the landlord to look at how the heating was controlled and whether it agreed that no further action was required, and on 20 October 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and requested her availability for a co-inspection with contractors.
On 22 October 2020, the resident responded that she was dealing with a medical emergency over the next two weeks, and did not provide availability. In correspondence she raised concern that it had taken over a year to identify the cause of the noise and to respond to her complaint in September 2019. She requested for an independent gas engineer to attend and a ‘flush’ of the system. She requested for the boiler and solar heating and hot water system to be replaced if this did not work, and she noted that her complaint about the removal of these had not been addressed.
The same day, the landlord reiterated that a co-inspection would be beneficial and help resolve the noise and solar system issues. It advised that it would not instruct an independent gas engineer but a manager from the landlord would be present. It detailed findings from an engineer’s report about the noise issue (which suggested there was no evidence for a ‘flush’). It noted that a new boiler had been installed and did not require changing as heating and hot water worked. It advised that the only way it could identify issues with the solar panel cylinder would be for this to be reviewed by a gas engineer. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and said it wanted to help sort out the issue, but they needed to work together. It advised that the September 2019 complaint was dealt with by a separate department, and it explained it was trying to resolve the solar panel system issue by bringing everyone together to see if this can be reinstated. It requested availability so it could arrange an appointment.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident. It advised that it had given her space to deal with her medical emergency, but it noted that addressing the situation was a priority and it requested availability for an appointment.
On 5 and November 2020, the resident responded that she would not be available for an appointment, as the landlord needed to respond to the outstanding complaint; provide an outcome to investigation about the removal of the heating and hot water system; and address a request for compensation for inconvenience and an increase in her heating bills since the removal of the system in September 2019.
On 16 November 2020, the landlord explained that it was aiming to investigate the concerns and address issues in the property. It advised that it usually provided information in a final response once works completed, but it provided a chronology for the issues based on records; acknowledged issues in respect to the thermostat and the system removal; and advised that the only way issues could be resolved was if it attended the property with contractors. It advised that it would need to investigate before it discussed financial compensation, and it requested her availability for an appointment.
On 18 November 2020, the resident responded that the landlord had only summarised events after her complaint, and had not provided a written response to her 2019 complaint, or provided the outcome to an investigation it had confirmed it was carrying out in 2019, about the removal of the solar system and installation of the thermostat. She advised that the ‘Hive’ system was not a suitable option for her and her family, and she requested a copy of the investigation outcome and a response to her complaint and compensation request so she could consider her options. The same day, the landlord explained the scope of its complaints process and explained that it could not provide answers until it attended and investigated the property. It requested her availability for an appointment to do this.
On 23 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint:
1. It noted that boiler noises were reported from January 2019 and in August 2019, after inspection and recommendation, a new boiler install was arranged. It noted that during the new boiler install the cylinder connected to the solar panel was disconnected. It noted that in October 2019, it said it would visit to investigate the solar panel cylinder removal, and if no reason was found for the removal it would be happy to reinstate it back to how it was.
2. It noted contacts from the resident in September and October 2019 and that she reported issues were a complaint not a repair; that she was informed the thermostat needed to be inspected first to see if it needed repair or replacement; and that she advised she did not want the issue investigated unless a new thermostat was provided. It noted it had recognised she was having difficulty operating the thermostat and had arranged delivery of a ‘Hive’ thermostat. It noted that she needed a new phone to download the app to use the ‘Hive’ and did not have a new phone when contacted in January 2020.
3. It noted that she contacted in March 2020 about lack of heating and hot water; said in April 2020 that she would not correspond about the noisy boiler, solar panels and thermostat and was also too busy; and then next contacted in June 2020 about a noisy boiler.
4. It noted from her contacts that she believed the new thermostat was not functioning correctly and heating was coming on at the wrong times and leading her to have increased heating costs. It advised that thermostat operation was something she was responsible for controlling unless there was a fault with it.
5. It advised that it was happy to visit the resident’s home to discuss all the issues surrounding the noisy boiler, thermostat and solar panel. It explained that it was unable to determine if anything had gone wrong unless it conducted a thorough investigation in the property. It noted that she mentioned having incurred financial loss due to the new boiler and heating turning on at the wrong times, and explained it was also unable to discuss this until it conducted a thorough investigation in the property. It advised that it wanted to help resolve the matter but that the resident needed to work with it to do so, and it requested dates in order to book an appointment.
In further correspondence, the landlord again advised that it would need to attend the property to carry out a full inspection, emphasised that its ability to assist was limited if access was not forthcoming, and asked her to let it know if she was prepared to allow access to the property. It acknowledged receipt of a letter from the resident’s gas provider and noted that this was not a bill; did not provide a breakdown; and that bills could increase for a variety of reasons and not just because the boiler had been updated.
The landlord subsequently escalated the complaint, attempted to contact the resident between 16 December 2020 and 15 January 2021 to discuss the case, then issued a final response on 22 January 2021:
1. It advised that its records showed a new boiler was recommended and authorised to resolve issues the resident was having. It advised that the solar panel cylinder was removed by its contractor without permission or instruction, and it had not found a report that detailed exactly why the system was disconnected.
2. It advised it was open minded about accommodating the requests to put things back to the way they were if this was possible. It explained however that until it visited and investigated the issues at the property, it would not be able to determine what it could or needed to do about reinstatement of the solar panel setup and issues the resident was dissatisfied with.
3. It noted that the resident reported increased costs due to issues with the boiler, but it noted that the control of the thermostat and times it came on was her responsibility. It also advised that it could not say if financial compensation was applicable, as it had not been able to visit the property and been provided sufficient evidence of increased costs for which it or its contractor were responsible. It noted that a letter from a gas provider was not a utility bill and did not include breakdowns. It advised that any financial compensation would not be offered until it visited the property however once it had attended, it could share the outcome, agree next steps and fully assess compensation.
4. It awarded £30 in recognition that the complaint response was delayed, and it asked the resident to get in touch within the next three months to arrange a visit.

Post complaint

In April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, restated her dissatisfaction, and said its response on 23 November 2020 had not addressed the complaint in 2019 about the solar system removal. She advised that the ‘Hive’ thermostat offered was not cost effective or practical with children in the property, there had been no need to remove the solar system, and it should have been replaced. In May 2021, the landlord forwarded the complaint response it had provided in January 2021, and asked the resident to contact it to arrange a visit so the issues could be reviewed and resolved.
Following this, there was further correspondence between the resident and landlord in June and July 2021, and in September 2021 the landlord noted that it had been trying to contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It provided relevant contact details and also explained that information the resident had supplied had not been sufficient to establish if compensation was applicable, as actual bills had not been provided to show increased costs. An appointment arranged for October 2021 was subsequently cancelled by the resident, after which the landlord noted it asked her to make it aware when she would be available, but had not heard from her by early December 2021.
The resident has detailed dissatisfaction to this Service in October 2021, December 2021 and April 2022. In summary, she said:
1. She was unhappy about the removal of the solar panel system. She was unhappy the landlord did not repair the old boiler, or carry out a flush of the system which she understood could have been a cause of the old boiler being noisy.
2. She was unhappy with the thermostat that was installed as this was room temperature controlled and noted that she had requested for this to be replaced with a ‘normal/summer time change’ thermostat several times. She was unhappy that the landlord did not have paperwork about the removal of the solar panel system.
3. She was unhappy about the length of time that the landlord had taken to investigate since 2019, said there had not been any requests to visit or inspect, and queried what the inspections were for. She also advised that there was no need to communicate with the landlord, as her 2019 complaint letter had stated the issues.
4. She advised that her monthly bills had been typically around £60 per month but had increased to £100 per month.
5. She stated that her desired outcome was for the solar heating and hot water system to be replaced, and for the boiler and thermostat to be replaced ‘like for like’ with the system that was removed in 2019. She advised that the issue had caused distress, inconvenience and financial loss and asked the Ombudsman to order the landlord to compensate her financially.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident about the heating system and the removal of a solar panel connected to this

It is evident that since around September 2019, the resident has raised dissatisfaction about the disconnection of the previous heating and hot water system from solar panels and the usability of the thermostat. It is also evident that the landlord has been in communication with the resident from this period, visiting the property early on in respect to the thermostat, discussing the new boiler and thermostat, and attending on other occasions in respect to other issues with the boiler. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communication and investigation of the issues have been reasonable in all the circumstances.
This investigation notes the resident’s frustration that the solar system was disconnected, and understands how she feels this may have impacted future utility bills. It is clear that the resident had use of this for a considerable time, and when the new boiler was installed, it would be reasonable to expect the use of the system to continue or the landlord to give notice and explanation if it was to be removed. However, the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies do not specify an entitlement to the use of the system, nor is it evident that the landlord instructed its contractor to disconnect the solar system in order for it to address this at the time, so there does not seem to be a specific failing on the part of the landlord in respect to the solar system was removed. The landlord’s response to the issue in October 2019, and since, has been to advise that it needed to visit the property to fully investigate and understand the issue, and that if it was found that the old system was removed incorrectly it would look at solutions to reinstate the system the way it was before the new boiler was fitted.
This was reasonable in the circumstances, as the landlord made commitments to investigate the issue further and consider solutions to reinstate the system; and given the lack of specific entitlement to the system and it being possible that the solar system was removed due to incompatibility with the boiler upgrade considered necessary to resolve prior boiler issues. Additionally, while the resident made a number of requests for reports and investigation outcomes relating to the boiler, the landlord’s response has also been reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord is not obligated to provide such reports and although it only stated in its final response that there were no reports in respect to the solar system removal, it has made clear since October 2019 on multiple occasions that the only way it could take the issue forward and investigate the issue fully was to visit the property.
This investigation notes that the resident raised dissatisfaction that the previous boiler was not simply repaired rather than replaced. The contemporaneous records advise that the resident reportedly awaited replacement of the previous boiler, which the landlord took action in respect to, however some recommendations are made below to the landlord in respect to this and the solar system removal.
This investigation notes the resident’s frustration that the thermostat was changed to a new and unfamiliar one that she felt was more complex, and understands how she feels this may also have impacted future utility bills. However, the landlord’s policies and the law do not specify an entitlement to a specific thermostat type. The landlord is obligated to provide a heating system that is fit for purpose, and there is no evidence to suggest that the system is not compliant or materially unusable, or that the landlord has failed in its obligation to keep the property free from excess cold. The evidence advises that the landlord initially visited and attempted to assist with the use of the thermostat; exercised discretion to supply and offer to fit an alternative ‘Hive’ thermostat; and also offered to visit and fully investigate in respect to the issue since October 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s initial attempts to assist, offer of an alternative thermostat, and repeated offers to visit and investigate further were a reasonable response in the circumstances, and demonstrate it was attempting to be customer and resolution focused. While this investigation understands that the resident wanted to revert to some form of her previous setup, it was reasonable that this was not immediately agreed to, and reasonable that the landlord sought to carry out a first-hand inspection of the property, in order to consider options, make decisions and respond in respect to the issue in as informed a way as possible.
This investigation notes the resident states her bills increased since the installation of the new system and has requested compensation in respect to the issues. The resident provided the landlord with totals for her annual heating, however the bills did not provide a calculation breakdown in order to help the landlord determine whether the increased bills were the result of its system. The landlord’s position and request for further information was therefore reasonable as in order to consider such compensation, it is fair that it requires sufficient supporting evidence. It is not in the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to make definitive and legally binding decisions about liability in the same way as the courts, however the landlord’s initial position that the thermostat settings are the resident’s responsibility is reasonable, given that it offered to install a different thermostat and attempted on several occasions to carry out a visit to fully investigate and review the setup at the property. Additionally, the landlord’s advice that it is unable to provide a position on any financial compensation until an inspection has been carried out was reasonable, as it has made clear that it has not ruled compensation out but requires a first-hand inspection to make a decision on this, which is fair.
In summary, the landlord offered an appropriate response regarding the thermostat and solar system removal. It has not refused compensation and its deferral on any compensation due was reasonable pending further investigation of the heating system, which it has repeatedly requested to carry out, and pending sufficient evidence that it was responsible for a bills increase. A recommendation has been made below that if applicable the landlord repeat this offer in order to be able to subsequently provide a further response to the resident and to bring this matter to a close.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will respond to initial complaints informally as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction.’ The landlord’s action to visit the property after the September 2019 complaint was in line with its informal stage. The landlord’s complaint policy then notes it aims to respond to stage one formal complaints within ten working days, however it sometimes needs to take actions such as carry out further investigation before it issues a final stage one response which addresses all the issues. Following the resident’s complaint in October 2019 and requests for a formal response in 2019 and 2020, the landlord has requested on a number of occasions to carry out a further investigation, and closed complaints when it has been unable to do so. While issues became protracted over some time, the landlord’s handling of matters was generally in line with its complaints policy at relevant points, and it is understandable that in the circumstances here, its ability to provide a full response to the resident’s concerns was dependent on its ability to investigate by carrying out a visit.
It would have been helpful for the resident had the landlord provided an earlier formal response on the evidence it had available, however it is not evident that this caused significant detriment in the circumstances here, as from early on the landlord set out a reasonable position it restated in its formal responses; offered to carry out further investigations to support a formal response on a number of occasions; explained at various points that it would be unable to progress matters if it was unable to do this; and appropriately acknowledged delays response and offered compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable overall considering the circumstances of the case and it is not evident that any issues with this caused any significant detriment in the circumstances that have not been reasonably remedied by its responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the heating system and the removal of a solar panel connected to this
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect to its complaints handling.

Reasons

After the resident reported concerns about the replacement of the heating system, the landlord sought to provide assistance in respect to the new thermostat; exercised discretion to offer installation of an alternative thermostat; and offered to visit on numerous occasions to further investigate the thermostat and why the solar system was disconnected, which it was not provided clear opportunity to do. Given there are questions as to why the solar system was removed, such a further inspection is reasonable for the landlord to be able to provide a reasoned response to the resident and to give its position on any financial compensation. The landlord also reasonably requested sufficient evidence that the resident’s heating bills have increased as a direct result of the new system, prior to giving its position on any financial compensation.
While matters have been protracted over some time, the landlord handled matters reasonably in line with its complaints policy; was responsive to communications from the resident; offered to investigate on numerous occasions; and acknowledged delays and offered compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable overall considering the circumstances of the case and it is not evident that this caused any significant detriment in the circumstances that have not been reasonably remedied by its responses.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If still applicable, the landlord to:
1. re-offer to carry out a further inspection of the heating system in pursuance of a further response regarding its position on the reconnection of the solar system; the thermostat usability and potential replacement; and any financial compensation in respect to the removal of the solar system.
2. re-offer to review information such as bills in pursuance of a further response regarding its position on any financial compensation in respect to a bills increase.
The landlord to review the case and consider whether its processes:
1. adequately ensures replacement of items such as boilers is based on relevant factors such as age and condition;
2. adequately requires contractors to discuss the removal of systems such as solar heating and hot water systems.
The landlord to review its assessment of ‘expressions of dissatisfaction’ to ensure more complex complaints are progressed appropriately.