Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202123935)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123935

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

7 November 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 the resident’s concerns about the energy efficiency of the property and her request for insulation.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. An energy performance assessment of the resident’s property was carried out on 14 April 2021. The energy performance certificate (EPC), dated 22 April 2021, concluded that the energy rating of the resident’s property was in band D, noting that the energy efficiency of the walls was very poor. A recommendation was made for internal or external insulation to be installed. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 14 June 2021 and requested for the insulation to be installed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 10 August 2021 and said she had contacted the landlord several times regarding the recommended works following the EPC, but she had not received a response. In her complaint escalation, she stated she was dissatisfied that the landlord would not address the wall insulation, as her gas bill was £120 a month, due to the fact the property could not retain heat.
  4. In the landlord’s final complaint response, of 8 October 2021, it said that the property met the minimum standard for energy efficiency, rating band D for its energy performance. It advised it would not currently undertake significant work to improve the energy efficiency rating, but due to ongoing environmental changes, its decision would be under constant review, and could change. The landlord also noted that issues with draughts had been identified in the property and an appointment had been re-scheduled for 16 November 2021, following a no access appointment. 
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied, as she wanted the landlord to install wall insulation, as the property was cold and caused high heating costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In its stage one response, of 13 August 2021, the landlord noted that the EPC report had indicated that there were some draughts evident at the time of the survey. The landlord recommended that the resident report this to its Customer Service Centre so that these could be resolved. It is noted that there were delays in completing works to resolve the issues with draughts. However, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy efficiency of the property and her request for insulation

  1. Properties which have an EPC below band E are classed as ‘‘substandard’’ by regulations. In this case, the property’s EPC was rated band D, and as such is not considered substandard. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was not obliged to complete improvements to the wall insulation as recommended within the EPC and requested by the resident. The landlord would be expected to reassess its decision if there were any future legislation or policy changes, so it was appropriate that the landlord outlined it would constantly review its decision.
  2. The landlord is expected to clearly communicate its decisions and any appropriate reasons to the resident. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations as it clearly stated in its complaint responses that it would not currently be undertaking any significant works to improve the energy rating of the property, as the costs of the required works would not be sustainable. Due to limited budgets, it is reasonable for social landlords to consider financial restraints when assessing requests for repairs that are deemed as an improvement, so as such, it was an appropriate reason for declining the resident’s request for insulation.
  3. In her complaint the resident said that she had chased the recommended works on numerous occasions. However, the landlord’s communication records only show that she requested to have wall insulation installed on 14 June 2021, following which the landlord signposted her to the appropriate department for support with regards to the heating bills. There are no further records to suggest that the resident pursued the issue, until she raised a complaint.
  4. The landlord should ensure that it has a comprehensive record of communications with the resident with accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Whilst in this case, there was no detrimental impact, the landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure communication is clearly recorded, particularly if the resident has been signposted to a different department, as was the case here.
  5. The resident has raised concerns regarding the cost of her energy bill, saying that the property did not effectively retain heat. The landlord would only have been expected to consider additional support or compensation if the high heating bills were a result of a repair issue, rather than energy efficiency. As this complaint related to energy efficiency, the landlord acted appropriately as prior to the complaint, it had signposted the resident to the energy team on 1 April 2021, when she initially raised her concerns regarding the high heating costs.
  6. Overall, the landlord has acted in line with its obligations and provided appropriate reasons to the resident explaining why it would not currently install insulation. It has also taken reasonable steps to signpost the resident for support with energy bills.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy efficiency of the property and her request for insulation.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that all contact from a resident is recorded and retained so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.