Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202106329)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106329

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s reports of it being excessively cold in the property.
  2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat. The resident’s property currently has an extension that serves as a bedroom. This was on the property prior to the resident moving in.  The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2013 and during this time there was a change in management agents in 2020.
  2. The resident states that he contacted the landlord during February 2020 to discuss the temperature in the property. Following this on 11 March 2020, the resident was visited by an EPC assessor to carry out a cavity wall inspection. Due to Covid a further appointment was not arranged until September 2020, where the assessor was able to successfully carry out the EPC and inspect cavity wall insulation.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2020 to discuss the cold temperature in his property, and the following day spoke with it on the phone.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 December 2020 drawing its attention to his email dated 8 November 2020 and telephone conversation the following day. He told the landlord that because of the cold temperatures he was having to resort to sleeping in the front room rather than the bedroom extension because it was too cold. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the following day and informed him that he should receive a response by 13 January 2021.
  5. On 18 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s email dated 15 January 2021, apologising for the delay in the resident not receiving a stage 1 response. The landlord proceeded to arranged for a thermographic survey to be completed on 25 February 2021, to assess the cold temperatures reports by the resident.

 

  1. Subsequently the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 June 2021. It explained it had consulted with an energy performance assessor where the findings showed adequate insulation in the extension, with new insulation installed in the bedroom and reception room to give the property an acceptable EPC rating of ‘D’. However, during this consultation it was noted that there was inadequate polyurethan foam insulation in the existing cavity. The landlord explained the current guidelines state it is illegal to let out rental properties with an EPC rating of ‘F’. However, as this property received a rating of ‘D’ it was within the guidelines. As a resolution the landlord agreed to move away from authorising any short-term measures and offer a more permanent long-term solution. To execute this, it was in the process of gathering and approaching various schemes for quotes for a long-term solution.

 

  1. Regarding any delays, the landlord said that despite the strict circumstances during Covid-19 it had carried out steps above the current guidelines and the property was fit for purpose and not in a sub-standard condition. The landlord also apologised about the communication and delay in response times to the original enquiry.

 

  1. On 26 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had sought advice from building control at a local authority. He asked for the following:
    1. A copy of the original planning application submitted to a local authority in relation to the extension, together with copies of any architect’s drawings.
    2. Details as to who was the Clerk of Works for extension together with copies of documentation between him/her and the local authority given that these works were signed off without a property inspection having taken place.
    3. Copies of the three surveys carried out by surveyors/consultants on 11 March 2019, 9 March 2020 and 17 September 2020.
  2. In response the landlord provided the resident with part of the requested information and asked for copies of the three surveys carried out to be forwarded to the resident.
  3. On 7 February the resident chased for this information and responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 25 January 2021. The resident found the letter to be confusing and contradictory as the landlord had stated he only complained to them a year ago, but this issue has been ongoing for four years. He stated he has raised the issues with the previous managing agents prior to the landlord taking over as management agents in 2020.

 

  1. On 21 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint and provided the resident with a report previously conducted on the property. Following a thermographic survey of the property it was concluded there were areas identified as having above the average heat loss in the walls and flooring due to inadequate or no insulation. The surveyor also recommended for this to be added to the property. To rectify this issue the landlord contacted its contractor to obtain a quote to have thermal insulation added to the property. As a resolution the landlord upheld the complaint and said in learning from this complaint, it would capture this information when it commenced the Stock Condition Surveys which will be happening in the coming months and would enable programmes of work to be produced to deal with any structural issues.

 

  1. In response the resident emailed the landlord to say it failed to honour its obligation in responding to the complaint within timeframes. In addition, he had requested documentation on more than one occasion but had not received this so therefore would like the complaint to be escalated to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.

 

  1. An independent complaint panel was held on 13 July 2021 to discuss the delay in dealing with the lack of insulation in the resident’s property and the lack of response and action from the landlord when the resident raised this issue. Subsequently the landlord issued its stage 3 response on 26 July 2021.  It addressed service failures in not responding to the resident within the expected time frames or proactively keeping the resident informed. It sincerely apologised on behalf of the landlord for the stress this would have caused the resident. It explained that ownership of the resident’s complaint had not been taken which resulted in it failing to meet timescales, and at the time two members of staff who were previously dealing with the resident’s complaint had left the service which coincided with an influx of complaints. As it was working under Covid-19 restrictions this also impacted its resources.  The landlord informed the resident it was in the process of obtaining quotes for the work to be carried out and, going forward, it would keep the resident informed of the progress.

 

  1. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy the resident was awarded £384.67 for ‘loss of bedroom’ and £250 compensation. Therefore, the total amount offered was £634.67.

 

  1. In response the resident was grateful for the landlord’s apology and appreciated the reasons put forward regarding delays in addressing the insulation problems. However, he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. The resident stated the calculations used to determine the proposed rent reduction in view of the bedroom being unusable during winter months was incorrect. The resident felt that the landlord should be considering the square footage of the affected room rather than simply saying one room had been lost as his bedroom equates to about one third of the usable space in the flat. Furthermore, this did not take into consideration the past four winters. 

 

  1. The resident did not feel the £250 offered in view of service failures reflect the following:
  1. The amount of chasing he had to do;
  2. The lack of communication from the landlord;
  3. The inconvenience of having to sleep in the front room for four winters;
  4. The stress caused from this issue.
  1. Consequently, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for adjudication as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s resolution.
  2. During the time this complaint has been with this service, the landlord had arranged for a further survey of the property, which was conducted on 7 January 2022. The purpose of the survey was to assess the property with regards to heat loss and assess insulation in comparison to the original report dated 25 February 2021. This report concluded that many anomalies remained, and additional anomalies were found. The thermographic analysis showed decreased temperatures and heat loss across the property. The surveyor believed that the cold temperatures were primarily a result of a low-level floor and loft insulation, it recommended the wall insulation is investigated.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of it being excessively cold in the property.

  1. Criterion D of the decent homes standard notes a decent home provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. It states, ‘the primary heating system must have a distribution system sufficient to provide heat to two or more rooms of the home. There may be storage heaters in two or more rooms, or other heaters that use the same fuel in two or more rooms. Even if the central heating system covers most of the house making a dwelling decent, under the HHSRS a landlord must be sure that the home is warm enough for the occupant’.
  2. Whilst this service understands the landlord say it is legal for them to let out the property because it has an EPC rating of ‘D’, it is also important that the landlord ensure the living conditions are suitable for the resident. In this instance, there was an issue with the insulation of the property which resulted in the resident having to endure cold temperatures.
  3. The thermographic survey which was conducted on 25 February 2021 concluded there was decreased temperatures in the property because of heat loss due to lack of insulation and a low level of floor.
  4. Generally, it is advised that landlords may have to carry out improvements if repairs do not fix an underlying problem. In this instance to resolve the issues the landlord said it would look for a long-term solution. This included the replacement of windows and door, cavity fill, and thermal decoration works to the hallway.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord completed remedial works to the door and the windows during September 2021. It does not confirm the date the cavity wall insulation was completed. But said it would arrange for a new thermal assessment of the property once all the work was completed, which in this case was done on 7 January 2022.
  6. The resident has stated for more than four years he has suffered with issues relating to heating in the property. It is understood that the resident says its former managing agents had been aware of the issue and there should be some record on the system to show that complaints had been made prior about the cold temperatures in the property.
  7. Whilst this service acknowledges the resident’s comments, the landlord has stated it was unaware of the issue prior to the resident informing it. This service has seen no evidence to suggest the resident had brought the matter to the landlord’s attention sooner, therefore it would be unreasonable to say the landlord ought to know prior to the resident contacted it directly in February 2020.
  8. This service understands the report concluded there was a lack of insulation. It has considered the landlord’s response and actions once it became aware that there was an issue and whether these were reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy covers situations in which tenants are unable to use rooms in their home. It states, “If a tenant loses the use of any of their room/s for more than 2 or more days, they can be offered a rebate of a proportion of their rent. The amount awarded would be based on the number of rooms in the property i.e., living room, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom/s. This would be divided by the weekly rent divided by the number of rooms which cannot be used”. In this instance the resident has claimed that in the winter the bedroom has been too cold to use. The landlord has considered its compensation policy for a loss of bedroom and awarded the resident £384.67. This was to reflect the winter period which was 13 weeks. In view of its compensation policy, the landlord’s calculations are accurate and as it has acted in line with its guidelines, this is considered reasonable for that period
  10. This service recognises that the resident claims the issues had been ongoing for over four years, however there is no evidence to suggest that the resident made the landlord aware of the issues. The evidence suggests the landlord only became aware of the issue in February 2020 and therefore cannot be held accountable prior to the date it had been made aware.
  11. More recently, following the recent thermographic report, the landlord is clearly taking steps to try to resolve the issue in a reasonable way. The landlord explained that after this report it has been in communication with the resident and surveyor to attempt to further fix the issues. On 7 April 2022 the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit the property, considering the report and recommendations, it arranged for a further inspection of the property, which was due to occur on 19 May 2022, however due to the resident being unavailable the appointment was cancelled. The landlord also explained the Chair of the housing association has arranged an appointment with the resident to further discuss the issues in June 2022. The landlord also informed this service it spoke to the resident about if he would be willing to move properties in future subject to availability and suitability to which he said he would.
  12. Whilst this service recognises the resident’s frustration in the matter, the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue has been positive. Therefore, this service cannot say that it has not acted in accordance with its guidelines.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in the landlord’s delays in responding to his complaint.
  2. This service has reviewed evidence and it shows the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 January 2021 despite the resident complaining on 21 December 2020. The resident expressed he was unhappy with the delay and findings, to which the landlord escalated his complaint on 27 January 2021 to a stage 2 and informed the resident he should receive a response by 8 February 2021. It provided its stage 2 response on 21 June 2021.
  3. The landlords’ complaints procedure has three stages and within the first two stages it is required that complaints are responded to within 10 working days. In this instance the evidence shows that the landlord failed to adhere to its guidelines on two occasions.
  4. In the stage 3 appeal hearing the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered the resident £250 compensation to reflect the numerous times the resident had to chase it for a response and for the delay.
  5. This service recognises the resident’s frustration, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation for the trouble and upset caused is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s guidelines and therefore considered reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to handling of reports of it being excessively cold in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about Its handling of responding to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appropriately offered the resident an apology, compensation and attempted to put things right for him. This offer of compensation was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for the failings in this case. Whilst it is understood the issue remains and requires further investigation, this service is satisfied that in the circumstances the landlord has been proactive in trying to fix the issue.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged its failings when responding to the resident’s complaint and offered compensation which is in line with its policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered is reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. As the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s total offer of compensation constituted reasonable redress in this case, the landlord should now ensure that payment is made to the resident (if this has not been previously paid).
  2. The landlord to re-investigate issues pertaining to the cold temperature in line with the surveyor’s recommendations.