Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Prima Housing Group Limited (202208297)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208297

Prima Housing Group Limited

20 February 2023

 

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 resident has complained about:
    1. The landlord’s response to his concerns regarding the energy efficiency of his home.
    2. The landlord’s handling of communications in relation to his reports.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom, end of terrace house, owned by the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 29 July 2013. The property is fitted with gas central heating. He complained to the landlord regarding the difficulties he experienced in keeping his home warm. The issues included:
    1. Leaking windows
    2. Excessively cold hallway
    3. Safety inspections
    4. EPC ratings
  2. An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the property was issued on 23 June 2014 and was valid until 22 June 2024. This found the property to be at EPC level E. The certificate lists the energy performance for particular features at the property. It lists the roof as very poor/poor and the solid brick wall as poor. Both conclusions are marked as ‘assumed’, indicating that the assessment was made without a detailed inspection. The heating at the property was found to be in good condition.
  3. The EPC certificate lists improvements that could be made to improve the energy rating to a level C. This included cavity wall insulation, internal/external wall insulation, loft insulation, solar water heating and wind turbines.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 February 2022. He explained that he had spoken to the Local Authority and it agreed with him that level E was not acceptable and that works should be done to improve energy efficiency of the property. He explained the difficulty he had with heating the property as it did not retain heat and his concern that his home was only one level away from being unacceptable. He asked for a contribution towards his heating costs whilst the property remained at level E. An inspection of the property was also requested with specific reference to:
    1. The PVC windows both upstairs and downstairs.
    2. The external wall and loft insulation.
    3. The boiler and an assessment as to whether it was energy efficient.
    4. Whether a second radiator could be installed upstairs.
    5. The five vents upstairs which could, where possible, be blocked to prevent draughts.
  5. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 10 March 2022. In relation to the problems with heat retention it explained that the property was one of several due to undergo a retrofit survey within the next 6-12 months. Retrofitting is an improvement or modification made to an existing property to reduce carbon emissions. This survey would include checking the draft proofing, windows, ventilation and heating systems and highlighting any energy saving improvements that could be made. The letter set out the current position regarding the remainder of the issues raised in the complaint but noted that additional action may be taken depending upon the recommendations of the survey.
  6. The landlord confirmed that the windows were due to be assessed in 2030 and that there were no plans to replace them earlier as they had an average rating for energy efficiency. The letter set out that the windows could however be inspected if there was a fault.
  7. The landlord confirmed that the loft insulation was at the depth of 300mm in 2010 which met the current requirements. It noted that the EPC rating assumed that there was no loft insulation which was incorrect. Had the correct information been considered the landlord believed the energy efficiency rating would be at level D.
  8. The boiler was a Band A energy efficient condensing boiler with a life expectancy of 10-15 years. It was serviced annually by the landlord and was working satisfactorily. It would not be replaced at this time.
  9. Similarly, the request for a second radiator was not granted. The landlord explained that heating upgrades were completed in 2015 and there were no plans for any further upgrades. The landlord offered to put the resident in touch with the tenancy sustainment officer who may be able to put him in touch with relevant schemes/charities. It confirmed it would not make a contribution towards the costs of heating the property
  10. The landlord agreed to inspect the ventilation at the property and confirmed that any issues with the windows could also be surveyed at the same time.
  11. The resident was unhappy that the property had not been inspected prior to the complaint response, and with the length of time that he would have to wait for the retrofit inspection. He noted that the EPC had suggested that improvements could be made and requested that the retrofit inspection or by another insulation specialist be undertaken within 60 days.
  12. A new complaint was raised regarding the gas safety inspections. The resident disputed that that the smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detectors were checked as indicated on the gas safety certificate. He questioned whether the boiler was actually safe if these checks had not been made.
  13. Following receipt of the escalation request the landlord arranged for a director to visit on 30 March 2022. As a result of this visit the landlord agreed to the early scheduling of the retrofit inspection which took place on 13 April 2022. The report was sent to the landlord on 26 April 2022 and included recommendations to improve the external wall insulation and renewed cavity insulation to rear extension.  All other aspects of the property were deemed acceptable. Upon receiving a copy of this report the resident confirmed that he wished the complaint to proceed to stage two of the complaints process.
  14. The resident raised concerns about the extent of the retrofit inspection and questioned how works to improve the external wall insulation alone could take the property from level E to level C. He stated that the inspection only took 30 minutes and that the inspector had told him that he could not look at the windows.
  15. The landlord’s letter of 16 May 2022 confirmed that following the retrofit recommendations the property would be included in the next bid for Social Housing Decarbonisation Funding. The outcome of this bid would not be known until early 2023. The landlord also warned the resident that should the bid be successful, there were likely to be planning requirements that needed to be satisfied before any works could take place. In the meantime, the landlord arranged for one of the air vents on the landing to be blocked up and requested that the resident keep it informed of any resulting damp that occurred.
  16. A date was set for the appeal panel for the 12 May 2022 however this was re-arranged at the resident’s request to allow him time to consider the schedule of works before speaking to the panel. The meeting went ahead on 19 May 2022.
  17. The landlord sent its final decision to the resident on 26 May 2022. This partially upheld the complaint and agreed that had a discussion taken place prior to the response at stage one, this could have ensured earlier understanding regarding the condition of the windows. The panel arranged for an inspection to take place and for the windows to be resealed as promised in the stage one response.
  18. In relation to the external wall insulation the panel confirmed that should any customer decline the improvement work currently underway, then the resident’s property would be considered, and the works potentially brought forward. Otherwise, the outcome was dependent upon the successful funding bid as previously advised. It could not guarantee the outcome of either. The retrofit inspection had confirmed that loft insulation of an appropriate size was present at the property.
  19. The panel noted the resident’s concerns regarding the boiler and gas safety checks and arranged for an independent auditor to attend to conduct a gas safety audit inspection.
  20. In relation to the request for a second radiator the panel retained the landlord’s original position but hoped that blocking one of the vents would assist with heating the hallway.
  21. The panel noted that the landlord was already taking action in relation to the vents in the hallway. Recent correspondence indicated that it had agreed to remove and fill in one vent at the top of the stairs. It would also ask the landlord to explore whether vent covers could be fitted to the remaining vents to allow the resident an element of control.
  22. The following work was completed by the landlord post panel:
    1. Gas safety audit inspection
    2. One vent blocked – internal and external work undertaken
    3. Resealing of windows

Customer service

  1. In his complaint of 25 February 2022, the resident raised concerns that he had reported the issues via the landlord’s online forum and left two messages with the customer services team but had received no response through either route. He had been given conflicting information as to which team was dealing with the matter and did not think that waiting two weeks for a call back was acceptable.
  2. Once the complaint was accepted the landlord confirmed the manager who was dealing with the matter and confirmed that they would be contacting him, although it warned that this would be delayed due to annual leave. This did not happen and the stage one response was sent without a discussion with the resident.  As a result the escalation request included concerns regarding broken promises. The resident questioned the professionalism of the staff member.
  3. The panel letter confirmed that further tracking had been put in place as part of the complaints process to ensure that there was early contact with customers. An apology had been given by the Director of Housing and Growth and a subsequent visit had taken place (albeit this had been slightly delayed due to the Director contracting the Covid-19 virus).
  4. The panel upheld this element of the complaint and apologised that early contact did not take place. It also noted that a request for a call back had not happened within the target timescales requiring the resident to chase a response.  It apologised for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has explained that he originally raised these issues with the landlord five years earlier and whilst actions were promised, these did not take place. The Ombudsman expects resident to raise a complaint with their landlord within a timely fashion and therefore this element of the complaint has not formed part of this investigation.
  2. Further a complaint raised regarding a roof repair that took place during the course of the complaint handling has not been considered as part of this investigation as the matter had not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42 c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising or paragraph 42 a where a complaint has been brought to the Ombudsman prior to having exhausted a landlords complaints procedure.

 

Energy efficiency

  1. The resident’s property is currently at EPC level E. This is the lowest acceptable level, but, as stated on the certificate, properties can be rented if they have an energy rating from A to E. There is no statutory requirement for the landlord to carry out any of the recommended energy efficiency measures stated at present.
  2. The Government’s Clean Growth Strategy sets out that it wants all fuel poor homes to be upgraded to EPC level C by 2030 and its aspiration is for as many homes as possible to have reached this level by 2035 ‘where practical, cost-effective and affordable’.  It has also announced plans to consult on improving energy efficiency in social housing within 6 months of the Social Housing Regulation Bill becoming law. The Bill will make energy efficiency a key objective of regulation. The consultation aims to give both landlords and tenants an opportunity to have their say before any new standards are introduced. 
  3. It is clear that changes in relation to EPC levels are on their way. Funding is potentially available to help landlords install energy efficiency upgrades in their housing stock for homes currently below level C. The landlord has agreed to include the resident’s property in its next round of bids for funding. The exact requirements of the impending changes are not yet known.
  4. In the meantime, the landlord has taken appropriate action to improve the conditions for the resident. When the resident raised concerns about having to wait 6-12 months for a retrofit assessment, the landlord commissioned an assessment that took place within weeks. This confirmed that all elements of the property were satisfactory, with the exception of external wall insulation. The resident was dissatisfied that the assessment did not include the windows or the ventilation. However, the accompanying risk assessment makes reference to both, indicating that the windows were considered to be in good condition with no fogging, and that purge ventilation was present at the property and that ventilation was one of the issues discussed with the resident. 
  5. The landlord also confirmed that loft insulation of the required thickness was in place (photographed in the retrofit assessment); it has ensured the window seals are effective and replaced those that were not; it has removed a vent and undertaken the necessary external work to block the vent shaft. It has included the property within the next round of bidding for government funding and identified it for early action should any of the current funding becoming available.  
  6. In addition, the landlord instructed an independent expert to undertake a gas safety audit of the boiler and alarms in the property. These were in working order and the annual gas checks found to be satisfactory.
  7. The landlord took the original complaints seriously and instructed independent professionals with appropriate expertise to inspect and assess the areas of concern. Whilst the resident has raised concerns regarding the experts that conducted the retrofit assessment and the gas audit, the landlord was entitled to rely upon their findings. The landlord acted fairly once it was made aware of the resident’s concerns.  It took appropriate steps to ensure the resident’s safety and to ascertain and improve the energy efficiency of the property, by instructing professional, qualified experts.
  8. This is further supported by the resident’s conversations with the Local Authority.  Had the Local Authority any concerns that that property did not meet the Decent Homes Standards, or that there was any risk to the resident in accordance with the Health and Housing Safety Rating System, it could have served a notice on the landlord.  No evidence of any such notice has been provided by either party.

Communications

  1. The landlord has accepted that there were initial failings in its lack of contact with the resident. It has apologised for this and taken steps to help prevent this from happening again by introducing tracking within its complaint handling. The detriment caused to the resident was minimal, the landlord sought to put things right by involving a director in the complaint review.  It put in place the necessary actions to ensure that the property was properly assessed and gave an apology for its earlier failings. This provided suitable redress to the resident.
  2. Since the initial omissions the landlord has been in regular contact with the resident. It liaised with him before appointments were made and where possible has ensured these accommodated his working patterns. As an example, the appointment with the Director of Housing took place at 5pm and other appointments were booked within the school holidays.
  3. Throughout the course of the complaint the landlord has taken steps to investigate the issues raised and to rectify issues where appropriate.  It has been clear as to what action it will and will not take and has provided adequate explanations to the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the various elements of the complaint and with the exception of the initial failure to contact the resident, kept him informed and engaged throughout its complaint handling and inspections.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the resident’s home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of communications in relation to his reports.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, it took the concerns seriously and instructed appropriately qualified professionals.  It followed the advice of these experts and sought to include the property in the next bidding for funding to undertake the recommended improvements. In addition it has made improvements to the ventilation and windows, and confirmed that loft insulation is present. With the exception of minor initial failings it has kept the resident informed throughout and has accommodated his requirements regarding appointments.