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

Longhurst Group Limited (202204944)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204944

Longhurst Group Limited

20 March 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 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 response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the storage heaters within the property and their subsequent energy usage.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a bungalow, and his household has several old age related, physical and neurological vulnerabilities, of which the landlord is aware.
  2. Following the start of his tenancy on 6 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord from 30 January 2022 onwards that he was concerned that the storage heaters within his property were not cost effective, causing a large increase in his electricity bill when heating the property. It accepted this as a stage one complaint from him, although it explained to him on 16 February 2022 that its contractor had previously attended the property, and found the storage heaters to be working correctly. The landlord therefore advised that a reset of the heaters might help to lower their energy consumption, as they were manually set too high, but it agreed to produce an improvement plan for the resident’s property’s energy rating in 2023.
  3. The resident remained unhappy with this response, believing that the storage heaters were no longer suitable for the property due to the increase in his energy costs. He also raised concerns that the landlord did not provide the property’s energy performance certificate (EPC) prior to him moving in to the property, and he was concerned that the property’s energy rating was listed as E, believing this to be a “poor” rating.
  4. The landlord then arranged for an electrician to attend the property on 4 March 2022. They found that the storage heaters there were working but were around 20 to 30 years old, past their best, and that modern replacement models operated on about a third less energy, suggesting either that these be replaced or the resident talk to his energy supplier. The landlord’s internal discussion of this nevertheless declined to shape its replacement programme to its residents’ financial hardship, as such storage heaters were the bulk of its stock, and it preferred to give them money advice to ensure that they were on the best tariff. Although it agreed to review the resident’s storage heaters through its planned works review programme in 2023.
  5. The landlord subsequently issued its stage one complaint response on 16 March 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, however, explaining that, during the electrician’s attendance, they had found no faults with the property’s storage heaters that meant that it could not replace these, but they had explained to him that there were two immersion water heaters.
  6. Therefore, to help lower costs, the electrician had advised the resident to use only the lower rate economy seven immersion heater switch installed in the property, instead of the 24-hour hot water switch. The landlord also advised him that an A to E EPC energy rating would be acceptable to let a property, and that it was not responsible for increased electricity costs at the property as it was unable to evidence these, instead referring him to the electricity supplier for this. It added that the resident’s property’s EPC’s E energy rating was for the manually controlled heating there, which he had accepted when he moved in.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response in his final stage complaint of 20 March 2022, reporting that the landlord had delayed the delivery of the EPC to him until after he had started his tenancy, contrary to the regulations requiring this to be given at the earliest opportunity. He added that it was aware of the “poor” thermal performance of the storage heaters from this and his neighbours’ and the property’s previous tenants’ complaints, which were obliged to be efficient, and that its electrician had only found these to be working but not running efficiently.
  8. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 26 May 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, agreeing that the delivery of the EPC was late, and that its complaint responses were delayed. It therefore apologised to himfor this, offering him £50 compensation for the late EPC delivery, and another £50 for its delayed complaint handling and responses.
  9. Ultimately, the resident remained dissatisfied with this response, however, and he referred his complaint to this Service to consider via his local MP, who acted in the capacity of his designated person. He felt that, due to financial hardship, he was unable to afford the cost of the storage heaters, and that this in turn was affecting his household’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. The resident wanted the landlord to conduct a full test of the heaters over the course of a three-night period, and to install an alternative, more cost-effective source of heating within the property. He also queried its response to the previous tenant’s high electricity bills, the three different types of heaters at the property, and the length of time taken to investigate this issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident attributed his household’s mental and physical health and wellbeing being impacted by cold temperatures in the property to no longer being able to afford the heating there, due to the landlord’s actions. While this Service does not doubt his comments about their health and wellbeing, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme that governs us, we are unable to determine liability or award damages for impacts on health and wellbeing because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. This is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. However, we have assessed the general distress and inconvenience that this issue may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the storage heaters within the property and their subsequent energy usage

  1. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good working order and repair the installations in the property for the supply of electricity and storage heating.
  2. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns over the condition of his property’s storage heaters not being cost effective and causing a large increase in his electricity bill when used. It did so by confirming to him that its contractor had previously attended these, however they had found no faults with the storage heaters, instead identifying that the manual control system was set too high, and suggesting resetting this. The landlord also agreed to produce an improvement plan for the resident’s property’s energy rating in 2023, which was appropriate.
  3. The landlord further responded to the resident’s remaining concerns over the storage heaters’ cost-efficiency by arranging for an electrician to attend the property on 4 March 2022. They found that his electricity bills might be reduced by only running the economy-seven switch for the immersion water heater and could find no fault with the storage heaters, but that he could talk to his energy supplier about his bills. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised the resident to only run his immersion heater’s economy seven switch, and that it referred him to his energy supplier about his bills.
  4. It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord’s internal discussions considered declining its electrician’s suggested replacement of the resident’s 20 to 30-year-old, past their best storage heaters that used about a third more energy than modern replacement models. While it was unable to find any evidence that it was a fault with the repair of the heaters that had caused his increased electricity costs, so that it was not obliged by his tenancy agreement to offer him further assistance with them, it would have been best practice for it to do so.
  5. This is in accordance with both the landlord’s electrician’s suggestion that the resident’s storage heaters be replaced, and its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement for it to install components and undertake enhancements to improve its properties’ energy efficiency, maximising external funding if eligible. The policy also obliges it to conduct cyclical and planned maintenance in line with its five-year-investment plan for components such as electrical installations and boilers. This includes all major works to the property and is determined by their age, condition, cost and replacement timescale.
  6. Therefore, while the landlord’s decision to not install new heating or renew the storage heaters at the resident’s property was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy obligations, it was reasonable that it agreed to take further action for these. It did so by agreeing to review the heaters through its planned works review in 2023, which would appropriately aim to increase the property’s energy efficiency, as required by the policy. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to contact the resident to provide him the timescale and details of its energy rating improvement plan for his property, including by reconsidering replacing his storage heaters with modern efficient models, and provide him with the outcome.
  7. However, where failings are identified, it is the role of this Service to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in providing the resident with the EPC for his property before he moved in. This is because, in accordance with the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, it is required to provide the EPC to prospective residents at the earliest opportunity, and no later than when information becomes available or at the property viewing, whichever is earlier.
  9. Therefore, the landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident for the delay in providing him with the EPC and its complaint responses, and by looking to put things right by offering him £50 compensation for each of these failings because of the inconvenience that they had caused him. The offer of redress was suitable, because this was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £50 where a service failure has been identified causing inconvenience by delaying getting matters resolved. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to re-offer this to the resident, if he has not received this already.
  10. The landlord further explained to the resident that an energy rating of between A to E was an acceptable energy rating to let a property. This was appropriate as, in accordance with the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, private rented sector landlords should not let, continue to let, or renew tenancies of properties with EPC scores below E, unless exempt. Although the landlord was exempt from this requirement as it let the property to the resident in its role as a social landlord, it acted fairly by letting to him in line with this provision.
  11. While this issue was highly distressing for the resident, who informed the landlord of his financial hardship, ultimately it acted in accordance with its obligations in his tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance policy. Furthermore, it was not be responsible for the energy costs or usage within the property, despite his financial difficulties, and so it did not have to compensate him or make adjustments for this under his tenancy agreement.
  12. As a result, the landlord’s compensation for its late EPC and complaint responses offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. However, it has been recommended below to seek to assist him by contacting him to discuss and refer him for any further financial support due to his reported financial hardship, as suggested by its internal discussions.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to his reports about the condition of the storage heaters within the property and their subsequent energy usage satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to provide him the timescale and details of its energy rating improvement plan for his property, including by reconsidering replacing his storage heaters with modern efficient models, and provide him with the outcome.
    2. Re-offer the resident the £100 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss and refer him for further financial support for him due to his reported financial hardship.