East Devon District Council (202208180)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208180

East Devon District Council

15 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s management and handling of:
1. outstanding repairs at the property.
2. reports about the heating and insulation at the property.
3. the resident’s complaints.
4. a request to store a caravan in the garden.
5. requests for a kitchen refurbishment.
This report also looks at the landlord’s record keeping practices and handling of knowledge and information.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Our investigation focuses on the substantive issues of complaint in the period up to six months prior to the resident stage one complaint until the landlord’s stage two response which was issued on 12 September 2022.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord provided advice on how to request permission for the caravan and stated that this matter was resolved. The landlord has also confirmed to this service that the resident’s kitchen is in a decent state of repair and not in need of refurbishment.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure.”
Although the landlord provided a response to the resident’s request to store a caravan in its stage 2 response it had not responded to the matter previously therefore the matter had not exhausted the complaint procedure. For this reason, the following matter is outside of the jurisdiction of this investigation:
1. the landlord’s management and handling of a request to store a caravan in the garden.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not bought to the member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
The landlord confirmed that a kitchen refurbishment would be completed within 18 months when it visited the resident’s property on 4 June 2018. However, the resident did not raise the matter as a complaint until 2022. For this reason, the following matter is outside of the jurisdiction of this investigation:
1. the landlord’s management and handling of requests for a kitchen refurbishment.

Background

The elderly resident lives in a mid-terrace one bedroom bungalow let under a secure tenancy by East Devon Council. The property was built between 1967 and 1975. The resident took up occupation via a mutual exchange completed on 30 April 2018.
The resident submitted 2 complaints about outstanding repairs to the landlord prior to this complaint. Those outstanding repairs which go back to 2018 are referred to by the landlord in the stage one complaint associated with this case. Therefore this investigation refers back to 2018 in its assessment. This approach ensures that landlord’s handling of the repairs is fully assessed, and the resident is not penalised for waiting for the landlord to complete repairs and issue complaint responses that she raised over an extended period of time.
This service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that occurred after its final stage 2 complaint response and is therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s two-stage complaint procedure states that:
1. a compliant will be acknowledged within 5 working days using a standard letter,
2. stage one and stage two responses will be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgement,
3. it will offer redress where it believes that this will best serve the interests of the customer and customer service,
4. practical action will be considered as part or all of a remedy where a complaint is about failure to take some specific action such as carrying out repairs to a tenant’s house,
5. it may consider restorative or financial compensation. When considering any redress it will be fair, consistent, and mindful of public money.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code states:
1. landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged,
2. landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decision made in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. it will keep tenants homes in good condition. It will repair and maintain roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, insulation, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, heating equipment and water heating equipment,
2. it will do repairs in a reasonable time and all repairs will fall into categories:
  1. emergency repairs: within 4 hours,
  2. routine repairs: 28 working days,
3. it will leave tenants decoration as close as possible to how it was before the repair was carried out.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states:
1. it will carry out a number of property inspections to ensure that the property is in a good state of repair. These inspections will include:
  1. the structure, fixtures, and fittings in the property,
  2. an electrical inspection,
  3. the cleanliness of the property,
  4. a gas check.
2. it will require tenants to sign to accept liability for any non-standard alterations or installations and any items which tenants have agreed with each other to leave in the property,
3. incoming tenants will be entitled to day-to-day repairs and included in any upgrade programme.
The landlord’s property and asset compensation policy states:
1. that there may occasionally be cases when service standards have not been met and compensation for the tenant’s inconvenience or loss is the most appropriate and proportional course of action,
2. That tenants may claim compensation for temporary heaters supplied by the landlord or its contractors. They may claim up to £5 per day per household, not per heater.

Summary of events

The landlord and former resident completed a mutual exchange inspection sheet on 21 March 2018 related to the condition of the property. The inspection stated, “carpets laid,” “own worktops, sink, doors, and drawer fronts,” “electrics still to inspected” “economy 7 heating”, “property is clean and tidy, no reason to refuse the mutual exchange.”
The landlord conducted a complete electrical condition assessment of the property on 27 March 2018 which was signed off as satisfactory.
The resident signed a deed of assignment on 30 April 2018 to affect a mutual exchange.
The landlord raised a works order on 14 September 2018 to respond to an “electricity heating fail” at the property. The landlord completed the works order on 23 October 2018. The repair order notes stated, “thermostat is not working properly, turning off or starting earlier than it should” “tenant is receiving high electricity bills.”
The landlord raised a works order on 17 October 2018 to carry out an electric heating survey at the resident’s property. The landlord completed the works order on 14 January 2019.
The landlord raised a works order on 3 December 2018 to repair the immersion heater at the property as the resident had reported that there was no hot water in the property. The landlord completed the repair on 8 January 2019.
The landlord completed works orders on 24 January 2019 and 8 February 2019 to respond to hot water electricity failures in the resident’s property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 July 2019 to advise her that it had sought tenders to upgrade the heating system at the property and that access to the loft space would be required.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2019 to advise it had awarded the tender to upgrade the heating system and works would commence on 9 September 2019 and last for up to 5 days. The landlord has confirmed to this service that this work was completed in Autumn 2019.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 December 2019 to address her [undisclosed] report of outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord advised that the issues were not resolved due to staff leaving and a change of contractors. It advised repair works would be planned in the New Year to address:
1. remedial electrical work required, possibly remove some sockets,
2. flooring by fireplace to be levelled,
3. check out chimney pot,
4. clean black spot various rooms,
5. roof investigation,
6. front door draft excluder,
7. vents in soffits to be installed (possibly),
8. move radiator in utility room.
The landlord raised a works order to remove and refix a radiator on 22 January 2020. This work was completed on 13 February 2020.
The landlord raised a works order to repair internal flooring on 22 January 2020. This work was completed on 13 February 2020.
The landlord inspected the resident’s roof on 13 February 2020 during which no repairs issues were identified.
The landlord completed a heat pump and cylinder assessment and report on 5 August 2020. The report stated the system was being monitored by the manufacturer but the “unit was fine whilst here”. No recommendations were made.
The landlord completed a further heat pump and cylinder assessment and report on 18 June 2021. The report stated the system was working well and no recommendations were made.
The resident attached a list of outstanding repairs to a stage one complaint she emailed to the landlord on 14 June 2022. The resident stated:
1. “I am now making my third and final formal complaint with regard to repairs to my home,
2. “repairs are either not done or incomplete as per the list of repairs provided in response to my second formal complaint,
3. “added to that is a list of repairs made on 16 March 2022 to which I have had no response from the council’s repairs department,”
4. “other repairs include the reinstallation of the cavity wall insulation which was inspected in 2020 and found to have collapsed,”
5. “a number of electrical faults, including light switches and the shower which were deemed as dangerous,”
6. “with escalating energy bills, this is now a matter of extreme urgency, and which will be detrimental to both my health and financial wellbeing,”
7. “I now have no choice but to demand that all the work is completed in 8 weeks ie 9th August 2022.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 15 June 2022 to investigate which repairs the resident had referred to in her stage one complaint had been completed.
The landlord’s repairs staff sent a further internal email on 28 June 2022 asking which repairs the resident had referred to in her stage one complaint had been completed. The landlord provided updates related to repairs raised on a “property MOT form” and stated:
1. “surveyors will need to look into the cavity wall insulation as to why this hasn’t yet been repaired,”
2. “I have raised the electrical orders to make the property safe,”
3. “we were told strictly not to raise any orders on MOT reports and surveyors are to do this.”
The landlord attended the property to complete repairs on 18 July 2022. The landlord says that the resident informed the landlord that she was unwell and so the appointment was cancelled and rearranged. This was later contested by the resident who reported that the contractor did not wait while she dressed.
The landlord was due to attend the property to complete repairs on 26 July 2022, but the contractor over ran on a previous job, and it left a voicemail message for the resident cancelling the appointment.
The landlord emailed its stage one complaint response dated 29 July 2022 to the resident on 1 August 2022. The landlord’s response:
1. apologised for a delay in responding and for the outstanding repairs,
2. listed the repairs recorded on its repairs database with updates against each as follows:
  1. flooring by fireplace to be levelled: was repaired on 14th February 2020 and marked as complete,
  2. check out chimney pot: marked as complete on 14th January 2020 and 14th February 2020,
  3. clean black spot various rooms: completed on 13th February 2020,
  4. roof investigation: completed on 13th February 2020,
  5. vents in soffits to be installed (possibly): No recommendation for vents,
  6. front door draft excluder was fitted on 15th May 2020,
  7. radiator in utility room: marked as complete on 14th February 2020,
3. referred to property MOT the landlord completed in March 2022 and listed follow-on repairs as:
  1. “kitchen extract fan repair required – order was raised on 28 June and completed on 12 July 2022,”
  2. “service all windows – orders have also been raised I will be in touch with you to arrange dates for attendance,”
  3. “bathroom extract fan repair required – order was raised on 28 June 2022 and completed on 12 July 2022,”
  4. “enviro survey for mould issues – orders have also been raised I will be in touch with you to arrange dates for attendance,”
  5. “cracks to external render – orders have also been raised I will be in touch with you to arrange dates for attendance,”
  6. “kitchen light switch faulty – order was raised on 28 June 2022 and completed on 12 July 2022,”
  7. “check and service heating – order was raised on 28th June 2022 for this work and the appointment was originally booked for 18th July 2022 but you were not home, it has now been rebooked for 31st August 2022,”
4. stated “we are having staffing issues at the moment, and this is having an
  impact on the team’s ability to deal with the volume of work that they are facing. This is being addressed. “
5. The complaint did not refer to the cavity wall or state whether it was upheld.
The resident emailed a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2022. The resident stated:
1. “you haven’t even addressed my main concern which is the faulty storage heaters I had for the first 2 years of my tenancy,
2. the lack of insulation in my home and the resulting high cost I’ve been paying for energy, twice as much as the average consumption for this type of property with one occupant for the past 4 years.”,
3. “none of the jobs you say were completed in previous years have actually been done and the only jobs which have been done recently are the windows and the kitchen extractor fan.”
4. “I did not fail to keep the appointment with for the service to my heating system on 18th July. I asked if he could wait a few minutes while I got dressed but he refused.”
5. “I have heard a rumour that after lockdown all outstanding repairs on the books were wiped off but none of your tenants including myself were informed of this. Perhaps you could find out how true it is and why it happened and who authorised it.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 August 2022 containing notes related to the matters the resident raised in her stage 2 complaint. It sent further internal emails on 5 August 2022 to gather additional evidence related to the outstanding repairs raised in the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord stated the property:
1. “has had new doors and double-glazed windows are due for replacement in the next few years”,
2. “the property will be fully assessed as part of our climate change agenda, this may identify a need for fabric/insulation upgrades, but this applies to our entire stock, not just this property in isolation.”
3. “fabric upgrade work, if found to be required will be part of a wider upgrade programme. There has been no delay, once the need is identified then any upgrade work will be programmed in.”
4. “we will arrange for another surveyor visit but make reference to the contractors response which stated:
  1. a project was carried out to upgrade the heating systems to all properties [that] had an aged electric heating system.
  2. the tenant’s own use of the system will determine their cost to run, we cannot control this and to suggest otherwise is not accepted,
  3. the property is very similar to the majority of stock, the insulation provision was compliant at the time they were built,
  4. to meet our climate change agenda fabric upgrades will be carried out over the next 15+ years to deliver improvement”.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement email to the resident on 5 August 2022 saying that its response might be delayed due to an extremely heavy workload and resourcing issues.
The landlord was due to attend the property to complete repairs on 31 August 2022 but left a voicemail message for the resident to explain that the appointment was cancelled due to an outbreak of Covid-19 amongst the repair staff.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on an unspecified date in September 2022 and reported there was no evidence of damp or mould that would lead to an investigation to identify the cause or remedial work.
The landlord inspected the resident’s roof on an unspecified date in September 2022 and stated, “the property would benefit from a layer of top up insulation.” A works order was raised on 28 September 2022 and the work was completed on 29 November 2022.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 September 2022 saying that no repairs had been reported related to faulty storage heaters since the start of the resident’s tenancy. In the email the landlord said, “the only complaint related to high electric costs; a heating survey was instructed, system deemed to be working as no remedial works required/requested/ordered.”
The landlord sent internal emails on 8 September 2022 to gather evidence related to the resident’s reports that the storage heaters at the property were faulty. Specifically how often they had been serviced. The landlord confirmed that everything had been checked and left in working order as part of the void completion/handover and that there was no requirement to service electric storage heaters.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 12 September 2022. The response did not state if the complaint was upheld. The response stated:
1. there were four areas of complaint related to repairs at the property since the tenancy started in April 2018:
  1. night storage heaters:

(1) “would have been checked in the void period,”

(2) “we have no evidence that a report was carried out in 2018,”

(3) “a visit conducted on 2 April 2019 recommended replacement”.

(4) we do not seem to have a copy of the report carried out,

(5) “the new installation of the Air Source Heat Pump was completed in the autumn of 2019.”

insulation at the property:

(1) “the property would have met regulatory standards at the time it was built,

(2) the inspection report noted “the insulation needed to be topped up,”

(3) “If the insulation has not been topped up I will ensure that this is carried out.”

(4) we do not have a copy of a cavity wall insulation report carried out in 2020,

(5) “we will be carrying out some improvements to the insulation, but we cannot give any timescales,

(6) “your property will be included in this survey and upgrade work will be part of a wider upgrade programme. If the need is identified it will be programmed in.

outstanding repairs logged prior to 2022:

(1) “I would like to arrange for a surveyor to attend to investigate the previous repairs we have on file to make sure they were completed,”

(2) “any that are still outstanding we will raise anew if they are still required.”

incomplete repairs raised following the MOT:

(1) “a number of jobs have already been raised some of which have already been completed,”

(2) “I have asked the surveyor to check the progress of the repairs due to be carried to ensure that they are all completed.”

the resident was not well enough for the appointment on the 18 July 2022 to progress, the engineer cancelled appointments on 26 July 2022 and 31 August 2022.
the rumour the resident referred to was false, but a backlog of repairs delayed the completion of works and affected the supply of builders materials,
a request to the resident to “provide a copy of the reports carried out on the cavity wall insulation and storage heaters in 2020 and 2019/2018 respectively as it would assist me in determining if we have failed in dealing with these matters in an appropriate timescale,”
a hardship fund was available to help with energy costs.

The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2022 stating she was not surprised it could not find the heating report or cavity wall inspection assessment. The resident explained:
1. the first heating inspection was raised in September 2018 and completed in November 2018, a second inspection was completed in April 2019 because the landlord could not locate the reports,
2. she retained a copy of the report that stated 5 storage heaters were faulty, not 2 as the landlord had stated.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stating:
1. “the inspection completed for a mutual exchange was inadequate and did not note faulty storage heaters or a missing hob power point which resulted in the resident cooking in their caravan,”
2. “repairs are marked as completed that are not completed,”
3. “repeat inspections of the storage heaters were completed but the notes were misplaced,”
4. “a copy of the report and associated emails could be seen if required,”
5. “the replacement of the heating system caused difficulties related to the relocation of the fridge/freezer and removal of worktops whereby the resident was advised they “would be removed from the programme” if a solution were not found,”
6. “the resident stated [the landlord] “was threatening and in my opinion bullying”,
7. “the outside heat pump and expansion tank were both replaced within a year of installation by the manufacturers service engineers as when the temperature went below -2 the whole system froze and stopped working,”
8. “the pipe cladding is also badly fitted exposing the holes in the ceiling where the pipes have gone through causing more cold air to seep into my home from the loft,”
9. “as far as the rumour concerning the wiping of all repairs prior to covid, the repairs department confirmed what I had heard and told me I would need to resubmit [the repairs],”
10. “my hugely expensive electricity bills are due to faulty heating systems and lack of proper insulation,”
11. “how would I know that the cavity wall has collapsed if I hadn’t spoken to the person who was sent by the council to inspect it. I watched him drill holes in the wall and put a small camera in,”
12. “like every other report done on my property the paperwork has managed to disappear without trace just the same as jobs that haven’t been done are written off as being done,”
13. “I see it as a matter of urgency that the cavity wall insulation be replaced as half my pension will go in energy costs,”
14. “my supplier said the energy usage for a one-bedroom bungalow with a single occupant is between 2,500 and 3,500 units per annum. Last year I used 6,500 units twice the amount they estimate,”
15. “my high usage has been due to faulty storage heaters and lack of cavity wall insulation and that is the sole responsibility of the council,”
16. “there are other issues to be looked at regarding general maintenance of the property.”
The resident contacted this service on 18 October 2022 and stated:
1. storage heaters works had been completed, but she was still unhappy with the delays in getting this done,
2. as of 18 October 2022 the ‘topping-up’ of the insulation has not yet happened,
3. she was unhappy that landlord lost the cavity wall insulation report because she did not have her own copy,
4. outstanding works included:
  1. moving a radiator,
  2. building/painting housing for a water tank/air source pump,
  3. the levelling of flooring by a fireplace,
  4. the cleaning of “black spots,”
  5. an inspection to assess if/why damp was coming through the roof.
5. she wanted compensation to reimburse her for 50% of her heating costs over the last year due to issues with the insulation and heating system,
6. she wanted compensation for the general condition of the property, which had meant she had not been able to decorate the property,
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 14 November 2022 to confirm a post-inspection would be completed when works orders were completed to address:
1. repairs to air source pump,
2. relocation of a lobby radiator,
3. painting of walls & ceilings,
4. repair of a crack in the floor screed,
5. kitchen ceiling and cracks in lounge & hallway,
6. renewal of a bath with taps,
7. door frame paintwork and new kitchen cupboard doors,
8. new insulation in the loft.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this service as duly made on 22 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s management and handling of outstanding repairs in the resident’s property.

The resident referred to a list of outstanding repairs in her stage one complaint by making reference to two formal complaints she had made previously. The landlord responded to the resident by listing the actions it had taken to address the repairs listed in the previous complaint responses between 2018 and 2020. This investigation does not explicitly address the landlord’s response to the resident’s previous complaints but can assess the repairs where they are listed in this complaint. This means this complaint investigation extends beyond the timescales this service would usually consider.
The landlord raised 5 repair works orders at the resident’s home in 2018 and 2019 related to the heating. The landlord only completed 2 of these repairs within the target timescales assigned to the work. This service has not seen evidence to confirm why the delays occurred. It is however noted that the resident stated a property assessment that was conducted in January 2019 was misplaced. The delays and requirement to complete an additional property assessment was likely to have caused time and trouble to the resident in arranging further property access and detriment to the resident who resided in the property during the winter months with faulty heating.
A works order raised in 2018 to complete an electrical heating survey was completed 30 working days over the target timescales and this was unreasonable. Two further works orders raised in 2019 to address hot water electrical failures were completed 12 and 11 working days later than the landlord’s 28-day response timescale. These repairs were not compliant with the landlord’s policy and would have caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord subsequently replaced the heating system in September 2019 following a formal tender process. The landlord’s decision to replace the heating system was appropriate given it was not able to repair the resident’s heating system. However, this service has not seen evidence to verify why a delay of 6 months occurred before the heating was replaced. Further this service has not seen any evidence to confirm the extent of the heating failure and the impact on the resident and whether temporary heating was provided and/or temporary heating costs reimbursed.
The landlord responded to the resident in December 2019 in relation to a list of 8 outstanding repairs. The landlord explained this was “due to staff leaving and a change of contractors.” This service understands that coordinating staff and contractors is essential when providing housing management services, but the impact of this should not result in detriment to its residents. The landlord was expected to plan in advance for any impact a change in contractors might cause and to coordinate repairs and communication so as to limit the negative impact on residents. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information management refers specifically to this type of scenario. A landlord is expected to complete due diligence checks when entering a new relationship with a repairs contractor so as to understand and mitigate for any negative impact it may have on its repairs service.
The resident referred to outstanding or incomplete repairs in an email dated 16 March 2022 and again in the stage one complaint she made in July 2022. The landlord was expected to have completed the repairs within reasonable timescales, but this service has not seen evidence to confirm when the repairs were addressed. The landlord confirmed in its stage one response that it had completed 7 of the repairs between January 2020 and May 2020 thereby confirming these repairs were completed outside of the landlord’s 28–day routine repairs timescales. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident as well as time and trouble spent pursuing the repairs. Furthermore it was likely to have affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repair service and this was avoidable.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response refers to a property MOT which it completed in March 2022 following the resident’s report of outstanding repairs dated 16 March 2022. This service has not seen any evidence of the property MOT report itself, but the landlord provided progress reports against the repairs it identified in its stage one response. It is evident that some of the repairs were completed within reasonable timescales but works to service windows, completion of a mould survey, assessment of cracks and servicing of the heating system were outstanding at least three months after the MOT was completed. This was unreasonable and these outstanding repairs would have caused inconvenience to the resident and had the potential to increase the heating costs of the property. This was avoidable.
The landlord repeatedly misplaced or overlooked records it was expected to have retained or consulted following inspections it completed and repairs it undertook. This matter is addressed in detail later in this report but has a significant bearing on the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs. These information handling failures resulted in inconvenience and detriment to the resident which could have been avoided.
This service has seen evidence that the landlord completed some repairs in the resident’s property between 2018 and 2022 and by doing so suggested it had the scope and systems in place to respond to repairs requests in a reasonable way. Further it completed property assessments when required which it used to inform, and schedule required repairs. However, the landlord did not evidence that it consistently used and retained the information it obtained in the course of providing its repairs service and this resulted in missed, delayed, or outstanding repairs over an unreasonably long timeframe. This caused detriment to the resident who spent time and trouble in pursuing a remedy to the repair matters raised and resided in a property that did not meet suitable repair standards. Taking all aspects into account this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of outstanding repairs in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s management and handling of reports about the heating and insulation at the property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord completed electric testing in the resident’s home in March 2018 prior to her taking up occupation. This was in line with its mutual exchange procedures. The electric safety certificate confirmed 5 storage heating units were tested during the inspection and met expected standards. It is unclear when the storage heaters became faulty at a later date in 2018, or what caused this to occur given the outcome of the assessment previously completed. However the landlord revisited the property to assess these faults when they were reported, and this was appropriate and in line with its policy obligations.
The landlord stated in its email dated 8 September 2022 that, “there is no requirement to service electric storage heaters.” However, there is a notable difference between servicing the heaters and completing repairs to return the heaters to functionality. Notwithstanding the landlord assessed the heaters when faults were reported and arranged repairs where they were needed, and this was appropriate.
The landlord completed 5 repairs to respond to the resident’s reports of heating failures in the property in 2018 which resulted in the installation of new heating system in the property in September 2019. The replacement of the heating system was a reasonable decision for the landlord to take based upon its own assessments of the heating faults and other properties in the area. The landlord was suitably qualified to complete these assessments and to make arrangements that ensured the property was adequately heated.
The landlord completed an annual heating survey in August 2020, and the landlord noted that the manufacturer oversaw monitoring of the newly installed heating system at that time. This was most likely related to the warranty within the first year of installation. The landlord did not record any faults with the heating system during its inspection.
The resident reported that the heating system was unreliable during the first year of installation when the temperatures dropped below -2c. This service has not seen any evidence to confirm when the matter was reported or repaired but understands this would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and was likely to have affected the heating costs in the property. The repair of the heating system was completed by the manufacturer, and although the landlord had repairing obligation this work was not completed by the landlord during the warranty period, therefore it is reasonable that the landlord does not to have any records of these repairs or heating faults. The landlord would have benefitted from establishing or acting on an arrangement to receive repair or condition reports from its third-party partner. It is recognised by this service that the heating fault caused significant impact to the resident’s comfort and wellbeing.
The landlord completed two further annual heating checks in 2021 and 2022 which confirmed the heating system was in working order. This service has not seen any further reports of heating faults since the heating system was replaced. The landlord’s completion of annual inspections was good practise to ensure the condition of the resident’s heating system was in a decent state of repair.
The landlord completed further repairs in the resident’s home related to heating efficiency when it replaced a radiator in February 2020 in line with its repairing timescales. It also installed a new front door draft excluder in May 2020. These types of repairs were likely to have had a positive impact of energy efficiency in the residents home and this was an appropriate assessment for the landlord to make. This was an example of good practise in assessing a need for any fabric and insulation upgrades.
The landlord reported in its stage two complaint response that the property would be assessed as part of its climate change agenda. It is likely that any major efficiency improvements related to the climate change agenda would take place under future works programmes and therefore not bring an immediate improvement to the resident. However it is possible that the property assessment may identify smaller matters that could be addressed as day-to-day responsive repairs.
The landlord identified a need to repair insulation in the resident’s loft and in its September 2022 stage two response the landlord confirmed “the insulation needed to be topped up and I will ensure this is carried out”. This service has not seen any evidence to confirm when this assessment was made but the repair remained outstanding when the resident escalated her stage two complaint, and this was unreasonable.
The completion of insultation repair was referred to as outstanding in the landlord’s email dated November 2022 a further 2 months after it confirmed the repair was needed in its stage two response. The landlord did not carry out this routine repair within its 28-day timescale, or soon after issuing its stage 2 response which would have limited the negative impact this had on the energy efficiency of the property. This was inappropriate particularly given the landlord had been made aware on multiple occasions that the resident was concerned about incurring increased heating costs due to the condition of their property home.
This service is not in a position to accurately assess the likely impact the landlord’s response to heating faults and lack of cavity and loft insulation has had on the overall costs in heating the property. It is usual for a landlord to provide a temporary source of heating where failures of heating systems occur and to refund the associated costs. The landlord’s compensation policy states “tenants may claim up to £5 per day per household, not per heater.” However, this service has not seen any evidence to confirm whether the landlord provided alternative heat sources. This service considers that a lack of working storage heaters was likely to have caused significant detriment and therefore the resident is due compensation for the impact this has had on her. As an exact measure of the likely costs the resident incurred is not possible this service must look to its own remedies guidance to make an assessment of compensation due.
The landlord was expected to be able to complete repairs and assessments to appropriately respond to the heating and energy efficiency of the home. The landlord took reasonable steps to replace the heating system but not before completing multiple assessments of the heating systems and misplacing reports it commissioned. The landlord subsequently completed an assessment of the cavity insulation in the property but was unable to provide evidence to this service about the findings. Further it delayed works that had agreed to complete to replace and/or install loft insulation in the home and provided no reason for the delays. This cumulative impact of the landlord’s handling of these matters caused detriment to the resident and is likely to have negatively impacted her heating costs. Taking into account all actions taken by the landlord this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling and management of reports that the property was not adequately insulated and caused an increase in heating costs.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation policy and procedures. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord publishes a corporate complaints procedure which sets out the expectations for handling complaints at stage one and stage two. The policy states complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The response timescale for stage 1 complaint is non-compliant with section 5.1 of the principles Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘code’).
This service has not seen any evidence that the landlord issued an acknowledgment email, or letter to the resident within 5 days of receipt of her stage 1 complaint and this was expected in order comply with its own policy and the code. This resulted in inconvenience to the resident who was uncertain when she could expect the landlord’s response to the matters raised.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 35 working days after receiving the complaint. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and this service has seen no explanation for the delay. It is accepted that the complaint was lengthy and required multiple investigations, however this service expects the landlord to have the resources to complete complaint investigations and issue responses on time. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed a new response target date with the resident and issued a holding letter confirming the new arrangements. This delay caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing a remedy to the matters she had previously raised, and this was inappropriate and avoidable.
The landlord’s stage one response addressed the repair matters the resident raised by providing evidence of works orders and updates against these items and this was informative. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about her heating costs, and this was expected to ensure a full response to the resident’s complaint was achieved. Further the complaint failed to empathise with the time taken for the outstanding repairs to be completed. Instead it explained that this delay was due to staffing issues which was unreasonable. The landlord’s complaint response failed to manage the resident’s expectations related to the timescales for resolving the outstanding repairs and the completion of new property inspections. It also failed to address the resident’s perception of detriment the cumulative failures caused, such as by offering a compensation award. This was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in the landlord’s housing services.
The landlord’s stage two response sought to address each of the resident’s complaints by responding to the matters in the order they were raised, and this was appropriate. The landlord provided summary information related to its investigation and works orders and this was informative. Further it responded to a number of additional points that the resident had not previously raised, and this was helpful, particularly in addressing rumours of repairs handling matters the resident reported. However, the landlord offered to complete further inspections in the property where it was unable to clarify facts, such as if loft insulation were in place. Although this was a reasonable approach to take where information was missing, this was likely to have caused frustration to the resident who had already provided access to her home and raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to retain adequate records of its visits. Further by requesting the resident provide replacement copies of its own assessments the landlord would have caused time and trouble to the resident. The landlord once again failed to respond the resident’s statement about the heating costs in her home which the landlord was expected to reference to ensure the full extent of the resident’s complaint was addressed. Failure to address this matter was a significant failing given the resident listed it as the main cause of her complaint. This was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to indicate whether the resident’s complaints were upheld at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint procedure, and this was not compliant with section 5.8 of the complaint handling code. management. Failing to provide this information would have left the resident uncertain about the landlord’s consideration of her complaint beyond the statements it provided related to the individual complaint components.
The landlord did not consider making an offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience its failings caused to the resident in either of its complaint responses. The landlord operates a compensation procedure and under the terms of its policy was entitled to do so to resolve complaints where there have been service failures. The landlord recognised distress and inconvenience related to delays and misplaced property assessments. It is therefore unclear to this service why the landlord did not consider an award for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing remedies related to multiple complaints over a number of years. It is this services view that by failing to offer any type of redress to the resident the landlord missed an opportunity to empathise with the resident and in doing so restore her confidence and trust in the landlord’s housing services. When looking at compensation as a remedy for dissatisfaction, this service first looks at the landlord’s own assessment of its service failure and the redress due. We then look at the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) to assess if any award issued is reasonable. Considering the landlord did not offer any award and taking into account the full extent of detriment to the resident this service considers a compensation award is due.
Taking all matters into account this service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s record keeping practices and handling of knowledge and information.

Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Landlords should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, including retaining and having access to previous and existing policies, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
The resident retained copies of survey reports the landlord commissioned when inspecting the resident’s storage heaters in September 2019. The resident later offered to provide copies of these reports to the landlord because it had not retained the information. This was required to substantiate the landlord’s original assessment of the storage heating faults because it later stated there were only 2 faulty storage heaters and not 5 as stated in the survey results. However, the landlord was expected to have retained and later used information it had obtained related to the condition of the property.
The resident reported that an assessment of the cavity wall was completed in 2020 which she witnessed the landlord carrying the assessment out when it drilled holes in the property for the use of a camera. It appears that this report and the landlord’s previous assessment of the heating system it completed in 2018 were misplaced. This was unreasonable. The landlord was expected to complete accurate records and notes of inspections it undertook and to have retained the information on its housing databases as a record of the condition of the property. The landlord referred to the absence of this information when it asked the resident to provide replacement copies of the assessment reports. This was unreasonable and was likely to have had an impact on the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service and this was avoidable.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response issued 6 months after the property MOT assessment makes further reference to outstanding repairs it identified as well as outstanding repairs to loft insulation. It is not clear to this service or the landlord which of the MOT repairs were outstanding. The landlord was expected to have completed the repairs within its policy timescales and tracked to completion any repairs that were delayed. Sending a further contractor to assess items it had already assessed and should have had a record of would have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Furthermore was likely to have further effected the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repair service.
It is evident throughout this case that the landlord failed to keep accurate and contemporaneous records of visits, repairs and/or its survey visits / assessments it completed at the property. This resulted in duplicate appointments being raised and multiple failures to respond effectively to the various repairs the resident reported. The resident should not have been required to provide copies of reports the landlord was reasonably expected to have retained, nor to have to clarify incorrect information it provided. This caused distress, and time and trouble to the resident and compromised confidence in the landlord. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of information and record keeping practices.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of reports about the heating and insulation at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the resident complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping practices and handling of knowledge and information.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) and (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

d. the landlord’s management and handling of a request to store a caravan in the garden.

e. the landlord’s management and handling of requests for a kitchen refurbishment.

Reasons

The landlord completed some repairs in the resident’s property between 2018 and 2022 and completed property assessments when required which it used to inform, and schedule required repairs. However, the landlord did not consistently use and retain the information it obtained in the course of providing its repairs service and this resulted in missed, delayed, or outstanding repairs over an unreasonably long timeframe. This caused detriment to the resident who spent time and trouble in pursuing a remedy to the repair matters raised and resided in a property that did not meet suitable repair standards.
The landlord completed repairs to respond to faults with the resident’s heating system but lost key assessment data which contained information about the faults with the resident’s storage heaters. The landlord misplaced an assessment of the cavity insulation in the resident’s property and failed to complete agreed loft insulation repairs within reasonable timescales. These failures are likely to have aggravated energy efficiency issues at the property and resulted in an increase in heating costs to the resident.
The landlord provided complaint responses that assessed many aspects of the resident’s complaints with detailed information based on investigations and the interrogation of its housing repairs database. The landlord did not however address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and suggested completing further inspections without providing resolution timescales. The landlord missed response timescales and failed to consider compensation as a means for recognising the distress, inconvenience time and trouble its handling of the resident’s concerns had on her.
By failing to effectively record and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, and manage and use information the landlord was unable to progress the repairs or provide effective communication to the resident in a timely manner. The impact of its information handling practices caused extended detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,200 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property,
2. £250 for inconvenience related to record keeping failures related to misplaced assessments of heating and cavity wall insulation,
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s management and handling of reports about the heating and insulation at the property.
4. £350 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to complete a full inspection of the condition of the resident’s property which:
1. should consist of:
  1. a review of the repairs referred to in this report and the resident’s complaints,
  2. a review of the cavity wall and loft insulation,
  3. a review of the energy efficiency of the property,
  4. a review of the condition of the kitchen.
Within 2 weeks of the inspection of the property the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a copy of the inspection report to the resident and this Service setting out:
  1. The schedule for the outstanding repairs to be completed.
  2. The programme of major or planned works where these are known.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.
The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. the retention and supply of accurate records and information relied on in complaint responses,
2. the accuracy of records stored on the housing databases related to repairs and property surveys,
3. the storage and use of information related to repairs and complaint handling,
4. the storage and use of photographic evidence for assessing repairs.