Abri Group Limited (202126676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126676

Abri Group Limited

30 November 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy performance of the property including the cost to heat it and condition of the heating system.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a three bedroom semi detached house. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 30 April 2018. The property was acquired through a mutual exchange.
The property has a solid fuel heating system. Heating and hot water is from a back boiler powered by wood and coal. The property also has an electric immersion heater for further provision of hot water.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. The stage one complaint will be responded to within 10 working days. At stage two the complaint will be considered either by a senior staff member of the landlord or by a customer complaints panel. The resident can choose how the stage two complaint is investigated. The stage two response will be issued within 20 working days.
Section 3.4.1 of the landlord’s heating safety policy states servicing of heating appliances will be completed every twelve months.
Section 3.9 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it operates an appointment system based on a 24-hour emergency response to make safe or an appointment-based job system for non-emergency repairs. The policy does not provide a timescale for non emergency repairs to be completed.

Scope of the investigation

The issues considered in this investigation were subject to two separate complaints by the resident. The first complaint completed the landlord’s complaint process on 13 October 2021. The second complaint completed the landlord’s complaint process on 27 May 2022.
The resident had made a third complaint to the landlord on 22 February 2022. The evidence provided shows a stage one response was issued on 29 March 2022, but the complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint process and have a stage two response issued. That complaint therefore will not be considered during this investigation.
The resident, in her correspondence with this Service, has noted that the property has outstanding works. These include mould due to inadequate heating, broken windows and bath repairs. These issues did not form part of the complaints made to the landlord that are being considered by this Service so will not be referred to in this report.

Summary of Events

On 21 April 2021 the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend the resident’s property after the resident reported she had received a high electricity bill. The resident stated her electricity provider said there was nothing wrong with the electricity meter, but the property was consuming four times the national average of electricity. The resident stated the heating and hot water were not electric and were powered by a back burner which used wood and coal. The resident said she had a pay as you go meter installed. The landlord arranged for an appointment for an electrician to visit the property.
On 6 May 2021 the electrician attended the resident’s property and found no faults with the electrics. The electrician did arrange to replace a fuse board, light switch and supply to the socket in an outhouse. The works were completed on 15 June 2021.
On 11 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated she had been without electricity as she did not have the funds to top up the electricity meter. The resident said she had taken legal advice on where she stood after reporting the property’s high electricity usage to the landlord. The resident said she had no hot water as she could not afford to put the immersion on or buy any firewood for the solid fuel heating system. The resident said a sudden surge had taken out her fridge so no longer had use of the fridge and was having to shop daily as a result.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the solid fuel system at the property. The resident during this inspection stated her electricity bills were still high. The landlord arranged for an electrical inspection to take place on 19 July 2021.
An electrician attended the property on 19 July 2021 and, following an electrical inspection found no faults. A data logger was ordered to check the property electricity usage.
On 20 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and made a complaint. The resident said the landlord had sent an ineffective person to handle the electricity crisis at her home. The resident stated she had no hot water since January 2021, a blown-up fridge and a blown up shower.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that it had received the complaint from the resident. The letter stated it would try to resolve the complaint within ten working days.
On 26 July 2021 the data logger was fitted by the landlord.
On 29 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord asked for the electricity bills prior to switching to a prepayment meter and a statement from the electricity provider confirming the usage since the change to a prepayment meter. The landlord provided the details of its financial responsibilities team for the resident to request a food parcel or financial support.
The landlord analysed the readings from the data logger on 5 August 2021. The landlord found the resident’s meter had registered a higher amount of electricity units used than the data logger it had installed. The landlord’s conclusion was a fault with the meter and advised the resident to contact the energy provider.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 August 2021. In the response the landlord stated:
1. It had not upheld the complaint.
2. The resident said she had been telling the landlord about high energy usage since January 2021 when she sent an email, but it could find no evidence of the email being sent. The landlord stated it would look into it further if the resident found the email at a later date.
3. In an email to the landlord on 21 April 2021 the resident advised that the electricity supplier had stated there were no faults with the meter, but the resident was using four times the national average.
4. The landlord arranged for an electrician to carry out an inspection of the property on 6 May 2021. No faults were found, but it did arrange works for the fuse board, light switch and supply to the socket of the outhouse. The works were completed on 15 June 2021.
5. A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 15 July 2021 to inspect the solid fuel heating system. An electrical inspection took place on 19 July 2021 which found no faults. A data logger was installed on 26 July 2021.
6. The data logger was removed on 3 August 2021 and the data analysed. The usage was deemed to be within expected usage for an all-electric house. Meter readings were taken and showed the meter was recording a higher usage than actually used. The landlord had emailed the data to the resident and advised her to speak to her electricity supplier as the excess usage appeared to be due to a faulty meter which would be the responsibility of the energy provider.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 August 2021. The resident stated the property was not using normal amounts of electricity and she would get someone herself to look at the electrics. The resident said she spoke to the supplier who would not accept the data readings from the landlord, as the supplier did not check the meter.
On 2 September 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord and informed it she could not afford to have hot water via either the immersion heater or the solid fuel appliance due to her electric bill. The resident said she had contacted the energy supplier and paid for it to carry out its own check. The resident said the supplier said there was nothing wrong at their end and the only thing it could think of was it may have been the water heater draining electricity.
On 15 September 2021 the resident provided the landlord with an email from her energy provider who stated that based on the usage recorded it indicated that there was not a problem with the meter and was down to something using the electricity. The resident asked for her complaint to be reopened and stated that there was no issue with her meter and the equipment used by the landlord to close her complaint was inaccurate. The resident said she had taken legal advice and asked the landlord if she should employ her own electrician to resolve the issue. The resident stated she had only two working TVs, a fridge freezer, an oven, a shower and a hoover. Everything was switched off at the wall until in use except from the fridge and the oven. The resident was doing her washing at her mum’s house so there were no laundry costs, and the household was using the shower between four and six times a day. The resident said there was no heating and no hot water and was costing her £400 a month in electric.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two and the landlord would try to resolve the complaint within 20 working days.
On 30 September 2021 the resident called the landlord and asked for an update about her complaint as it was due to be resolved in five days and she had not yet been contacted by the landlord. The resident stated she had an independent electrician in the property and knew there were faults at the property. The resident said she had been advised there was no energy performance certificate for the property. The resident said if she did not get a response that day, she would pay an electrician to correct the upstairs circuits and investigate the wiring in the bathroom.
The landlord responded the same day and informed the resident that the complaint had been allocated to a manager to investigate and a response would be issued by 13 October 2021. The landlord asked the resident to provide copies of her electricity bills to assist it with its investigation.
On 1 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for a phone call to detail what the suggested plan was to deal with or investigate the issue. The resident said she had had the sockets in the bedroom sorted as she could not wait for the landlord to investigate so had personally paid for the correction of the wiring. The resident asked the landlord how the landlord proposed to offset the costs she had incurred during this period.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident and asked to visit her on either 4 October 2021 or 6 October 2021 to carry out a full assessment. There is no evidence provided a visit was arranged for either date. The landlord asked the resident to provide six months’ worth of bills to allow it to get a clear picture of the charges and asked the resident to provide certification of the works carried out in the bedroom sockets and who carried out the works.
On 6 October 2021 the resident called the landlord and said she was trying to speak to the landlord, but no one was helping her. The resident said she was in debt, couldn’t feed her family and was facing five days with no electricity and minimal food.
A manager from the landlord spoke to the resident the same day. The resident asked the landlord to pay the outstanding electric bill of £3000 and that she had evidence the landlord contributed to the high energy costs. The resident asked for money to be placed on their meter that day and was told by the landlord that was not something it could do. The landlord asked its finance team to call the resident and requested a food parcel for the resident.
The landlord also reviewed what action it had taken and established it had visited the resident during the summer to conduct a welfare check and to deliver a food parcel. There had not been any formal visits booked since the resident moved in or an inspection of the property through its routine programme. The landlord decided it should arrange for a home visit to have a holistic view of the resident’s situation.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. It had assessed all the electrical works carried out in the property.
2. An electrical inspection took place in January 2020 which reviewed the installation and the wiring to the sockets. The overall assessment was satisfactory with some minor improvements required which were completed in a separate visit. The retest date was scheduled to be 3 January 2025.
3. A surveyor and an electrical team leader attended the property and assessed the situation, with no faults in the wiring found.
4. A monitoring device recorded usage that was not in line with the meter reading, so it was recommended the resident contact the energy supplier.
5. The property had a solid fuel heating system which was in full working order and had been serviced every year. It understood the resident had an immersion heater for back up that was not used due to the high cost of fuel and electricity.
6. It acknowledged that it had taken time from the resident raising the concerns in April 2021 for it to get to a resolution and get the right parties involved.
7. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered to purchase one off gifts of coal and logs to assist with heating the home.
8. It established that a large amount of electricity was used in one quarter, at that time there was a direct debit metering system and a monthly payment plan. The meters were changed and then changed again for a prepayment meter. As there had been a couple of meter changes there could have been a meter miss read resulting in the sudden spike in usage.
9. After a visit on 8 October 2021 the landlord suggested the resident ask the energy provider to speak with the landlord directly, so the landlord could work out how this had happened and to review the bills for the period. The landlord could find no fault in the electrical installation at the property.
10. The landlord’s financial team had arranged for an energy assessment surveyor to attend to see if there was anything that could be done to help. It would then be in touch to discuss the next steps, including sign posting the resident for any further support.
11. It confirmed from the review that the residents solid fuel system was in working order and had been serviced annually.
On 22 November 2021 the resident reported a fault with the immersion. The landlord replaced the immersion thermostat on 29 November 2021.
On 23 December 2021 the landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to replace a valve on the immersion tank and replace taps in the bath. The resident refused the works due to the operative needing to drain the tank and refill, as that would have incurred more cost to the resident due to being on pay as you go meters.
The resident made a new complaint on 17 January 2022. The resident made a new complaint about:
1. The high cost of the electricity bills.
2. The landlord not delivering wood and coal as previously agreed.
3. A plumber attending the resident’s property and needing to drain the water tank.
4. The plumber being unqualified for the works.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the new complaint and stated it would try to resolve the complaint within ten working days.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord stated:
1. It had not upheld the complaint.
2. It could not look into the high electricity costs as that had been previously raised and had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
3. The landlord was happy to deliver the coal and wood but stated the resident had needed to contact it to arrange delivery and there was no contact from the resident.
4. The plumber needed to drain the water tank to complete the repair but as the resident had been unhappy with that, it was not completed. The plumber advised a different plumber would attend to see if the works could be completed without draining the tank. The landlord understood that for the repair to be completed, the tank did need to be drained, otherwise, when the valve was removed for replacement, the water would escape.
5. This was not down to the plumber being unqualified but was the only way the repair could be done.
The resident requested on 26 January 2022 for the complaint to be escalated stating the landlord misunderstood her complaint. The resident asked for the coal and wood to be delivered.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2022 to explain why the landlord had misunderstood her complaint. The resident stated:
1. The reason the maintenance technician needed to drain the hot water tank was because the valve to the hot water tank was broken.
2. There was an issue in the bathroom with the hot water tap leaking. The resident said if she was unable to turn off the hot water because the safety valve was broken that was a significant risk to her household. The repair should have been logged as urgent and a qualified plumber sent to fix the fault as a priority before any further maintenance on that system was carried out.
3. The issue was not logged by the landlord’s operative, he didn’t identify the risk and he felt he would work round it in a very costly way to the resident by draining her tank meaning she would lose all the water and pay for it to be refilled. The operative fixed the tap in the bathroom, but she still had no hot water safety valve. It took her to call the office before he stopped with his plan.
4. Had a qualified plumber been sent or someone had called first to discuss whether maintenance or plumbing was needed it would have saved a lot of time.
5. She still had no bath taps, or safety valve for the hot water, the bathroom floor was getting wetter daily.
6. That the landlord explain to her, given the date the repair was reported, the safety risks and the length of time she was in the situation, did the landlord think the complaint was invalid?
On 27 January 2022 the landlord informed the resident that coal and wood had been ordered and would be delivered the next week to the resident.
The resident responded the same day and asked when the financial responsibilities team would attend as she had been waiting since her last complaint was closed. The resident also said she was expecting a house assessment and energy saving recommendations as mentioned in the previous stage two response.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked the resident what the desired outcome of her complaint would be and if she wanted the complaint response to be from a senior manager or a complaints panel.
The resident responded the same day and stated:
1. The desired outcome of her complaint was for the landlord to rethink how it treated their tenants and the service level that was provided.
2. She was repeatedly fobbed off with unqualified people being sent to repair or investigate issues that required specific qualifications and skills.
3. The property had antiquated and expensive systems that could not be navigated around by a handyman. Issues with the back boiler, a leaking hot water system and a broken hot water safety valve needed specialists.
4. As a tenant she was denied the right to call a plumber or an electrician when needing one and had to log in and report faults. Someone turned up usually had a look and decided they needed to escalate to a qualified person, a qualified person came out and identified other works needed doing, materials/parts were ordered and a new date for maintenance scheduled. If the landlord was taking away the right for residents to maintain their own homes, they should be offered qualified services.
5. She was asking that the landlord reviewed how maintenance was carried out within its homes and that when reporting a repair, a resident would not be left waiting for two months before the landlord arrived to repair it.
On 4 February 2022 the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to a panel. The resident also stated she still had no functioning safety valve on her hot water and no hot water in the bathroom. The resident said she had had no communication as to when the landlord intended to repair it.
On 17 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. She was still waiting for suggestions on economising the costs of running the property as promised by the landlord in October 2021.
2. People were repeatedly attending the property to work on the systems within the property and repeatedly draining the tank which cost her each time.
3. She was spending £200 per week on electricity and £200 per fortnight on wood and coal.
4. After reporting a water issue in December 2021 that should have had the works completed by the landlord on 17 January 2022, she had been warned that day by the landlord’s call handler that if she delayed the works it wanted to do the next day, she would be liable for any damage caused.
5. Requested a phone call from a qualified person to explain what the landlord intended to do and what would be involved including cost and inconvenience before it was carried out.
The landlords records show the safety valve was repaired on 18 February 2022.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord through internal correspondence established the resident’s property had not had an energy performance certificate. It acknowledged that when the resident moved in it should have triggered for an energy performance certificate as part of the sign up process for the property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 24 February 2022 as the back boiler programmer was not working. The landlord arranged for a replacement to be ordered.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord’s records show it chased up the order for the replacement programmer and when the energy performance certificate would be done.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the following works were raised for the resident’s property:
1. Fault with the boiler
2. Replacement programmer to resolve the boiler fault.
3. Job raised to resolve door draughts.
4. Inspection to establish what needed to be done to resolve window drafts.
On 4 March 2022 the energy performance survey was completed by the landlord. The surveyor noted the requirement for loft insulation, the solid fuel boiler had a programmer which was not working, and the resident mentioned some radiators did not get hot. The surveyor stated that this was because the resident had no control of the heating and hot water systems. The surveyor also mentioned the front and back doors were not draft proofed.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and asked for the upcoming meeting to be on zoom and recorded following denials of conversations at a previous meeting. The resident said she had “no leg to stand on” when it came to verbal promises and commitments made at her home and wanted all future conversations to be recorded or if not possible, to be put in an email.
On 8 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and said the energy provider had previously investigated the meter issue through a complaint and had all the bills and meter reads reviewed. A small adjustment was needed at the beginning of her contract, but the other meter reads were digitally from the smart meter and indisputable. The resident said that although the energy provider had completed its investigation it had left their check meter in place for the landlord to carry out its own investigation.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord requested quotes to complete repairs to the front and back doors as identified in the energy performance survey. The request also included an overhaul and service to all windows in the property. The landlord also raised a job to vent all radiators, replace any defective air release valves, fire up the boiler, adjust the controls, test the feed and expansion tank, rectify minor leaks, balance and test the system. It established there were only two working radiators in the property. The control panel was fixed on 10 March 2022 but still only the front bedroom and bathroom radiators were heating up.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord established that the reason the resident’s property had never had an energy performance certificate was due to the previous tenant taking the property before an energy performance certificate was required. The landlord was due to complete the energy performance survey on 24 February 2020 but was cancelled on the day by the resident due to another appointment.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and noted the solid fuel system pump was found to be weak and a replacement was ordered.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord and resident attended the stage two panel meeting. The resident explained her issues with the heating system in the property, that the family had never been able to get heating into all the rooms of the property. As she could not afford to pay for fuel for the fire to power the hot water and heating she had to use the immersion for hot water which resulted in high electricity bills. The resident explained the impact it had on her household’s health and the lack of action the landlord had taken to resolved the reported issues.
The panel sympathised with the resident and the distress the issues with the heating system had caused. It had decided that although this did not form part of the resident’s complaint, it would review the options around the heating system such as the pump and inspect the radiators.
The panel thanked the resident for attending and informed her it would normally respond via letter as soon as possible but would get the letter to her by 25 April 2022 and would need to get someone to go to the property and be the resident’s point of contact.
On the same day the landlord noted during its investigation of the complaint that the solid fuel system had been serviced during the previous year and it was only recently made aware the system wasn’t working correctly. An engineer attended the resident’s property and recommended the replacement of the solid fuel system programmer. It was then notified the radiators were not heating correctly and following an appointment no faults were found but the pump was found to be weak so a replacement had been ordered.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 April 2022 and informed the resident that the decision to replace the pump was following an inspection on 7 April 2022 which stated it was in working order but was weak.
On 26 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an independent heating engineer verify the landlord’s report that there was no fault with the heating pump. The resident questioned why if there was no fault was the pump being changed. The resident stated she would not allow works to be completed until an independent company had checked the entire system.
On 28 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. She required copies of the last two Electrical Installation Condition reports.
2. Requested the previous parameter setting details for the last two years as tests had shown that regardless of parameter settings, the pump was not capable of delivering hot water to the radiators which the residents heating engineers and plumbers had described as a pump failure and a system fault.
3. If there was allegedly no fault with the system why was a new part needed, which part was it and why had the landlord logged a follow on appointment to remedy the issue with the heat pump.
4. Requested information on the independent heating engineers that the landlord was employing, to prove the assessment of ‘No Fault’, as the resident wanted to verify their qualifications and check their experience with back boilers.
5. The resident’s advisors noted that despite several questions regarding how an energy complaint in a property was closed without an energy performance certificate being in place and how that was missed by those investigating, there was no answer given except that the resident did not mention it. The resident requested an apology.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 May 2022 and informed her that regarding the solid fuel system it was unable to get a specialist to carry out an assessment. The operative that last attended to the system recommended a pump to be replaced as it was weak although still operating. The landlord asked if the resident would confirm an appointment for 9 May 2022 to replace the pump and to assess the circulation around the heating system.
On 9 May 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to confirm a fault had been admitted or she would have to insist on an independent company verifying there was no fault with the heating. The resident said she was preparing a compensation case against the landlord based on 50% of the cost of her wood and coal per calendar month since October 2021. If it went to court, she would have good grounds based on three closed complaints, a failure to certify the property correctly and a fault with the heating controls and pump. She would also be seeking compensation for the mental and the health effects the family had suffered. Additionally she would be seeking the cost of two showers a day, which were used to wash up as there was no hot water and the cost of the faulty pump running at night when the fire was lit.
The landlord’s records show that on 9 May 2022 it’s operatives attended the resident’s property and established that two radiators were not working as the TRV valves had seized in the closed position and one radiator was turned off. The operatives stated they left the system in full working order, heat was getting to the radiators and the thermostats were functioning as designed. The operative noted the system water was dirty so would reattend to add a system cleaner and inhibitor. The operatives stated that after informing the resident how to use the system, the resident said it was unfeasible for her family.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. It upheld the complaint for the landlord’s complaint handling failures and poor communication.
2. It did not uphold the complaint at stage one as it found no service failings. Within the stage one response, the landlord confirmed it would not review the electricity costs as these were responded to in the previous stage two response in October 2021.
3. The escalation request made by the resident on 26 January 2022 was for the following reasons:
  1. The valve to the hot water tank was broken and the resident felt this posed a risk to her household.
  2. The hot water tap was leaking, and the resident felt this was a weakness in the heating system.
  3. The resident felt the valve repair should have been treated as an emergency repair and a qualified plumber sent.
  4. The landlord didn’t address the suggestion to drain the tank and how this would impact the resident financially.
4. The customer panel requested was held on 13 April 2022 and it recognised that there was a delay following the customer panel in providing the resident with an outcome to the stage two complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay.
5. The landlord was satisfied that it had taken all reasonable steps to investigate the heating concerns the resident reported. Throughout its investigations it had not identified any faults with the solid fuel heating system. There was no evidence found to support that there was a repair issue with the heating system.
6. An energy performance certificate would not identify faults within electrics or heating systems in a home and acted to band a home’s efficiency and provides recommendations to improve this. The energy performance survey completed in March 2022 recommended the landlord installed loft installation, changed a programmer and arranged repairs to the front door.
7. In May 2022 following further investigation its engineer confirmed the heating pumps were functioning adequately and did not identify any repair concerns. However, due to the ongoing concerns of the resident, the decision was made to install a brand-new pump.
8. The landlord provided the resident with financial hardship support by delivering food parcels, paid for wood and coal and signposted to Citizens Advice Bureau for help with energy costs.
9. It was clear the landlord had not met its service standards during its complaints process, and it accepted the complaints process had taken too long. The landlord recognised it had raised multiple complaints for the same issues which had prolonged the experience for the resident.
10. When concerns about the heating system had occurred, the landlord had taken appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, it recognised it could have taken more time to explain the technical reasons behind those investigations.
11. It offered the resident a quantum heating system.
12. Although the landlord stated it previously found no faults, it offered a data logger for the resident’s electrics to further monitor the electrics in the property to better understand the usage.
13. It wanted to work with the resident to review her electricity bill and understand how the large level of arrears for the usage and charges had occurred to identify any discrepancy. The copy of the bill provided to the landlord only showed the usage breakdown.
14. The landlord would complete an application on the resident’s behalf to see if she met the criteria for a management move and would be in touch with the resident if it required any further information.
15. The landlord offered £1200 in compensation. This consisted of £200 for complaint handling delays, £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays and £500 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy performance of the property including the cost to heat it and condition of the heating system.

When informed by the resident of the large electricity bill, the landlord was required to establish if there was an issue with the property that may have caused the increase in electricity usage. The landlord has demonstrated it took steps to do this. The landlord in its complaint responses acknowledged the resident appeared to have an increase in electricity use in January 2021. It asked for the electricity bills to confirm the usage as part of its investigations. The landlord states these bills were not provided and there is no evidence seen by this service that the bills were provided. In the absence of any evidence of previous usage the landlord would be required to investigate the current usage to establish if there was an ongoing issue. The landlord has demonstrated it attempted to investigate the issue.
The landlord did take appropriate steps to investigate the reports of high electricity usage. The landlord attended the property on multiple occasions and stated it found no faults with the electrics that would cause the high energy bills. The electrical inspection reports provided support this conclusion. The landlord also installed a data logger to monitor the usage through the meter and found the usage was within an expected range. The landlord did note the meter was recording a different usage to the data logger with the meter recording a higher usage. The landlord provided appropriate advice to the resident to have this investigated by the energy provider, as ultimately the meter is the responsibility of the energy provider. The landlord also took steps to carry out repairs in the property including the shower, supply to the socket in an outhouse and fuseboard. This Service considers the action taken was reasonable and demonstrated its willingness to explore the reasons for, and resolve, the resident’s large bills.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s financial situation and although it was unable to establish an issue with the electrics, it did take steps to assist the resident. The landlord provided food parcels on at least six occasions and referred the resident to its financial team in October 2021. The landlord also signposted the resident to Citizens Advice Bureau on 29 March 2022 although it is noted the resident had already been in contact with Citizens Advice since the original complaint was made. This Service finds that although the landlord was unable to find evidence of a fault causing high electricity usage, the landlord did take all available steps to try and resolve the resident’s high electricity bills.
The resident stated in January 2022 and February 2022 that the landlord sent operatives not qualified to complete works and the landlord had made multiple visits to the property for some works. The evidence provided shows the electrical inspections were completed by qualified persons and the appropriate electrical inspection reports were completed. The landlord also did offer the resident an independent company to inspect the property for the electricity usage in March 2022.
Ultimately the landlord has evidenced it did take appropriate steps to investigate any causes for high electricity usage.
The landlord as part of the stage two response for the resident’s second complaint stated she had raised concerns about her heating system during the stage two process and that it would address those concerns in its stage two complaint response. This was not part of the complaint raised by the resident but is what the landlord decided to consider.
The landlord conducted multiple inspections of the resident’s property specifically to establish the electricity usage. The resident in her correspondence to the landlord stated how much it was costing to heat the home. The landlord’s records show it had completed inspections dating back to May 2021. It was however not until March 2022 that repairs were raised to address the heating in the home.
When the landlord conducted an energy performance certificate inspection in March 2022, it found loft installation was required, doors were not draft proof and the solid fuel programmer needed replacing. Once the programmer was replaced the landlord identified that a thermostat was broken, two radiators did not work, and the pump, while it considered it to be functioning, decided it would replace it.
In it’s stage one response in March 2022 the landlord confirmed it was not aware some radiators in the property were not working or that the resident wasn’t aware the programmer controlled the heating system. The landlord did carry out the required repairs but given the resident’s concerns about her high energy costs and her reports during the complaint periods, that she had no heating and hot water, the landlord has not evidenced it considered an inspection of the resident’s solid fuel heating, hot water system or whether the house was appropriately insulated until the results of the energy performance certificate inspection.
The earliest evidenced date the resident specifically mentioned she had no heating or hot water and was not happy with the heating system to the landlord was in July 2021 meaning there was a eight month delay until the works following the energy performance inspection began in March 2022. It is acknowledged that initially the focus of the investigation by the landlord was regarding the high electricity bills and cost of wood and coal for the solid fuel system. There was however no evidence the landlord considered if the high costs of wood and coal may have been due to the solid fuel system not being fully operational. An earlier inspection of the solid fuel system including the programmer, radiators and pump would have been an appropriate step to take as part of the investigations by the landlord. This is especially evident given the number of faults found following the inspection in March 2022.
It is also noted that the energy performance certificate had not been completed at the time of the mutual exchange. When the landlord became aware, the evidence does show it did try to book an appointment with the resident in February 2020 to complete the assessment however after being cancelled by the resident, there is no further evidence the landlord attempted to rebook until the inspection was completed during the complaint process. Had it done so, it is possible some of the issues found may have been identified earlier.
The landlord did acknowledge it could have taken more time to explain the technical reasons behind its investigations but that it had taken appropriate steps to investigate the residents concerns. The landlord also acknowledged as part of its stage two response it had not met its service standards and reflected that in its offer to compensate the resident. The compensation consisted of £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the issues and £500 for the resident’s time and trouble. The landlord also reoffered to install a storage heating system which the landlord stated the resident declined.
This is considered to be reasonable redress offered by the landlord. The landlord delayed between July 2021 and March 2022 in carrying out a thorough inspection of the resident’s heating system despite her consistent concerns. This included a winter period and will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The compensation of £1000 awarded by the landlord is however within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a significant impact on a resident due to a long-term failing. This compensation was therefore proportionate in recognition of the failings identified.
The resident has stated to this service that that there is no hot water at the property without using the immersion. A recommendation is made at the end of this report for the landlord to conduct an inspection of the solid fuel system.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord has acknowledged there were failings in its complaint handling process. This Service agrees with that conclusion. It is evident that throughout the complaint process the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions and stated she had not been responded to by the landlord. Given the resident was clearly distressed by her situation, the landlord failed to take the opportunity to keep a continuous dialogue with her to reassure her the concerns were being investigated.
The landlord failed to follow up on the promises made in October 2021 as part of the original stage two response. The landlord offered coal and wood to the resident as part of its complaint resolution. This was not given to the resident until she made her second complaint in January 2022. The landlord stated this was due to the resident needing to contact it and it had not received that contact from the resident. The stage two response did ask for the resident to contact the landlord to arrange delivery of the coal and wood. However it would have been best practice for the landlord to follow this up with the resident to ensure it should have been delivered at the earliest opportunity, especially considering the resident remained in contact with the landlord.
The were slight delays of three working days at stage one and one working day at stage two in the landlord’s complaint responses for the first complaint made by the resident. During the second complaint however the complaint response at stage two was issued 85 working days after the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of this delay or offered any explanation for the delay.
The landlord in its second stage two response acknowledged the delays the resident had experienced in the complaint responses. It also offered £200 to the resident. This compensation is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been maladministration that has had an adverse affect on a resident. Given the extent of the complaint handling failings, this compensation offered reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy performance of the property including the cost to heat it and condition of the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did investigate the resident’s reports of high electricity usage once it was made aware and provided appropriate support by providing food parcels and signposting to other services. However, it did not consider a through inspection of the heating system after the residents initial reports she had no heating or hot water, and if this could have been contributing to the high energy costs. The landlord recognised this delay in its complaint response and the time taken to resolve the resident’s issues and offered an appropriate amount of compensation and a storage heating system to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses were all issued later than the landlords complaint handling policy timescales. The second stage two response was issued significantly late. The landlord acknowledged these delays and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to the resident.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident the £1200 it offered to the resident if it has not already done so.
Within two weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to conduct a full inspection of the solid fuel system to determine if appropriate heating and hot water is available in the property and to complete any required repairs. If repairs are not possible a new heating system to be reoffered to the resident.