Anchor Hanover Group (202210054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210054

Anchor Hanover Group

09 August 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of traffic noise from outside the property.
3. Response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer to a ground floor flat at the rear of the property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident’s tenancy started in August 2020 following a period of homelessness. The property is a second floor, 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has difficulties with his health. Conditions recorded included osteoarthritis, anxiety, depression, insomnia, type 2 diabetes and asthma.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Threats to health from cold or high indoor temperatures are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any temperature problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s tenant handbook says that making sure residents are comfortable in their own home is a priority for the landlord. This includes getting the temperature right. The landlord aims to keep its schemes between 21 and 24 degrees Celsius during the day and no lower than 19 degrees Celsius at night. The handbook states at the majority of the landlord’s schemes it uses a boiler management system to monitor the heating and hot water temperatures. The system is looked after by its energy team.
The tenant handbook states that due to the design and positioning of the landlord’s buildings, there may be areas that are hot or cold spots. Where these occur, the landlord will work with residents to try to find a remedy. The handbook states that if a resident chooses to provide additional heating in their property it will be at the resident’s own expense.
The tenant handbook states that the landlord has three repair categories. These are emergency, urgent, and routine. An emergency repair is something that could cause an immediate hazard/danger to a resident’s health, safety or security. Once a repair has been reported, it will be completed or made safe within 24 hours.
The landlord has a frequently asked questions guide about its boiler management system installed in its properties. It says that the landlord’s energy team sought advice from Age UK about the best temperature to use before setting the system. Age UK recommended 21 degrees Celsius as the ideal temperature for older people. Temperatures regularly over 25 or below 16 degrees Celsius may be harmful to the health of older people.
The boiler management system’s frequently asked questions guide explains what the landlord should do if a resident is unhappy with the temperature. It says:
1. The landlord should take a temperature reading from inside the flat using a digital thermometer.
2. If the temperature reading is within the recommended temperature of 21 to 24 degrees Celsius the landlord should explain to the resident that they will need to arrange additional heating at their own cost if they require it warmer.
3. If the temperature is either higher or lower than the recommended temperatures, the landlord is advised to contact the landlord’s energy team.
The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy states that applications are awarded a priority and put in 1 of 4 priority groups. It also explains that it has agreements with local authorities to let a percentage of its vacant properties to people nominated by them. It says that when a nominee is to be rehoused the local authority’s policy determines priority so long as the applicant meets the landlord’s qualifying criteria.
The allocations and lettings policy also says that residents seeking a transfer within the scheme in which they live take priority over other landlord residents from other schemes. Applicants in this category must have held their current tenancy for 12 months. Existing residents have this priority for their first transfer only.
The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy has 3 qualifying criteria that must be met to qualify for housing. These are:
1. Age criteria.
  1. Anyone 55 years and over can apply. However a tenancy will first be made to individuals aged 60 years and over. The landlord will offer tenancies by date order of applications.
2. Ability to live independently.
  1. The landlord requires a resident to be able to live independently with any reasonable care and support required.
3. Satisfactory housing and behaviour history.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 the tenant handbook states that the landlord will provide a response within 14 calendar days. At stage 2 complaints are reviewed by “a more senior member of staff” and a response provided within 14 calendar days.

Summary of events

On 14 January 2022 the resident’s doctor provided a supporting letter about his health conditions and asked the landlord to facilitate a move to a ground floor flat.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had awarded the resident priority status for an internal transfer. It advised that it would contact him as soon as a property became available for the one scheme that he had selected.
On or around the 21 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about the property. This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint by letter on 21 July 2022.
1. The landlord understood the resident’s complaint to be about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property being too hot. There was no evidence that the landlord investigated the temperature concerns or commenced monitoring at this stage.
2. The landlord advised the resident that it would investigate his complaint and respond within 14 calendar days.
On 11 August 2022 the resident contacted this Service for support with his complaint. The resident advised:
1. That the landlord had acknowledged his complaint on 21 July 2022 but he had received no further response or update from the landlord.
2. That the property was hot all year round.
3. That the [traffic] noise from outside the property was too loud.
4. That he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his transfer request to a ground floor flat.
5. That he had asked the landlord’s surveyor who visited the property earlier that day to leave. The resident said that the surveyor was not showing interest in the complaint’s he had reported to the landlord.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It thanked the resident for his time during a telephone call on 5 August 2022.
2. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
  1. His property being warm all the time, making it difficult to sleep.
  2. Not being offered a transfer to a ground floor property at the back of the building that was away from the traffic noise.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns and arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 11 August 2022. The surveyor’s findings were as follows:
  1. The temperature in the flat was warm which was consistent with the high weather temperatures experienced on the day. He noted that the property was on the top floor and heat generally rises. On the day of the visit, the surveyor noted that the outside temperature was higher than inside the flat.
  2. The location of the flat was exposed to the noise from the traffic, which meant the resident might not open his window as often or as wide as he might wish.
  3. That reopening the vent in a wall would not serve any considerable purpose which might be the reason why the vent had been closed when the external improvement works were done at the property.
  4. There were no structural issues which would contribute to the high temperature being experienced in the scheme.
  5. That transferring the resident to a ground floor property at the back of the building would help to alleviate the problems of the noise and the heat.
4. It advised that its scheme manager would continue to monitor the temperature within the property for 8 weeks. This would help its property team to evaluate the temperate in the building.
5. It had offered to lag the resident’s pipes to reduce any heat that the pipes may be contributing. However the resident had declined this option at the time. It asked the resident to let it know if he would consider this option in the future.
6. It confirmed that the resident was on its internal transfer list.
7. It explained that it could not offer the resident a particular flat as it was at the front of the building and he would have experienced the same noise problem from the traffic.
8. It advised that as the resident had informed it that he would prefer a ground floor property at the back of the scheme, away from the traffic, it would contact him when one became available.
On 6 September 2022 the resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. This Service advised the resident to call the landlord and escalate his complaint.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. The resident said that he was unhappy that the landlord had said that it would contact the local authority and/or the highways authority about the traffic noise but it had not done so. He also remained unhappy with the landlord’s assessment of the temperature of his property. The landlord advised that it aimed to respond to his escalated complaint within 14 calendar days.
On 23 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to update him on his complaint. It advised that it was unable to respond within the 14 calendar days as advised in its letter dated 6 September 2022 because a key member of staff had been unavailable. The landlord said that it expected to respond by 30 September 2022.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord’s internal communications showed that it had awarded the resident an extra bedspace to make him eligible for larger properties. It recognised the resident’s need to move as urgent but there were limited properties for a single person at the one location in which he wanted to live. It said without the consideration for an extra bedspace his wait for a move to a ground floor property could be considerably longer.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord said:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 30 September 2022.
2. It understood his complaint to be about:
  1. The temperature in his flat being very hot.
  2. The flat was noisy and the resident had asked the landlord to contact the local authority to explore if a noise barrier could be put in place.
  3. Not recently being allocated a vacant property in the block.
3. It understood that the resident’s desired resolutions to his complaints were:
  1. Confirmation of his priority position on the priority transfer list.
  2. Information about how the landlord could try to resolve the temperature in his flat.
  3. Information about how the highways authority and local authority can introduce a noise reduction barrier.
4. It advised the resident that he had not been allocated a vacant property in the block as another person with the same priority level as the resident had been on the waiting list longer.
5. It confirmed that the resident’s application had the highest priority level. However, it advised that he was not the only person on the waiting list. Therefore future properties might be offered to other applicants ahead of the resident.
6. It acknowledged that the resident had advised that the temperature and traffic noise at his property was making him unhappy and feeling unwell.
7. It suggested that the resident might improve his chance of securing a move if he would consider more locations. It said that it would provide printed details of other schemes and recommended that the resident visited the locations to see if he would be happy for them to be added to his transfer application.
8. It advised that it had made a request that a more extensive investigation was completed into the cause of the temperature in his flat. It said it would seek a specialist company to conduct monitoring.
9. It apologised that the resident’s request that the landlord contact the highways authority and local authority regarding noise had not been done. It advised that it would make these enquiries and see if there is any support or advice on noise reduction measures.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord’s internal communication discussed the resident’s concerns of traffic noise. It had checked the local authority website and identified that the council was unable to deal with excessive noise in the street outside of the property as it had no enforcement powers.
On 18 November 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord about the traffic noise that the resident had said was disturbing him while at home. A copy of this letter has not been seen by this Service. However, the landlord responded to the MP on 23 November 2022. It explained:
1. That it had contacted the council’s highway management team regarding the noise from traffic and requested if any calming measures could be put in place.
2. That it was waiting to hear back from the council.
3. That it had maintained contact with the resident and would update him when the council responded.
4. That the resident was on the priority waiting list for transfer to another property away from noise disturbance.
5. That it had provided the resident with information about neighbouring schemes to increases his options/choices.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord contacted the highways authority about the resident’s reports of noise pollution. It states that it was directed back to the local council and that it was passed to multiple departments. The landlord noted that it had left contact details and had been expecting the council to return its call.
On 7 December 2022 the resident contacted this Service. The resident advised that he remained unhappy with the landlord. He advised that the property remained too hot and he was unable to sleep due to the traffic noise outside. He said this was impacting his health. The resident wanted the landlord to resolve the heating issue and for him to be moved downstairs to the back of the building away from the noise.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord started recording the temperatures within the resident’s scheme. This included various flats as well as the resident’s property. This continued until 18 April 2023. There was evidence that the recorded temperatures throughout the scheme in the day time were between 18 to 26 degrees Celsius. During this period the resident’s property consistently recorded temperatures of between 24 to 25 degrees Celsius with 26 degrees Celsius recorded on 12 March 2023.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord communicated with its energy team. It advised that it had been monitoring excessive temperatures at 2 schemes as it had received complaints from the resident and two other tenants at a separate scheme. All were living in top floor flats. The landlord’s communication said that it had documented “throughout the last 4 summers that the schemes endure temperatures of 35 degrees plus…” and in the case of the residents on the top floor, this “is a health and safety hazard and detrimental to the resident’s health.” The landlord continued and said that communal corridors were recording 27 degrees.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord communicated internally. Its energy team advised that it could review the heat settings to ensure overheating was minimised. However, it was limited to the controls it had. It advised that it expected the cause of the issue was due to the fabric of the building. The energy team confirmed that it had amended the heating settings at the scheme. It hoped that this would help reduce the ambient temperatures and improve the conditions for the resident. It would monitor and amend settings again if required. It was evident that the temperature issue was happening within two schemes.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord says it met with the resident to discuss and explain the transfer process and how priority status worked. The resident believed that he would have first refusal for all properties at his current scheme. The landlord advised him that there was still a waiting list and that there were other applicants who would have priority over him.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord says it informed the resident that another top floor property had become available at the scheme. The landlord explained that if the resident chose to be nominated for the property, he would lose his priority status for 1 year if he accepted the property. The landlord says the resident accepted the explanation and preferred to wait for a suitable ground floor property. The landlord says that the resident has since viewed two ground floor properties at the scheme. However the resident declined both properties as they were at the front of the building.
On 24 to 26 April 2023 the landlord communicated with its energy team. It advised that the resident’s complaint was now with this Service. It asked what could be done regarding the resident’s reports of excessive heat at the property. Within the internal communication, the energy team advised:
1. It was sorry to hear that the residents were experiencing high temperatures.
2. It said that it had checked emails and this was “the first time it had been raised…”
3. The communication acknowledged that its records showed that the average temperatures on 23 to 26 April 2023 were between 24 to 25 degrees Celsius. This was higher than the desired ambient temperature.
4. It suggested changing the settings and advised it would make the changes that day.
On the same day the landlord’s energy team asked if the radiators at the scheme had thermostatic radiator valves (TRV’s) and whether they were set correctly. The energy team provided the landlord with a guide. This Service has not seen any evidence of a response to this question or what action the landlord took, if any.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord communicated internally about receiving complaints from other residents living at the scheme. It had received complaints that residents in other properties were now reporting being too cold. In its attempts to assist the resident to reduce his temperatures, other residents had said they were adversely affected.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports that the property was too hot

The resident raised concerns about the temperature of the property in his complaint on 21 July 2022. The landlord responded by sending its surveyor out 21 calendar days later on 11 August 2022. Given the numerous medical conditions afflicting the resident, of which the landlord was aware, it was not reasonable that the landlord treated this as a routine repair and did not investigate this concern sooner. The landlord was aware that temperatures regularly over 25 degrees Celsius may be harmful to the health of older people and increase the risks of a stroke or heart attack.
Upon inspection the landlord offered to lag the resident’s pipework to reduce the likelihood that the pipes were contributing to the property’s temperature. This was a reasonable suggestion. However the landlord has informed this Service that the resident declined this offer.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 August 2022 it said that it would monitor the temperatures within the resident’s property for 8 weeks. There is evidence that the landlord carried out the monitoring between 10 February 2023 and 18 April 2023. The landlord did not start the monitoring until 168 calendar days after the landlord’s stage 1 response letter. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about when the monitoring would start or provided him with an explanation about why the monitoring was delayed.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s multiple health conditions it should have started monitoring the property’s temperature earlier. This should have been treated as a matter of urgency and within a reasonable time period of the resident’s concerns on 21 July 2022. Early monitoring would have informed the landlord of the risk that he was exposed to and whether any immediate action was needed to be taken to prevent risk of harm.
When a resident raises a concern about the temperature at their property, the landlord’s boiler management system’s frequently asked questions guide states that the landlord is advised to contact the energy team. Although there is evidence that this was carried out in March and April 2023, there is no evidence that this was done at the time of the resident’s complaint over 200 calendar days earlier. Therefore the landlord acted inappropriately in not following its own internal guidance to address the resident’s temperature concerns.
There is evidence within the landlord’s internal communication that temperatures of top floor properties at two schemes were a concern. The internal communication referred to this being over the “last 4 summers” and suggested temperatures of 35 degrees Celsius being recorded in parts of the schemes. Although the landlord informed this Service that this comment regarding high temperatures was made in reference to a different scheme, it was evident that a concern also existed for the scheme where the resident lived.
There is further evidence that the landlord’s energy team were not made aware of these potential concerns until March/April 2023. This evidence suggests that the landlord had been aware of an underlying issue for some time but had failed to follow its internal guidance to have the issue monitored and investigated, leaving residents exposed to excess temperatures.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 October 2022 informed the resident that it had requested that a more extensive investigation be conducted into the cause of the temperature in the resident’s flat and more widely at the scheme location. It advised him that it would seek a specialist company to conduct monitoring and investigation to see what measures it could take. There is no evidence that a specialist company was instructed to monitor the property or scheme temperatures. Furthermore there was no evidence that the landlord communicated any change of plans to the resident or offered any alternative solution to his reported temperature concerns.
The HHSRS assess 29 housing hazards and the effect each may have on the health and safety of the current or future occupant of a property. Threats due to high indoor temperatures is considered a hazard. The adverse health effects of high indoor temperatures are recorded as dehydration, trauma, increased risk of stroke, cardiovascular and respiratory difficulties. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that these increased risks are managed and monitored. Although the landlord has taken steps to monitor temperatures, and its energy team have reviewed and adjusted its boiler system’s settings, this action was not taken for over 200 calendar days after its stage 1 response when it advised the resident that it would. This left the resident exposed to ambient temperatures higher than recommended and desired for a considerable length of time.
Individual preferences regarding temperatures are subjective and it is incredibly difficult for a landlord to ensure all resident’s preferences are met. This has been evidenced by the landlord as it has specifically said that it had received complaints from other residents who reported being cold after the boiler settings were changed. However, the landlord is responsible to ensure that it has taken all steps, where practicably possible, to manage the risks of excess heat and/or cold.
The landlord’s monitoring of the temperatures at the property commenced 168 days after its stage 1 response and recorded temperatures at the upper end of Age UK’s recommended temperatures of 25 degrees Celsius or above. Therefore the resident had been exposed to temperatures recognised as a risk for this period of time.
There is no evidence, other than the landlord’s surveyor visit on 11 August 2022, that the landlord considered or provided any alternative remedy to alleviate the temperature problems the resident was experiencing. It is not for this Service to comment on what action the landlord should have taken to lower the temperature in the property, nor is it qualified to do so. The landlord is responsible for the health and safety of the current or future occupant of the property. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed further investigations into the building fabric and made recommendations to minimise similar risks to a new occupant of the property had the resident secured his desired transfer. This Service has not seen evidence of any other completed survey specific to the temperature concern at the property/scheme.
Furthermore, as the landlord has acknowledged within its communications that the desired ambient temperature was high, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a temporary solution such as providing fans to the resident while it was investigating his concerns. There is no evidence that this or alternative temporary remedies were offered.
Given that internal communication indicated that the issue of excessive heat was also occurring at another scheme, and may have been ongoing at least 4 summers, there was no evidence that the landlord took action to minimise the risk of excess heat until it approached its energy team in March/April 2023. The landlord’s delay was a failure to follow its guidance with regard to contacting its energy team when first approached by the resident. In not doing so it failed to deliver its own priority of ensuring its residents are comfortable in their own home as set out in its tenant handbook. Therefore for the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.

Response to the resident’s reports of traffic noise from outside the property

Although the exact date the landlord advised the resident that it would contact the local authority/highways authority about traffic noise is unclear, it was a reasonable suggestion to help address the resident’s concerns. However there was no evidence that this was done during the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). A total of 53 working days passed between the resident’s complaint and the stage 2 response and his request for support remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response on 5 October 2022 and apologised again.
On the 23 November 2022 the landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP. The resident had considered it necessary to seek additional support as the landlord had not responded to his concerns regarding the traffic noise. The landlord’s response to the MP explained that it had contacted the council and was waiting to hear back. Although the council’s response was outside of the landlord’s control, there was no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with updates regarding the delay as it said it would in its letter.
If traffic is causing excessive noise on a new or improved road (but not an existing road), occupiers living alongside the road may be eligible for a noise insulation grant. If relevant in this circumstance any funding or grants are likely to be accessible by the landlord rather than the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the appropriate authorities regarding such funding opportunities to help improve the living environment for the resident.
Furthermore the landlord could have obtained the opinion of an acoustic specialist. With this information the landlord could have explored options with the resident which may have included adaptations to the property. If adaptations had been identified the resident and landlord may have been able to seek assistance from an occupational therapist to apply for grant assistance to fund the identified work. The landlord has direct control of the property and any works to it but instead looked at options outside of its control. As a direct result of this decision nothing was achieved or progressed for the resident.
From the evidence supplied there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of traffic noise from outside the property. It failed to look at options within the property that may have offered a solution and instead focused on matters outside of its control. Furthermore, it promised to raise the resident’s concerns with the appropriate authorities but initially failed to do so. This resulted in an avoidable delay for the resident to receive an update and he felt it necessary to seek help from the local MP, and to escalate his complaint to receive the support and answers he sought.

Response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer to a ground floor flat at the rear of the property

It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident has a health need that would benefit from him moving to a ground floor property. There is evidence that the landlord has acted swiftly when approached by the resident to consider his desire to be moved.
Following the resident providing the landlord with a letter from his doctor, the landlord completed the necessary paperwork and within a month awarded the resident priority transfer status for an internal transfer. This was reasonable and displayed that the landlord recognised the resident’s needs.
There is evidence in the resident’s transfer application and communications with the landlord that he wanted to be moved to a ground floor property at the back of the scheme. He selected no other scheme/location owned by the landlord. His options were therefore limited.
In his complaint in July 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that he had not been given priority for a transfer to a flat at his current scheme. The landlord explained that the property that had come available was also at the front of the scheme and therefore did not meet his requested preferences. This was reasonable as moving the resident to this property would have further exposed him to the traffic noise that he had said was affecting his ability to sleep and formed part of his complaint.
When the resident was dissatisfied with not being moved, the landlord reminded the resident how the priority transfer list worked. This was a reasonable step to reassure the resident that the landlord was aware of his need but to also manage his expectations as there were other resident’s ahead of him on the waiting list. The landlord provided the resident with information about its other property locations and encouraged the resident to consider visiting them and adding his preferences to his transfer application. This was to increase his chances of securing a move sooner. This was a reasonable suggestion by the landlord that displayed that it was supporting the resident with his desire to move.
There is evidence that the landlord showed other properties at the scheme to the resident. These were on the ground and top floor of the property. The landlord advised the resident that should he take one of these options, he would lose the priority transfer status for 12 months if he was unhappy after the move. This was in line with its allocation and lettings policy and displayed its efforts to protect the resident’s priority status.
Social housing landlords have limited suitable housing stock and the landlord was therefore unable to guarantee a time frame to the resident regarding the availability of a property that met his specific location criteria. As such, waiting lists are common within the housing sector. However there is further evidence of the landlord’s efforts to support the resident with a move when in October 2022 it awarded him an extra bedspace to make him eligible for larger properties. This showed that the landlord continued to recognise the resident’s need to move and was offering its support to facilitate this. There was no evidence that the resident added additional scheme locations to his application.
Therefore there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer to a ground floor flat at the rear of the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in writing on 21 July 2022. It advised him that it would provide a response within 14 calendar days.
However the resident contacted this Service on 11 August 2022 as the landlord had not provided a response to his complaint within the expected time frame.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. Although the landlord thanked the resident for his time during a telephone call on 5 August 2022 and referred to its surveyor attending on 11 August 2022, the landlord offered no apology for its late response. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any prior explanation that its stage 1 response would be delayed.
There were 36 calendar days between the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 1 response. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its complaint handling policy and 22 days beyond its response time frame.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was limited. It was more of a summary of the resident’s situation and offered little by way of the steps it would take to provide the resident with a solution to his concerns. There were no agreed time scales or alternative actions that it would take to help improve the resident’s circumstances.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2022 which was 29 calendar days later and 15 days beyond the landlord’s response time frame. It is noted that the landlord contacted the resident on 23 September 2022 to explain that its response would be late. However this was already 3 days beyond the date the resident had expected to receive a formal response.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 October 2022 advised that it would engage a specialist company to monitor the temperature there was no evidence that this was ever carried out. The landlord informed this Service that the use of the specialist company was to be agreed following monitoring and if the landlord had been unable to control the temperature of the flats. As there is evidence that the resident continued to report concerns regarding the property’s temperature and no evidence of temperature being controlled or monitored until February 2023 it is unclear why a specialist company had not been instructed. This left the resident exposed to the risks of higher than desired temperatures for a further 4 months.
For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of traffic noise from outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer to a ground floor flat at the rear of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its internal guide and failed to contact its energy team when the resident first reported that his property was too hot. The landlord failed to commence temperature monitoring until 168 calendar days after its stage 1 response and the energy team were not advised of the issue for approximately 200 calendar days. The landlord provided no alternative solution during this period.
The landlord told the resident that it would speak to the appropriate authorities about his traffic noise concerns. There was no evidence that this was done between the 53 working days from the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord failed to consider actions within its own control to improve the noise the vulnerable resident was experiencing.
The landlord accepted the resident on its internal transfer list in line with its policy. It awarded him priority transfer status and awarded him an extra bedspace to make him eligible for larger properties. It encouraged the resident to consider other schemes to improve his options and chances of a move.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and evidence of delays and failures to undertake and/or complete actions that it said it would.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,650. This comprises:
  1. £1,000 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.
  2. £500 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to contact the appropriate authorities regarding the resident’s traffic noise concerns.
  3. £150 in respect of the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for its delay to monitor the property’s temperature.
The landlord is ordered to review its open complaints from all schemes relating to reports of temperature issues. It should confirm that it has adhered to its internal guidance to monitor reports of high temperatures to establish if it needs to provide redress for other resident’s. The landlord should review all cases, including this one, to establish how it handles cases better in line with its internal guidance, including monitoring and communication with its energy team. The outcome of its review and any recommendations should be shared with this Service and its board.
The landlord is ordered to engage the services of a property acoustic expert to look at what measures can be put in place to better noise insulate the resident’s property in the short term and to consider whether a ground floor front located property can be sufficiently noise insulated to allow a transfer to that property. The landlord must implement the recommendations of the expert and provide a copy of the report.
The landlord is ordered to arrange an independent suitably qualified thermal expert to inspect the resident’s property and advise on measures that the landlord must take in order to reduce the heat experienced by the resident. The landlord must provide a copy of the report to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reminding the resident of its alternative schemes and explaining the benefits and improved chances of securing a move if he were to increase his location preferences.
The landlord should consider checking and reassuring the resident of his current position on its priority transfer list.
The landlord’s boiler management systems frequently asked questions guide explains that when the scheme temperature reading is within the recommended temperature of 21 to 24 degrees Celsius, a resident would need to arrange for additional heating at their own cost if they require it warmer. However, the landlord may wish to consider adding something to explain what a resident may wish to consider or arrange when they require it cooler.
The landlord should perhaps consider making exceptions to its priority transfer policy where a vulnerable resident has a need for a transfer and the exact property to meet their needs is not available. If a move will offer a resident a half solution while waiting for a property that meets their needs, can flexibility be built in to the policy to facilitate this and protect them from being unable to move again for 12 months. The landlord is dealing with a vulnerable resident who will have protected characteristics and, as in this situation, the resident is giving up a property the landlord is not losing any stock.