Babergh District Council (202300493)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300493

Babergh District Council

05 December 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about heating in the resident’s home.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident has diabetes, which means they need to keep the home warm at all times.
  2. The resident moved into the property in August 2022 as part of a mutual exchange. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow with storage heaters in each room.
  3. The resident first reported concerns with the storage heaters in November 2022. According to internal emails from the landlord, the storage heaters “all work, just very poorly”. There was a recommendation from the contractor at this time to upgrade the heating to an air-source heat pump. There are conflicting accounts of which type of heating would be more suited to the resident’s home.
  4. There are 4 more reports about the heating not working between November 2022 and January 2023. The landlord raised a job each time, but there is no evidence they found any fault. The resident contacted their local councillor to ask for assistance in upgrading the heating to a heat pump. The landlord declined this request as the heating was still working.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 13 February 2023. This was about the heating, as well as some broken fencing which the landlord promised to fix shortly after the tenancy started. The landlord ordered a further inspection of the heating. On 17 February 2023 it sent an internal email in respect of the request for an inspection. It said:
    1. It did not “currently have a budget” to upgrade the storage heaters.
    2. If it replaced one home’s heating, it would “open the floodgates” for other requests on the estate.
    3. It wanted to get “two separate reports that the heaters are working” so it could put the matter to bed.
  6. The inspection took place on 21 February 2023 and confirmed that there was a fault with one of the heaters, but this was fixed on the day. All the other heaters were working normally. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2023. It apologised for poor communication with the resident, and the delay in fixing the fence. It also said it would order an “independent inspection” of the heating and arrange this with the resident.
  7. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response and responded on the same day. They said they agreed with all elements of the response except the heating. The resident claimed that the ambient temperature of the home was 14 degrees Celsius. Due to the poor ERC rating of the property this meant that the resident was paying a lot for heating which was having little effect. The resident also said that the engineer arranged was not independent and so the offer was not followed through.
  8. The landlord visited the property again. There is no report from this visit however an email was sent internally which explained what happened. The engineer confirmed that all the heaters were working correctly, and this was agreed by the resident. There was concern that the heaters were not being used effectively to heat at the correct times. The landlord said that it had evidence the heaters were being turned off completely. It had recorded an ambient temperature of 19 degrees Celsius in the home. It did not keep a record of the temperature reading.
  9. The landlord sent its final response on 24 March 2023. It said that it had confirmed that all heaters in the property worked and there was no need to upgrade them. It apologised for miscommunication around the engineer. It also said that it was looking to survey the property in the near future as part of a programme of upgrades looking at improving the ERC rating.
  10. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. They say that the house is too cold to reasonably occupy over winter. They dispute the landlord’s account of events and believe that the property should have a heat pump installed. The landlord says that the heat pump would be less effective for the property due to having to leave on for longer. The landlord has confirmed that it intends to begin insulation works on the property around April 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair and maintain heating appliances. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (the act) also brought in additional responsibilities for landlords to ensure that properties were free from hazards which make the home “unfit” to live in. The act draws on hazards identified in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). In the HHSRS it says the following about excess cold:
    1. Health effects:
      1. A healthy indoor temperature is around 21˚C. There is small risk of health effects below 19˚C. Below 16˚C, there are serious health risks for the elderly, including greatly increased risks of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Below 10˚C a great risk of hypothermia, especially for the elderly.
    2. Causes (include):
      1. Main causes appear to be changes in outdoor temperature among other factors.
      2. Sleeping in cold bedrooms greatly increases health risk.
      3. Dwellings with low energy efficiency ratings (poor insulation).
      4. Absence of central heating/poor inefficient heating systems.
  2. From the repair logs and evidence available, the landlord responded promptly to reports of faulty heating from the resident. However, the responses were not fully recorded and there is little evidence that a “whole of property” approach was taken. The initial report said that the storage heaters worked, but not very well. Later reports did not diverge from that opinion. At this point, it seems everyone agrees that the storage heaters work.
  3. The landlord has claimed that a heat pump would not be as economical as the storage heaters. It sent us a calculation outlining this belief, although we are not convinced it is accurate. The calculation assumes that a heat pump would operate 24 hours a day and on the most expensive electricity tariff. The true cost is likely to be less than the landlord’s estimate.
  4. The landlord has also indicated in its internal emails that it does not want to install a heat pump as it would “open the floodgates” for similar requests. This was accompanied by a note that it wanted to get 2 reports showing the heaters worked. This is a concerning approach from the landlord. It had a duty to ensure the property and its heating system was fit for purpose. Its comments however demonstrate that it was more concerned about the cost of any faults, rather than fixing the faults themselves. In our view, this made it more appropriate for an independent engineer to attend the property to avoid a perception of bias. The focus on whether the heaters worked, as opposed to whether they were fit for purpose, is also a concern.
  5. The landlord has also relied on an anecdotal report in its final response which says that the ambient temperature is acceptable. Due to the lack of any documentary evidence to accompany this finding, we cannot place much weight on it. For example, it is not clear from the report:
    1. What time of day the reading was taken (an 8pm reading is likely to be lower than one taken at 11am).
    2. What room the reading was taken in and was it near a heater.
    3. What the temperature was outside on the day.
    4. Whether the reading was taken in direct sunlight.
  6. There is also no record of whether the landlord considered any alternative solutions for a lack of heat in the property. The resident’s medical condition means they need an ambient temperature of 18 degrees Celsius. If the property is unable to produce such an ambient temperature in its current state, the landlord should have looked at other options. For example, the landlord could have explored whether temporary or portable heaters were an option. It could have offered heated blankets.
  7. Overall, the lack of records does not provide us with any confidence that the landlord has fully investigated whether the storage heaters are fit for purpose. The evidence suggests that the property has insufficient insulation, and a poor/inefficient heating system. There is no evidence that the landlord has explored any options apart from ensuring the heaters worked and that the resident knew how to use them. As such we have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of faulting heating.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is hereby ordered to pay £300 to the resident. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to consider all reasonable options for resolving the heating issues.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to instruct an independent surveyor to determine whether the storage heaters are capable of heating the property to a reasonable standard. It should then consider following any recommendations made by the surveyor.
    1. If the property would be likely to meet a reasonable standard after the insulation works, the landlord must provide a temporary solution up to that point.
  3. The above orders should be carried out within 4 weeks of the date of this report.