Birmingham City Council (202217143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217143

Birmingham City Council

24 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property being cold and her request for gas heating.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a house.
3. There is no evidence that the resident raised concerns regarding the heating in the property prior to her complaint. The resident raised a complaint on 22 September 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the heating system in the property, which she said would cost her £25 a day to heat the entire property to 19 degrees. Due to the cost of heating, she was only able to heat one room and lived in extremely cold conditions during winter. She raised concerns about the energy performance rating of the property, which was rated F, and that the insulation was poor. She requested that the landlord install a gas boiler and central heating. If it was unable to, she asked if it could complete the works and recharge her or authorise her to complete the works independently.
4. In the landlord’s stage one response, it advised her to raise a repair to assess whether the heaters were working efficiently. It said if no faults were identified, she should request for central heating to be installed.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 September 2022, as the contractor found no faults with the heating system. She subsequently asked whether the landlord could fit radiators. In its stage two response, the landlord stated it would not change the heating system as it was functioning properly. It advised she could request to complete the work privately, but the request would likely be refused. It said it would not be cost-effective to change the heating system.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said the cost of the heating is high as she was unable to use off-peak electricity to charge the radiators. She said she sleeps on the sofa as her bedroom is too cold. She also raised concerns that the energy performance rating was low and that the heating quickly escaped due to poor insulation. She wanted gas central heating to be installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In her complaint to this service, the resident reported that when staying at her property her mother was admitted to hospital due to breathing difficulties, which she thought was caused by the excess cold in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her mother’s health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the heating issues in the property and the impact on her mother’s health.
8. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property being cold and her request for gas heating.

9. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, it is responsible for repairs to heating systems. As a result, when the resident raised concerns regarding the cost of heating the property, it was appropriate that the landlord promptly attended to assess the heating system. The contractor found the heating system was working correctly, so no repair works were required.
10. It is noted that the landlord has not provided repair records relating to the appointment. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, the Ombudsman may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Fortunately, in this case, there was not a detrimental impact on this service’s ability to determine the case, as the resident confirmed the outcome of the appointment in her complaint escalation.
11. In the landlord’s stage one response, it said it would assess the efficiency of the radiators; however, due to the lack of repair records, it is unclear whether it did. The landlord should have considered factors such as whether the radiators were a suitable size for the rooms and the amount of energy required to heat the rooms, in order to assess the radiators’ efficiency. In the absence of evidence, this service cannot be sure that the landlord made such considerations, despite the resident’s concerns that the property was excessively cold and expensive to heat.
12. The resident requested that the landlord change the heating system to a gas boiler and central heating to reduce the cost of heating the property. As the current heating system was in working order, this was considered to be an improvement, which the landlord was not obliged to complete. The landlord determined it would not be cost-effective to complete the work, as any savings in energy costs would not negate the cost of replacing the heating system. This Service appreciates that social landlords have limited budgets and must ensure that they make the best use of their resources to provide an appropriate standard of service to all residents. Its decision to decline the work was therefore not unreasonable.
13. The resident asked the landlord whether she could change the heating system herself and the landlord stated in its stage two response that it was unlikely to accept her request. This has been deemed unreasonable as no explanation has been given for the landlord’s decision. The landlord advised this service it should not have included the statement within its complaint response, but it did not explain why. Although the resident was not declined the opportunity to complete the request, she told this service she has not pursued the request following the complaint due to the perceived low chance of being granted permission to complete the works. As a result, the landlord’s complaint response may have prevented the issue from reaching a suitable resolution at an earlier date.
14. It should be noted that the resident would be responsible for paying her energy costs and the landlord would not be obliged to consider reimbursing or contributing towards the costs unless the resident’s usage had increased as the result of disrepair, rather than due to an increase in cost per unit by her energy provider or a lack of energy efficiency. Still, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed a means of reducing her energy costs with the resident, or to have signposted her to the available financial support options. There is no evidence it did.
15. The resident also raised concerns in her complaint regarding the energy performance certificate (EPC) and the poor insulation in the property, which the landlord failed to address in its responses. The landlord is expected to address all the points raised within the complaint, in line with this service’s complaint handling code, which it failed to do as it solely focused on the resident’s request to replace the heating system and did not holistically consider her concerns regarding the unaffordability of heating the property, due to the poor energy efficiency.
16. The rating given to the property as per the EPC was Band F, which would typically be considered as ‘‘substandard’’ and therefore inappropriate by regulations. While social landlords are exempt from the minimum energy efficiency requirements, the landlord still could have considered a means of improving the efficiency in resolution of the issue. The resident has provided evidence that the EPC for the property had expired at the time she raised her complaint, so it would have been appropriate given her concerns for the landlord to complete a further energy efficiency assessment.
17. Furthermore, the landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) also sets out that landlords should ensure that properties are free from category one hazards, including excessive cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord assessed the property, other than the radiators, to ensure the thermal efficiency of the property was sufficient in line with its obligations.
18. As the landlord failed to consider and respond to the resident’s concerns about the efficiency of the property and did not confirm for itself that the standards above were being met, this element of the complaint remained unresolved. The landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s request to complete the work herself was also unreasonable.
19. Noting all of the above, the Ombudsman has determined that there was a failure in service. An order has subsequently been made below for the landlord to complete an energy efficiency inspection, to establish whether any works are required and to confirm its position to the resident. The landlord’s failure resulted in additional time and effort for the resident pursuing the issue and so in the Ombudsman’s view, compensation is also warranted. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, £150 compensation is appropriate as the landlord has failed to acknowledge its omissions and offered no resolution.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way that the landlord handled the resident’s reports of the property being cold and her request for gas heating.

Orders and recommendations

21. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.
22. The landlord should arrange an energy efficiency inspection. It should provide the resident and this service with the findings of this inspection and should give fair consideration to the recommendations made to improve the property’s energy efficiency.
23. The landlord must comply with the above orders and provide evidence to this Service that it has complied within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

24. The landlord should assess its record-keeping practices to ensure that it retains information regarding the outcomes of repair appointments.