Connect Housing Association Limited (202205230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205230

Connect Housing Association Limited

13 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reported heating issues in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a one bedroom first floor flat, on an assured tenancy, since 4 March 2013. She is disabled and has a number of health conditions.
On 21 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report that in her view, she had had excessive heat issues in her bedroom for years. That the laundry room below was used 24 hours a day and it was affecting her property and she slept in her living room. She said she believed it had affected her health and she needed a practical solution to the problem.
The landlord raised a job for its contractor to visit the property and investigate the resident’s report further. It emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021, having visited the resident’s property on 14 April 2021. Within its email, it noted:
1. The temperature in the flat was a high reading of 24°c in the bedroom and was well ventilated.
2. “Excessive heat” coming from the storage cupboard. “Possibly over 30°c”.
3. The laundry room was cool, but the windows were open.
4. The property had a fan in the bathroom, but the resident had been told it was ineffective.
5. The resident had advised that the temperature within the property was never below 23°c, even when it was below freezing outdoors. There had been a few occasions that week when the temperature remained over 30°c. The resident also reported that she had vomited on “countless occasions”, had head spots, prickly heat and felt nauseated “all the time”.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord authorised work to be done on the pipework at the property, as it was not insulated within the cylinder cupboard. It considered that it may have been adding unnecessary heat into to the property. It arranged to remove the existing black insulation and install a new foil face insulation throughout, although it is not clear when the work was carried out.
It is not known what transpired immediately after this. However, the resident complained to the landlord on 19 June 2021. She explained:
1. For years she had had dry eyes and other health issues; but, mid 2020 she started getting eye infections and was on antibiotic eye drops. She continued to have problems with her eyes and was diagnosed with cataracts. She says she was told the cause of her dry eye and cataracts was due to years of environmental factors. She was also diagnosed with Sjogren’s Syndrome. She said, “I just cannot believe that for years of trying to get out of this heat and into another flat, or help with controlling the level of heat, that it has come to this”.
2. She had asked for a window to be put in her kitchen; and for her kitchen to be moved to an empty room near her flat, but no one helped her.
3. She was not told the flat was above a communal laundry room when she looked at it or signed her rental agreement.
4. She did not feel listened to and that she had been given a “death sentence” and it was affecting her mental health.
5. Since she contacted a solicitor about the landlord, when she was at another address, it had treated her with “contempt”. She said staff had lied to her and talked down to her and not registered a repair on the system. She says she was also shouted at.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained it would aim to reply by 12 July 2021.
Having met with the resident on 15 July 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint, on 20 July 2021. It said:
1. The boiler cupboard was producing an excessive amount of heat, that was transferring to rooms in her flat. That there may be an issue, and it wanted to find the cause.
2. It proposed installing a device to monitor the heat and humidity in her home, that would provide accurate data, so it could decide what action to take.
3. In the coming months, there was going to be a significant change to the heating system in the building. It was installing new boilers, cylinders and new controls for each flat that would give greater control over her heating. Although this may help, it did not want to wait two months to find out.
4. It could take several weeks to get to the bottom of the issues and find suitable solutions, but it was taking full ownership of the problem and would work with the resident throughout.
5. It had attempted to improve the situation including lagging the boiler and adjusting the door. It added it would arrange for a joiner to review the door to see if something further to seal and insulate the door surround, could be done.
6. It did not agree that environmental factors had caused the resident’s health conditions. However, it accepted they may be an aggravating factor in her symptoms. In terms of possible outcomes, it said the property could:
  1. Be found to be outside acceptable tolerance levels for heat and humidity. If so, it would work with her to find solutions.
  2. Be found to be inside acceptable tolerance levels for heat and humidity. In that scenario, it would have met its obligation as her landlord in providing a suitable home for her to live in. However, it would continue to support her with her medical conditions. This will could involve a referral to her GP and working with the local authority.
7. In response to the resident’s concerns that she had not been supported, it wanted to reassure her that was not the case. It apologised if she had had a poor experience in the past, but it had invested in new systems, to help to deal with customer enquiries. It had also invested in its people and training.
8. With regards to the location of the flat, it was sorry if she felt she should have been informed of the laundry room’s location. However, it explained prospective tenants can view properties before accepting them. It said a number of properties had laundry rooms or were in a similar position nearby and it was not aware this had been an issue. In view of that, it did not consider it should be something it always had to inform people about.
9. It acknowledged that with her medical conditions, the resident may no longer feel the property is suitable, but it did not accept it was responsible for that. It could though, assist her with a mutual exchange or to move to a vacant property.
10. It could not move the kitchen to the void space because the amount of work did not make it viable. There would also be a requirement to consult with other tenants. It did say that a Senior Manager would review her property in the future, to see if there were options to improve her kitchen area.
The landlord concluded by asking the resident to confirm that she was happy for the device to be installed.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord received an email from the resident’s MP’s office, asking that it look in to her concern over heat levels from the laundry room. It is noted that the resident also agreed to the installation of the heat monitoring device. However, it is unclear when she confirmed this with the landlord. It is also noted that following the resident’s agreement, the landlord raised an appointment for the installation of the device. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any further details in relation to this; however it is noted that there were a series of missed appointments and the installation did not go ahead as scheduled.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage one response, on 19 August 2021. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to address her request to minimise heat and move property.
2. The environment was the cause of her health problems and the window in the laundry room had been closed for many years.
3. She had been lied to, shouted at on the telephone and treated differently after involving a solicitor.
4. She was not told her flat was above the laundry room when she moved in and she wanted her kitchen moved so she would be cooler.
5. She could hear noise from her neighbours, although it was not done on purpose, and she said she was not happy with the quality of the communal cleaning.
6. There had been three missed appointments, in relation to the installation of the heat measuring device.
7. The lagging of the boiler had made no difference.
8. She did not say that cataracts has been caused by the heat situation in her flat. However, she did not accept the landlord’s view of her other medical condition, and suggested it contact her optician or GP.
9. She agreed to the device being installed, but wanted her complaint escalated to stage two.
The landlord sent its stage two response to the resident’s complaint, on 17 September 2021. It said:
1. The complaint was that the resident’s health issues were related to excessive heat and dryness in her home, and that it had not taken action to resolve the issue. It made the following points:
2. Someone had visited the resident to discuss her complaint, and a formal response had been issued on 19 July.
3. It agreed to install a device to collect more detailed data on temperature and humidity which would help it to understand what might be causing the problem. It apologised for the delay in doing that, and for a missed appointment, and said an appointment had been made for 3pm that day. It would follow up with colleagues as to the reasons for this lapse in service.
4. The resident had been diagnosed with Sjogren’s Syndrome. It accepted a member of staff had “overstepped the mark” in reaching conclusions about its cause, but said the staff member had acknowledged that excessive heat and a lack of humidity could have worsened the symptoms. It said the proposal to get more detailed data on what was happening in the flat in order to come up with an appropriate solution seemed a sensible way forward.
5. It tried lagging the boiler and adjusting the door and it had suggested sending a joiner. It also said it was replacing boilers at the scheme the following month which may make a difference. It was trying different things which may help in the short term until it had a clearer picture from the device, once installed. It proposed pausing the complaints process for a further two months in order to assess the action taken.
6. It noted the resident had mentioned moving, and it asked if she wanted assistance with that.
7. In relation to the resident’s email of 19 August 2021, it said:
  1. It believed it had correctly understood the complaint.
  2. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with the laundry window but said it was not part of her initial complaint.
  3. There was no evidence she had been treated differently but this also was not part of her initial complaint.
  4. It could not comment on what the resident was allowed to see as a prospective tenant nine years before, but it was sorry if her opportunity to check on her new home was limited.
  5. Converting the void space to a kitchen may not be possible for fire safety reasons, as well as the cost involved. The device data would indicate whether this would be a theoretical solution but it suspected that practical issues would make it difficult to agree. It was considering whether any other changes could be made to the resident’s existing kitchen which could help.
  6. Her health was important, but as a social landlord it had to bear in mind the well-being of all of its customers when making decisions about where to allocate our limited resources.
  7. It noted the resident had sent the local authority information on temperature readings, and it said it hoped the device data would provide significantly more information which would help it to analyse the problem more fully.
  8. The resident had mentioned issues with cooking, showering, washing, cleaning, vacuuming without being particularly specific. It assumed these related to the heat in the home; so were indirectly already covered by the actions it had proposed.
It concluded by saying it was pausing the complaint process for two months to see what it found out from the device data. However, if the resident remained dissatisfied to the extent that she wished to take the matter further, the information in order to do that, had been provided.
The heat measuring device was installed on 17 September 2021. The landlord has confirmed that the boiler and cylinder replacement took place in late 2021.
On 12 January 2022, the landlord was made aware from a contractor that had visited the resident the day before, that she was happy with the temperature of her property. An internal email exchange between landlord staff on 13 January 2022, refers to the flat’s heating being upgraded in December 2021 and that it felt the laundry had no tangible impact on the heat in the flat. Despite that, it referred to improvements that had been made and that it had arranged for a contractor to attend and help the resident use the heating, and she seemed to now be happy.
The landlord received a telephone call from the resident on 14 January and 1 February 2022. On both occasions, she said nobody had contacted her, so she was going to remove the heating device that had been installed, and she was not happy with the temperature in her flat. The landlord made enquiries with its contractor. It said when it had visited, the resident had not let them in, but had confirmed she was happy with the temperature of the property. The landlord considered that the resident had removed the heat recording device at the end of January. It was noted that someone would call the resident at the beginning of February; however, it is unclear if it did so.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord installed a new ventilation fan had been installed in the laundry room. It also re-ducted the tumble dryers to help hot/humid air escape efficiently.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 1 March 2022, and noted she had moved in to her neighbour’s ground floor flat. It also noted:
1. The storeroom next to the resident’s flat had an electric radiator installed but this was unplugged.
2. Heating pipework that served the flat above, was located in the resident’s cupboard. It could look at repositioning that within the corridor; however, it would not remove all pipes and would be an expensive solution.
3. The heat meter within the flat read 453KWH which lined up with the reading that had been received.
4. The programmable room stat was set to manual, the room temperature read 23°c.
5. There were three small radiators within the property and one towel radiator within the bathroom. The bedroom radiator was the only radiator with a thermostatic radiator valve. It suggested replacing it with new, along with installing new to the lounge and kitchen.
6. The living room and bedroom radiators heating pipework ran at low level and were on show and uninsulated. It noted this would add unnecessary heat into the room but would be a costly process to insulate and box in.
7. It accessed the laundry room and found the fan operating and the room was not overly warm.
8. The resident mentioned she wanted a cooling fan so she could move around as required. It thought this would be the cheapest solution.
On 25 March 2022, the local authority contacted the landlord about the resident’s concerns over the temperature of her property. It replied on 28 March, and explained, all flats had heating and hot water from a central boiler. The commercial boiler had been replaced and it had improved controls for each flat, giving the ability to control the temperature within each property. It explained the resident was having radiators replaced with added controls and arranged to train the resident on controlling the temperature of the flat. The landlord also explained it had improved ventilation in the laundry room and felt it had implemented all methods possible to improve things for the resident.
The local authority wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2022, and referred to a visit to the resident’s property. The date of the visit is not known. However, it noted the following:
1. The temperatures in the resident’s property were high.
  1. The bathroom read 28.2°c.
  2. The living room read 24.5°c with the window open.
  3. The bedroom read 24°c.
2. These temperatures were taken in the morning, and the property got hotter during the day.
3. It was very hot in the entrance to the property.
4. The hot water cylinder cupboard was emanating heat.
5. The communal laundry was below the property; underneath the resident’s hallway, bathroom and part of her bedroom.
6. Measures had been put in place to divert heat from the laundry room; however, the temperatures were still high and it was affecting the resident, as she found it hard to sleep.
The landlord sent an internal email the same day and said it would visit the property the following week with a thermal imagining camera. It commented that:
1. All the vents to the dryers in the laundry room had been renewed, and additional ventilation has been added to the laundry room.
2. The temperature in the resident’s flat was continually high, including throughout the night. It did not see spikes in temperature that would be expected with occasional laundry use.
3. The hot water cylinders installed were new, and factory insulated and met all expected standards; but it would look at pipes around and check these were lagged.
4. If the only identifiable heat source was the hot water cylinder, it would make enquiries with the contractor as to what controls were in place for this: it sounded like it was on continually, whereas it may only be needed occasionally.
5. The resident had been awarded band A housing in order to be able to move.
6. It noted recommendations from the local authority to insulate “properly” between the laundry room and the property; and to insulate the pipes in the cylinder cupboards in both the laundry room and the property. It also noted that comment that if these suggestions did not work, then air conditioning could be considered.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2022, concerned about how to cope with the heat, as there had been weather warnings. It is noted the landlord advised the resident to stay indoors, keep cool and drink a lot. The resident expressed concern that she had a “99% chance of dying over [the] weekend due to the weather” and she wanted to know what the landlord would do to help her.
The landlord called the resident on 18 July 2022 and explained the Government and National Health Service guidelines. It arranged to visit the property on 22 July, but noted “given the exceptional temperatures we are all experiencing there is nothing we can offer resident to alleviate the high temperatures”.
The landlord attended the property on 22 July 2022, with a temperature sensing camera. It noted the following:
1. The flat was at a “reasonable” temperature.
2. The hot water cylinder within the property was continually hot, possibly as a result of the hot water cylinder containing hot water continually, and being in a confined space.
3. Temperature readings were consistent with other flats in the scheme, so this was not an issue that was specific to the resident’s property. It would consider whether additional insulation on pipework would have any effect in reducing the temperature.
4. The tank was full of hot water supplied by communal boiler, rather than an immersion cylinder with local controls so a timing switch was not a workable option.
5. Although the resident felt the laundry room was causing the temperature in her flat, while it may contribute to the problem, it did not think it was the main cause of issues she was experiencing. This was because it would not explain the temperatures in her flat being continually high, at all times of day and in the middle of the night.
6. The resident’s flat was directly above the lift motor room which was warm and there was some hidden pipe boxing at the rear of the motor room which was radiating heat. This was a potential source of heat, so it would arrange for focused investigations. It would look at what could be done to ventilate or reduce heat in the lift motor room, and what the heat source was that was concealed within the pipe boxing.
7. There was also a hot water cylinder located underneath her flat which was radiating heat.
8. It explained to the resident that it did not have any solutions as to what work could be done that would improve her living conditions. However, it would assess with the heating contractor if there were any options to reduce heat that is escaping in the cylinder cupboard. It would also continue investigations underneath her flat, specifically on the lift motor room. It would take any further action with regards to the laundry room, as it did not believe it to be the main contributing factor.
9. It noted the proposals were only likely to make marginal difference to temperature in the resident’s flat, but would help demonstrate that it had done everything practical.
10. The resident wanted the landlord to provide air conditioning for her medical conditions. However, this was not something that it typically did, as it fell under disabled adaptation categorisation, and it was not best placed to assess what her requirements were. It said it would suggest the resident contacted the local authority/an occupational therapist to consider her medical conditions, in order to decide if she required air conditioning.
The landlord visited the building where the resident lives, on 3 August 2022. Following its visit, it noted the following:
1. It was able to expose the hot water pipes running through the pipe boxing in the lift motor room, communal toilets and launderette. It felt these could be contributing to the heat in the resident’s property.
2. Heat was being trapped in the lift motor room and a vent in the door was just moving small amounts of hot air into the lobby area. The unventilated area would affect the resident’s property.
3. The floor between the ground and first floors was likely a ‘Bison floor’, which may be radiating heating upwards. When it opened the doors from the lift motor room and the corridor doors, it noted the heat appreciably dissipated, suggesting ventilation was required to that area.
4. The communal tank in the laundry fed the washing machines, so isolating that was not an option at that time.
5. It would look at the insulation to the cylinder in the resident’s property.
6. It noted the laundry was cool, and it did not feel the local authority’s suggestion of suspending a ceiling and insulation was required.
On 19 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked why she could not receive a copy of correspondence she sent to the landlord via its website. She also queried why repairs had to be reported in such a way, why there was no feedback and why she had to call to find out what was happening. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident.
On 26 September and 19 October 2022, the resident reported that her thermostat had seized and she could not get the temperature above 20°c. Internal emails sent between landlord staff on 17 October 2022, refer to pipework at the property having been insulated the week before. They also mentioned that a contractor would return that week, to install an additional extractor fan with ducting to external wall.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 November 2022. It explained:
1. Upon her complaint, it had replaced the entire heating system and added better controls for her flat.
2. As the heat in the flat remained an issue, it arranged for better ventilation in the laundry room and on individual dryers.
3. It insulated pipework and added better controls on the radiators.
4. It had insulated the pipework in the motor lift room, under her property and ventilated the room, so there was no build-up of heat.
5. It said it would arrange for the person who had supervised all the works, to check with her, whether the issues had been resolved.
The person who supervised the works, visited the resident on 7 November 2022, and says he spoke with the resident, who confirmed there was a noticeable change in temperature within her flat.
The resident moved out of the property on 19 February 2023; and has confirmed to this service that she moved to a new property in May 2023. It is noted that the resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s consideration of her complaint as she did not feel that the impact on her physical or mental health had been taken into account. She also wished to be compensated for:
1. The affect the situation had on her health.
2. The extra costs she had incurred in purchasing juice, ice, lollies and sweets to abate the heat.
3. The inability to cook when she wanted to, owing to the heat.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order, “any installations (when provided by us) in your home for space heating, water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including kitchen and bathroom fixtures, sinks, baths and toilets”.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The Landlord’s Complaints Policy says “Generally, complaints at all stages are acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt of the complaint and a full written response is sent within 10 working days.”
The landlord’s Compensation Policy and Procedure says, “when a customer has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of its service failure or omission and it has not been able to remedy the situation or remedy it sufficiently speedily, it will consider the payment of discretionary compensation. Even if the customer has not suffered a quantifiable loss, they may have suffered inconvenience or distress as a result of our error. As part of saying sorry for unacceptable service, we may consider making a goodwill gesture, which may take the form of flowers, vouchers or a small payment.” In terms of examples of compensation payment made, it suggests a £50 payment for missed appointments.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reported heating issues in the property.

It is noted there is a history of the resident reporting issues with the heating system breaking down. However, this investigation has focused only on the issue considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has described the effect on her health caused in her view, by the issue with the heat, not being resolved. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
The resident reported excessive heat in her property, and the landlord did have the insulation around the pipework looked at, and appropriately authorised new insulation to be put in. However, that did not seem to resolve the issue, and the resident submitted her complaint; that the heat in the property was causing her health issues. The landlord addressed these points, and explained why it was unable to associate the health issues complained of, to the issue with the heat. While this was reasonable, the landlord could have asked the resident to provide medical information relating to her conditions which, depending upon the information received, may have led to other options being considered. For example, whether it was appropriate to decant the resident while the investigations were ongoing. That the landlord did not do so was a failing in its handling of the matter and a missed opportunity to engage further with the resident and understand how the situation was affecting her.
The landlord made it clear it wanted to find the cause of the problem, and in its 20 July 2021 response, it explained that it could take some time to identify and solve the issue. Such an explanation was appropriate and important in terms of managing the resident’s expectations. It is noted that the landlord also provided an assurance that it would continue to work with the resident until the issue was resolved.
The evidence provided to this service shows that the landlord reasonably considered a number of different issues that could be causing or contributing to the heat within the property, in the hope it would resolve the problem. When the complaint was referred to this Service, the landlord was still exploring other potential ways to reduce the heat in the resident’s property.
Following a visit on 3 August 2022, the landlord said it could consider whether hot water pipes were contributing to the heat in the property, or whether heat was being trapped in the lift motor room. In addition, it had looked at the floor between the ground and first floors, to see if this was radiating heating upwards and it thought ventilation would be beneficial to that area. The landlord noted it could not isolate the communal tank in the laundry, but it could look at the insulation to the cylinder in the resident’s property. It had said on both 29 June and 22 July 2022, that it would make enquiries with a contractor over what control there could be over the hot water cylinder, but it is not known if it actually did that.
The source of the problem was not known; therefore, the onus was on the landlord to investigate a number of possible causes. This meant that the landlord had to implement a number of measures and allow time to see if they worked, before being able to establish whether further investigation was needed. With that in mind, while it took the landlord a while to carry out its investigations and associated work, it was appropriate to use a process elimination, in order to try and identify the right action to take.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord did take steps before and after fitting the heat measuring device at the property, in order to try and establish the source of the heating problem. This was good practice, and it was perfectly reasonable to allow the device time to work, once installed. The landlord did arrange for someone to attend the property in January 2022, in order to assess the situation. The evidence indicates the resident initially said there were no issues, but within three days, she contacted the landlord to make it clear she was still not happy with the temperature of the property.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was unable to resolve the issues for the resident; however, the evidence shows that it was proactive in its approach. The landlord also considered a range of alterations or works that were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. However, the evidence suggests that its communication with the resident was lacking and it was not always clear it what it was doing, and what it intended to do next.
On 14 January and 1 February 2022, the resident called the landlord and complained that no one had contacted her. She said she was going to remove the heat monitoring device that had been installed, and she was not happy with the temperature in her flat. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at that time, despite the landlord being put on notice that she was still experiencing problems. In addition, on 19 August 2022, the resident raised specific concern about having to chase the matter and there is no evidence of the landlord responding. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that “there was no contact with the tenant regarding our visits and findings after the Stage 2 response”.
The lack of communication from the landlord, meant the resident was not being kept aware of what action, if any, the landlord was taking. There were two visits to the resident’s property, prior to August 2022, which shows the landlord was proactively trying to resolve the resident’s problem and did meet with her. However, the evidence shows that the resident often had to chase for an update, and did not receive a reply. She was distressed enough, to remove the heat monitoring device herself and the landlord failed to ensure it responded promptly to her request for information.
While the landlord’s actions to try and resolve the resident’s concerns were overall appropriate, its communication with the resident could reasonably have been improved.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it noted that there had been missed appointments in relation to the heat device installation. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence in relation to the missed appointments; however, the landlord has advised that the device was not available on two occasions so the appointments could not go ahead. In accordance with its Compensation Policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident some compensation for the inconvenience she was caused. That it did not, was a failing in its response.
In line with its Compensation Policy, the landlord should pay the resident £50 to in relation to the missed appointments. A further £350 has been ordered by this service in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of updates and overall communication.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident first complained on 19 June 2021. The complaint was acknowledged within two days and on 5 July, the landlord explained it hoped to reply to the complaint by 12 July 2021. The landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns, on 15 July, and on 19 July it provided its written response to the issues raised.
The landlord did not comply with its target of responding to a complaint within 10 working days. Although, it is acknowledged that it did try and get to the heart of the resident’s complaint, by meeting with her and listening to her concerns, face to face, before issuing its response. When it issued its response, 22 working days after receiving the complaint, it did address each of the resident’s concerns, and proposed a resolution, by installing a device to measure heat at the property. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why the landlord departed from the timescales set out in its policy.
The resident agreed to the device being fitted but still asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two, on 19 August 2021. The landlord should have acknowledged this within two days, according to its Complaints Policy; but, it did not do so until 9 September. The evidence that is available does not explain why there was a delay. Although it issued its stage two response on 17 September 2021, within 14 days of the acknowledgement being sent, it was actually sent 21 working days after the escalation request was received. The landlord did therefore fail to comply with its Complaints Policy.
At stage two, the landlord advised that the heat measuring device would be installed and that as it needed time to work it would “pause” the complaint. This was not appropriate. In the circumstances, the landlord could have issued its stage two response and advised that it would continue to investigate and monitor the situation. That the matter was ongoing should not have precluded the landlord from providing a stage two response to the complaint. As a result of the landlord’s actions, the complaints process became protracted and the resident was delayed in referring her concerns to this service for further consideration.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy does not provide for the pausing of complaints in such a manner. Had the landlord obtained the resident’s agreement to this, that may well have been reasonable; however, it was not appropriate for it to unilaterally decide to not respond to the complaint for a defined period. In addition, having paused the complaint, the landlord failed to revert back to its complaints process, once the device had been given time to work, which would have added to the resident’s frustration.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord addressed each of the resident’s points at both stages of the complaints process; but, it did not adhere to the deadlines in its Complaints Policy or finalise dealing with the complaint. The resident’s expectations were not properly managed; and its service therefore fell short. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is also not in line with this the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident also complained about the impact the heat was having on her health. The landlord did not agree that environmental factors had caused the resident’s health conditions, but it did accept they may be an aggravating factor in her symptoms. The landlord was not a medical expert, so it was appropriate for it to not simply accept the resident’s medical claims. However, a reasonable approach, would have been for it to have signposted the resident to its insurer, in case she wanted to make a personal injury claim.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling. There were some delays, but these were relatively minor, and although the landlord did not seem to formally readdress the complaint after it had been paused, it did continue to investigate the issues. Therefore, taking all this in to account, compensation of £300 in this situation, is reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reported heating issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence, meaning she was not always being updated on action being taken in relation to her case.
The landlord did not adhere to the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy, and having paused the complaints process, it did not then revert back to it, in order to finalise its response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £700 compensation, made up of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified by this investigation..
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the missed appointments.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified through this investigation.
2. Ensure all staff are reminded of the importance to consider the wider circumstances of repairs and how a resident may be affected.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Provide training to relevant staff in relation to the Code, in order to recognise when a complaint is being made and the timescales it should be adhering to, when responding.
2. Provide the resident with information about how to make a personal injury claim via its insurer.