GreenSquareAccord Limited (202203074)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203074

GreenSquareAccord Limited

7 December 2022


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:
    1. The resident’s report of heating issues in the property.
    2. The resident’s request to install a wood burning stove at the property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The complaint was raised by the resident’s representative, for clarity, this report will largely refer to both the resident and their representative as “the resident”, unless there is an explicit reason to differentiate.
  2. The resident reported on 23 November 2020 that the property was too cold, due to medical issues which impacted her ability to regulate her body temperature. In April 2021, the resident raised concerns regarding the heating costs and asked to install a wood burning stove to resolve the ongoing heating issues. The landlord declined permission for the stove. The resident subsequently installed a wood burning stove, and after inspecting the stove, the landlord sent a breach of tenancy letter to the resident informing her that the stove must be removed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 26 October 2021 due to the breach of tenancy letter sent by the landlord. In her complaint escalation, she raised additional concerns regarding the ongoing heating issues in the property and she wanted the landlord to assess an appropriate alternative heating solution. The resident also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s communication and handling of the tenancy breach.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated that the stove had to be removed, but it would inspect the property to assess whether it could grant retrospective permission for panel heating which had been fitted by the resident. It advised that it was satisfied the property had adequate heating based on the energy performance certificate (EPC). It acknowledged delays in arranging the energy assessment and surveyor inspection. It determined it had taken the correct action regarding the tenancy breach.
  5. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied as she thought the landlord had failed to resolve the heating issue within a timely manner. She was unhappy that the landlord had ordered the stove and electric radiators to be removed, and the chimney sealed. She also disputed the accusation that she had breached her tenancy by installing the stove and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns regarding the health implications of the reported heating issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the remit of our service to determine whether the heating in the property should be changed in view of the resident’s health issues. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heating was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practice and whether the response was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
  2. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s instruction for her to seal the chimney. Based on the available evidence, it does not appear that the landlord has responded to this issue through its complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation at that stage.

Heating issues

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for heating in good repair and proper working order. The landlord should therefore ensure that it assesses any reported issues with the heating, and completes any repairs or improvements that are required in line with its policies and any relevant guidance. The resident initially reported issues with heating the property on 23 November 2020; however, as the resident had not reported a loss of heating or any repair issues, the landlord would not necessarily be expected to handle the report in line with its repairs policy. Despite this, the landlord would be required to clearly communicate and manage the resident’s expectations about the actions it could take in response to her concerns.
  2. In an email on 3 December 2020, the resident noted that the standard temperature in the property was an average of 18°C-22°C and the maximum temperature was between 25°C-27°C. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess 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, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. The temperatures reported by the resident would not typically be considered as substandard . However, the landlord should still demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s health issues and vulnerabilities and assessed alternative solutions to resolve her concerns about the cold.
  3. In the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint, it advised the resident that the energy efficiency of the property was 65, which exceeded the minimal letting rating and its internal targets. It stated that as a result, the property had sufficient heating. Properties which have an EPC below band E are classed as ‘‘substandard’’ by regulations. In this case, the property’s EPC was rated band D, and as such is not considered substandard. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that the EPC was above its minimum letting rating, and determined the property had sufficient heating. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord informed the resident of this finding until its stage one response on 1 February 2022, and it therefore missed the opportunity to manage her expectations at an earlier stage, given that she initially reported the issue several months earlier, in November 2020.
  4. The resident’s report was passed to the landlord’s energy assessor, but an appointment was not attended until 25 February 2021, which was three months after the resident’s initial report of heating issues. In the landlord’s complaint response, it advised that there was a delay in arranging the appointment due to the national lockdown as part of the response to Covid-19. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord advised the resident of the planned energy assessment, or the expected delay, prior to the complaint response. As a result, there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take at an earlier date, which led to additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was waiting for an update. The landlord also failed to consider interim solutions to temporarily adapt its service, such as providing advice regarding best use of the heating system over the phone. Although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint response, it took no further steps to offer redress for the failing.
  5. As a result of the energy assessment, the energy assessor advised the resident to change the electricity meter and tariff, in order to reduce the costs and provided advice on how to most efficiently use the hot water tank. It also stated it had upgraded the storage heaters to have higher heat retention. The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to support the resident, despite the fact that the heating issue was not considered as a repair issue. The landlord would only be expected to support the resident regarding heating costs, if they were determined to be caused by a repair issue which fell within the landlord’s responsibilities to resolve.
  6. The landlord advised the resident on 14 May 2021 that it would refer her report to its surveyor to visit the property to assess the reported heating issues. However, there were significant delays as the appointment was not attended until 6 September 2021. Again, the landlord acknowledged that the appointment should have been completed sooner, but there is no evidence to suggest the landlord took further steps to offer appropriate redress such as compensation.
  7. The landlord stated it was unable to change the heating system due to the cost of the works. However, it signposted the resident to a disabled facility grant. It is important to note that social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to manage their resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As there were no clear repair issues, and the current heating system met the requirements for suitable temperatures and the property had a sufficient EPC, the landlord would not be obliged to complete the requested work to change the system. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, it was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident that the works would not be possible, due to financial limitations.
  8. The landlord is expected to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when deciding whether to make changes to the property. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s occupational therapist (OT) made any recommendations to improve the property, due to the resident’s reports that the temperature was not suitable for her. The resident’s OT contacted the landlord on 12 May 2021, informed it of the heating issues and asked for advice on how to use the heating more effectively, to which the landlord responded appropriately and addressed all the concerns raised. As there were no recommendations made by the OT, the landlord would not be obliged to complete any improvements. The landlord is entitled to rely on the decisions made by the OT, as they are suitably qualified to make recommendations based on the resident’s health and the landlord would not be expected to carry out improvements without a recommendation from OT. If the resident has additional concerns, it may be helpful to seek a further OT assessment.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with heating in the property was generally appropriate and in line with its policies and obligations. However, there have been communication failings identified, in which the landlord has missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it can take and the expected timeframe. The landlord should have taken earlier steps to advise the resident that the property met the relevant standards for heating, as there is no evidence that it explained this to the resident until the complaint was raised. This led to the resident pursuing the issue without receiving an explanation of the landlord’s obligations and intended actions. There were also delays in arranging appointments for the energy assessor and the surveyor, which would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  10. In light of the outlined issues, compensation is warranted. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where there has been failures by the landlord which caused distress and or/inconvenience to the resident and where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident £200 due to the delayed appointments and the landlord’s poor communication.

The resident’s request to install a wood burning stove at the property.

  1. The resident requested to install a wood burning stove on 1 December 2020 and 5 May 2021. The landlord stated that it would not grant permission for wood burning stoves or open fires and advised its rejection was related to safety concerns, which was an appropriate reason to withhold permission.
  2. Despite the landlord declining permission on several occasions, the resident informed the landlord on 30 June 2021 that she had installed the wood burning stove. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must obtain written permission and any necessary consent or approval before making any alterations to the property. The landlord clearly confirmed its position by declining the request, so as the resident proceeded to install the stove, it was reasonable that the landlord issued a tenancy breach letter.
  3. The resident stated that the surveyor had advised she could keep the stove, if the correct certification was provided. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that this was to ensure the installation as safe, before it made its final decision regarding whether the wood burning stove had to be removed. It was appropriate for the landlord to require interim safety assurances while the complaint was ongoing as the landlord has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its properties and residents. However, even though the resident provided the requested documentation, the landlord would not be obliged to grant permission retrospectively.
  4. The resident also installed panel heaters, which were identified during the surveyor’s visit. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said it would inspect the property and would potentially grant retrospective authorisation for the panel heaters. This was reasonable, as the evidence suggests that the resident had not requested permission prior to installing them, as she was required to in line with the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord should not withhold permission without an appropriate reason. It is unclear whether permission has since been granted. The landlord should ensure it arranges the inspection within a reasonable timeframe and confirms its position regarding the panel heaters, if it has not done so already.
  5. The resident’s representative disputed the tenancy breach, as she stated she had installed the wood burning stove, not the resident. The landlord advised that the resident is responsible for the property, regardless of whether the representative had installed the wood burning stove. Ultimately, the resident is responsible for ensuring the tenancy agreement is adhered to and the landlord has a contractual agreement with the resident, not the representative. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord warned of tenancy action to the resident, rather than pursuing the issue with the representative. It is acknowledged that the representative had requested for the landlord to send correspondence to her rather than the resident. However there are some occasions when the landlord would be expected to contact the resident directly, rather than via the representative. Tenancy warnings are a formal process and the landlord is obliged to ensure that that the resident is aware of the warning right away so that she would have the opportunity to take the necessary steps to prevent further tenancy enforcement action. Therefore, it was appropriate to send the warning letter directly to the resident rather than sending it to the representative to pass on to the resident.
  6. Overall, it was reasonable that the landlord ordered the resident to remove the wood burning stove, as the resident had not adhered to the tenancy agreement and the landlord outlined its reasons for refusing permission. The landlord also appropriately handled the tenancy breach letter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days. It then states that if the resident remains dissatisfied, it will escalate the complaint to an executive review and respond within five working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 26 October 2021 and subsequently chased the complaint on 13 January 2022, as she had not received a response. The landlord then issued its stage one response on 1 February 2022. The landlord advised this Service that the resident’s initial complaint was not forwarded to the correct department, but it was a short-term issue, caused due to restructuring its contact centre. Although the landlord has acknowledged its failing and identified steps of learning, it has not adequately considered the impact on the resident of the delayed response. There is also no evidence to suggest that it advised the resident of the reason for the delay, or apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  3. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that two stage complaint procedures are best practice, to ensure the process is not unduly long. A third stage should only be used if necessary. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines a two-stage procedure, but it issued three complaint responses before signposting the resident to this Service. The responses were issued on 18 February 2022 and 28 February 2022. Although it did not cause a significant delay in issuing its final response, there was no indication that a third response was necessary and it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to contact the landlord for a third time to escalate her complaint. It is therefore recommended that the landlord assesses its staff training requirements related to its complaint handling policy, to ensure that it adheres to its two-stage procedure. 
  4. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate when there was a minor failure by the landlord, which it failed to appropriately acknowledge or put right. In this case, the landlord exceeded its complaint responses timeframe, which led to the resident chasing the issue, causing her additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. In recognition of this, the landlord should award the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of heating issues in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to install a wood burning stove at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of the failings outlined in this report regarding its handling of the resident’s report of heating issues in the property, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, as a result of its complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord should provide proof of the payments to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord arranges a visit to inspect the panel heaters and determine whether retrospective permission can be granted, if it has not done so already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding its complaint handling procedure to ensure that it follows the complaints process correctly going forward.