Hyde Housing Association Limited (202218155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218155

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 February 2024

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 response to the resident’s reports regarding the air source heat pump and solar panels.
2. The landlord’s handling of water penetration into the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the two-week period that the property did not have insulation.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to the front garden.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the resident’s complaints about the below are outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the two-week period that the property did not have insulation.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to the front garden.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint that was not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the property was insulated in January 2020 and the damage to the front garden likely occurred earlier than that. The resident has advised that the landlord’s handling of these matters were included as part of her complaint to this Service as she was advised to include all the issues that she remained dissatisfied with.
However, given that these matters were not raised in the timescale referred to above as part of the complaint we are considering (submitted in May 2022), as per paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, they are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident completed a deed of assignment on 26 April 2005. She is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association.
The property is described as a three-bedroom semi-detached house.

Policies

The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that repairs should be completed within its agreed timescales. It is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including the supply of gas and electricity. Repairs that are not defined as an emergency should be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint and compensation policy statement states that:
1. It might not investigate a complaint about an incident that occurred 6 months before the complaint was made. In making the decision, it would use its discretion if it had evidence of a long-standing issue.
2. At its first stage, it will respond within 10 working days.
3. If it requires extra time to complete its investigation, it will explain this to the resident and provide its complaint response within an additional 10 working days. Its complaint response will set out the actions and timescales it will undertake.
4. It will not escalate a complaint where it has upheld the complaint but the resident has requested that it review the compensation offered.
5. At its final stage, it will respond within 20 working days. It will give the resident the opportunity to comment on the finding and provide feedback before its final complaint response is issued.

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that her concerns about the property, including the air source heat pump, and various repairs have been ongoing for many years and have been raised with the landlord. While there is evidence that the resident made complaints to the landlord in August 2019 and June 2021, there is no evidence that those complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaint process nor that those complaints were referred to the Ombudsman during that time.
The Ombudsman understands that the present complaint was made in May 2022. This investigation report will therefore consider events from November 2021 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence.
As such, whilst this report may reference some historical events for the purpose of context, the scope of this investigation will be limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the reports from November 2021 onwards. It is noted that the landlord decided to recently review its final complaint response. Therefore, this investigation extends to 3 November 2023 when the landlord provided its ‘final’ complaint response.

Summary of events

On 5 August 2019, the resident complained to the landlord about the presence of bats in the property. The complaint was also about the presence of officers from ecological survey & assessment (ECOSA) who were at her property early in the morning and late at night. In October 2019, the resident gave the landlord a list of outstanding issues. This included the air pump heating system which she reported was costing her additional money to run as it took 45 minutes for the radiators to get warm.
The landlord’s repair records from 17 June 2021 show a report made to attend to the solar power heating as the condenser pump “that normally turns on after 1 hr was not turning off and the heating was coming on. The cupboard housing the boiler was extremely hot. Make safe.” The job is showing as completed the following day.
On 20 June 2021, the resident made an online complaint. The resident complained that the landlord did not know how to maintain the air source heat pump, the solar panels did not work and the chimney was damp due to the presence of bats. Also, that when the property was being insulated, she was without insulation for two weeks and the smell from the bats meant that she could not enter the loft. Furthermore, the landlord had ignored her complaints.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 June 2021. The resident chased the complaint response on 27 July 2021 and on 20 August 2021. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 21 September 2021. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the resident’s complaint and accepted that its complaint response was outside its published complaint time scales. It recognised that its repair service had failed and said it was working with residents to resolve this.
The landlord’s complaint response included a compensation award of £150. This was broken down as £100 for her time and trouble in making the complaint and £50 for its delay. It informed the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she should escalate the complaint within 14 days giving reasons why. It also provided referral rights to this Service.
The landlord’s records show that it took the following actions between December 2021 and February 2022:
1. Requested quotes to carry out work to the solar panel and for bat mitigation works.
2. Raised a works order to erect scaffolding once it had received permission from ECOSA for works to commence to the chimney. An appointment was arranged for 6 May 2022.
3. Raised a works order to locate and rectify a fault to the air source heat pump on 15 February 2022. It noted that it was in the process of replacing the heat source heat pump.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2022 regarding the compensation award. She advised that she thought that the issues had been resolved, however 7 months later the situation remained unchanged. The resident stated that the heating system was expensive, the solar panels had just started to work and there was scaffolding erected since February 2022 at the front and rear of the property. Furthermore, the repairs to the roof and chimney remained outstanding. The resident requested that the landlord do as it promised in its September 2021 complaint response and remove the scaffolding.
The landlord’s records from 24 June 2022 show that it decided to replace the air source heat pump and it had provisionally booked the installation between 15-16 September 2022. The lead time for materials was between 4-6 weeks and the job could not be booked in until the materials were received. The installation of the air source heat pump was recorded as completed between 17-21 October 2022.
On 10 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and complimented the work of its staff who had attended to resolve the problems with the air source heat pump. The resident stated that the majority of the work raised in October 2021 had been completed. However, the issue with the air source heat pump remained unresolved as the heating would come on even when turned off. Also, she had to wait a week before its contractor responded to an emergency call to repair the pump.
The resident also stated that the solar panels were working but there was mould in the property and there had been visits for different reasons by the ECOSA. The scaffolding had been up for months, the complaint she had made the previous year remain unanswered and she had been chasing the complaint response for months. Only one officer had made contact in response to her messages.
The ECOSA wrote to the landlord on 15 July 2022. A summary of its findings regarding the proposal to undertake remedial work to the chimney are:
1. A mitigation strategy had been agreed with Natural England so that the building could continue to be used by roosting bats.
2. Additional repairs had been undertaken to the chimney on 31 March 2022 which involved tile removal and replacement.
3. A further visit took place on 25 May 2022 to remove tiles and repair a small leak near the ridge line on the south western end of the property.
4. Destructive search
  1. An ecologist supervised the installation of replacement bitumen felt to address water leaks on the south of the building on 26 October 2021. The replacement solar panel was installed at the same time on the southern side of the roof.
  2. Following a report of a leak on 31 March 2022, a small area of tiles was stripped around the chimney. A new area of felt was installed around the chimney, retaining access gaps.
  3. On 25 May 2022, an additional leak was recorded on the south western end of the property where the bats had previously been recorded roosting. A new area of bitumen felt was installed in order to divert water away from the recorded leak but also to allow bats to continue access through the tiles and under the felt.
5. A compliance check was undertaken by the principal ecologist on 21 November 2021 to ensure that the roof tiles were put back in situ to continue access to the bat species. Mitigation features were installed in accordance with a licence.
6. A monitoring survey was required between May 2023 to September 2023 in accordance with the licence.
7. Findings were to be reported to Natural England when the licence expired on 30 June 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 August 2022 to obtain clarification about her complaint. The contract manager (gas) set out his understanding of the resident’s complaint that she remained dissatisfied with the solar panels and air source heat pump that was fitted to the property in 2013. The resident estimated the running costs to be around £3,100. In addition:
1. She had lost £120 in pay as she had to take 3 days off work for an appointment and the appointment had not been attended.
2. The decoration to the bedroom was ruined and she had been unable to decorate for the past 3-5 years.
3. She remained dissatisfied with the ecologists who had undertaken the investigations to obtain the bat licence for the roof and for solar works to be completed.
4. She was willing to accept £1,500 in compensation.
The contract manager (gas) requested that the resident confirm that the solar and air source heat pump were working and that she provide a calculation of the increased energy costs for the period that she believed the system was faulty. The landlord also requested photos of the damage to the bedroom. In addition, the contract manager went on to advise that it was proposing to replace the air source heat pump due to its age and the parts were becoming obsolete. The replacement unit was still on order with the manufacturer and it did not have a confirmed delivery date. However, once it did, it would be in touch.
In August 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord that:
1. There was water and mould in the front bedroom as a result of the leak from the chimney. Surveyors, supervisors and other tradespersons had attended over the years and the situation remained unresolved. She had pictures of the water running down the wall since 2016 and it was more noticeable in the corner of the bedroom.
2. The chimney stack needed to be removed as recommended by the roofer.
3. She had experienced higher bills when the solar panels and air source heat pump had not been working correctly. She advised that she had calculated the increased energy use on running the hot water for an hour a day during the summer months when the solar panels should have been working.
4. She requested that it install a new system as the current solar and air source heat pump had not delivered any benefits or reduced electricity bills.
5. The complaint made the previous year remained unresolved. The compensation request was for the years when the solar panels did not work.
6. She felt ignored and the situation had been stressful, frustrating and time consuming.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 August 2022 and 19 August 2022, apologising that the complaint remained unanswered. The contract manager (gas) advised the resident that he was going on leave and would finalise the complaint on his return.
On 16 September 2022, the landlord’s internal records show that the contract manager (gas) sent the resident’s complaint to the complaint team. He advised that there had been an incorrect order for the air source heat pump which meant that it had to be placed on a back order.
The landlord spoke to the resident regarding the complaint on 22 September 2022. The resident confirmed that the air source heat pump remained outstanding and that she wanted compensation for the other matters which had since been resolved. She added that the roof repair also remained outstanding.
On 13 October 2022, the resident contacted the Chief Executive officer regarding the lack of response to her complaint.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 19 October 2022:
1. It received a quote for the application and administration of the ECSO licence fee.
2. The resident was contacted and an apology given for her experience.
3. The resident had confirmed that the repairs had been recently completed. She had requested compensation for the previous 10 years of additional costs when the solar panels had not provided adequate heat.
4. It noted that the resident had not provided the evidence requested by the contract manager (gas) evidencing the increased energy costs.
The landlord provided a complaint response on 2 November 2022. It referenced its phone call with the resident and stated that the complaint was made in September 2022 regarding the solar and air source heat pump fitted in 2013. The main findings were that it:
1. Acknowledged it had responded to call outs about the solar and air source heat pump system and restored the system to working order.
2. Confirmed that the solar system had worked as designed and an additional panel had been added to improve its performance.
3. Explained that solar hot water systems are subject to weather conditions, therefore it could not say how much of a secondary heat source the resident would need to use.
4. Stated that the cost of electric water heating would be the same as any other person using electricity to heat their water.
5. Stated that for the past 6 months the solar system had been working correctly.
6. Confirmed that it had replaced the air source heating system in October 2022 due to the age of the unit. Also, parts were becoming obsolete.
7. Stated that there would be an increase in performance of the air source heat unit as a result of advances in technology. However, the previous air source heat unit had performed as intended.
8. Apologised for the missed appointments and the inconvenience experienced.
9. Explained that it could not offer the resident the requested compensation of £1,500.
10. Made a compensation award of £200, made up of £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced, £50 for poor communication and time and trouble in making the complaint and £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
The following day, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she remained dissatisfied with the complaint response. The resident expressed that the landlord had failed to listen to her concerns and the following issues remained outstanding:
1. Ongoing roof leak into the bedroom and scaffolding remained installed for an unreasonable length of time.
2. The landlord had a single contractor that could resolve issues with the air source heating system. The resident gave examples of its poor service such as responding late to callouts and its electricians being unaware of the actions to be taken to get the system operational.
3. She disputed that the solar panels were fitted correctly and stated that she never experienced the energy savings from having solar panels.
4. The landlord had failed to address the missed appointments when operatives had not attended without giving an explanation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 November 2022 to confirm that it had received the request to escalate to its next stage and it would be in contact.
The landlord raised a works order on 9 November 2022 regarding water penetration into the kitchen. It noted that water was leaking down the walls when it rained and the probable cause was the flashing around the chimney. Pictures were sent to the roofing company.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord raised a works order for the connections to the air source heat pump. It noted that the connections for the air source heat pump and the solar panel were on the same side of the property and discussed obtaining access under the bath through the wall to the outside drain.
The resident chased the complaint response on 14 November 2022.
Later that day, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation award but it said that this was in line with its compensation policy and would not be changed. It stated that the resident had raised new issues such as the cavity loft insulation, leak to the bedroom, erection of the scaffolding and the missed appointments. It added that the resident should advise whether she wished it to raise a new complaint about these matters.
In response, the resident stated that though the air source heat pump had been changed on 17 October 2022, it was still not working property. It was providing some heat but not hot water. Furthermore, she remained dissatisfied with the complaint response as it had not addressed all her concerns. She had made a complaint the previous July which had been dealt with by the contract manager (gas). The resident advised that the landlord had created a new complaint without her permission.
The landlord issued a works order to the roofing company on 17 November 2022 to attend and determine the cause of the leak and provide recommendations, including a method statement.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord’s out of hours team attended the resident’s property. It found a cylinder was leaking. It cut out and replaced the gate valve.
This Service contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 to request that it respond to the resident’s outstanding concerns. The landlord was informed that the complaint response sent in November 2022 did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. A list of issues were provided to the landlord for it consider such as the air source heat pump, solar panel and ongoing leak in the bedroom. Damp and mould causing damage to the furniture was also referred to.
The landlord was advised that the resident’s preferred outcomes were for the air source heating to be replaced, an explanation given for the time that the scaffolding was erected and for the compensation to be increased to reflect the stress, inconvenience and increased energy costs she had experienced. In addition, she asked for the roof repairs to be completed so that bats could no longer remove the roof tiles.
Between 15 December 2022 and 4 January 2023, the following happened:
1. An appointment was arranged for 3 January 2023 to replace the in-line pressure valve to the air source heat pump.
2. The roofing company recommended the removal of the chimney to just below the roof line. It noted that the ecologist would need to be consulted before work could commence.
3. The landlord noted that the chimney removal was beyond the scope of the licence from Natural England. The licence would require variation.
4. The resident reported that the wet patches in the bedroom were getting worse with water pooling near the chimney and the front window.
The ECOSA wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2023, advising that they were aware that the roof was still leaking and remediation was necessary, including the removal of the chimney. The bat licence was granted on 29 April 2020 by Natural England and a licence modification would be required to proceed outside the scope of works that had been originally agreed.
The landlord provided its revised final complaint response on 6 January 2023. It advised that this Service had asked it to provide a new final stage response. The main findings were:
1. The repairs to the property had been completed.
2. Its complaints policy stated that it would not investigate issues that occurred 6 months before the receipt of the complaint. However, it acknowledged that the resident had been contacting it about these issues before that period.
3. It confirmed that the complaint made in June 2021 had been responded to it in September 2021 when compensation of £150 was awarded. Another complaint was made in November 2021 when £200 compensation was awarded.
4. It provided its final complaint response on 14 November 2022, advising that it would not be changing its position. On receiving communication from this Service, it reviewed its decision.
5. It confirmed that it had not received a complaint that the mould had affected the home or belongings or that scaffolding had been erected for an inordinate period of time.
6. It understood that the repairs which formed part of the complaint had been addressed but the resident wanted compensation for the poor experience.
7. It signposted the resident to its property maintenance team if she still had problems with mould in the property.
8. It agreed that the time that the scaffolding was in place was unacceptable, even though that did not form part of her complaint.
9. It stated that it was not prepared to reimburse her for the energy costs as the previous air source heat pump was working as intended. The air source heat pump was replaced in October 2022. However, it awarded £50 to cover the costs the resident incurred separate to this.
10. It explained that all of the bats species found in the United Kingdom are protected. Therefore, dusk/dawn or emergency surveys were needed.
11. It was confident that the roof structure had been fixed. However, it could not confirm that the bats would not return and remove the roof tiles in the future.
12. On complaint handling:
  1. It found that the complaint made in June 2021 was not acknowledged in line with its procedures and its response in September 2021 did not address all of the issues that she had raised.
  2. The resident’s concerns were dealt with by colleagues until they were forwarded on in September 2022 and raised as a new complaint, rather than being an escalation of the previous stage 1 complaint.
  3. It accepted that it failed to acknowledge the complaint and address some of the issues she had raised.
13. It recognised its poor communication and its failure to keep the resident updated on progress or its plans.
14. It increased the compensation award to £700. This was broken down as £250 for its complaint handling failures, £100 for the resident’s time and trouble, £150 for the delays experienced, £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for the resident’s additional energy charges.
The landlord made a planning application to the council on 17 January 2023 to reduce the chimney below the roof line.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord’s records show that an emergency repair was raised to address leaks from the air source heat pump.
The landlord carried out a damp and condensation survey on 13 June 2023 as follows:
1. The inspection assessed that the roof and chimney were not in a good condition. The air source heat pump was working. The survey found evidence of previous condensation in the property and slight staining to the chimney breast and ceiling abutment. The chimney opening had been blocked and the grill providing ventilation had been closed.
2. The recommendations were to survey the wall cavity and the condition of the infill. A further survey was to be undertaken of the rear elevation of the kitchen and the low-level gable end to living room. It noted that the bats were located in the roof void.
3. The resident was advised to monitor the condition of the walls (and report if any further deterioration occurred), keep the heat at an adequate temperature in winter months and ensure spaces were ventilated (trickle vents were to remain open and the windows opened to provide ventilation).
The resident reported that the solar panels were not working on 7 July 2023. On 23 August 2023, the landlord noted that the pumps in the loft and the programmer required replacement.
Between 11 August 2023 and the end of September 2023, the following occurred:
1. The resident reported that the air source heat pump was not working and the damp and mould remained unaddressed.
2. A roofing company informed the landlord that the chimney tray may be split or not correctly fitted. The roofing company recommended the removal of the chimney and the reinstatement of the roof. An alternate option was to apply 2 layers of “stormdry” sealant to the entire chimney to seal the brickwork and stop any penetration of rainwater into the brickwork.
3. The landlord informed the resident that the heating repair has been raised and it only had one specialist contractor that could attend. It added that the ecologists had agreed the works to the roof for “stormdry” to be applied but did not agree to the chimney removal.
4. The resident confirmed that on 6 October 2023, the roofers attended and applied the sealant to the chimney.
The landlord’s internal records show on 9 October 2023, it noted that planning permission was not required to remove the chimney. It decided not to amend the licence from Natural England to demolish the chimney as the cost was excessive. In making its decision, it considered the severity of the water staining to the bedroom.
On 12 October 2023, the resident requested an update on the air source heating which had not been working for the past week. In response, the landlord advised that another company would be attending.
The principal ecologist provided the landlord with an outline of the action to be taken on 18 October 2023. This was:
1. The roof void to be visited to review the insulation and provide solutions.
2. If the upgrade to the existing ceiling level insulation did not affect the ecological functionality of the roost, a mitigation licence may not be required.
3. The existing licence allowed for:
  1. Destructive searching of the roof for the purpose of repair.
  2. Repair of roof features with all existing access gaps retained.
  3. Completion outside of the November to February period.
4. The last resort would be the chimney removal and justification would need to be given to Natural England. Additional surveys may be required to support this option given the time passed since the original licence was granted.
The landlord reviewed the complaint and provided a follow-on complaint response on 3 November 2023. The main findings were:
1. The air pump heating was restored and had been working since October 2023.
2. It was arranging to meet with the ecologist onsite to access the roof space.
3. It advised that if it received permission from the ecologist, it proposed to:
  1. Remove the tiles around the chimney to ensure that there were no other issues.
  2. Remove tiles along the gable wall and both sides of the eaves to ensure that there was no tracking water.
  3. Have material on site for roofers to carry out any identified works.
  4. Enter the loft space to ensure that the insulation was sufficient and had been correctly laid.
4. It accepted that the resident’s experience had not improved as agreed actions were not completed within a reasonable timescale.
5. Previous complaint responses did not fully address the resident’s experiences and its complaint handling failed to completely understand the correct position.
6. It accepted that it had delayed in restoring the property to its original condition and that the resident experienced poor communication. Also, it had taken an unacceptable length of time to get all the works completed.
7. It accepted that it should have recognised it could have done more to get things addressed, including raising works and seeing them through to completion.
8. It had learnt from complaints and had implemented a new customer relationship system that allowed it to track all complaint investigations and commitments much better. The system linked to the resident’s account, giving live access to all ongoing complaints and reported repairs.
9. It had restructured its staff and had a dedicated resource to ensure that complaint commitments were followed through with training of complaint staff to agree residents’ communication preferences.
10. It apologised for the difficulties that the resident had experienced and increased the compensation award to £1,500 (including the £700 previously offered at stage 2 of its complaint procedure in January 2023), made up of £350 for its complaint handling failures, £200 for customer effort, £450 for the delays completing the repairs, £450 for distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for additional energy charges.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident reported on 8 November 2023 that the situation in the property was getting worse. On 14 November 2023, the ecologist agreed to the lifting/removal of 1 metre squared of roof tiles and the installation of ceiling level insulation and roofing felt. Existing roof tiles were to be replaced once the works were completed with suitable gaps for crevice dwelling bats to be provided.
The landlord agreed an appointment with the resident for 21 November 2023 for the outstanding roofing work to be completed.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and frustrated by the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the property. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful. Nevertheless, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s response to both the repairs reports it received and to the formal complaint. In addition, we will consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the air source heat pump and solar panels.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation”. The landlord repair procedure advises that it and its contractors use the same timeframes which are to complete repairs within 20 working days unless the report is considered an emergency.
The landlord has accepted that there were difficulties with the reliability of the heat pump and it had a single specialist contractor to carry out repairs. Often a member of its staff attended to rectify the reports made by the resident. The landlord addressed the reliability of the air source heat pump before it was replaced in its complaint response. It accepted that it had attended to callouts but that the original model was considered older technology.
The landlord’s repair responsibilities available on its website states that an emergency repair will be raised if a resident has no heating and hot water between October to March; outside these periods, it will respond to repair requests within 20 working days. Whilst the resident remained dissatisfied with the actions of its contractor, its response to the resident’s callouts made in July 2022 regarding the lack of heating and hot water were within its published timescales.
The landlord provides residents with various means to report repairs such as by phone and email. It is noted that on occasion, the resident was reporting repairs to a named member of staff and requested that a specific member of staff attend to resolve repairs to the air source heat pump. The resident complimented that member of the landlord’s staff in July 2022 for his ability to resolve the problems with the air source heat pump.
The landlord assessed that the air source heat pump was reaching the end of its life span. Therefore, its decision in June 2022 to replace the air source heat pump was reasonable as this would provide a permanent solution to the issues that the resident was reporting. The landlord explained its decision to the resident and, in doing so, attempted to manage her expectations by stating that there was a lead time before the new air source heat pump would be received and installed.
However, it is unclear why the landlord did not make this decision earlier than June 2022 given it recorded in February 2022 that it was in process of replacing the pump. Further, the air source heat pump was not replaced until October 2022 – this was eight weeks after it was due to be installed due to an administrative error with the order. The landlord was therefore responsible for unreasonable delays in the renewal process.
After the renewal, the resident made further repair reports regarding the air source heat pump. These appeared to be isolated repair requests regarding a leaking cylinder in November 2022 and a pressure valve that required replacement in January 2023. Further reports were made in February 2023 and in October 2023. The reports appear to be sporadic rather than ongoing issue that could not be resolved. The resident’s frustration with the need for further works is noted but evidence indicates that the landlord raised appropriate repair orders on each occasion.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had not experienced the cost savings from having solar panels installed to the property, even during the summer months. The available evidence shows that an additional panel was installed to the roof in October 2021 and that the landlord requested that the resident provide proof of the additional energy costs that she had incurred. It was reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident provide evidence that she had experienced higher energy bills than anticipated. It is noted that any reduction in the resident’s energy usage would be dependent on the amount of sunlight and energy generated by the solar panels.
The landlord’s complaint responses were contradictory regarding the resident’s request for reimbursement for her energy costs. It stated that it did not accept that the resident incurred higher energy costs but made an award of compensation of £50 additional costs “separate of this”. This was likely to have caused confusion. The resident did not supply evidence of her energy usage as it had requested but the landlord did not explain the factors it considered when it assessed that her additional costs amounted to £50. Furthermore, the landlord failed to explain the period of time that the compensation award related to, or the reasons it had assessed that the resident was entitled to the award.
The landlord reviewed its complaint responses in November 2023. It maintained the £50 compensation award for the additional energy charges. Again, it did not give reasons or provide any further explanation for why it had assessed the compensation award was appropriate.
It made an increased compensation award of £450 for the delay in completing the repairs to the property and £450 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Its decision to increase the compensation award was appropriate to acknowledge its service failures and the resident’s frustration with its service delivery, including the performance of the specialist contractor.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses should have provided a detailed breakdown, explaining how it assessed the compensation for the heating failures (including the delay installing the air source heat pump) and the water penetration. Although the overall compensation award was within a range that this Service would recommend for significant failings, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided greater clarity on its assessment of its failings and to have offered this through its original complaints process rather than almost a year later.

The landlord’s handling of water penetration into the property.

The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states it is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Relevant to this complaint is that the resident has protected bat species living in the roof void of the property.
The landlord apparently obtained a licence from Natural England to undertake works in April 2020. The licence did not include the removal of the chimney. The landlord has subsequently undertaken a series works to the roof: in October 2021, the roof felt was replaced; in November 2021, tiles were replaced; in March 2022, tiles were stripped and felt installed; in May 2022, tiles were replaced to resolve a leak.
The landlord was in consultation with the ECOSA regarding the works that could be undertaken to resolve the leak without disturbing the habitation of the bats. The available information shows the landlord chased the response from ECOSA to determine the further action that could be undertaken within the current terms of the licence. The landlord was obliged to liaise with ECOSA and this inevitably contributed to delays in conducting works to resolve water ingress into the property.
As part of these works, scaffolding was erected to the resident’s property – the amount of time that scaffolding was up at the front and rear of the building is in dispute. The evidence shows that scaffolding was in place between February 20022 until July 2022. The landlord has also informed this Service that scaffolding was in place from November 2022 to December 2022. The landlord is expected to have accurate and reliable records regarding the scaffolding that was installed to the property. While it is not disputed that when works were undertaken to the roof, scaffolding was installed at the property, the lack of records means the landlord has not been able to say with any certainty the actual length of time that the scaffolding was installed at the property. Nevertheless, the period in which the scaffolding was at the property would have caused inconvenience to the resident and there is little evidence that the landlord pro-actively managed the roof repairs.
The landlord instructed a roofing company in November 2022 to inspect the roof. It recommended the removal of the chimney to resolve the water penetration into the bedroom. However, it qualified this by stating that the landlord should seek advice from ECOSA before acting on its instructions. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice that it obtained from the roofing professionals.
Despite the range of roofing works completed in late 2021 to mid-2022, the resident reported mould in the property in July 2022. It took around 11 months before a damp survey was carried out in June 2023. This represented an unacceptable delay. The damp survey made recommendations regarding ventilation to the chimney stack and for the situation to be monitored for a 3-month period.
The landlord sought a second opinion about resolving the water penetration into the bedroom. The roofing company informed the landlord that the chimney tray could be split and recommended removing the chimney or applying sealant to the chimney. The landlord decided to apply sealant to the chimney. The factors in its decision making were that its current licence did not include the chimney removal and it would have to pay for a new licence from Natural England. Also, the condition of the mould in the bedroom was assessed as minor. These were reasonable factors for it to consider as the ECOSA had advised that Natural England was likely to object to the removal of the chimney as it was used as a place for the bats to nest.
The resident informed the landlord that the furniture in the bedroom had been damaged by the leak. The landlord requested that the resident provide poof of the damage. This was a reasonable response to enable the landlord to assess whether it was responsible for the damage or whether the resident’s claim should be assessed by its insurer. The resident has informed this Service that she did not provide proof of damage to the furniture to the landlord. A recommendation is made about this later in the report.
The landlord, in its review of its complaint in January 2023, explained to the resident that it intended to remove the tiles around the chimney and along the gable wall to check for water penetration. It would have roofers on site to remedy any tracking works and it intended to check the insulation in the loft space. The resident has confirmed that these works have taken place but the water penetration is ongoing.
A delay in undertaking repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is not easily resolvable. However, when repair work is overdue, the landlord should keep resident informed and updated on the progress of the works. The landlord has accepted in its complaint response that there could have been better communication with the resident to keep her abreast and informed of the actions it was taking.
The landlord in its final complaints review as mentioned above made an overall compensation award of £450 for the delays competing the repairs plus £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £200 for customer effort. While this was a significant award, the landlord has not given a breakdown of its calculations. It said that the amounts represent redress for the delays and inconvenience experienced. It would have been clearer for the landlord to have stated the amounts for the different elements of the service failure it had identified such as resolving the water penetration and mould in the property and the inconvenience caused by having the property scaffolded. In any case, as outlined above, the £1,100 compensation for repairs delay and related impact was only awarded 10 months after the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Further, the final complaint review contained generic statements regarding the impact to the resident rather than providing the specific circumstances the resident had experienced. If it had done so, this would give reassurance to the resident that her complaints had been taken seriously. It is of concern that additional roofing works have been recommended at least as recently as November 2023. This demonstrates that the landlord did not use the complaints process as a means of resolving what is a long-standing water ingress issue that has impacted the resident’s living condition.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint and compensation policy states that it will respond to initial complaints within 10 working days and at its final stage, it will respond within 20 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 May 2022 to express that despite a response to a complaint in September 2021, she remained dissatisfied. The resident stated that she was experiencing problems with the same issues that she had previously complained about.
Residents are expected to raise complaints with the landlord within a reasonable period. Given it was unclear if new issues needed to be investigated and there was a 7-month gap between the landlord’s September 2021 response and her contact in May 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to register her dissatisfaction as a new complaint.
Between 6 May 2022 and 3 August 2022, the resident communicated with the gas contract manager. During these months, the contract manager requested that the resident provide information about her energy usage and the damage to her furniture. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she did not provide this information.
The contract manager apologised to the resident on 12 August 2022 and 19 August 2022 for the delay in resolving the complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord’s member of staff to do so, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving a response to her complaint.
The contract manager subsequently forwarded the complaint to be handled by the landlord’s complaint team. Within 3 days of the complaint being referred, the resident was contacted to establish the outstanding concerns. The resident advised that these were the air source heat pump and the roof repair. This was reasonable as the contact allowed the landlord to determine what outcomes the resident was seeking.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 2 November 2022. This was around 6 months after the May 2022 expression of dissatisfaction and 3 months after the complaints team were contacted. This was a significant unreasonable delay experienced by the resident and will inevitably have caused additional inconvenience and concern.
The resident escalated the complaint on 3 November 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2022 within 7 working days. It informed the resident that its position outlined in its first complaint response was unchanged. It signposted the resident to make a complaint about the leak to the bathroom, erection of scaffolding and the appointments that were missed. This was inappropriate as this was the landlord’s opportunity to consider the issues further and it failed to do so. As the landlord has accepted, the resident had raised these issues in her original complaint and these remained unaddressed by the landlord.
This Service informed the landlord that its final complaint response did not meet the obligations within the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and requested that it carry out a further review of the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate as the landlord had not fully reviewed all of the issues that the resident had submitted in May 2022. The landlord had not reviewed the resident’s complaint in its entirety and its complaints process was the opportunity for it to do so.
The landlord provided a revised stage 2 complaint response on 6 January 2023. This contained an inaccuracy as it stated that its complaint response was made in November 2021, when it should have read November 2022. It also stated that the resident had not complained about the mould and the damage to her belongings when these had been discussed with its gas contract manager. Also, it disputed that the resident had raised the amount of time that the scaffolding had been erected to the property as a complaint.
The complaint response acknowledged its complaint handling failures and that communication with the resident had been poor. The compensation award was increased to £700. This was broken down as £250 for its complaint handling failures, £150 for the resident’s time and trouble making the complaint, £150 for the delays she had experienced, £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced and £50 for the additional energy charges.
The landlord undertook a further review of its complaint handling on 3 November 2023. This explained that it understood that the air source heat pump had been working since October 2023 and outlined the works it planned to the roof to resolve the water penetration. It also accepted that the resident had experienced delays in getting the repairs resolved, experienced distress and frustration and that appointments arranged with its contractors had not been attended.
The landlord increased it compensation offer to £1,500, including an award of £350 specifically for the complaint handling failures. This was a reasonable award for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the delays in receiving its complaints responses, including having to contact this Service to obtain its complaint response. However, the landlord took 10 months beyond the end of the complaints process to fully recognise its failings and make a proportionate compensation offer.
It is noted that the resident had requested compensation of £1,500 to the landlord and this is the figure that the landlord assessed that the resident was entitled to. Therefore, it would have been expedient for the landlord to have made this assessment earlier and the landlord’s complaint response has recognised this.
Since this complaint, the landlord has informed us of changes to its complaint handling to improve its response times and to provide a better service to residents. It has also provided a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. In light of the assurances that the landlord has given this Service and that it needs sufficient time to embed such improvements, an order has not been made regarding improvements to complaint handling within this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the air source heat pump and solar panels.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water penetration into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has accepted that the resident experienced difficulties with the air source heat pump and solar panels. The landlord replaced the air source heat pump and installed an additional solar panel but there were delays of several months in this process. Since the replacement of the air source heat pump, the landlord responded to intermittent repair reports, sometimes reverting to the manufacturer to resolving the presenting issues. The landlord made an offer of redress for its failings but this was made well after the end of its formal complaints process. With regard to increased costs, the landlord has requested that the resident provide proof of these costs for its consideration.
The resident experienced an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving the water penetration into the property. It received its licence from Natural England in April 2020 and despite undertaking works to the chimney and roof tiles, this remains unresolved despite the resident consistently reporting continued water ingress over the course of at least 2 years.
The resident experienced significant delays throughout the complaint process in obtaining the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord informed the resident that she had not made complaints which she had discussed with its staff and the delay compounded the inconvenience experienced by the resident. Although a proportionate compensation offer was made, this was only achieved 10 months after its final complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the services failures identified within this report.
2. Provide an up-to-date schedule of works it intends to carry out to the chimney and roof to resolve the water penetration to the bedroom and kitchen.
3. Outline how and when it will post-inspect the works to ensure they have resolved the water penetration and offer a point of contact for her to use in the meantime.
If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is pay the resident the £1,500 compensation award it offered in its letter dated 3 November 2023.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to request proof of her energy costs between May 2022 and November 2023. Once received, the landlord should assess whether its compensation award of £50 should be increased to reflect the resident’s usage and provide a full explanation of its decision to her.
The landlord should write to the resident to request proof of damage to the furniture in her bedroom that occurred between May 2022 and November 2023. The landlord should assess whether it is liable for the damage and/or whether compensation is awarded. Alternatively, it should refer the claim to its insurers for it to make a decision about liability.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of this determination to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.