Midland Heart Limited (202125636)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125636

Midland Heart Limited

10 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughts from the windows throughout the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her daughter being burnt on a storage heater.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in November 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities and receives support.
The tenancy agreement says:
1. The landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the home including space heating and heating water.
2. The resident is responsible to report anything which is in disrepair which the landlord is responsible to repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that repairs are carried out within 24 hours for emergency repairs and 20 working days for routine repairs.
This service’s spotlight report on heating and hot water says:
1. Landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents.
2. Landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a system that identifies and categorises various hazards that can be found in a home. The landlord is responsible for avoiding or at least minimising these hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies in the home. The fault or deficiency can arise because of the way the property was designed, built, wear and tear or lack of repairs. The HHSRS assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property and the best way of dealing with them.
The HHSRS recognises that health threats can occur from cold indoor temperatures. A healthy indoor temperature is around 21C. Below 19C there is small risk of health effects and below 16C there are serious health risks especially for the elderly. Health effects include respiratory illnesses such as flu, pneumonia and bronchitis, heart attacks, strokes, hypothermia, blood pressure, low immune performance, worsening arthritis. Preventative measures include attending to:
1. Appropriate levels of thermal insulation to minimise heat loss.
2. Appropriate heating system safely and properly installed and maintained and controllable by occupant.
3. Appropriate properly installed and maintained occupant controllable low-level background ventilation without too much heat loss or draughts.
4. Means for rapid ventilation at times of high moisture production in kitchens and bathrooms through fans.
5. Properly sited and sized permanent openings (For example air bricks and open-able windows) and properly fitting butt-jointed floor boarding, doors and windows.
The landlord’s operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. Where the landlord is unable to respond within timescales it will agree an appropriate extension to respond.
Compensation is a final option for the landlord and will only be paid in cases where the loss or suffering is considered to warrant a payment, or where the customer has suffered significant inconvenience as a result of the landlord or its contractors actions. Compensation will be limited and in accordance with its compensation matrix as appropriate.

Summary of events

On 19 April 2021 the landlord’s repairs record showed a repair to assess the storage heaters throughout the resident’s home. The record said:
1. That the customer had checked the settings however the electric bills were high.
2. The landlord attended on 29 April 2021 and advised the resident to contact her energy supplier. It said that the resident needed to ensure that she was on economy 7 setting and to get “the tails” connected into the meter.
3. The landlord tested the immersion heater elements, both of which were working. It reset the economy 7 timer so that it was working correctly.
4. The off-peak consumer unit, fitted when the quantum heaters were put in, had never been connected to the meter so the tenant had to use the boost which cost more.
On the same day a further repair was logged for draughts coming through the living room, kitchen and bedroom windows. The repair was referred to the landlord’s contractor who attended on 13 May 2021. The notes on the record said that there were gaps around the windows causing draughts and that these needed to be fixed.
On 7 June 2021 the resident submitted a repair and home improvement form to the landlord. The form said that the resident wanted to check on outstanding repairs which included the heating system. It said that she had high electric bills, her repairs had not been completed and that she had tried for a number of years to get the repairs done to no avail. It also said that she had two small children, she had a disability and mental health illness and that the home was no longer fit for her family.
The landlord responded on the same day. It said it had tried to call the resident to get more information about the repairs. Following a conversation with its area surveyor it had arranged for a repair to the kitchen floor and its contractor would make contact by 12 July 2021. It asked the resident to provide more information about a bathroom repair and asked what issues she was experiencing with the economy 7 and heating system.
On 16 June 2021 the resident responded to the landlord. She said that she had tried to get the economy 7 connected several times with different electric suppliers who had told her this had to be done privately. She said that she did not have the money to do this and that without being on economy 7 her electric bills were high. This was putting her into debt.
The landlord responded and said that it had previously sent an electrician out to assess the storage heaters. It had taken the opportunity to forward this issue to its electrical surveyor for guidance and it would contact the resident once it received an update.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord’s repairs log said, “check the tails and troubleshoot with the resident to make sure all the switches are on for the storage heaters”. The landlord attended on 5 July 2021 and said it had put a “KMF” switch in and that the “tails” had not yet been powered up by the supply company. It said that all the supplier needed to do was supply tails from the meter to the “KMF” so that the heaters would work.
On 8 July 2021 the landlord’s records showed that its contractor attended the resident’s home to carry out work to the windows. It said it had fitted a new 35/35 cylinder and gold handle to the door. It also fitted new restricted hinges and locking window handles in the living room and two bedrooms. It believed that these repairs would have made a significant improvement to the windows and said it would be happy to attend again if required.
On 7 December 2021 the resident reported issues with the storage heaters not working properly. The landlord’s record said, “the heaters were getting too hot, were dangerous and wires needed fitting to the box for the economy 7 to work”. It also said that the children’s room was cold. It raised a repairs order to assess why the heaters were not working. The landlord attended on 9 December 2021. The notes said, “this has been going on for nearly 2 years and the economy 7 had not been connected to the meter”. On the landlord’s last visit, it had put in a KMF, it had now put in tails from the KMF ready to connect to the meter. It had spoken to the resident’s supplier and a date had been arranged for 4 January 2022 for the meter to be changed for an economy 7 meter and be connected.
On 13 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she was writing to raise an issue about her heating. She said the heating had been changed to storage heaters over 2 years ago and they had never been connected properly to economy 7. She said her home was freezing and she had 2 small children. Her family were all sleeping in one room as the electric bills were too high. She had anxiety and depression which was being affected by the situation. She was in a tier 4 property which was meant to be temporary. She said it was listed as a 2-bedroom tier 4 property which came with additional support because of certain personal conditions she had. She said she had asked for help to move and supplied medical evidence. She said that her GP felt that the home was starting to impact on her. She felt that no one bothered to look into records and see that she was in temporary accommodation and reasons why she needed to move.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord’s records showed “electrical, no heating through reinstall, connect the tails on the economy 7 so system can work”. The landlord attended the same day, connected up the tails into the supplier’s isolator. It said it had to fetch an earth block as the supplier had not connected it up, the main earth for the off peak was now connected and it set up all the heaters so they would work that evening.
On 24 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s insurance team. She said that the email was in regard to a complaint she had already made with the landlord, who had not yet responded, she had tried to email regarding her complaint but still had heard nothing. She asked for someone to get in touch and not ignore her. She wanted her complaint to be taken seriously. She felt she had been very patient and tolerant given the circumstances.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say that following communication with its insurance team, the complaint had been passed to the complaints team for formal investigation. It said:
1. The complaint was about:
  1. loss of heating.
  2. broken windows.
  3. concerns not being addressed sooner.
2. The complaint was being investigated and it would provide a response by 14 February 2022.
3. Liaison with its insurance team would continue with regard to the resident’s daughter being burnt on the storage heater.
4. If the resident wanted to discuss her complaint to let the landlord know and it would arrange to telephone her.
The resident responded the same day and said she would like a telephone call to discuss her complaint. The landlord responded on 1 February 2022 to confirm it would call her by the end of the week.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord’s records said, “please show tenant how to work storage heaters for formal complaint”. The landlord attended on 8 February 2022. It said it had adjusted the heater in the hallway as this may not have been necessary as the heat from the other rooms would keep the hallway warm. It advised the resident to keep the kitchen door closed when not cooking, as there was only a panel heater which she did not use. The landlord’s records said that the resident was turning the heaters down to 14 degrees at night and then putting the boost on in the day, along with convector heaters, not realising that this would not give the heat she wanted. The landlord advised the resident to leave the heaters set as they were.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 14 February 2022:
1. It thanked the resident for bringing her concerns to its attention through her email to its insurance team on 24 January 2022.
2. It said it had investigated her concerns and was writing to provide its findings. It summarised the complaint as:
  1. The resident’s reports of no heating throughout the property.
  2. Reports of draughts through the windows.
3. As part of the investigation, it said it had reviewed its internal systems and spoken to the maintenance team.
4. In 2017 it renewed the storage heaters in the resident’s property. As part of the installation, it required the resident’s supplier to have some involvement as the issue involved both the heaters (which were the landlord’s responsibility) and the electric meter (which was the supplier’s responsibility).
5. The electrician attended the resident’s home to assess the issue with the heating, and realised on the first visit that the resident needed to contact her supplier for them to carry out works to the isolator into the electricity meter. The landlord’s electrician did not have permission to do this and was unable to resolve the issue.
6. In December 2021, the resident reported that she still did not have any heating in her home. The landlord’s electrician attended again and spoke with the resident’s supplier on her behalf, whilst she was present. An appointment was made for 4 January 2022 for the supplier to install a new isolator. However, the supplier informed the resident that it would not be able to finish the works as completing the work to connect the heaters was not a service it provided. With this in mind, the electrician re-attended and completed the work to ensure that all heaters were left in good working order.
7. The landlord recognised that the resident had been provided with conflicting advice through the process and apologised that it had taken so long to resolve the issue.
8. The landlord advised the resident to also raise this with her supplier directly as the delay in getting the heating resolved could have been shorter if the supplier had attended and resolved the issue at the appointment in January.
9. The landlord said it understood that the resident had been passed between the landlord and the supplier and this had not been a straightforward process. It said it had discussed with the resident that it would arrange for an electrician to visit and show the resident how the heaters worked. The resident had confirmed that the heating was now on and working.
10. The resident reported on a few occasions over the years that the windows in her home were draughty. In May 2021 the landlord had attended to assess the draught. It was passed to its subcontractors to complete repairs.
11. It had liaised with its area surveyor and would book an appointment for a further assessment of the windows. It was waiting for a date for this to go ahead and would be in touch with the resident as soon as it had a date.
12. On a separate matter, the landlord was aware that the resident had a claim with its insurance team. The landlord stressed that the insurance team would be overseeing the claim regarding the issues the resident had experienced. This was with physical and mental wellbeing. It confirmed that the claim was with the insurance department and was therefore not part of this complaint.
13. To conclude its investigation, it would be upholding the complaint because of the miscommunication regarding the responsibility of the repair. The landlord apologised that the resident had to raise a complaint for her concerns to be addressed. It said it would continue to oversee the complaint and the outstanding repairs to ensure that the resident experienced no further delays. Once this was complete, it would assess the complaint in its entirety and award compensation in line with its compensation matrix.
On 15 February 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She did not feel that the landlord had answered her questions. She said:
1. She wanted to know why she and her children had been left with defective heaters and big gaps in her windows. She felt that the landlord had dismissed her concerns for 6 years.
2. She had mental health issues. She was confused to the point where she just wanted to walk out of the house and never go back.
3. She asked whose responsibility it was to provide efficient warmth to the home. The landlord had said that it was not its job to connect the heaters in the property. She had been left chasing electricity suppliers because the landlord said it was not its responsibility. She had changed electric suppliers 4 times believing what the landlord had told her.
4. The landlord left her and her family in these conditions and never offered any other alternative options even though she reported it several times.
5. Her children got minor burns 3 times from the heaters, each time she reported it to the landlord and was still left in a horrible situation.
6. The landlord had said it was the electricity suppliers’ job to fit the tails. After 4 years of saying this, she wanted to know why the electrician connected the tails in the end and the suppliers stuck to their word.
7. She was told to get a solicitor, provide dates and talk to different people. It was all too much and she felt it was all unnecessary for her daughters and her to keep going through.
On 16 February 2022 the resident received an email from her energy supplier. It said that following her call, it confirmed that the landlord was responsible for connecting the tails to the fuse box. The supplier was only responsible for upgrading the meter tails.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord’s records showed that it contacted its contractor to arrange for the window draughts to be looked at. On 8 March 2022 the landlord’s records showed that it attended the resident’s home to ease and adjust the windows in the lounge and bedroom.
On 29 March 2022 this service wrote to the landlord to ask for the resident’s complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It thanked the resident for her patience whilst it finalised her complaint. It said:
1. It was pleased to hear that the storage heaters were working and the contractor had attended and improved the windows.
2. It had discussed during a telephone call that there were a few edits that could be made to the profile on the landlord’s records to improve the resident’s chances of securing a new home. It said she might be eligible for a mutual exchange and provided website details.
3. It thanked the resident for allowing it time to fully investigate the complaint. In light of service failures experienced it was awarding £255. This was £50 for miscommunication about the storage heater repair, £100 for inconvenience, £70 for incomplete repairs to windows and £25 for the delay in assessing the compensation.
On 12 April 2022 the resident wrote to this service. She had received the above response and compensation offer and did not fully understand it, or whether the calculations were correct. She said it was confusing and causing her ill health due to this going on for years.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord wrote to this service. It said it had been liaising with the resident and looking to work in partnership with her and her support worker. It was not currently looking to escalate to stage 2 following a conversation with the resident, however a member of the team was going to review the compensation calculation to ensure it was fair. The landlord said that the resident was happy with this and it would escalate to stage 2 if the resident wanted to.
On 13 May 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. That in the landlord’s response it had held the supplier responsible and that she and her two children had no heat for 5 years. She said that no alternative heating was provided for those 5 years and that she and her children had to sleep in one room due to how cold the house was.
2. She said that she did not agree with the amount of compensation offered.
3. She said that she had to keep going back and forth in a battle to get her heaters turned on when this should never have been her responsibility.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 10 June 2022:
1. The landlord thanked the resident for providing her reasons for escalation.
2. It appreciated the phone call the same day and said that the resident had explained that the landlord had not taken responsibility for the heating not working nor considered the full period of time the heating required repair.
3. The resident had said that the compensation offer was not sufficient due to the length of time she was without heating and the poor communication regarding this.
4. The landlord said it was good to hear that the windows had been repaired and it was sorry for the poor experience.
5. In recognition of the poor workmanship she experienced in June 2021, it was awarding the following compensation in light of its service failure:
  1. For the poor workmanship identified in relation to the window repair £1 per day from when the contractor attended in June 2021. This totalled £243.
  2. For the inconvenience £170 was awarded.
6. The second issue was that the storage heaters were upgraded in 2017. The resident had informed the landlord in her complaint that she experienced issues with the heating in her home. As part of its review, it had evaluated the history and liaised with the electricians in attendance. It had been useful to discuss this with the resident and gain her perspective on this.
7. It explained that it recorded all incoming calls and it was unable to find any evidence of reports to the landlord about heating prior to April 2021. However, it recognised that following this date that it could have given clearer information on each visit about what was required from the supplier and could have supported her more with getting the supplier to carry out its work. It apologised for this.
8. It said it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and was working with its teams to ensure clearer language was used when explaining repairs issues and how to ensure suppliers fixed the root cause.
9. As agreed with the resident, in recognition of the inconvenience that the heating system caused over a period of time, it was awarding the following compensation:
  1. For the delay identified from when the landlord had it recorded that there was an issue in April 2021 it awarded £273.
  2. For the inconvenience £170 was awarded.
  3. For the delay in assessing the compensation £50.
10. It said it had explained during the telephone call that it wanted to say how sorry it was for the experience. Whilst it could not change the past, it hoped it had explained how it would have changed its approach and was ensuring that it communicated better with customers.
11. Its total offer was £906 and the resident had confirmed that she was happy to accept this.
12. It explained that the financial loss outlined and the personal injury claim were being addressed via its insurance company. It confirmed that this was the right place for this to be considered by the appropriate medical and loss adjustor specialists and that they would contact the resident and update her regarding the outcome of this.
On 13 June 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident:
1. Thanked the landlord for its response and said it felt good to finally talk to someone and move this to some kind of resolution.
2. Thanked the landlord for the offer of compensation and said she would gladly accept this and provided her bank account details for the landlord to make the payment.
3. She said that in the landlord’s response it had said it could only award compensation from 2021 because there were no records of her calling to let them know about the repair that was needed. She said she knew this not to be true.
4. She said it felt wrong and unjust that she was being held responsible when in fact the heaters had never needed repairing. The heaters were brand new and the landlord’s contractor had never finished the job of installing them properly.
5. She said that she had been expected, for over 5 years, to use a booster button on the uninstalled heaters when in fact this should only have been used when necessary.
6. The resident said that from 2017 to date, she did not feel it was ever her responsibility and should not be her responsibility to prove otherwise with repairs being logged. She said that for this part of her complaint she wanted this service to investigate.
7. She accepted everything that the landlord had said, the apology and the compensation and that it had acknowledged the troubles over the past year to her and her family.
The landlord’s response dated 10 June 2022 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home, enjoyment, health and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a service failure. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty; raised expectations; inconvenience; strong sense of being treated differently; and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, young children, disability, dependant with disability and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating in the property.

This service empathises that the resident struggled to get the economy 7 timers connected to her heaters and that this caused her distress. During the investigation the resident acknowledged to this service that the landlord had explained to her that she needed to contact her supplier to get the timers connected. She had attempted this over a long period of time but the supplier had insisted this was not their responsibility. She felt she had been passed between her supplier and landlord without being able to resolve the situation.
During the investigation the landlord advised this service:
1. That the storage heaters were upgraded in 2017 through its planned programme of renewals. It had received no further contact from the resident until April 2021 in relation to the heating, where she informed the landlord that her heating bills were high.
2. The landlord said it had advised the resident during installation that using timers to heat the property would be more cost efficient and that in order for the timers to be connected to the electric meter, the resident needed to contact her energy supplier. The landlord said this was explained to the resident at the time of installation in 2017 and again in 2021.
3. At the time of installation in 2017, it had connected the storage heaters to the mains electricity and these were in full working order. Additional work was required as outlined above in order for the timers to work. The landlord advised this service that the resident was never without heating or hot water.
4. The tails being connected by the electrical supplier would have enabled the use of the timer function rather than using the booster button for immediate heat. Neither the timer nor the booster would have contributed towards the resident’s access to heating in her home.
5. Between April 2021 and January 2022, several reports had been received from the resident to say that this was unresolved. The landlord’s electrician attended on multiple occasions and signposted the resident to her supplier.
6. After multiple attempts to signpost the resident, with her consent, the electrician contacted the supplier as a gesture of good will and arranged an appointment for 4 January 2022. The supplier attended but instead of connecting the tails to the meter, as requested by the electrician, a new isolator was fitted and the supplier failed to connect the tails.
7. The resident reported on 13 January 2022 that she was without heating. The electrician attended the same day and connected the tails to the isolator as it was no longer attached to the meter and therefore the landlord was in a position to carry out the reconnection.
8. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint she had said she did not know how to use the storage heaters. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend to show her. She had since confirmed that she was now able to use them.
The landlord’s repairs records, provided as evidence for this investigation, showed no reports about heating issues prior to April 2021. The resident was unable to confirm to this service when she first reported the issue with the timers not being connected, however advised that she had been trying to resolve the situation for a prolonged period since the installation of the heaters.
The landlord acknowledged its service failure in its stage 2 response, that it had provided incorrect information and that it could have supported the resident earlier through contacting the supplier itself. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that the resident had support from a family friend who helped her with a number of tasks to enable her to live in her home.
In recognition of its service failure, the landlord apologised for the conflicting information it had given and offered compensation in the amount of £493. This was made up of £273 for the delay identified in resolving the issue from when the landlord was aware in April 2021, £170 for the inconvenience and £50 for the delay in assessing compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer to redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Whilst the landlord accepted responsibility from 2021, apologised and offered compensation, it did not go far enough to accept responsibility from 2017. During this time the resident did not have the benefits of what the heating system should have achieved. The installation of the heaters in 2017 was incomplete as the tails were not connected to allow the essential feature of the heaters to be used in storing heat economically.
This service appreciates that the resident was advised to contact her supplier in 2017 when the system was installed and again in 2021, however the landlord failed to consider whether the information was too technical for some residents to explain to the supplier and navigate to get the heaters working properly. The onus was placed on the resident to complete the commissioning of the heating system with her supplier to benefit from the timer function. This service’s spotlight report on heating says that landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly.
It would have been good practice, for the landlord when deciding to change the heaters in 2017, to have considered and assessed the system requirements needed to make the new heaters work. It should have considered liaising with suppliers and for a system to be in place before installation to ensure that the work could be fully completed. This would have enabled the landlord to have fully commissioned the system and enabled it to show resident’s how to operate the heaters to get the maximum benefits from them on completion of the installation.
The landlord had not completed the installation of the heaters in 2017 as the tails were not connected to allow the essential feature of the heaters to be used storing heat economically. Before the tails were connected the landlord attended on 23 June 2021 to fit a KMF switch. The landlord then said that the supplier needed to fit tails to the KMF switch. The fact that this switch was not fitted in 2017 further suggests that the landlord had not completed the installation for the heaters to work as intended.
When the supplier did attend in January 2022 the supplier connected an isolator switch to the meter and did not connect the tails. The landlord eventually attended and connected the tails to the isolator switch in January 2022 (5 years later).
By failing to properly manage the installation of the storage heaters they were never properly installed from 2017 to January 2022. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act as well as the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the home including space heating and heating water. With regard to repairs the resident is responsible for notifying the landlord when something becomes faulty. However, this was not a repair. It was not an item becoming faulty.
Whilst the landlord accepted responsibility from 2021 it did not go far enough to accept it from 2017. During this time the resident was unable to efficiently use the heating, had increased heating costs and lost the benefits of what the heating system should achieve.
The landlord said that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and was working with its teams to ensure clearer communication in resolving such issues in the future. However, the landlord should consider how it can support vulnerable residents with mental health to ensure that from the outset it has a system in place to ensure that future planned programmes consider the individual needs of its residents.
Therefore, this service considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident, which in this service’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughts throughout the property from her windows.

On 21 April 2021 the resident reported gaps in her windows which were making her home cold. The landlord attended on 13 May 2021 and referred works to its contractor who undertook work to the windows. The resident reported in January 2022 that the work undertaken had not resolved her concerns. The landlord carried out further work to reduce the gaps around the windows following the resident’s complaint. The resident confirmed that her home was then noticeably warmer.
The landlord’s repairs records showed no other reports being made in relation to the windows prior to April 2021. The resident was unable to provide any further evidence to suggest that she had previously reported any issues to the landlord.
The resident advised this service during this investigation that the landlord’s contractor had said that they were the wrong windows and that they had been replaced but was unable to confirm when this took place. The landlord confirmed that the windows had not been identified for replacement at the time of the complaint.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the experience the resident had in relation to window repairs. It offered compensation in the amount of £243 for the delays in window repairs and £170 for inconvenience.
The landlord put things right by instructing its contractor to inspect the windows and fill any gaps.
The landlord acted reasonably by apologising and offering compensation in the amount of £413.
The combination of the landlord’s apology, works carried out and compensation awarded represented appropriate redress for the service failures identified in the way it responded to the resident’s reports. In accordance with this service’s dispute resolution principles, it was fair in its assessment of the service failure and took steps to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.

During the complaints process the resident raised concerns about moving. The resident informed the landlord in June 2021 that she felt her home was not fit for her family. She raised this again on 13 January 2022 and said that she felt she had no support in moving home. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 5 April 2022 and provided information about how to mutually exchange.
As part of the evidence provided for this investigation the landlord has advised that it has requested additional information from the resident in relation to her requirements for a 3-bedroom home. The landlord advised that to date this information has not been received.
The landlord has provided advice in relation to moving home and requested information to try to assist the resident. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have followed up with the resident as it had not received the required information given that it was aware of her mental health and vulnerabilities.
The landlord confirmed to this service that the property has always been a general needs rented property. At no time has the property been supported accommodation or a tier 4 property as suggested by the resident. The landlord did state that the resident may have received floating support but that this was not provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move was reasonable as it had no further information from the resident in relation to her 3-bedroom requirements.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her daughter being burnt by the storage heater.

This service is not able to make rulings on causation of personal injury however we can look at how the landlord responded to the reports about the injury.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that the insurance claim would be dealt with by its insurance team and continued to confirm this through the stage 1 and 2 process.
The landlord’s records showed that the heater was getting too hot and the landlord confirmed to this service that for each report the landlord carried out a safety inspection of the heaters.
Both the landlord and resident confirmed to this service that the insurance claim is ongoing and that solicitors are involved.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report was therefore reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about heating.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughty windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an injury.

Reasons

The landlord failed to acknowledge that the heating system had not been fully commissioned when it was installed in 2017. It did not go far enough in its redress to acknowledge the distress this caused to the resident or how it could learn from its service failure for future planned programmes of work.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of draughty windows. It apologised for poor workmanship, completed repairs and awarded compensation.
The landlord provided advice and guidance on moving home to the resident but had insufficient information to assess the need for larger accommodation.
The landlord appropriately checked the storage heaters for safety and updated the resident on her insurance claim.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £2,156 made up as follows:
1. £1250 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident for the landlord’s failure to fully address and commission the heating system in 2017 to 2022.
2. £906 previously offered if not already paid.
The landlord is ordered to review this complaint as part of its learning to:
1. Consider what support can be offered in similar circumstances to vulnerable residents.
2. Where planned programme of works are scheduled how it can assist vulnerable residents who may find technical terms and information difficult to navigate.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and follow up to consider her housing requirements and provide any support it can in relation to moving home.