Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202004908)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004908

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

17 May 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for cooling equipment in his bathroom.
    2. Handling of matters after its final complaint response on 25 August 2020.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Handling of matters after the final complaint response, dated 25 August 2020

  1. After the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 25 August 2020, the landlord’s contractor completed an inspection of the property’s ventilation system on 26 October 2020. The resident subsequently raised several further concerns to this Service between October 2020 and January 2021, which did not form a part of his previous complaint. These included: concerns regarding the landlord not completing works to the ventilation ducting when he moved into the property in December 2019: rearranged appointments to replace the ventilation system: the open vents in his living room causing a draught: and repairs to his bathroom door handle.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. As the above issues have not been investigated by the landlord during its complaints process, they will not form part of this investigation. The resident should first raise them with the landlord before the Ombudsman can consider them.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds a fixed term tenancy agreement with the landlord for the property. The property has a ventilation unit, which extracts moisture from the bathroom (which has no window) and kitchen.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 August 2020. He said it had not responded to a request he made on 14 August 2020. He explained that “this is reference to a cooler fan in bathroom as explained needed or … a Shower if the above cannot be done. I want answers as this should have been done before l moved in property due to the hotter climate and being on 4th floor which is top floor of block.”
  3. In an internal staff email on 21 August 2020, one of the landlord’s officers explained that the resident had “called up last week and asked for a call back … he was advised that he would receive a call back within 5 working days. This hasn’t happened. [the resident] wanted to speak to [landlord officer] about having a hot/cold extractor fan fitted in his bathroom. Currently he does have a working fan but doesn’t blow cold air and has no window. I’ve advised and was very honest that the likelihood of us replacing a working unit for something he has requested is very slim. He hasn’t accepted this from me and advised with the hot recent weather and how he is on the top floor and heat rises he feels we should install this fan.”  
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 21 August 2020, following a call with him. It apologised for the failure to respond to his correspondence, and explained it would address the issue “internally”. It also acknowledged that the resident was not willing to close his complaint until the landlord installed the “cold air unit” he wanted, and asked if he therefore wanted to escalate his complaint.
  5. The resident responded and confirmed that he wished to escalate his complaint because he remained unhappy with the lack of communication. He reiterated that he wanted a “condensation fan” installed in his bathroom.
  6. The landlord called the resident about his complaint on 25 August 2020, and then wrote to him confirming what was discussed. It confirmed that it would not fit a fan in the resident’s bathroom, but the resident could explore the options of fitting one if he sought permission beforehand. The landlord explained that if the resident felt the extraction fan was not strong enough, or not operating as it should, then the landlord could inspect it. The landlord said the resident had now exhausted its complaints procedure, and he could approach a designated person or this Service if he remained unhappy.
  7. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy that it closed his complaint without his permission, and the landlord reiterated the next steps he could take.
  8. In correspondence to this Service on 13 October 2020, the landlord advised that it would arrange for the present extractor fan to be serviced to ensure it was running as it should, but it did not install devices such as air conditioning to bring in cool air from external sources.
  9. The landlord received an inspection report on 9 November 2020, following its contractor visiting the property on 26 October 2020. The contractor reported that the ventilation unit appeared to be operating as it should and the property was not suffering from heat issues.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property and building, including kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attempt to resolve responsive repairs within 28 days.
  3. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is an assessment of hazards in rented homes that could affect occupants’ health. Local authorities (LAs) have enforcement powers where serious problems are found following an assessment. Tenants of a housing association would first need to make a complaint about such a potential risk to their landlord, before asking the LA to assess their home.
  4. The HHSRS guidance lists excess heat as a potential risk in a home, specifically “excessively high indoor air temperatures”.
  5. As explained in the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the property. This usually includes repairing fixtures and fittings that were part of the property when the tenancy started. There is no requirement for a landlord to make improvements to a property, unless they are related to a health and safety risk or disability.
  6. In response to the resident’s request for equipment to cool his bathroom, the landlord explained why it would not provide it. It also explained the options he had for installing the equipment himself. This response to the resident’s specific request for additional equipment in his home was not unreasonable, as such action would generally fall under the category of an improvement, which the landlord was not obliged to provide (unless there was a health and safety need).
  7. While the landlord was not obliged to provide the equipment the resident wanted, it was obliged to maintain the property in a way that avoided hazards and risks to safety. The HHSRS guidance makes it clear that excessive heat, as the resident was reporting, is a potential risk. The reasonable action for the landlord, therefore, was to inspect the property, to assure itself and the resident as to whether there was or was not a heat problem. None of the evidence provided for this investigation indicates the landlord did so at the time of the resident’s reports. Without that inspection, the landlord could not know whether there was a heat problem or not, and so the basis on which it declined to take further action was not reasonable. It is understandable that the landlord focused on the resident’s request for equipment, but the omission of a consideration of why the resident was asking was a failure.
  8. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord did eventually commission an inspection at the end of October 2020. That was approximately two months after the resident’s reports, and well outside its 28-day responsive repair target. Furthermore, the resident reported the heat issue in August – one of the hottest months – but the landlord’s inspection was in late October, when temperatures are usually significantly lower. In the circumstances, it was obviously important to have acted quickly to inspect when the ambient temperatures (which, logically, may have been a factor) were still relevant to the issue the resident was reporting.
  9. It is evident that the resident expected a response to his enquiries with the landlord within five working days, which is what he said he had been told. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for not meeting the resident’s expectations, and explained how it would address the matter with its staff. The landlord’s apology, and explanation, were proportionate and appropriate to its failure to respond to the enquiry within five days.
  10. The landlord handled and responded to the resident’s complaint within very short timeframes. It clearly explained its decision not to provide the equipment he wanted. However, it did not identify or consider the underlying grounds for the resident’s request. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that one of the goals of any complaints process is to consider a complaint from an impartial and objective perspective, in order to identify any potential flaws or issues overlooked by the operations departments dealing with the matter. That does not appear to have happened in this case, because the possible causal link between the resident’s request for cooling equipment, and a potential excessive heat problem was an obvious one, that should have at least been picked up during the complaints process.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for cooling equipment was unreasonable because it did not consider whether there may be an underlying heat issue, or inspect to satisfy itself and the resident. It then failed to consider this aspect in its complaint investigations.

Orders

  1. In light of the delay, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay him £200 compensation.
  2. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should inform this Service when payment has been made.