From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Octavia Housing (202323466)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323466

Octavia Housing

27 August 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat. The resident lives with her 2 children. She told us they both have asthma, and she also has some health vulnerabilities. The landlord was aware of vulnerabilities within the household.
  2. On 29 July 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident regarding its response to her reports of heating issues at the property. It stated:
    1. The issues were due to “air build up” in the heating system.
    2. Bleeding the radiators was the resident’s responsibility and it directed her to its repairs handbook. 
  3. Between October 2022 and December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions regarding the heating. She:
    1. Said the heating had “not worked properly” since 2018 and that contractors had attended 10 times since May 2022.
    2. Told it each time a contractor attends they bleed the radiators and the issues return within a few days.
    3. Said she wanted a heat loss survey.
    4. Stated she was using oil radiators to heat the property.
    5. Told it her daughter’s asthma was getting worse and she was in “dire need of help”.
  4. Between October 2022 and December 2022, the landlord sent contractors to the property 4 times.
  5. On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). She said:
    1. She needed the central heating rectified as a “matter of urgency”.
    2. She was “residing in one room” with her 2 children because it was so cold.
    3. She could not afford to use a plug-in heater constantly.
    4. The cold was exacerbating her daughter’s asthma and affecting her mental health.
  6. On 15 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It:
    1. Said a de-aerator had been installed at the property on 10 February 2023 which would “automatically let air out of the system”. It stated this should resolve the heating issue.
    2. Awarded £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the heating issues.
  7. On 22 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She told it the issues with the heating remained ongoing. On 9 November 2023 a contractor attended the property. Its notes stated the air admittance valve “might require moving”.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 1 December 2023.
  9. On 4 January 2024 the contractor said it had not heard from the resident and  closed the job.
  10. On 18 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It:
    1. Stated its heating contractor had attended the property on 12 July 2024 and “all heating was left working”.
    2. Acknowledged its customer service “had not been to the standard it would expect” and said its stage 1 response was “unfair”.
    3. Apologised for the delays and impact the issue had caused the resident and her family.

Events since the end of the complaints process

  1. Between November 2024 and February 2025, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times and said the heating was not working properly. The landlord’s contractor attended 4 times between these dates. On 6 February 2025 its contractor said all the thermostatic radiator valves needed to be replaced.
  2. The landlord said it rang the resident to book the recommended works 4 times between 27 February 2025 and 28 March 2025. It stated it left messages on the resident’s answerphone on each occasion but there was no response.
  3. On 19 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had reviewed her closed stage 1 and 2 complaints alongside gathering evidence for this Service. It:
    1. Apologised for the time it had taken to find a “long term solution” to the heating issues.
    2. Said its contractor would attend the property on 20 June 2025 to replace the thermostatic radiator valves (TRV), relocate the air admittance valve (AAV) and carry out a power flush of the system.
    3. Awarded an additional £700 compensation to the resident

This was broken down as:

  1. £500 for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in establishing the root cause of the heating issues.
  2. • £100 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. • £100 for the delay is issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  1. The landlord also offered an additional £100 compensation for a separate complaint issue not related to this complaint.
  1. On 25 June 2025 the landlord told us it had arranged for all of the radiators in the property to be replaced as a “heating system improvement measure”. It said this work would be completed in August 2025.
  2. The resident informed us on 26 August 2025 that the heating has not yet been replaced and she has not been given a date for the replacement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told us her health and wellbeing, and that of her children, has been impacted by the landlord’s handling of her reports of heating issues in the property. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for her and his family. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a negative impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s health concerns.
  2. The resident has referred to experiencing issues with the heating in the property since 2018. In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues which are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme). This is usually 12 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, this investigation is focused only on the heating issues reported in 2022. Earlier reports of issues have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues at the property

  1. We have found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues in the property.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the heating system in the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine works within 15 working days.
  3. Between October 2022 and December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord more than 5 times to report heating issues with 3 radiators at the property. On each occasion the landlord sent a contractor within its repairs policy timescales. This was positive. However, the evidence showed that a pattern emerged whereby the heating was left working after each visit but within a short timeframe, sometimes the same day, the issues would arise again. These repeated visits over a short period of times caused inconvenience for the resident as she had to make herself available for numerous appointments at short notice.
  4. On 31 October 2022 the resident told the landlord the radiators were being bled on each visit and requested a long-term solution. On 25 November 2022 she emailed it again. She explained a contractor had carried out a “power flush” that day and the radiators were “already cold again”. It was reasonable for the resident to request further investigation and a different approach.
  5. On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive. She said she was “at her wits end” and that her anxiety was “through the roof”. Additionally, there were further examples in the case of the resident telling the landlord that her family were impacted by the heating issues at the property. She told it she was using a temporary oil radiator, and that the cold was affecting her children’s asthma.
  6. There was no evidence the landlord responded to these concerns, undertook a risk assessment of the situation or thought about how it could support the resident and her children. The landlord’s lack of communication demonstrated a lack of empathy for the resident and her circumstances. This was a failing. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord considered offering temporary heaters to replace the radiators that were not working properly. The resident told the landlord she was using an oil radiator to heat the property. The landlord’s compensation policy indicated it would offer discretionary payments of £2.15 per heater per day where residents were using additional heating. However, there was no evidence the landlord considered these as potential options to support the resident.
  7. The landlord told us the resident was never left with no heating at the property, and the resident has not disputed this. We are aware that the discretionary compensation payments may only apply in the event of total heating loss at the property. However, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident regarding her energy usage during this period and considers an offer of redress for this in line with its policy. This is because she told the landlord she was using a temporary heater due to the heating issues.
  8. On 13 January 2023 the landlord sent its contractor to the property to test the heating system. The landlord confirmed that the contractor “found air in the system” but was unable to establish the reason why. It was positive that the landlord organised further investigation at this point. On 10 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor installed a de-aerator in the heating system which it said it believed would resolve the issues. This was also reasonable. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023 to tell it the heating issues had not been resolved. There was no evidence the landlord responded to this, which was a failing.
  9. The landlord provided some internal emails from February 2023. The emails said it was “clear the resident hadn’t been listened to” and the “possibility of an underlying issue had been dismissed”. It said that it must learn from the case and ensure issues were resolved within 3 visits. It was positive the landlord reflected on the case internally. However, given this acknowledgement we would have expected a more proactive response to solving the heating issues moving forwards. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord reflected on the case again until June 2025. Additionally, the problems with the heating remained as of August 2025. This was over 2 years later. These were significant and unacceptable delays which would likely have caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  10. We have noted that throughout the case there were periods of time where the resident did not contact the landlord. For example, there was no evidence that she reported heating issues between March 2023 and November 2023. We recognise this was likely to be because the weather was warmer and she was not using the heating. The landlord should have recognised this and proceeded with establishing the cause of the issues during this time rather than waiting for the resident to report the problem again in the colder months. There was no evidence it was proactive during the period between March 2023 and November 2023. This was a failing which contributed to the delays in resolving the issues for the resident.
  11. On 9 November 2023 the landlord sent a new contractor to the property. This was due to an organisational change. The contractor stated that the air admittance valve may require moving. The landlord repairs notes state the contractor attempted to contact the resident following this visit in order to arrange the works. On 4 January 2024 the landlord noted the contractor had closed the job due to “no response” from the resident. We have noted the landlord’s timeline states the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 1 December 2023. It was evident the landlord was aware the issue was ongoing. The decision to close the case was a failing which contributed to the delays, time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman appreciates some repairs are complex and it may have been difficult to identify the cause of heating issues. This is why investigations must be managed effectively and handled with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. When the heating issues repeatedly returned, we would have expected the landlord to arrange further investigations and carry out further works to resolve the reoccurrence of the issues. However, the landlord was slow to do this.
  13. On 18 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that all of the heating had been “left working” on the contractor’s previous visit. This response did not take into consideration the multiple times throughout the case when the heating had been left working and the issues had then reappeared. The cause of the problem had not been identified or solved, and this response was therefore not reasonable.
  14. In October 2024 the contractor conducted a heating service and stated it was working. However, in November 2024 the resident raised concerns again which she continued to do until she raised a legal disrepair claim on 13 March 2025. The landlord’s repairs notes stated the contractor attended the property 4 times between November 2024 and February 2025. On 6 February 2025 a senior engineer attended the property. Its notes said all of the thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) needed replacing. This solution was over 2 years after the resident’s original complaint.
  15. The landlord said it called the resident 4 times in March 2025 to book these works. It is unclear why it could not contact her or what happened between March 2025 and June 2025. If landlords are unable to make contact by phone, they should try alternative methods such as email, letters or home visits. There is no evidence the landlord did this until it wrote to the resident on 19 June 2025. It said it had reviewed the case and acknowledged its failures in managing the issues raised by the resident and said it would replace the TRVs on 20 June 2025. Furthermore, it awarded £500 compensation, in addition to the £100 previously awarded in its stage 1 complaint response. This was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, this was only offered to the resident in June 2025, 11 months after the end of the complaints process.
  16. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process and, in assessing this, we consider the reasonableness of any offers made during the complaints process. Where a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, we may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process.
  17. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble encountered by the resident was appropriate. In doing so, we refer to our Remedies Guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. We do not consider the £600 awarded proportionately reflected the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the loss and enjoyment of her home and the failings identified in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident, often over a prolonged period of time.
  18. The landlord told us it would replace all of the radiators in the property on 22 August 2025. However, the resident told us, on 26 August 2025 the radiator replacement works remain outstanding. Therefore, we order the landlord to replace the resident’s radiators within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Complaint Handling

  1. We have found maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a 2-stage process. Its policy from the time of the complaint said it would acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 3 working days of being received. The policy said the landlord aimed to issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
  3. The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt.
  4. The landlord issued its first stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 July 2022. However, the resident continued to raise the same issues throughout October 2022 and November 2022. Despite this, it was not until the resident emailed her complaint to the landlord’s chief executive, on 9 January 2023, that a second stage 1 complaint was acknowledged. This was a failing and the resident would have been inconvenienced by this delay and by having to chase for a response to her concerns.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 January 2023. On 12 January 2023 the landlord called the resident and sent her an acknowledgement letter. This was reasonable as it was in line with its complaints policy.
  6. On 6 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to request an extension for providing its response. It said it aimed to respond by 10 February 2023. We have noted the stage 1 complaint response was issued on 15 February 2023 and therefore outside of its agreed timescales. However, this was a minor delay which would have had minimal impact on the resident.
  7. The landlord said, in its complaints timeline, that the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 1 December 2023. However, there was no evidence the landlord acknowledged this until 4 February 2024. This was over 2 months outside of its published timescales. The landlord’s lack of communication regarding the resident’s complaint may have given her the impression that the landlord was unsympathetic to her circumstances. This was a failing.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2024. This meant the resident waited over 7 months for a response from when she escalated her complaint on 1 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint handling delays at stage 2 in its final complaint response. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation for the delays. This was a further failing.
  9. On 19 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had reviewed the complaint and awarded £200 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling delays for this complaint. While the compensation was reasonable, it is a concern the award has only recently been made and appears to have required the resident to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman for the landlord to reassess its position and make an appropriate offer. Given the landlord did not use its complaints process to offer this redress and the lengthy period since the final complaint response was issued, we find there was maladministration, although the landlord does not need to pay more compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of heating issues at the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from someone at director level or above for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
    2. Complete the work to replace all of the radiators in the property, if it has not done so already.
    3. Pay the resident a total of £1100 compensation. This is inclusive of any amounts of compensation already paid and is broken down as follows:
      1. £200 previously awarded in recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
      2. £500 previously awarded for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the landlord’s handling of the heating issues at the resident’s property.
      3. An additional £400 in recognition of the distress, time, trouble and inconvenience the resident encountered, from the landlord’s handling of the heating issues at the resident’s property.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management case review of the findings in this report and identify any areas for improvement. The review should be conducted by someone independent of the service area which are responsible for responding to the heating issues. The landlord should draft a report and action plan, on its findings. A copy of the report must also be provided to this service and the resident. It must include, but is not exclusive to, a review of the following:
    1. The landlord’s delay in carrying out an investigation into the cause of the heating issues at the property.
    2. The landlord’s failure to consider the resident, and her family’s, vulnerabilities.
    3. How the landlord communicated with its contractor regarding the heating repairs.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident during November 2025 to check the heating issues have been fully resolved after the system has been replaced.
  2. We recommend the landlord reimburse the resident for her increased energy usage, for the period in which she used additional electric heaters, in line with its compensation policy.