Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202402459)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402459

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

28 March 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 repairs to the boiler, loss of heating, and loss of running water.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident was pregnant with her fourth child during the complaint, which the landlord was aware of. It is also aware the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 November 2023 detailing how to turn on the water supply. On 1 December 2023 the landlord completed a gas and uncap service at the property. The landlord had ordered parts for repairs to the boiler on 7 February 2024. The repair date was re-arranged for 14 February 2024 but its contractor did not attend due to time restraints. A revisit was booked for 15 March 2024.
  3. The resident complained on 6 March 2024 that the boiler was not working and there were heating issues in the property. The resident also said there was no running water. A visit by the landlord’s staff took place during the day on 21 March 2024. The resident told the staff member her position at that stage, she was due to give birth and her mental health was affected by the conditions of the property. The landlord raised repairs to address no running water on this date. The landlord’s contractors attempted to visit the property later that day, but there was no access.
  4. The resident complained about no running water and heating issues in the property on 19 April 2024. The resident wanted to be compensated for her experience and the landlord’s inaction. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 April 2024 and said a complaint response was due by 9 May 2024. The landlord and resident on 9 May 2024 extended the complaint response deadline to 23 May 2024.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on 21 May 2024 and said contractors would attend on 28 May 2024. The landlord was attempting to repair the boiler and no running water. It outlined a history of visits to the property and said contractors were unable to attend on 15 March 2024, 21 March 2024 (twice by separate contractors), and 3 May 2024. It said contractors needed to know the resident’s availability and there was multiple occurrences of no access. It had provided £770 in e-vouchers to the resident as of that stage, contributing to the costs of temporary heating in the property.
  6. The resident replied on the same day after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The resident said its staff knew she could not live at the property because she was due to give birth. She was living 10 minutes away from the property and could not be there on demand.
  7. The landlord’s contractors attempted to attend the property on 28 May 2024 but were unable to gain access. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the mental impact, stress and having no place to call home had affected her throughout her pregnancy.
  8. On 3 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the issue with the heating system was taking longer than it wanted. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience the complaint had caused. The landlord said it had taken into consideration the resident’s circumstances and attended to complete repairs which had been agreed in advance, but on the day the resident was unavailable. The landlord had discussed with the resident the possibility of installing a key safe to help gain access when she was not there. It said it had looked at its contracts with various contractors. It was putting in place teams to determine how it can help better maintain the safety and security of its buildings, and to keep residents safe and warm.
  9. On 1 October 2024 the resident confirmed to the landlord she had restored the water supply to the property. On 11 December 2024 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She told us the repairs to the boiler and heating issues remained at the property and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and actions. We then requested information from both parties on 6 January 2025.
  10. On 29 January 2025 the boiler was repaired by the landlord and confirmed by the resident. The landlord held an internal meeting on 17 February 2025 about further learning from the complaint. It said it could have varied an injunction on file to help gain access. It also said its teams were looking at the age of boilers and carrying out welfare checks in properties after uncapping the gas. On 25 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident revising its position on the complaint. The landlord proposed a further £2,100 compensation to the resident which comprised of:
    1. £1,000 for the loss of heating and water in the property.
    2. £500 for the impact on the resident’s wellbeing.
    3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience for the resident repeatedly contacting it.
    4. £50 for its complaint handling errors.
    5. £50 for incorrectly raising repairs.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the boiler, loss of heating, and running water

  1. After the resident confirmed to this Service she wanted us to investigate, the landlord made a revised offer of compensation to the resident. The landlord accepted failings with the length of time the resident was without central heating. It also admitted that it failed to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident’s mental health. Neither party has disputed the above issues remain incomplete. This Service will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. It is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply heating and water. The tenancy agreement also sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the heating system and installations for the supply of water.
  3. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord is to assess hazards.  Excess cold is a potential hazard under HHSRS. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether defective boilers in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. The landlord had provided temporary heaters in December 2023 to the resident after its gas uncap service. There is evidence the landlord continued to provide e-vouchers to help the resident with the cost of heating until its final response, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy says that that an emergency repair is attended to in 24-hours. The landlord will categorise a repair as an emergency where a health and safety hazard or potential risk to the resident is identified. It also operates appointed repairs, where it agrees a date for repairs to be completed but does specify timescales.
  6. The landlord was aware of outstanding boiler repairs from 7 February 2024. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 complaint response there was a missed appointment on 9 February 2024. However, it did not rebook an appointment until 15 March 2024. Its records show the repairs were not being treated as an emergency. Given this period was during winter, this was unreasonable action by the landlord and not in line with HHSRS.
  7. In contrast, the evidence shows the landlord raised emergency repairs for the boiler on 20 March 2024 and it attempted to attend the property on 21 March 2024. The evidence also shows it raised an emergency repair with different contractors for the loss of running water on 21 March 2024. Its contractors attempted to attend the property on the same day. The time taken to try and attend the property was in line its emergency repair timescales on these dates. However, there is evidence the resident put the landlord on notice of no running water on 6 March 2024. Therefore, there was a delay in raising the emergency 24-hour repair. It should have tried to attend the property on 7 March 2024, it did not which was inappropriate.
  8. Although the landlord was aware the resident was pregnant, the dates provided in late May 2024 may not have been suitable for her. The resident reassured the landlord on 15 May 2024 that she would be at the property on 21 My 2024. We acknowledge the landlord faced challenges with access to the property throughout the duration of the complaint. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 21 May 2024 advising she was due to give birth soon. The landlord’s repairs policy states it would work with its team to develop a service that will take account of and respond to individual needs and vulnerabilities. In light of this information from the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to adapt its service delivery, it failed to do so, as the contractors appointment of 28 May 2024 still went ahead. This demonstrated it was not considering the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities.
  9. The landlord was put on notice of clear escalation of risk from its staff’s discussion with the resident on 21 March 2024. The resident told it how the conditions of the property were affecting her and her relationship with her children. The landlord offered the resident to stay in a hotel on 21 March 2024 in receipt of this information, then again on 11 June 2024. This showed the landlord did offer support to the resident, which was reasonable. From the information provided, the resident on both occasions declined to stay in a hotel. The resident also confirmed to the landlord she was living elsewhere on 11 June 2024. Although she was not living in the property, it was clearly still causing her distress.
  10. The issue with running water was resolved by the resident’s own actions on 1 October 2024. Therefore, the landlord was unable to investigate what happened due to continued access issues, despite the repairs being its responsibility. It is evident the landlord provided the resident instructions on how to turn on the water supply to the property on 20 November 2023. There is no evidence it reiterated this after she complained. However, the resident has not confirmed the actions she took to restore the water supply. Although the landlord made reasonable attempts to access the property, there was a lack of support provided after she complained. Further, it did not clarify next steps in its final response on this matter. This was unfair in the circumstances and caused delays in resolving the issue. Additionally, as the boiler had not been repaired at this point, unreasonably the resident would not have had hot water.
  11. The boiler was not repaired by the landlord until 29 January 2025. This meant in excess of 11 months had elapsed since the repairs were outstanding (7 February 2024). In the landlord’s final response of 3 July 2024 it acknowledged continued delays to repair the heating system. It spoke of trying to get consent from the resident for a key safe, allowing its contractors to access the property when the resident was not there. While this was positive, it did not set out that it would arrange for another visit at the resident’s convenience. By not doing so, it placed the onus on the resident to take action. The length of time the resident went without repairs to the boiler was unreasonable and caused her distress and inconvenience.
  12. We asked the landlord to provide evidence on 6 January 2025, and it proposed a revised compensation offer to the resident on 25 February 2025. This was the following month after it completed repairs on 29 January 2025. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it had provided £770 in e-vouchers to the resident. However, this was not redress in recognition for its failures in the circumstances of this case. It was to help pay towards using the temporary heaters provided. This meant that during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it had not paid any compensation towards the resident’s distress and inconvenience, or its failure to inspect, and complete repairs.
  13. It was not until February 2025 that the landlord paid compensation of £2,050 for the heating and water issues taking into account all the circumstances of the complaint. This meant a total amount of £2,820 was offered with its previous e-vouchers. While this was positive, we are unable to conclude it would have completed all the repairs required prior to our involvement and proactively compensated the resident. The landlord had not committed to timescales for when repairs would be completed in its final response either. Therefore, these actions are not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding.
  14. The landlord did identify some learning in its final response. The landlord was looking into its contracts, prioritising customer experience. It also had teams in place in how it can better maintain the safety of its buildings and how to keep residents warm in their home. The landlord further added in February 2025 that its teams were implementing a risk matrix for success with repairs that takes into consideration the age of boilers. The landlord said it would also implement welfare checks after reviewing properties which have previously been capped. It also shared that it could look to varying injunctions to help gain access. However, these learnings were identified after our involvement.
  15. We acknowledge that the landlord had attempted to put things right and identified learnings from the complaint. After repairing the boiler it has since acknowledged all of its failings, apologised to the resident and made a further offer to put things right.
  16. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is also given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, as well as the severity of the situation, and the length of time involved. 
  17. The revised level of compensation was in line with the highest tier of what we would order under our guidance on remedies. This is for cases where there has been a significant impact and lack of consideration to vulnerabilities. Although the landlord told this Service it faced challenges with access and re-arranging appointments, delays to complete repairs and offer the compensation were unreasonable.
  18. The resident experienced detriment for 12 months, with a property that did not have a fully functioning boiler. The total compensation offered equates to £235 per month. This reflects the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for the duration of the complaint, but as above, a finding of reasonable redress will not be considered. This is because the issue was unresolved for more than 6 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Also, the landlord did not offer revised compensation until more than 7 months after its final response. The landlord would have needed to have taken action prior to our formal investigation and on its own initiative. We have elaborated on this in our complaint handling assessment below.
  19. Additionally, the landlord did not evidence it kept the resident updated and provided expected completion dates proactively. Therefore, it had not managed her expectations which was evidenced by her pursuing the complaint with this Service on 11 December 2024.
  20. Based on all the events, there have been serious failings by the landlord. However, our guidance on remedies takes into account any mitigating factors in resolving the issues. The evidence shows that the resident was not living at the property for the entire duration of the complaint. Another mitigating factor was that the resident was not regularly contactable or available. As such, we have not found severe maladministration.
  21. In considering all the above, a finding of maladministration has been made for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler, loss of heating, and loss of running water. However, no additional financial order will be made. This is because its revised compensation offer was proportionate to the events. Instead, the revised offer of £2,820 has been made an order, if not paid already.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The landlord says it would acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receiving it. The resident submitted a complaint using the landlord’s online complaint form on 6 March 2024. This was not acknowledged by it until the resident’s subsequent correspondence of 19 April 2024. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy. Its failure to acknowledge the initial complaint delayed the resident from receiving a response.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy also states at stage 2 it would confirm the following in writing to the resident:
    1. The complaint definition
    2. The decision on the complaint.
    3. The reasons for any decision made, referencing policies, law and good practice where appropriate.
    4. How it will remedy and put things right.
    5. Details of any outstanding actions.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did include the resident’s complaint of no running water as a complaint definition. However, the landlord had a lack of consideration for this complaint and did not set out the decision on this complaint in line with its policy. It was also unclear on next steps or any actions it would take. This was inappropriate by the landlord. 
  4. The landlord did not comment on its complaint handling in its final response, but did when it reviewed its position in February 2025. The landlord has since acknowledged the above complaint handling errors made by it. In recognition of this, it paid the resident £50 in February 2025. This offer came after the involvement of this Service and as above, we are unable to conclude the landlord would have revised its position without our involvement.
  5. It is important to note that our guidance on outcomes says that an offer of redress that is awarded late, is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles, or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This is where a landlord makes a substantial offer of redress at the end of a long process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. While it was positive that the landlord reviewed the case, and made a new offer of compensation, an effective complaint procedure should identify significant service failures at the earliest opportunity. It should aim to provide reasonable redress from the very first stage. This ensures fairness to all resident who access its complaint handling procedures.
  6. Overall, the landlord had not identified its errors and did not attempt to put things right within its internal complaints procedure. The landlord only attempted this after involvement from us. The final response omitted a response to the resident’s complaint of no running water, which demonstrated it was not taking her complaint seriously and delayed resolving matters. The resident’s complaint journey was also hampered by 44 calendar days from the time of her initial complaint of 6 March 2024 and her having to complain again on 19 April 2024. Therefore, these 2 separate failures which caused delays amount to a finding of maladministration. In the circumstances, a total of £100 has been ordered for the complaint handling failings identified. This is made up of:
    1. £50 for the delay of 44 calendar days and the resident expending time and trouble. 
    2. £50 for the landlord’s failure to consider a response for the resident’s complaint of no running water.
  7. The award of £100 is in line with our guidance on remedies where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and attempted to put things right (prior to our involvement). However, no further orders have been made regarding its complaint handling, as the Code is now statutory.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler, loss of heating, and loss of running water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, if it has not already done so, the landlord must ensure it pays the resident a total of £2,920 comprised of:
    1. £770 as outlined in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. £2,050 as proposed on 25 February 2025 for the distress and inconvenience caused and its failure in its handling of repairs to the boiler, loss of heating, and loss of running water.
    3. £100 for its complaint handling failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service.