Midland Heart Limited (202225305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225305

Midland Heart Limited

30 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of concerns about dust particles in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of stains to the walls above the storage heaters.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 31 July 1995. The property is a one-bedroom flat situated on the third floor.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident although it is noted that the resident is an older person.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that the resident is responsible for the decoration of the property.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that prioritises repairs into one of the following two categories:
1. Urgent – where the response time is within 24 hours.
2. Standard – where the response time is the next available appointment that is convenient with the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the [landlord], our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge a complaint at both stages within five working days. At stage 1 it will provide its decision in writing within 10 working days. The resident can escalate the complaint to stage two where it will respond within 20 working days.
The landlord complaint policy explains compensation will be paid in cases where the “loss or suffering is considered to warrant such a payment or where the customer has suffered significant inconvenience as a result of the landlord or its operatives”.
In terms of the amounts of compensation, the complaints policy explains that the landlord uses a compensation matrix as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2022 to raise a concern about the dust coming into his property following the renewal of the communal carpets on the floor containing his flat. He explained that he had been informed that the fire door in the communal hallway was rotten and would need replacing.
The resident also contacted the landlord on the same day in relation to his heating. He explained that when the heating was used it was giving out fumes and that it was also emitting a smell. The landlord’s repair logs show that a work order was created on 2 December 2022. This work order was completed the following day. Under the notes the operative attending had recorded that two temporary heaters had been provided to the resident as the operative was not sure what was causing the smell and it was accepted that the “rooms do have a haze”. The operative had opened up the vents for the kitchen and bathroom but noted that a follow up appointment would be required.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 5 December 2022. He explained that “a gush of smoke” had come out of his electric heater.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to confirm that an emergency repair had been raised and that its operative would be attending within 24 hours. The landlord’s operative attended in the evening on 6 December 2022 and noted that whilst the “haze is not as bad as it was” but it is “still happening”. The operative noted that he would speak to a colleague the following morning in relation to the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to make a formal complaint. He explained that he had noted during the past three to four weeks that his flat was “becoming very dusty”. He added that the dust appeared to be coming from the kitchen and had spread all over the flat. He added that he had been forced to go out to avoid breathing in the dusty air and he was unable to cook in the kitchen due to it. Instead he had been eating out. The resident stated that the issue had started when the fire door in the building had been taken down to allow the fitting of carpet to the communal halls. Following the carpet having been fitted the fire door had not been rehung as it was broken. He also said the vent in the communal area which was near to the kitchen had sucked the dust and deposited it to his kitchen via the kitchen vent.
The landlord replied to the resident via email on 14 December 2022. It explained that it had arranged for a repair and that its operative would look at the vent near to the kitchen to see if this was the cause of the dust. The repair was arranged for 28 December 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log show on 20 December 2022 that it created a work order to service, clean and test all the storage heaters. This followed on from a call to the landlord from the resident about the dust. The work order was scheduled for 18 January 2023 and the landlord confirmed this via email to the resident on 20 December 2022. The resident telephoned the landlord upon receiving its email to ask whether the appointment could be brought forward. He explained that the dust issues caused “him to fear for his life and he is moving into a hotel for a few days because of it”. The landlord explained that there was no earlier appointment available.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2022, during a period when it stated it had been closed for the Christmas and New Year period. He explained:
1. He had checked out of the Travelodge which he had been staying in from 23 December to that morning and had returned to his flat to check out the conditions to determine if another hotel stay would be required.
2. The flat was cold as the storage heaters had been disabled based on advice from the landlord. He added the electric fan made matters worse as it collected and re-circulated the dust.
3. He was unhappy with the length of time the matter had dragged on. He understood a job had been scheduled for 18 January 2023.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 1 January 2023. The landlord has said that its office was closed at that time. He explained that he had moved to a new hotel which was close to his property and had booked six nights from 30 December 2022 up to and including 4 January 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 January 2023. It acknowledged the information which the resident had provided and confirmed that a job for a “full clean and service of your storage heaters” was scheduled for 18 January 2023. It also confirmed an appointment for a different issue (to do with the taps) which he had raised. The landlord confirmed that there were no grounds for it to cover the cost of any hotel stay which he had taken due to the issues raised.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2023. He noted the landlord’s email from earlier in the day. The resident set out:
1. The condition of the flat was not satisfactory, as well as being cold since the heating was off. Whilst the resident acknowledged that the landlord had provided him with electric fan heaters these were neither efficient or adequate and the dust was picked up by them and recirculated in the flat. This had made matters worse and caused him breathing difficulties and nausea. Even an air purifier which he had purchased had not helped. As a consequence he had moved to a hotel for the sake of his health and had booked this for a further six nights up to and including 10 January 2023.
2. He was aware of the two repair jobs scheduled for 12 and 18 January 2023. He confirmed he would be at the property on these days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 January 2023 and again on 9 January 2023. He provided photos of the storage heaters and the “smoky defaced walls”. The resident added in his email of 8 January 2023 that he had extended his hotel stay for a few days and it would continue past the appointment scheduled for 18 January 2023.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails on 18 January 2023. The resident had initially informed the landlord that its operative had attended the property and completed the scheduled work. He added he would be checking out of the hotel on 20 January 2023 and would then be contacting the landlord about his hotel expenses and compensation. He asked what the landlord intended to do about the matter. The landlord had responded confirming that, as it had previously informed the resident, it would not be offering him compensation for his hotel expenses.
The resident replied to the landlord that he disagreed with its decision not to cover the hotel accommodation costs as well as for the “emotional and mental pain he had endured”. He said there were several grounds on which the landlord needed to reimburse him for the costs. He informed the landlord:
1. He had been to his doctor on 16 January 2023 and had been diagnosed as having high blood pressure. He associated this with the living conditions at the property.
2. His moving to the hotel had not been “for fun” but as he felt he had no choice since the landlord had delayed the work. With reference to this he set out the issues as:
  1. He was unable to use the kitchen due to sand and dust.
  2. He was unable to sleep in his own bed as his bedroom was dusty.
  3. An inability to sit in his living room due to the cold and fumes.
  4. The electric fan heaters provided by the landlord made matters worse and were costly.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 January 2023. It explained that it had procedures in place in the event that a property was “deemed as unfit to live in during a period of time that extensive works are taking place”. It added that all risks would have been assessed and if there was a threat to him or if the property was deemed as unliveable arrangements would have been made. It added he had made the decision to book hotel accommodation without any confirmation from it. As a result it would not reimburse him for those costs.
The landlord also sent the resident a further email on the same day setting out that a formal complaint had not been raised by it and that if he wished to do this he could do so by calling it or by completing an online complaints form.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023 to set out his observations and to set out the jobs which remained outstanding. He explained:
1. He had checked out of the hotel on 20 January 2023.
2. That his flat was still cold. On health and safety grounds he had switched off the storage heaters in the living room and bedroom. He had observed these were emitting “dark smoky fumes”. He had asked the landlord on 23 January 2023 for someone to visit and check on the heaters but this had not been scheduled as yet.
3. To his knowledge no risk assessments had been carried out at the property. He asked for details of when the risk assessment to determine if his flat was liveable was carried out.
4. The kitchen vent was “still spewing out dust”. This prevented him from cooking.
5. The landlord had failed to sympathetically address some of the medical concerns which had risen either directly or indirectly due to the issues in his flat.
6. He had attempted to call the landlord on 24 January 2023 however the representative he had been liaising with over the issues was unavailable. e haThe resident had expected the landlord to return the call however it had not. The resident added he would work out a way to complete the complaint form himself.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 January 2023 to make his complaint about the air pollution caused by construction debris and that his storage heaters were expelling fumes. The resident added he had undergone an x–ray on his lungs as he was having breathing issues. The resident stated that he felt that his integrity was being questioned as he had made the decision to go to a hotel due to the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 January 2023 setting out the works which it was processing. It also confirmed that a complaint had been logged by it. In terms of the works scheduled these were:
1. An emergency repair for the storage heaters for which its operative would attend within 24 hours.
2. A priority repair to replace the air vent. This was scheduled for 31 January 2023.
3. A routine repair for painting the living room, hallway and bedroom which had been booked for 27 February 2023.
The landlord’s repairs log noted that on 27 January 2023 its operative stated that it would drop off some oil filled radiators to the resident on the following day.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 30 January 2023 noted that the storage heaters had previously been stripped down and checked. It added an operative was attending on the following day to change the air vents to one which could be controlled by the resident who could choose to leave them open or shut. However the landlord added that it was unable to control the external dust completely. In terms of whether a decant was necessary, the landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed that it was not needed as the resident had been provided with temporary heaters. In addition the air vents would stop the dust.
The resident emailed the landlord with an update on 6 February 2023. He explained:
1. He had been provided with temporary heaters by the landlord to heat the flat. However the storage heaters still provided unpleasant dark and smoky emissions even when they were off which meant he was unable to breathe and was sneezing. As a result he had not put the heating on for three months. He understood a repair was scheduled for 17 February 2023.
2. In terms of the kitchen whilst attempts had been made to minimise the amount of sand/dust it was unusable and he had been unable to use the kitchen for three months.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. It stated:
1. The resident had initially contacted it on 2 December 2022 to inform it that fumes, smoke and smells were being emitted from the storage heaters when the heating was turned on. An emergency repair was arranged and the resident had been provided with temporary heaters and the vents in the property had been opened. An electrician had attended on 6 December 2022 and still identified that there was a haze present. An appointment had been scheduled for 18 January 2023 when the heater covers on two of the storage heaters had been fixed. A further appointment had been scheduled for 17 February 2023. The landlord confirmed it would oversee the work and that it would arrange for a surveyor to attend and inspect the vents and provide clarity over the repairs.
2. It understood the resident had made a formal complaint on 14 December 2022 which was not logged at the time. It accepted this was a service failure on its part.
3. It understood that the resident wanted to be compensated for time spent in a hotel. It had confirmed that it was unable to do this and instead it directed the resident to submit a claim under the landlord’s insurance.
4. It was prepared to offer the resident an award of £814.43. This amount comprised £288.75 for the lack of heating, £170 for distress and inconvenience, £255.68 as a payment for the use of temporary heating and £100 in terms of the complaints handling issues.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 10 February 2023. He explained the stage 1 response had been addressed to a different individual and was therefore worried that the landlord had breached his data protection rights. He also sought clarity on the compensation being offered and enquired whether it covered his hotel costs which were for an amount of £1,895.30, or whether this was being dealt with by the landlord on a separate basis.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2023. In addition to repeating his concerns as per his phone call on 10 February 2023 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He added that the landlord’s offer did not consider his hotel costs nor a reduction in his rent costs whilst he had been in the hotel. Also dust had been blown into his kitchen and he had not been offered a discretionary award for this. The resident also explained that he had ruined clothes and food due to the dust and his carpets would need cleaning. He was also now suffering from high blood pressure due to the issue. The landlord had failed to factor in the loss due as a result of physical and emotional trauma. The resident also requested access to the compensation matrix used by the landlord.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 2 March 2023 noting that in his opinion the landlord appeared to be “punishing him for pursuing a legitimate complaint with the Ombudsman”. He explained:
1. That there was still no heat in the flat after five months.
2. The landlord’s operative had attended on 27 February 2023 to paint the walls. However the job had been cancelled and the operative had left. The resident explained the operative had informed him that the landlord’s customer repair line had “no right to authorise the job to be done”. The resident added this was contrary to the email he had received from the landlord, and on this basis he had moved his furniture.
3. He was unable to use the kitchen for fear of food contamination.
4. He had been verbally informed by one representative of the landlord to move out of the property. He felt that he was being hounded as a result by the landlord. The resident did not provide any further details of when and by whom these comments were said to have taken place.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 2 and 3 March 2023 noted that it did not offer decorating and that, whilst it would review the matter, it would consider doing part of the decorating on a goodwill gesture basis. The landlord’s surveyor also confirmed that there were no issues with the storage heaters which had been checked a number of times by qualified electricians.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 March 2023 and then sent him an email setting out the basis of the call. It noted that the resident had explained he had been without heating for four to five months as it was faulty and black fumes and debris had been coming out. The resident added that the walls had been stained. The resident had asked whether as a special case the landlord could decorate the property as opposed to saying the responsibility rested with him.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 6 March 2023 noted that the storage heaters had worked. It added that the marking on the walls was due to environmental factors over which it had no control.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2023. He said it was not correct that his storage heaters had worked. Instead he was forced to wear “a hat and thick clothing”. The resident explained he wished to make a formal complaint over “this lie”. He added that when the landlord’s operative had attended in February 2023 they had confirmed they could not fix the heaters and would seek advice from their manager. Even when the heaters were off they were still giving off dusty and smoky fumes.
The landlord’s internal communication on 8 March 2023 asked whether the resident’s storage heaters were the older or newer versions. After checking it was confirmed that the resident’s flat had been upgraded in 2013. The internal communication asked whether, during repair visits, its operatives had removed the covers to clean out the dust.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 March 2023 to confirm it had booked an emergency appointment for the heating and that attendance was to be within 24 hours. It added it had made arrangements for temporary heaters. It also confirmed in another email that it had forwarded the resident’s email to its customer experience team to investigate the matter.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 10 March 2023 noted that a heater specialist had been sent out the previous day and they had conducted a thorough investigation and had determined the heaters were in full safe working condition. It added that the marks on the walls were due to dust particles in the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2023. It explained that it had escalated the complaint following the email from the resident to the Ombudsman on 28 February 2023 and that it would get a director to review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day saying he had requested an escalation to stage 2 on 14 February 2023 but he had never received any acknowledgement from the landlord to this request.
The landlord’s internal communication on 22 March 2023 noted that works to decorate the living room had been booked in for 13 April 2023. Whilst it understood the resident had also expected the hallway and bedroom to be done, the surveyor confirmed that this had not been agreed and only the living room was being decorated by it.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 30 March 2023. The response:
1. Noted that it had failed to respond to the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2 on 14 February 2023. It had also failed to provide its response by 28 March 2023.
2. Accepted that the original stage 1 response had been addressed to a different individual.
3. Stated that, in terms of insurance (for the resident to refer to for the issue of ruined clothes and food), it provided the details to the resident but that it did not consider the matter itself.
4. Stated that it was not clear what had been causing the dust particles however as the property was habitable it would not cover hotel costs. It noted that dust particles could be due to construction taking place in the local area or if the resident had been using incense at home.
5. Confirmed that a heating specialist had attended on 9 March 2023. He had dismantled all the heaters and confirmed that they were safe to use. The operative had suggesting vacuuming the bottom grill of the storage heaters on a monthly basis to remove any dust build up. The landlord added that it had offered temporary heaters and offered the cost of using these in the stage 1 response. Therefore it would not pay for the resident’s alternative accommodation.
6. Stated that in terms of the kitchen when it had attended on 3 December 2022 it had opened the vents to allow airflow into the property. its surveyor had then attended and recommended a different type of vent which allowed the resident control over when to use it. It confirmed that the home including the kitchen was habitable. However it did acknowledge that there had been a delay in informing the resident of this. It offered the resident further compensation as a result.
7. Set out that in terms of damaged items no fault had been found with the storage heaters. As a result it would not cover damaged personal items under its insurance policy. It referred the resident to look at his own contents insurance policy.
8. Accepted there had been an element of miscommunication over whether it would support the resident in redecorating the home. It explained that under the tenancy agreement it was the resident’s responsibility to decorate the property. However it accepted that when he had called it had given the wrong advice. As a result it offered to decorate the lounge and noted this had been scheduled for 3 April 2023.
9. Revised the total compensation being offered to the resident to £1,177.50. This was made up as £367.50 in terms of loss of heating based on a daily amount of £3.75 per day, £170 for distress and inconvenience, £300 for the cost of running the temporary heaters, £170 for miscommunication and £170 for the complaints handling.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 12 April 2023 asking this Service to consider the complaint. He explained:
1. The landlord had deliberately delayed matters and he had been asked by an individual to leave his flat. He had been forced to write to a number of individuals to get the matter escalated.
2. He wanted the landlord to pay his hotel costs of £1,895.40 for five weeks, to be covered due to the unhealthy condition in the flat.
3. He wanted a refund of five weeks of rent amounting to £564.30.
4. He wanted six months of rent adjusted due to the landlord’s service failures.
5. He wanted compensation for the physical and mental trauma suffered by him including the medical letter which he had obtained at a cost of £25.
6. No risk assessment had been undertaken. He had had to purchase additional equipment including an air purifier, humidifier and a blood pressure monitor.
7. He wanted an extractor installed in the kitchen.
8. There had been a loss of use of his kitchen. As a result he had been forced to eat out which he wanted the landlord to cover.
The landlord confirmed on 14 April 2023 that the painting to the resident’s living room had been completed.

Events since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 23 August 2023 to explain that the dust particles and dust pollution were still in his flat, covering the whole of it. This had meant he was unable to use the kitchen to cook. He was also not able to use the bathroom and the bedroom was full of dust. He added that the landlord’s operative was due to attend on 6 September 2023.
The resident sent an email to the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023. He stated only one room had been painted by the landlord. He added the flat was in a state of disrepair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2023 sending in photos of the dust which had been collected after he had vacuumed the carpet. He set out that the combination of dust and dust particles is “unhygienic, unhealthy, inconvenient and costly”. He sent a further email on 10 November 2023 explaining that the contractor had not turned up for a job on 8 and 9 November 2023. He added the job had been for the extraction of dust and cleaning of the vent in the kitchen.
The resident has recently contacted the Ombudsman in March 2024 to explain that there has been no improvement in his living conditions since October 2022 to the present time. He added the property continued to have dust particles in all the rooms and this had meant he was unable to use his kitchen for “full blown cooking”. He had therefore resorted to eating out or buying takeaway food. The resident also explained that numerous appointments had not been honoured by the landlord and that his flat remained in a state of disrepair. Despite this he had not been offered any alternative accommodation in the building his property was in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about dust particles at the property.

The landlord has confirmed that in December 2022 it had been carrying out a planned renewal of the communal carpets on the third floor of the building. It has accepted that, in replacing the communal carpets, this had also involved the removal of the fire doors and that its repair logs had noted on 6 December 2022 that a carpentry job had been logged to replace the fire door. The landlord has explained that “when any communal work is carried out, this can produce small amounts of dust, and our contractors will ensure any steps to minimise this are taken and will carry out a thorough clean up following the work taking place”.
The resident had contacted the landlord about the issue of the dust on 1 December 2022 and he had requested information of when the work to replace the communal carpets and rehang the fire door would be completed. At the same time he had also separately raised the issue of black smoke coming from his storage heaters and dust being distributed around the property. The landlord had treated the resident’s concerns about the storage heaters as an urgent repair and it made arrangements to visit the resident the day after it had logged his concerns. This was reasonable, especially considering that this issue had occurred during the colder winter months when there would have been more reliance on the heating. In addition the resident was vulnerable, due to his age. The landlord stated it had provided the resident with temporary heaters as, whilst it accepted there was a “haze” at the property, it had been unable to determine the cause of it. A follow up appointment was arranged and the landlord had re-attended the property a few days later, on 6 December 2022 after the resident had once again raised concerns about smoke coming from the heaters. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes are not clear as to whether the resident was at that time raising concerns about his original storage heaters or the temporary electric heaters which the landlord had provided to him to use instead of the storage heaters.
The landlord’s operative accepted that there was still a haze when it attended the property on 6 December 2022 although it explained it was not as bad as previously noted. The landlord’s notes show the electrician attending had explained that it would discuss the matter with a colleague on the following day. This Service has not been provided with any evidence of whether any discussion had taken place by the operative with a colleague. This was a failing by the landlord. Whilst a job had been created by the landlord to strip down the storage heaters on 20 December 2022 which was scheduled to take place some four weeks later, the timing of this had followed on from the resident having contacted the landlord again on 14 December 2022 to make a complaint about the dust at the property.
Following the resident’s contact on 14 December 2022 about the dust the landlord had scheduled a job for its operative to check the vent including that nearest to the kitchen at the property on 28 December 2022, some 10 working days later. The landlord had assigned a standard priority to this repair. This was not appropriate as the resident had informed the landlord at that time that he was forced to go out of his property to avoid breathing the dusty air and that he had been unable to cook in his kitchen due to the matter. The landlord should have assigned an urgent priority to any repair on the basis there was an immediate health or safety risk to the resident. It should have also considered the resident’s vulnerability due to his age as another reason to prioritise the repair. This was a missed opportunity by it. Even after the landlord had attended on 28 December 2022 it did not change the vents to one which the resident could control and keep open or shut until the end of January 2023, just under two months after the resident had originally raised the issue of dust. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s assertion to this Service that where small amounts of dust were produced following communal work that it would take steps to minimise this and ensure that a “thorough clean up would occur” after the work had taken place.
The landlord initially informed the resident on 5 January 2023 that it would not cover his hotel costs. It also confirmed to the resident the jobs which it had scheduled at the property. The resident disagreed with the landlord and he continued to stay in a hotel, extending his stay on a number of occasions until after the scheduled jobs arranged by the landlord had taken place in January 2023. Whilst the landlord had put the resident on alert on 5 January 2023 about not covering the hotel costs, the resident had initially informed the landlord of his intention to stay in a hotel on the basis of safety grounds during a telephone conversation on 20 December 2022. This had been after he had attempted to try and bring forward the appointment which had been scheduled for 18 January 2023. Although the landlord had informed him at that time that no earlier appointment was available it did not make any attempt at that time to warn him that any hotel costs incurred would not be covered by it. Although the resident ought to have got explicit consent for the hotel being covered it is understandable why he had taken the landlord’s silence on the matter as an acceptance that it would assist with covering the hotel costs.
The resident kept the landlord informed between Christmas and the New Year about his current situation and what his forthcoming plans were. The landlord has said that its offices were shut over the holiday period and that the resident would have received a bounce back email confirming this when he had emailed them during this period. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of any automatic email informing the resident the office was closed over the holiday period. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot say with certainty that an automatic email had been sent to the resident, the tone of his follow up email to the landlord of 1 January 2023 did not convey any indication that he had been made aware the landlord’s office was closed at that time and that his email would not be responded to for several days. The landlord set out to the resident that it had undertaken a risk assessment and determined that his property had been habitable. Therefore it had not determined that he needed to be decanted from it whilst the repairs were being undertaken. The landlord has however not provided to this Service any risk assessment which it says were carried out at that time.
Given the absence of the landlord initially informing the resident when first made aware of his decision to stay in a hotel for safety reasons, as well as the lack of any documented risk assessments the landlord should reasonably cover his hotel as well as a contribution to food costs for the period up to 6 January 2023. This was one day after it had informed him that the hotel costs would not be covered which would have allowed him to check out and return to the property. The resident should provide the landlord with evidence to support the costs he had spent during that time to enable the refund to reimburse him for those costs.
The resident has also asked for the landlord to refund him the amount of rent for the period he was living in a hotel as well as a rent adjustment for six months for the service failures it had caused him. In terms of rent there is no evidence that the resident’s property had not been habitable. The resident has explained that he was unable to use the cooking facilities, however he was using the rest of the property including sleeping in it. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the hotel costs from 23 December 2022 up to 6 January 2023, on the basis that it did not inform him initially that it would not cover the costs. However the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s stage 2 response has offered reasonable compensation for the service failures suffered. So the Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to make any further compensation payment.

The landlord’s handling of the stains to the walls above the storage heaters.

In terms of the issue of the smoke/haze from the storage heaters, the landlord confirmed that following the heaters being stripped down and inspected in January 2023, no fault had been identified to explain the smoke/haze issues experienced by the resident. The landlord had subsequently sent a heating specialist who had thoroughly inspected the storage heaters and confirmed there was no fault with them.
Although the landlord had found no fault with the storage heaters and had confirmed that the storage heaters were renewed in 2013, it had initially informed the resident that a haze was present at the property which it could not explain. In terms of marks to the wall above the storage heaters the landlord had initially informed the resident that it would make arrangements to decorate the affected sections. However when its operative had attended the property to undertake the decorating, it had confirmed that the responsibility to decorate the internal structure of the property rested with the resident and not it. It did however concede to decorate one of the resident’s rooms as a gesture of goodwill.
Although the resident has expressed his dissatisfaction that only part of the property was decorated by the landlord, the repairs policy sets out that the landlord’s responsibilities in terms of walls and ceiling covered “external walls, boundary walls, internal walls, door frames and plasterwork”. The resident’s responsibilities included “internal decorations including filling small holes and cracks”. Therefore the decoration of the walls was not the responsibility of the landlord but rather the resident. However the landlord did accept it had provided incorrect information to the resident initially by leading him to believe it would decorate the property. The resident explained he had moved items/objects about based on what the landlord had told him. Given this the landlord’s offer to decorate the resident’s living room was proportionate, given the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident had contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 14 December 2022. Whilst the landlord engaged with the resident on the same day it did not acknowledge the complaint at that time. It continued to exchange emails with the resident and only acknowledged the resident’s complaint six weeks later on 27 January 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The landlord should therefore have treated the matter as a complaint following the resident’s original contact on 14 December 2022 and progressed the matter in line with its complaints policy. It did not do so. As it did not treat the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint, the landlord also failed to acknowledge the complaint in line with its timescales.
Whilst the landlord did issue its stage 1 response in keeping with the timescales as set out in its complaints policy, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 February 2023. Instead it only acknowledged the complaint following the resident having contacted the Ombudsman about the matter on 22 March 2023. This was again not in keeping with the timescales in the landlord’s complaint’s policy. It did however provide its stage 2 response in keeping with the timescale in the complaints policy, following acknowledging the complaint. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 response that there had been a service failure in its complaints handling and it had offered reasonable redress in respect od this. As a result the Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to make any further compensation payment for this aspect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about dust particles in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the stains to the walls above the storage heaters.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

There were delays caused by the landlord in dealing with the dust which had originated following the renewal of the communal carpets and the removal of the fire door. The landlord failed to prioritise the repairs appropriately and was not initially proactive when informed by the resident that he would be moving to a hotel due to concerns about the property. Although it has offered compensation for the loss of heating, additional costs of using the temporary heaters and distress and inconvenience it did not make an offer for the resident’s hotel costs and food costs from the point the resident initially moved out up to the time it had informed the resident that it would not cover the hotel costs.
The landlord accepted it had incorrectly informed the resident that it would redecorate the property. Whilst confirming to the resident that decoration rested with him, it did agree as a gesture of goodwill to redecorate one of the resident’s rooms. In addition it made an appropriate payment for the miscommunication.
The landlord failed to initially deal with the resident’s complaint and there was also a delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. It did however make a reasonable offer in relation to the complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,177.50 in line with its stage 2 response. This amount comprises:
  1. £170 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in handling the resident’s reporting of the dust particles at the property.
  2. £367.50 for the loss of heating based on 98 days at £3.75 per day.
  3. £300 for the additional costs of the temporary heaters.
  4. £170 in relation to the miscommunication caused by incorrectly informing the resident that it would redecorate his property.
  5. £170 for the complaints handling.
3. Pay the resident, once it has been provided by the resident with supporting evidence of:
  1. His hotel costs from 23 December 2022 to 6 January 2023.
  2. A daily allowance of £20 per day for the resident’s food costs between 23 December 2022 and 6 January 2023.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the concerns raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in March 2023. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and any further assistance it can offer to him.