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

Anchor Hanover Group (202232509)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232509

Anchor Hanover Group

30 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cold temperatures within the property and ineffective insulation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, he resides in a 2 bedroom property situated within a sheltered housing scheme. Both the resident and his wife have respiratory conditions that can be exacerbated by cold conditions.
  2. On 12 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to query if the property had cavity wall insulation. The landlord confirmed that according to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) cavity wall insulation was present.
  3. Several days later the resident made a further request for a radiator to be installed in his kitchen. It was also reported that mould was evident behind the washing machine, the landlord raised a repair for the mould to be cleared and treated.
  4. A surveyor carried out a home visit on 25 January 2023 to discuss the radiator request and agreed to consider this. During the visit it was also noted that the coating on the kitchen ceiling was beginning to flake, an additional repair was raised for the roof and gutters to be checked for possible leaks.
  5. On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint due to the lack of progress. He reported that despite extensive efforts to keep the property warm, the heat rapidly escaped. Cold air could be felt in the kitchen and there was a draught coming through the windows. The resident felt that this was due to insufficient or failed cavity wall insulation. The cold conditions were impacting upon their health and the rising energy costs meant that they could not afford to have their heating on all of the time.
  6. The landlord responded on 16 February 2023, it said that following a further home visit on 15 February 2023 it found no defects with the resident’s windows. It confirmed that the damp and mould in the kitchen had been treated and that no other areas of concern were witnessed. With regards to the insulation, the landlord advised that it complied with building regulations and that the current EPC rating was C, above average. It agreed that it would carry out further investigations, including a full check of all radiators and room size calculations to ensure that the bedroom radiator was sufficient. Furthermore, it proposed the installation of data loggers to monitor the temperature and humidity within the property.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint as he felt that his concerns regarding the cavity wall insulation were not being reasonably addressed. He felt that the landlord was relying heavily on the results of the EPC which was carried out nearly 10 years ago. Furthermore, the resident felt that the installation of data loggers at that time of year would not give a true depiction of the icy cold temperatures he had to endure during colder months.
  8. The landlord provided its final response on 14 March 2023. It said that during its inspection it was noted that the heating was not in use, therefore the internal temperature of the property was within the range expected. It recommended that the resident utilise the heating system and provided information in relation to energy cost support. It re-affirmed that it would carry out the actions highlighted in its stage 1 response and that it would investigate the possibility of installing a radiator in the kitchen.
  9. Following the final complaint response the landlord carried out the above actions. Remedial works to the roof, bedroom windows and the installation of a kitchen radiator were completed between November 2023 – January 2024. The resident has since reported to this Service that the internal conditions have not improved, and that no consideration has been given to his concerns regarding the insulation.

Assessment and findings

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact that the cold conditions had upon his health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the temperature and the residents health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s  health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if he the wishes to pursue this
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold and damp and mould growth are both potential hazards, therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any such problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. In addition, the landlord’s housing handbook states that it is committed to ensuring that tenants are comfortable in their own home, this includes ‘getting the temperature right.’
  3. Upon receiving the initial report of damp and mould behind the washing machine and the resident’s request for a radiator the landlord responded in a timely manner and appropriately carried out a home visit. The evidence shows that the mould was cleaned and treated on 25 January 2023, one day after it received the report. The landlord’s repair policy does not specify its response times in relation to damp and mould, however, it says that urgent repairs will be carried out within 5 days. The landlord’s response at this stage was therefore reasonable.
  4. Following the visit the landlord agreed to carry out further investigations, including an inspection of the roof and gutters to rule out the possibility of a leak. The guttering was cleared on 31 January 2023, this was a prompt response from the landlord and in line with its repairs policy.
  5. Within its stage 1 response in February 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the gutters and eaves had been checked and that no defect had been found. However, a further inspection in April 2023 highlighted that the felt into the gutters had deteriorated and required attention. There is no evidence to show that any action was taken in respect of this until a further inspection in October 2023 which confirmed the defect. During this time, the kitchen ceiling had deteriorated, and damp was detected.
  6. Overall, there was a substantial delay of 8 months until the roofing repairs were completed in January 2024. Therefore, the landlord failed in its repair obligations, this resulted in the resident receiving contradictory reports causing further distress and inconvenience.
  7. In addition, the evidence shows that there was also a considerable delay of 10 months between the landlord’s initial inspection and the eventual installation of the radiator. Despite being aware from the outset of the extent of the residents’ vulnerabilities and the detrimental impact the cold conditions were having, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it dealt with the request with the required urgency. The delay and the lack of information about any timescale for this work was a failing in communication that left the resident with no assurance this work was being taken forward with any urgency.
  8.  Throughout all of the resident’s communications with the landlord it was his belief that the underlying cause of the cold temperatures was failed or insufficient cavity wall insulation. The landlord failed to appropriately address this within its complaint’s responses. It relied upon the EPC to evidence that insulation was in place. The EPC was approaching 10 years old and referred to the ‘assumed’ presence of cavity wall insulation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out an appropriate survey to determine if the insulation was a contributing factor. This would also enable the landlord to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence to suggest that any specific investigations took place with regards to the cavity wall insulation. This failure has resulted in distress for the resident as he continues to feel that his concerns are being dismissed.
  9. It is noted that the landlord did offer to install data loggers within the property. This was refused by the resident as he felt that the data would not be an accurate representation given that the outside temperature was beginning to rise with the onset of Spring. While this reasoning is acknowledged, the resident had reported rapid drops in temperature when the heating was turned off, the presence of data loggers may have been able to substantiate this. In the absence of such data, it is difficult to evaluate the changes over a period of time. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord has refused to carry out any further investigations until the loggers are fitted. Whilst there is no evidence of this, it would be unreasonable of the landlord to take such an approach.
  10. Since the complaint was brought to this Service the resident reports that the landlord has made an offer of £500 financial compensation, however the landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered to be part of the complaints process as they took place significantly after the issuing of its final response. It is also not clear what, if any, failures the landlord has accepted and is compensating for.
  11. In summary, despite the landlord taking some steps to remedy the cold issue, it is evident that it failed to take a proactive approach. It failed to address the resident’s primary concern regarding the cavity wall insulation, and it did not carry out remedial works with any urgency. In addition, the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the detriment upon the resident. The resident reports that the conditions have not improved and that he and his wife are still living in excessively cold conditions, which continues to cause distress given their vulnerabilities. Therefore, the landlord has failed to effectively resolve the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of cold temperatures within the property and ineffective insulation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £600 compensation comprised of:
      1. £500 already offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the unreasonable delays in completing repairs, if not already paid.
      2. £100 in recognition of its failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out an appropriate survey to determine if the cavity wall insulation is installed or not, and if so fit for purpose.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with the above orders.