London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202322436)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322436

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 June 2024

Amended 2 July 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 resident’s complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her heating that it was too hot and that there was a loss of heating in December 2022 onwards.
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her home, a 2 or 3-storey house, under an assured tenancy with her 4 children, 2 adults and 2 teenagers, since 2016. The property was situated as part of an block/estate owned by a freeholder who let it on a long lease to the landlord. The block was managed on behalf of the freeholder by their appointed managing agent (MA). One of her children had been diagnosed with high–functioning autism, mental health issues, and amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for her daughter as suffering with chronic pain and needing heat and hot water which was on the record as at July 2022. The landlord was aware of all of the resident’s household circumstances, having considered and approved an application for a management move on medical grounds. The Ombudsman has investigated the resident’s case in this regard in case number 202108466.
The heat pump was in the ownership of the freeholder and managed by a management agent (MA).

Brief complaint history and scope

The resident reported to this Service that she had been having heating and hot water issues for 8 years. She was awarded a management move in June 2021 which was backdated to November 2020 following our investigation.
The records show that the resident reported issues with her heating and hot water in November and December 2019, October 2020, June and October 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the resident complained that she had not received heating to her property for “1 and a half years”. The landlord referred her to the managing agent, as it was their responsibility.
On 6 November 2021, the landlord offered of compensation for £2,200 for loss of heating and hot water for a period of 790 days.
The resident has not referred this complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident made 3 complaints, on 27 October 2022, (“the First Complaint”), 11 January 2023 (the “Second Complaint”) and on 17 or 24 January 2024 (The “Third Complaint”. The Second Complaint was not logged and was made during the course of the First Complaint. As the landlord resolved the August 2021 complaint, this report will address events from October 2022 onwards. The Ombudsman would have to consider whether it was reasonable and proportionate to investigate historical complaints. The causes of the heating failing were different over the years. However, the Ombudsman will bear in mind the historical context of the resident’s complaint.

Scope of this report regarding physical and mental health

The resident reported how the events complained of affected her and her children’s physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence which are better suited for a court of law. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, total and partial loss of space and water heating between 1 November and 30 April 2023 was considered to warrant an emergency repair. It would “make sure” that all fixtures and fitting for water and space heating were kept repaired and in working order.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”), the landlord has an obligation to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water. This was limited to an installation which served the property and which forms part of any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate or interest or is owned by the lessor or under his control.
Under Section 11 (3) of the 1985 Act, where, in order to comply its repairing obligation, the landlord needed to carry out works or repairs otherwise than in, or to an installation in, the dwelling-house, and did not have “a sufficient right in the part of the building or the installation concerned to enable him to carry out the required works or repairs, then, in any proceedings relating to a failure to comply with the lessor’s repairing covenant, so far as it requires the lessor to carry out the works or repairs in question, it shall be a defence for the lessor to prove that he used all reasonable endeavours to obtain, but was unable to obtain, such rights as would be adequate to enable him to carry out the works or repairs”.
The landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004. That act is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Under section 9a of the 1985 Act, this is enforceable by the resident through the county court as regards being fit for human habitation, rather than being only actionable by the local authority.
Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 6 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal daily activities. Under Section 20, the landlord had an obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages to a disabled person presented by a provision, criterion or practice.

Chronology

Complaint No 1

On 3 August 2021, the landlord had noted that the resident had children with special needs and one child in particular had a medical condition which affect severely affected her daughter mobility.
The resident reported a fault with her heating on 20 October 2022. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend. On 24 October 2022, the resident reported that although it was a morning appointment, the contractor had been unable to attend until after 3pm which time the resident was unable to accommodate them.
On 26 or 27 October 2022, the resident made a complaint that the heating was too hot and was damaging the children’s health. It was affecting their sleep. Her complaint was also about the car park where she wanted CCTV due to ASB. She wanted to move.
On 9 November 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response about heating being on continuously. The resident had reported the issue on 20 October 2022. An emergency repair order was raised. The contractor was unable to get hold of the resident. An appointment was arranged for the 24 October 2022 but was “reported back as a no access”. An assessment was carried out on the following day and materials were ordered. A follow-on appointment was arranged for the 2 November 2022, but the wrong materials had been provided. It offered a new appointment for 11 November 2022.
The resident reported that the contractor did not, in fact, attend on 11 November 2022. The resident chased on several occasions. The complaints officer wrote to the resident on 22 December 2022 asking whether the heating had been resolved. The resident confirmed that the heating had been resolved at the date of her previous email but the heating had ceased to work for the previous 3 weeks.
On 11 January 2023, the resident chased an update on her complaint. There followed an internal discussion about the progress of the complaint and changeover of staff. On the same day, the resident made new complaint (the Second Complaint) that she had been awaiting 2 years for a move, there had been ongoing issues with the heating affecting the health of her household and impacting on her finances and she had not heard back from the complaints officer who was going to “review” the compensation. She had also made a new complaint about the failure of the heat pump issue. She asked this be treated as a new and separate complaint. The landlord did not log this email as a complaint.
The landlord wrote again on 2 February 2023, with a further Stage 1 response. It offered £220 in relation to the heating being on continuously from 20 October 2022 to 24 November 2022. This included for complaint handling. It did not uphold the decision regarding the car park. On 28 February 2024, the landlord increased the offer to £240. The resident replied on the same day that she accepted £240 for the heating but was not satisfied a wanted the landlord to address the car park issue. On 8 March 2023, the landlord and she wanted to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. The resident expressed concern about the time the complaint process was taking.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord replied that its “new approach to complaints handling” meant that “we carry out a thorough investigation to make sure you receive a fair and consistent outcome”. It also met “the needs of the new Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code”. It stated that ”due to changes in (the landlord’s) complaints process from November 2020, imposed by the Housing Ombudsman Service, there are currently high volumes of cases awaiting Stage 2 review which will impact timescales. The new approach is taking longer than expected”. The resident would “hear soon”.
On 5 July 2023, it wrote to the resident with a Stage 2 response to the First Complaint. It referred to a telephone conversation that day (no note was provided of that conversation) and increased the compensation from £240 to £280.

Complaint No 3

On 9 December 2022, the MA wrote to the residents that a main pump had failed and despite “best efforts”, it would not be repaired or replaced until after that weekend.
The MA had secured heaters but due to a shortage, there were not enough. These were prioritised to residents “as advised yesterday”. It stated that the landlord was also trying to source additional heaters.
The landlord’s repair record referred to a job instructing its contractor on 11 December 2022 to attend on the property who reported that the repair was a matter for the freeholder.
On 11 and 12 December 2022, the resident wrote several emails to the MA and landlord that she had received no update about the heating, she had been told there were insufficient heaters, the residents would have to wait 48 hours, and the emergency contact for the landlord was not assisting. The MA wrote to the landlord that it had prioritised heaters for residents on the top floors, those with young children and limited mobility and referred to a communication of the previous day.
On 11 and 12 December 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. The residents of the block had no communal heating.
2. She had received an email telling her to collect a heater from concierge but was told she was not eligible and not on a list.
3. She occupied a 3-storey town house. She felt the treatment of the residents was poor. She had children with mobility needs. The weather was “freezing”.
On the same day, the resident’s MP also reported that in the resident’s correspondence “attached” (not provided to this Service), she stated that she has had no heating since “Tuesday of last week” and has not even been provided with heaters or urgent assistance to rectify this situation. The resident had 3 (sic) children who were vulnerable and had disabilities and were “in desperate need of assistance in this extreme weather”. She had also reported that she was incurring additional heating costs of “£100 a week”.
The resident also ‘tweeted’ that the weather was “freezing” and their heating was broken down. She had received an email at 17.46 on 9 December 2022 stating that neither the MA or landlord was able to fix the heating. The landlord responded that an emergency job had been logged the day before.
On 13 December 2022, an internal email asked the housing team to look into this urgently and report back to the MP.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord or MA delivered a heater to the resident.
On 18 December 2022, the landlord referred the resident to the MA whose engineer was attending. The landlord’s officer was “working overtime” due to demand.
There followed an internal discussion between the landlord and MA/freeholder as to who should bear the costs of the generator. During the course of that discussion it set out there was a far lower proportion of private to social tenants. (less than 25%). The landlord decided it would give the “go-ahead” to the generator as it could not leave the residents without heating until March, even if it would have to bear the costs. The residents had been left without heating for 3 weeks.
On 23 December 2022, the complaints officer stated it could “review compensation”. It was not clear which complaint it was referring to but from the context, it was reasonable to conclude it was referring to the loss of heating, referred to below.
On 30 December 2022, the landlord replied to the MP setting out that the issue with the heating was the responsibility of the freeholder that there were some issues in getting extra heaters. However, the MA had since provided the resident with 2 electric heaters for her property and fuel vouchers.
It had requested that the freeholder compensate their residents for the loss of heating and additional costs incurred and it was awaiting an update on this.
On 4 and 11 January 2023, the resident chased a move and requested a decant.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response to the Third Complaint as follows:
1. The pump issue was the responsibility of the superior landlord who owned the plant room.
2. It had been liaising with the MA. The repair date was 10 weeks. It had approved a generator to be connected that week as an interim measure. It apologised for the miscommunication regarding the heater. She had since been provided with 2 heaters by the MA and had issued fuel vouchers of £100 and would issue a further voucher of £50. It had asked the superior landlord for a goodwill payment. It closed the complaint.
On 17 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint about the impact of the inadequacy and cost of the heating on her and her family’s health.
On 24 January 2023, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) of the resident’s local authority wrote to the landlord as follows: “According to the resident, the matter had been ongoing for nearly 8 weeks and no action had been taken to remedy the issue. The landlord, as the responsible party for the properties it referred to, was required to remedy the ‘excess cold’ hazards within 72 hours from the time it is first brought to their attention, in accordance with the Housing Act 2004 and other relevant housing legislation. With the obvious low temperatures and vulnerable individuals living at the above premises, the problem was exacerbated”. The EHO asked for an update on the landlord’s “intended or ongoing course of action for remedying the above hazard. It asked why it had taken such a long time for the matter to be resolved”.
On 3 February 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It referred to her complaint 24 January 2023 (sic) that the block residents had been without heating/hot water. The matter has been ongoing for nearly eight weeks and no action has been taken to remedy the issue. The landlord did not provide to this investigation a complaint dated 24 January 2023.
2. Several residents had reported on 6 December 2022 a “heating / hot water issue”.
3. It had “immediately” raised emergency jobs for those residents with its contractor.
4. On 7 December 2022, the contractor reported that the issue appeared to be a blockage in the plant room (a room that controls the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), which they did not maintain.
5. It had contacted the managing agent who confirmed it was their responsibility and that their contractor was on site. The MA reported that the heating “should” be back up and running. Their contractors had remained on site. It had updated all residents.
6. On 8 December 2022, the reports to the MA continued that the heating was not up to temperature. The MA confirmed they were handling this and asked for any further reports.
7. On 9 December 2022, the MA and landlord arranged to deliver 40 heaters supplied by the MA.
8. The landlord was pursuing the freeholder.
9. “Contracted work” was scheduled for 16 December 2022.
10. The landlord issued fuel vouchers “to those that have been in touch”. She also reported a number of requests from residents regarding compensation for the loss of heating due to the failure of the bore hole pump.
11. On 19 December 2023, the landlord had been unable to contact the freeholder. On 22 December 2022, the MA informed the residents that the bore hole pump replacement would take up to 10 weeks. The MA had sourced a temporary generator/boiler to be installed in the second week of January 2023. On 3 January 2023, the MA stated it had been closed over the Christmas period. On 12 January 2023, the MA reported a delay in getting the generator to site, due to health and safety implications that needed to be addressed. The generator would be situated in the block and scaffolding was required.
12. The MA stated the generator would be delivered on 17 January 2023. From 20 January 2023, all residents had heating/hot water.
13. It expressed its “sincerest apologies”.
14. The energy centre was managed by the freeholder. The MA managed the network and energy centre.
15. It was aware that there was an issue with the supply and it continued to pursue the freeholder for a resolution but because the energy source was a ground source heat pump, the resolution had a “long lead time”.
16. The major repair to the building’s heating system was expected to take up to 10 weeks, as a specialist part needed to be manufactured abroad.
17. Residents had been provided with space heaters and had hot water.
18. It did not own and operate the main energy source, so it was “difficult” for it to resolve this issue. It would continue working with the freeholder.
19. As this was a communal failure owned and operated by the landlord, it was “unable” to pay any compensation.
20. It would continue to chase for progress and communicate any updates we receive.
21. It did not uphold the complaint.
The resident wrote on 14 February 2023 as follows:
1. The heating was lost in November not December. The landlord had a legal obligation to provide heating. The resident should not be left with the cost and “the suffering”. The health impact on her family was “horrendous”.
2. At no point the resident was given adequate heating. The heaters provided were unacceptable.
3. Her autistic daughter became distressed and had been in pain “for weeks on end”.
On 9 March 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint.
On 28 March 2023, an internal email showed that the resident chased progress on the repair.
On 25 May 2023, the resident chased the Stage 2 response to the Third Complaint. Her request of 14 February 2023 had not been acknowledged. On the same day, the landlord apologised for this failure and offered £30 compensation. The resident replied that £30 was inadequate. The impact of the lack of heating had had severe ramifications. She wanted “supportive communication”.
According to an internal email of 6 June 2023, the resident informed the landlord that heating had been restored. She reported that she had issues from November to May as the system was not working. The landlord said it would not compensate for her that period but was speaking to the freeholder. They would compensate for the issues affecting her property from February to May 2023. It offered £574 comprising of £10 initial payment, 122 x £2 a day (£244), distress £60 inconvenience £60 and time and effort £200, which the resident accepted.
It wrote to the resident accordingly on the same day. It said the landlord would be in discussion with the freeholder about the “downtime” period. The compensation did not include the period when the overall system did not work.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s Third Complaint as follows:
1. It set out the chronology of events, as already set out in this report.
2. A temporary generator was installed, resulting in the heating being reinstated from the 20 January 2023.
3. The landlord did not own, or operate the plant room, or energy supplied to it and because of this, it was “not able” to pay compensation.
4. It upheld its original decision.
On 12 August 2023, the resident chased a payment of £574 offered on 6 June 2023.
In January 2024, there was a further report regarding the heating. The resident reported to this Service on 4 June 2024 that heating had stopped working again and the landlord was prioritising her for a move.

Assessment and findings

The heating.

In investigating this complaint, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to seek to conclusively determine what happened in relation to the heating and hot water, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider the appropriateness and reasonableness of the landlord’s actions in response to the matters raised by the resident and her formal complaint.
The First Complaint concerned a finite period of time where the heating could not be regulated in the resident’s property. While it was reasonable that the landlord raised an emergency repair, there were delays in carrying it out. The resident reported that the excess heat had a significant impact on her family. This was recognised in the final offer of compensation in the amount of £280 which offer, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, given the issue was relatively short lived, was reasonable.
The issues of the Third Complaint were more complex and impacted on the resident’s household for a longer time. It was reasonable that the landlord instructed their contractor to attend at the outset, although the exact date of that attendance was not clear from the records. There was a dispute as to when the issue begun. According to the resident in her complaint, it was in November 2022 and not long after the issue of the thermostat was resolved. According to the landlord, it was on 6 December 2022. There was no evidence it was sooner. The MP also referred to the resident reporting it having broken down on 6 December 2022. The evidence provided by the landlord is not altogether clear and suggests that the landlord did not respond till 8 December 2022 which, if the case, was inappropriate.
The landlord’s explanation that the issue was with the freeholder and the MA was reasonable. The pump and the room where it was situated belonged to the freeholder and was not part of the landlord’s lease. The 1985 Act requires the landlord to keep installation for space heating in repair, not to provide space heating and that obligation does not extend to installations in areas that it does not own. However, the Act requires the landlord to use reasonable endeavours to obtain such rights so as to undertake those repairs. The Ombudsman is not privy to the relationship between the landlord and freeholder, however would expect adequate arrangements to be in place.
Landlords also have an obligation under section 9a of the 1985 Act, to ensure a property is fit for habitation as regards excess cold and obligations under the Housing Act 2004 in relation to hazards, including excess cold. It is noted that the tenancy agreement itself contained an obligation that the landlord should “make sure” all fixtures and fitting for water and space heating were kept repaired and in working order. While the Ombudsman will not make a definitive finding that involves the interpretation of a tenancy agreement or legal concepts, this provision may suggest that the landlord had a contractual obligation to provide space heating, although it is acknowledged that it may not have been possible to have fulfilled it.
In any event, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to take a purely legalistic approach and there were a number of actions that were open to the landlord to take as a matter of best practice.
The evidence indicated that the MA prioritised the radiators on the basis of need rather than status of occupancy. The resident did not fall under the category of being on the top floor. However, hers was a family with vulnerabilities and her daughter had limited mobility. Given the high incidence of disability within social housing, it is likely there were many vulnerable families within the block. However, there was no evidence of the landlord liaising with the MA regarding that prioritisation.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had given due regard to either its vulnerabilities policy or the Equality Act 2010. The vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household showed that the landlord was aware that heating for the resident’s was particularly important. It was also aware that her daughter’s condition affected her mobility. It is noted that this was not centrally recorded and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
There was no evidence that the landlord considered the household needs, had them in mind, or recognised the impact of loss of heating on the household when responding to her. It appeared to respond more energetically to the resident’s MP. It was unreasonable of the landlord to refer the residents to the MA to the extent that it did as the landlord should have retained a monitoring and advocacy role. There may be circumstances where that may be sufficient but this was not a routine issue. This was particularly impactful on the resident, given her circumstances and given the ongoing issues with the heating system.
Although the landlord stated it was working with the freeholder, it did not provide evidence of this to this Service. There was only limited evidence of liaising with the freeholder and no evidence of the landlord checking the situation for itself.
In addition to the delay in supplying radiators for the property, it was unreasonable to supply only one then two radiators for her household, this was insufficient given the low temperatures and the household circumstances.
The landlord, by its own evidence, appeared to be under resourced. Given the size of the landlord and the difficulties with heating in that block to date, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have contingency plans in place, including better communication. It would be expected there to be better arrangements to deal with an emergency that was to affect so many residents, not be short lived and at that time of year.
It was indicated that the communication was inadequate, given the circumstances, where the resident was left not knowing the position, including the communication regarding the radiators. It was not reasonable for the landlord to update the residents after office hours on a Friday afternoon. Communication was even more important at that time, in what would be considered to be an emergency, the total loss of heating and hot water in a cold December in particular once there was a prospect of no prompt solution.
It was reasonable that the landlord authorised the installation of a generator, pending the repair of the pump and that it accepted that was the priority despite a dispute over cost with the freeholder. The Ombudsman has not seen any reports by the resident that the heating was inadequate while the generator was in place. Nor has the Ombudsman seen any evidence of the landlord inspecting the property. However, while it was not specific, it recognised failures and offered the resident the sum of £574. Based on the information provided, the Ombudsman considers that as the evidence indicated heating and hot water were restored, this was a reasonable sum to cover the period February to May 2023.
However, the Ombudsman has also concluded that the landlord did not take sufficient steps in all of the circumstances to ensure that the resident had sufficient heating from 6 December 2022 to 20 January 2023, during the coldest time of the year, and therefore finds maladministration.
The resident reported early on that the heaters were costing her an additional £100 a week. The landlord offered a total of £147 of vouchers for the period the radiators were in situ (a period of just over a month). There was no basis of calculation or whether the resident considered this to be insufficient. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that if the resident provides some evidence of additional costs the landlord should consider this.
The landlord informed the resident that it would be pursuing the freeholder for compensation for the failure of the heat pump. Again, this will be a matter of contract between the two parties. There was no evidence of any update on this position. The Ombudsman will make an order and recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It was unreasonable that the landlord reported there was no access on 24 October 2022, without referring to the circumstances that it was the contractor who was at fault. This was not transparent and indicated a defensive approach. The response did not provide a resolution beyond referring to an appointment in the future which did not materialise. The complaints officer dealing with the complaint did not follow up or respond to the resident. Rather, they asked the resident to confirm whether the heating was working rather than check with its own repairs team first. The Ombudsman would expect the complaints team to monitor and follow through any appointments. It is positive that the landlord recognised it was not a sufficient response and offered compensation. The resident was left to chase up a response due to the confusion over who was dealing with the complaint and there was confusion about a review.
The landlord then wrote a second Stage 1 complaint response in February 2023. While this was confusing in terms of its process and delayed resolution, as a response it was an improvement. Although, after some further delay, the complaint was escalated on 8 March 2023, the landlord did not provide its Stage 2 response until July 2023, some 4 months later. This was inappropriate as was the vague promise of 10 March 2023 that the resident would “hear soon”, rather than provide a timescale and monitor that timescale. The delays were not recognised in the landlord’s review. It was reasonable however, to proactively note its delay to its Stage 2 response to the Third Complaint and offer compensation.
It is noted that the landlord attributed its delay in responding to the Ombudsman’s Scheme. This was unreasonable and inappropriate as it was for the landlord to make the necessary arrangements to comply with our Scheme.
The landlord then failed to log the Second complaint altogether. It was then left to the resident to suggest that the complaint about the heating failing be dealt with as a separate complaint. The complaint reviews did not consider its own performance as to its response to the loss of heating. It was inadequate to absolve itself of all responsibilities for the reasons already set out in this report. The complaints process was an opportunity for the landlord to consider its performance and its obligations, as well as being good practice. It was also an opportunity to review its communication and consider the impact of the loss of heating and events given the resident’s particular circumstances and her request for “supportive communication”. Essentially, the response lacked empathy.
It is noted that the landlord’s referral to the Service in its Stage 2 response to the Third Complaint of June 2023 stated that the resident had to wait 8 weeks before referring their complaint to us or contact their MP. This information was outdated in October 2022. It is also noted that, following the offer of compensation in July 2023, the resident was left to chase her compensation weeks after it had been offered to her.
We published our Special Report on the landlord on 27 July 2023. The report noted:
1. Instead of recognising complaints as an indicator of declining performance and using them as an opportunity to improve the service the resident received, the landlord was at times abrupt in its response.
2. Of profound concern is the landlord’s handling of additional needs, including disabilities and mental health. This was often wholly inadequate, and the evidence strongly indicates that this aggravated the distress and inconvenience experienced by some of its most vulnerable residents.
3. Some responses were overtly dismissive – the landlord appeared not to care about the resident or consider the human impact at the heart of the complaint.
4. Our casework shows the landlord failed to embed its vulnerable residents policy in its daily dealings with residents.
We recognise the landlord had not had the benefit of the report during the complaint. However, our findings in this investigation are reflected in our Special Report. We are not therefore making separate recommendations but we will be making an order that a senior member of staff review this report, in particular in relation to its treatment of the resident in the context of her household vulnerabilities and the arrangements it makes for emergencies.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman has made a number of observations about the landlord’s record keeping in this report. It would seem that the failures in record keeping would have contributed to the poor communication. The Ombudsman finds service failure in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports in relation to her heating.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the failure of heating appeared to lack proper coordination. It also did not take proper account of the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities. It was reasonable however that it arranged to install a generator in order to provide temporary measures pending a permeant repair.
The complaint handling failed to follow its policy process, creating delays and further frustration for the resident. Its content, in particular initially, lacked empathy and awareness of the household vulnerabilities. The landlord missed the opportunity to review its performance. However, it recognised in part its failings and sought to address them.
The Ombudsman has found that the failures in record keeping contributed to the findings of service failure in this report.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident to ensure it has recorded comprehensively the household’s vulnerabilities and evidence this to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
2. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should evidence to the Ombudsman payment of the compensation already offered to the resident (£280, £30, and £574). If payment has not been made, payment should be made within 4 weeks of this report.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £900 in addition to the compensation already offered as follows:
  1. £600 in relation to its handling of the loss of heating.
  2. £200 in relation to its complaint handling.
  3. £100 in relation to its record keeping.
4. Within 6 weeks, a senior member of staff at director level should review this case and note the findings in this report. It should set out what steps it has taken since the Special Report which would address the failings in this case, alternatively set out a summary action plan and provide this to the Ombudsman.
5. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should write to the Ombudsman with an update on its correspondence with the freeholder and whether any compensation has been paid and what the position is on any claim. The Ombudsman appreciates that the detail of that information may be commercially sensitive and is not for sharing with residents but would expect the landlord to follow up with the resident what the prospects are, and, if so, what additional payment it intends to make, if any, to the residents affected by the loss of heating. The landlord should, therefore, also update the resident accordingly, also within 6 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.
The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. If there is no concluded outcome at the date of compliance with the order at paragraph 84(e), the landlord should, when it is in a position to do so, update the residents of the block with the outcome of any negotiations with the freeholder as to compensation..
2. If the resident provides some evidence of any additional energy costs incurred during the period 1 December 2023 to 20 January 2024, due to the use of heaters, not covered by the vouchers, the landlord should consider this. The landlord should inform the resident whether it would consider this, in the first instance.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.