Amplius Living (202410731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410731

Longhurst Group Limited

27 November 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that the property was cold and does not retain heat.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 7-bedroom, 3-storey house, with a basement, approximately 12 feet high ceilings, and laminate flooring throughout. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has medical conditions which the landlord has recorded. One of the resident’s daughters had multiple medical conditions and sadly died in May 2024. His other daughter also has medical conditions.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord must keep in repair the structure of the property and keep in proper working order installations for space heating, water heating, sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 4 hours), urgent (repair within 7 days) or routine (repair within 28 days). It classes partial loss of heating as an urgent repair and says floor coverings are the resident’s responsibility. It will take into account a resident’s or household member’s vulnerabilities or disabilities.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is excess cold. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards. Government guidance on the HHSRS states “a healthy indoor temperature is around 21°C. There is small risk of health effects below 19°C. Below 16°C, there are serious health risks for the elderly”. It states preventative measures can include appropriate levels of thermal insulation and having an appropriate heating system in place. Further government public health guidance recommends “keeping the homes of vulnerable people to at least 18°C, but that temperatures up to 21°C may be beneficial.”
Within its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It will exclude complaints which have previously been considered under its complaints process, but if a reoccurring issue will consider a new complaint and review its previous records. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days. If it cannot meet its response timeframes it will contact the resident and agreed any extension greater than an additional 10 working days. The policy says it will only do this in exceptional circumstances after giving valid reasons to the resident.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
Under its compensation policy the landlord can offer compensation for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, if there has been a service failure. The policy contains suggested amount bandings based on impact on the resident.

Summary of events

On 22 November 2022 the resident called the landlord and said that the property was cold, it was a big house, and the radiators were not big enough. It raised a repair for a heat loss check on 7 December 2022 which its contractor carried out 2 days later. Their report said the ground floor heating was working and heated up to 18°C. They also said it was a very large house and they were not able to determine its insulation. The landlord asked for an insulation check in an internal email on 12 December 2022.
In an internal email on 10 March 2023 the landlord said the property had previously been 3 flats but had been reverted to a house in 2010. It said it had been brought up to thermal building regulations at the time and had had a complete refurbishment. It said it suspected it had internal wall insulation but would need to measure the walls’ thickness to confirm. The boiler was replaced in 2021 and the windows in 2010 and so should be of reasonable thermal performance it said.
The resident contacted the council, and the council wrote to the landlord on 24 March 2023. The council told it to investigate as the resident believed the boiler was not adequately heating the property. It inspected the loft insulation and said this was adequate on 13 April 2023. On that day it replied to the council and said it would arrange a heating survey. It emailed the resident the following day to confirm this.
On 4 May 2023 the heating contractor surveyed the property. They said the boiler and system were adequate and working, but the ground floor radiators were undersized and should be replaced. However, on 25 August 2023 in an internal email the landlord said it had requested another survey. This was completed on 30 August 2023 and the report said all radiators were sufficient. The contractor said the resident only complained about the temperature of the ground floor (living room). The contractor recommended checking the radiator pipework with a view to increasing its diameter. They also said they suspected the thermal efficiency of the property was likely to be low, due to its age and high ceilings.
The landlord’s records say, on 5 September 2023, its contractor replaced 2 radiators on the ground floor and had spoken to the resident about the pipework upgrade, but he had not wanted this or to lift his flooring for this. However, on 13 September 2023 he emailed it and said he did want the pipework replaced but did not want it wall mounted. He had been complaining about the heating for years and had run up a £15,000 energy bill. He emailed it again on 10 October 2023 and said he had not received a response to the complaint he made on 13 September 2023. He said it knew from when he moved in that the heating system and fabric of the building were not adequate.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord called the resident and said it had closed his complaint with notes added to a previous complaint it had responded to at stage 2 about heating. However, in an internal email that day it decided to raise the new complaint as it was slightly different. The resident also used the landlord’s online complaints form on 17 October 2023 to raise a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. His complaint of 13 September 2023 being different to his previous closed complaint and that the landlord had not responded.
2. The fabric of the building not being properly insulated.
3. The radiator pipes being too small to heat the property.
The landlord raised the new stage 1 complaint on 18 October 2023 and called the resident the following day. It called him again on 24 October 2023 to follow up on actions from his previous complaint. It emailed him to acknowledge his new complaint that day, but he replied and said the information it had given was incorrect and related to his old complaint. It emailed him the following day to apologise and provided a new, correct, acknowledgement letter. It also said it had booked a heating survey for 9 November 2023.
On 2 November 2023 the landlord called the resident and wrote to him to confirm an extension of time to provide its stage 1 response, however the dates stated in the letter were all incorrect.
The landlord called the resident on 9 November 2023 about the radiator pipework. It said he wanted the works done and there must have been a miscommunication, as its contractor had previously said he had refused the works. It visited the resident on 15 November 2023 and noted that the ground floor temperature would not rise above 18°C despite it being set to a higher temperature. It said its heating contractor should attend. The same day it also requested a new Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the property.
On 24 November 2023 the heating contractor emailed the landlord, following a visit to the property with it. They confirmed the radiators were working correctly and said the pipework upgrade “will not increase temperature to radiators downstairs.” They said the ground floor temperature reached 19.5°C and the ideal temperature was between 18°C and 21°C. They also said due to the size of the property and volume of rooms, doors and windows would need to be closed to retain heat.
A new EPC was issued on 29 November 2023. It rated the property as a D with a potential to become a C, however stated this was based on assumptions about insulation or a lack of, and its recommendations included adding insulation.
On 5 December 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase his complaint response. It told him it had extended its response date. It emailed him the following day and said it would update him. It then sent an internal email to chase the outcome of its inspection, which it received that day. In an internal email it said there was insulation between the floor joists between the basement and the ground floor and provided photographs. It also said the ground floor walls were solid brick construction and “measures as there is also thermal board to these areas.” (sic) It noted the resident’s sofa was placed in front of a radiator and was capturing most of its heat.
In a further internal email on 11 December 2023 the landlord said, while it had done some draft proofing, the radiator pipework upgrade would make a bigger impact. It also said it had recommended moving the sofa away from the radiator, and closing doors which the resident had left open, to keep in heat. This was because the doors led to the hallway which was 3 stories high. It said the resident had been “reluctant” to agree to the suggestions.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to explain the scope of the proposed pipework upgrade work and ask for his agreement. It also said the laminate flooring would need to be lifted to do this. He replied and said he would only agree if it also fitted internal and external wall insulation. He called the landlord on 20 December 2023 to repeat his position. The landlord replied to him and said it would arrange the pipework upgrade as he had agreed to this. It emailed its contractor to arrange the works and noted that it would ask another contractor to lift the laminate flooring first and then replace it afterwards. It also called the resident that day to ask for an extension of time, left a voicemail, and sent a letter.
The landlord called the resident on 10 January 2024 and said he had refused to allow works to lift his laminate flooring. Its note said he replied that he did not want the pipework upgrade, but he wanted insulation. He also asked for the new EPC. It said it agreed to put the pipework upgrade on hold. It sent an internal email on 19 January 2024 and said it would look into insulation.
On 2 February 2024 the landlord called the resident to agree a further extension of time and confirmed this in a letter. It called him twice on 5 February 2024 and he said he did not feel like it was taking him seriously. He said his daughter was ill, told of her medical conditions and history, and said he was worried. He also said he had brought a thermometer which said the temperature was lower than his thermostat said it was. He was in debt with his energy bill, did not think the pipework would make a difference, and wanted a second opinion from a different surveyor.
Also on 5 February 2024 in internal emails the landlord considered insulation, said that it would need to do the pipework upgrade first, then said its surveyor confirmed the walls were already insulated based on their width. It confirmed the age and suitability of the boiler. It confirmed that it needed to complete the pipework upgrade and needed the resident to agree to this.
The resident emailed the landlord to chase its complaint response on 9 February 2024. It replied to say it had extended its response date as it was still investigating and “not in a position to offer you a resolution at the moment.” It visited him on 20 February 2024 and noted he said he wanted the pipework upgrade and had been waiting. He said the contractor had come but then left a no access card. He also said he wanted wall insulation.
On 23 February 2024 the landlord called the resident to ask for a further extension of time and confirmed this with a letter. It also said he had agreed to the works, and it emailed its contractors to arrange these. On 26 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that he had been waiting 6 months for a complaint response and said that the allegations he had not opened his door to contractors were a lie. It called him in response and said it had a plan for the works and would keep him updated. However, on 28 February 2024 the contractor emailed the landlord and said he had refused to let them lift his laminate flooring, as the heating contractor was not also present.
In internal emails between 1 and 6 March 2024 the landlord said its contractor had explained to the resident what works it was going to complete and it needed him to agree to this. However, the resident had asked for a full action plan in addition to this. The landlord asked internally if the property was on a cavity wall insulation programme and confirmed it was not. The landlord concluded its complaint resolution would be to do the pipework upgrade and insulate the floor between the ground floor and the basement.
The landlord tried to call the resident twice, and then provided its stage 1 response, on 12 March 2023 in which it:
1. Apologised for the service received which did not meet its standards.
2. Set out the resident’s complaint and a timeline of events.
3. Accepted it had delayed in organising the pipework upgrade following its contractor’s recommendations in May 2023 until August 2023, following which he had refused the works.
4. Set out its plan to complete the pipework upgrade and insulate the basement ceiling.
5. Said it could not compensate him for his energy bill as there was no fault with the boiler.
6. Apologised for its delay in providing its response which it said was a service failure. It offered £100 compensation for this.
7. Explained how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
Between 14 and 17 March 2024 the resident and landlord exchanged emails in which the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the stage 1 response contained lies and false claims. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 18 March 2024. It called him on 25 March 2024 to discuss the complaint and extend its deadline until 1 May 2024. It also sent a letter acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. It called him again on 22 April 2024 and said it was chasing internally for updates. On 30 April 2024 it requested a further extension of time.
In internal emails the landlord discussed the works between 7 and 8 May 2024. It said it had agreed to the pipework upgrade and basement insulation but had not raised orders for these. Its contractor had attended on an unknown date to lift the laminate flooring but said the resident’s furniture was in the way.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord called the resident to request an extension of time. He told it that his daughter had died.
The contractor attended on 22 May 2024 to install insulation in the basement ceiling but reported back that insulation was already present. The landlord emailed its heating contractor and asked it to book in the pipework upgrade, and it said it needed to re-survey first, which it did on 29 May 2024.
On 29 May 2024 the landlord called the resident to discuss its stage 2 response and noted the resident was not happy with the outcome. It provided its response letter in which it:
1. Apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide a response.
2. Set out the stage 1 complaint, its response, and the resident’s desired outcomes.
3. Said its stage 1 resolutions, to upgrade pipework and insulate the basement, were appropriate. It had raised orders for these, had confirmed there was already insulation in the basement and was inspecting for the pipework that day. It would then complete the works within its 28-day policy timeframe.
4. Found that it had inspected multiple times, and that the internal temperature reached between 18°C and 21°C.
5. Accepted there had been a delay in fitting the new pipework and in responding to the complaint. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for delays, £150 for its late stage 2 response, and the £100 offered previously for its late stage 1 response, totalling £300 compensation.
6. Said how he could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The heating contractor emailed the landlord on 30 May 2024 and said it had booked to do the pipework upgrade on 6 and 7 June 2024. The landlord chased its other contractor on 3 June 2024 to confirm it could lift the laminate flooring but did not receive a response. On 6 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the contractors had not attended.
Between 11 and 12 July 2024 the landlord confirmed appointments with the contractors and the resident for the laminate to be lifted and the works to go ahead on 21 and 22 August 2024. However, it noted on 21 August 2024 that the resident had cancelled the appointments due to a hospital appointment.
The resident has told this Service that the property is very cold and that his thermometer says the property does not go above 18°C, and that his reading is lower than his thermostat. The heating is expensive, and he is in debt. The situation is causing distress for him and his daughter. He also believes the cold was responsible or contributed to his daughter’s death. He said the landlord has not completed any works, and had not insulated the property or basement, or complied with any of the EPC recommendations. He said his neighbours’ house, which is also owned by the landlord, is much warmer because it insulated it years previously. He believes the landlord does not want to pay for this in the property. He also said he has not been offered any advice or support by the landlord for his energy debts.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with this Service and the landlord, the resident has raised concerns about the impact the situation has had on his family’s health, particularly in relation to the death of his daughter. This type of claim would be better suited to the court where an independent medical expert would give an opinion on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury or deterioration in health. The Ombudsman could not determine the cause of any health issues or injuries. Although the Ombudsman can order a remedy for the overall distress and inconvenience caused, if there has been maladministration, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue a personal injury or negligence claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was cold and does not retain heat

It is not clear when the resident first raised the issue of the property being cold, but the evidence shows that he did raise the issue in November 2022. The landlord promptly arranged a heat loss survey which was positive. Although the survey did not identify an issue with the heating, it questioned the property’s insulation, and the landlord appropriately asked questions about this. It confirmed the age of the windows and boiler. It also said the property was brought up to standard in 2010. It would have been helpful if it had provided documents or reports confirming the work which had been done, to this Service. However, it is possible it did not have these, as it did not know whether insulation had been added. It failed to investigate this further at that time.
Prompted by a letter from the council the landlord arranged another heat loss survey in April 2023 and checked the loft insulation. Although the second survey said the ground floor radiators were undersized, it failed to raise a job to replace these. Instead, and without obvious reason, it requested a third heat loss survey. That survey, completed on 30 August 2023, said the radiators were sufficient but suggested upgrading the pipework and investigating the thermal efficiency of the property.
The landlord’s records say it replaced the 2 radiators, as previously advised to, in September 2023, although the evidence is not clear if this had been done on an earlier date. In any event, this was evidence that the landlord was trying to put things right.
The landlord also said its contractor spoke to the resident about the pipework upgrade on 5 September 2023. There are conflicting reports about whether the pipework upgrade had been first recommended in April, May or August 2023. If the former, there had been a delay in arranging this which it accepted and apologised for within its stage 1 response. There then followed either the resident refusing the works due to having to lift his laminate flooring, or because the pipes would be wall mounted. The landlord had failed at that stage to fully explain the works, then delayed in raising the issue with the resident until 9 November 2023, which was a delay of nearly 2 months.
The landlord visited the resident and witnessed the temperature issue itself, then requested a further heating check and a new EPC, which was solution focused. Interestingly the contractor reported that the property reached 19.5°C which was within the ideal guideline temperatures under the HHSRS and government public health guidance. It also said, confusingly, that the pipework upgrade would not improve the ground floor temperature, which was its purpose.
One year after the resident raised the issue the landlord received the new EPC, which again questioned insulation at the property. However, it clearly states its calculations of possible improvement in its efficiency rating were based on assumptions about insulation. This is evidence to strongly suggest the EPC assessor did not know, and did not check, whether there was external or internal wall insulation. The result of this was that the EPC recommendations could not be relied on. The landlord confirmed there was insulation between the ceiling of the basement and the ground floor, and believed the walls had been thermal boarded based on their measurements. However, it is not clear whether it told the resident this as he continued to ask for wall insulation.
The resident agreed to the pipework upgrade in December 2023 on the basis he also wanted the landlord to fit wall insulation. It would have been helpful, and may have also assisted its complaint handling, had the landlord completed further checks and been able to confirm to him that there was already insulation present. If it had done this, the resident may have been more willing to try the other positive recommendations it had made regarding the location of his sofa, and closing doors to keep heat in. Its communication could have been clearer and more timely.
Positively the landlord arranged for the laminate flooring to be taken up and re-laid, when this was the resident’s responsibility, to allow the works. However, the resident refused this, while also telling it that it was not helping him which was contradictory. On 20 February 2024 the resident told it that the contractor had come but then left without doing any works. The landlord has not provided any record of this to this Service. He told it repeatedly that he wanted wall insulation. Prior to this it had said in an internal email that there was wall insulation, but it again failed to tell the resident this. The landlord positively tried to arrange the works again which again were prevented by the resident.
The landlord failed to re-order the works until May 2024, despite it stating its resolution to the stage 1 complaint, on 12 March 2024, was to do the works. However, it did try again and was prevented from lifting the laminate flooring by the resident. It also raised an order to insulate the basement, and its contractor reported back that the work had already been done. Despite the landlord knowing the basement had ceiling insulation and having discussed this in multiple internal emails it still had offered this as part of its stage 1 resolution and raised the job, which was a failing.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that its processes are not operating effectively. The landlord had kept records but failed to review them or its previous internal communications before providing its stage 1 response. This resulted in an unneeded repairs appointment and likely added to the resident’s lack of confidence in it. By this stage there also appears to be far too many members of the landlord’s staff, and different departments, involved to be able to progress in a constructive way. It would have been more helpful if the landlord had appointed a single person to manage the issues.
The landlord, and its contractors, appropriately checked the loft and basement insulation, the windows, boiler and heating system. It correctly upgraded radiators and gave the resident advice on maintaining heat within his rooms. It also correctly tried to follow its contractors’ advice on upgrading the pipework, although the contractors seem to have varying opinions on how much difference this would make. Nevertheless, the landlord’s willingness to do this demonstrates it wanted to resolve the issue.
However, the resident’s main if not sole request was to have wall insulation. There is no definitive answer on what, if any, internal or external wall insulation is present at the property, although the landlord believes there is thermal boarding. There is no evidence it has told the resident this, which may have helped in facilitating the pipework upgrade. In any event, the landlord should have carried out further checks, of its previous works in 2010 or by checking the property, to have an answer. It could have then created a more appropriate plan while managing the resident’s expectations. Instead, he feels like it simply did not want to pay for it despite there being no evidence of this.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £50 compensation for its delay in fitting the new pipework. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the resident could have done more to help his situation, the landlord was slow to act on several occasions and there is no evidence it took the resident’s or his daughters’ medical conditions into account when booking repairs appointments. Its communication could have been clearer, and its proposed resolutions better reasoned and explained. Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation, which is inclusive of the £50 it offered at stage 2. This amount is lower than would have ordinarily been ordered to take into account delays which the landlord was not responsible for.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first made his complaint on 13 September 2023 as a clear expression of dissatisfaction, meeting the landlord’s policy definition of a complaint. He chased a response on 10 October 2023, but the landlord failed to contact him until 4 working days later, which was 23 working days after he complained. While its explanation, that it had closed the complaint due to its similarities with his previous complaint which had completed its process was reasonable, it should have contacted him sooner to explain this. However, it then decided to accept the complaint, which the resident repeated on 17 October 2023, which demonstrated that it wanted to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord called the resident within 3 working days to acknowledge his complaint. It then provided an acknowledgement letter with incorrect information which was a failing. It should have provided a response, in line with its policy, by 31 October 2023. However, it requested an extension of time on 2 November 2023. It exceeded this, and when the resident chased it, it said it had extended its response date again. It extended its response date a further 4 times, however, failed to follow its policy as it did not have valid reasons and there were no exceptional circumstances. The landlord simply stated, for one extension, it was not able to offer a resolution. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
The evidence suggests that the landlord delayed the response as it was awaiting the works to be completed. However, landlords need to ensure that they do not allow complaints to stay open indefinitely while waiting for works to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response which was an unacceptable delay of 102 working days after it had accepted the complaint. This was in breach of its policy and the Code. Positively the landlord recognised this as a service failure, apologised, and offered £100 compensation.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 March 2023, although had to convince the landlord to do so. Paragraph 5.9 of the Code is clear that complaints must be escalated if the resident remains dissatisfied unless an exclusion ground applies. Due to its delay, it then acknowledged the stage 2 complaint outside of its policy timeframe which was a further failing. It then requested 3 extensions of time again without providing valid reasons or exceptional circumstances, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. It provided its response after 51 working days. Positively it accepted its delay was a service failure, apologised and offered £150 additional compensation.
In total, the resident had waited 153 working days for his complaint responses against a combined policy, and Code, timeframe of 30 working days. While the landlord did keep in contact with the resident, its extension requests were inappropriate and do not excuse its unreasonable delays. There was maladministration. The resident was caused additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by having to chase his stage 1 response, accept extensions without being provided good reasons, and argue with the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation. This amount is inclusive of the £250 offered within its stage 1 and 2 responses and is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that the property was cold and does not retain heat.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the property was cold as it delayed on several occasions to progress with its efforts to resolve the issue. It also failed to determine whether insulation was or was not present, and while it believed it was, it failed to tell the resident this. It also provided a resolution and ordered works to fit insulation which was already present.
There was maladministration in complaint handling as the landlord failed to meet its policy timeframes for acknowledgement and responses. It extended response timeframes multiple times without valid reasons or there being exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £500 made up of:
  1. £200 (inclusive of the £50 it offered) for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in responding to his reports that the property was cold.
  2. £300 (inclusive of the £250 it offered) for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Carry out a full survey of the property, by a qualified internal or external surveyor, to include an investigation of what insulation is present, and what insulation could be added to the property.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the recommendations within the surveyor’s report ordered above, and provide a decision on what, if any, recommendations it will follow. If it decides not to follow a recommendation it is to explain why.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.