Aster Group Limited (202211314)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211314

Aster Group Limited

25 September 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 response to the resident’s reports that the property is excessively hot.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2011. The property is a 1 bedroom, top floor flat in supported accommodation. The landlord has it recorded that the resident is a wheelchair user, with multiple medical conditions and extra care needs.
Due to the resident’s age and medical issues, he was being supported by a charity, which at times, acted as his representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
In 2018, the resident reported that the property was too hot. The landlord carried out an inspection and noted that the temperature at the time was 17 degrees. It subsequently told him that the optimum temperature within a property was between 16 and 21 degrees. The resident said he wanted to install an air conditioning unit and the landlord told him that he would need to obtain written permission to do so.

Summary of events

On 27 July 2020, the resident reported that the property was excessively hot, with temperatures reaching around 28 degrees.
The following month, the landlord advised the high temperature in the property was due to it being south facing and the layout of the building. The resident asked if the landlord would install an air conditioning unit and it replied that this was unlikely. The landlord advised it would look in to whether it could monitor and record the temperatures in the property.
In September and October 2020, the resident asked the landlord for updates on this issue. The landlord made internal enquiries about installing heat monitors. From the records provided, there is no evidence that this went ahead.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord raised a works order to supply and fit solar reflective film to some of the windows in the property. This job was completed on 19 May 2021.
In early June 2021, the resident reported that the property was still too hot, despite the window film being fitted. The landlord inspected the property 8 days later and noted that the window film was peeling. It raised a works order to refit this on 8 July 2021, and completed the job within 7 days.
On 15 July 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which said:
1. Shortly after he moved in to the property he realised that it got extremely hot and had reported this regularly ever since. A surveyor visited in 2018 and the temperature taken in the property during the visit was 24.5 degrees but a follow up letter said it was lower than this. Another surveyor attended the property and left equipment to measure the temperature. This was left in the property for a few weeks and the landlord collected it and the temperatures recorded were over the legal limit. The surveyor revisited and suggested installing a solar film on the inside of the windows, which was done. This had to be replaced earlier that month because it had already come away from the glass.
2. He had asked for a hole in the wall to be made so he could install an air conditioner unit that he had brought in 2011. He said he spoke to the surveyor about this and they agreed to get someone to contact him about this. He had since chased this up but had no reply.
3. He used a walker and could no longer put the air conditioner pipe out of the window as he had fallen in the past when doing so. He was severely disabled and the high temperatures in the property were not helping his medical conditions.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 July 2021, and said it would respond by 3 August 2021.
On the same day, the landlord inspected the property and agreed to drill a hole in the wall for the air conditioning pipe to be fitted. It attended on 23 July 2021 to do this and 3 days later, the resident reported that the hole had been drilled in the wrong place and the job had been done badly. The landlord said it revisited on 5 August 2021 and corrected this.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord told the resident it was still investigating his complaint and would respond by 17 August 2021.
The landlord provided the stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2021, which said:
1. It apologised that he had not received a response to his reports and that no action had been taken. This was not its expected standard of customer service. A member of staff had been off sick for some time and no one had picked this matter up in their absence. It had given feedback to staff regarding this.
2. A data logger had been installed in his property to record the temperature. It had not been able to source the results but was investigating this and would contact him when it had these.
3. It would arrange for the window film to be either refixed or replaced as required. It would also arrange for the hole to be installed and any works related to the air conditioning unit completed.
4. It apologised that these issues were affecting his health. It could not assess compensation for this as part of its complaints procedure. He would need to pursue a personal injury claim via its insurers for this and suggested he seek legal advice regarding this.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions in August and September 2021. He said he had not heard from anyone and asked for action to be taken.
On 16 and 23 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that it was looking in to the matter and would contact him shortly to follow up on the actions required.
In early October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions asking an update. The landlord replied on 7 October 2021 that a surveyor had been assigned to his case and would contact him to discuss the next steps. It had responded to his complaint at stage 1 and if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 25 October 2021, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said that nothing had been done to resolve the issue. His complaint had been passed from one surveyor to another since the stage 1 response had been provided. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day and said it would respond by 22 November 2021.
The landlord visited the property on 2 November 2021. It noted that the temperature in the property was “extreme”, with the internal temperature recorded as 26 degrees.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response, which said:
1. The cause of the extreme heat was a result of the orientation of the building. It was a south facing building and gained heat from the sun’s rays (solar gain).
2. It suggested the following works to address this matter:
  1. Remove the solar film and install new film to the external surfaces of the windows. This was the preferred method of installation and should offer greater benefit. It would then install data loggers to measure the internal air temperature over a 1 month period. Due to the natural reduction in sunlight during the winter period it may need to put off the monitoring until Spring 2022.
  2. If step 1 did not resolve the issue, it would install additional shades above the windows. It would then carry out further data logging for a month.
  3. If step 2 failed to resolve the issue, it would replace the windows with triple solar glazing. After this, it would consider whether additional mechanical ventilation needed to be installed.
3. It apologised that no further update was provided after the stage 1 response. It offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
In January 2022, an MP enquiry was submitted on behalf of the resident. It said he had been told further action would be taken but had been waiting for several months for this to happen.
Two weeks later, the landlord replied to the MP enquiry and said that it was fitting film to the outside of the windows that week. It would continue to monitor the temperature in the property as the weather improved and had a 3 phase plan, which it set out, in place to deal with the matter.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord raised a works order to fit heat reflective film to the windows. It noted scaffolding was put up to allow this work to go ahead on 3 March 2022 and the film was fitted 2 days later.
In May 2022, the landlord installed data loggers in the property for a 3 week period, to monitor the temperature. It subsequently said there was a delay in these being collected and there were issues with the data collection.
The following month, a second MP enquiry was submitted on behalf of the resident. It said that the resident had been given a monitor to record the temperatures but this had a flat battery. He was given another monitor but had to wait 2 weeks and this was collected late. The resident felt the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and his health was continuing to be negatively affected by the high temperatures.
In July 2022, the landlord responded to the second MP enquiry. It confirmed the actions taken to date to manage the temperature in the property. It had reviewed the data from the monitoring equipment, which indicated that the property was warm with an average temperature of around 25 degrees. This was slightly above the optimum temperature. In light of the resident’s individual needs, it would now consider a management move for him to a property on the opposite side of the building.
On 23 August 2022, the resident reported that the landlord had told an MP it was considering moving him but it had not consulted him about this. A move would be unsettling due to his age and health issues. He suggested it visit him to discuss this as there were certain requirements for any alternative property due to him being a wheelchair user. He also asked for financial support with any move and compensation for the poor service received.
The same month, the resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He reported that this issue had been ongoing for 2 years but the landlord had not dealt with this. He had been let down by the landlord as it had failed to keep promises made. It was aware that excessive heat affected his health but had made little effort to deal with the matter. This had negatively affected his mental health. The landlord was now considering moving him, rather than deal with the problem. It had made this decision without consulting him and given no deadlines for this to happen. He was agreeable to a move but wanted conditions attached to this. He had lost trust that the landlord would resolve the issue.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord told the resident what it was doing to address this issue. There was a project group which included senior managers looking at the issue. It was investigating several options, including triple glazed windows, installing an awning to provide shade and air conditioning. None of the options were going to be quick fixes so it needed to look at what it could do in the short term to make his home more comfortable for him. It had visited his property earlier that week and taken photos of the air conditioning unit. It was looking to see if there were better units available and it would cover the cost of this, including a one off payment to cover the cost of electricity usage. It had spoken to him about a possible move on a temporary basis, while it identified and implemented a permanent solution. It apologised that it did not have an answer on how it would resolve the issue but reassured him it was working to find a solution.
In October 2022, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord told the resident and this Service that it had responded to the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2, and provided copies of its responses. It also provided an update on its progress in resolving this issue, which said:
1. The external window film fitted had been unsuccessful in reducing the temperature in the property. It had investigated the possibility of installing external shades on the windows, but could not progress this. It had considered installing further mechanical ventilation in the property and while it had not fully ruled this out, it did not appear to be a suitable long term solution. This was due to the air conditioning affecting one of his medical conditions and causing excessive noise.
2. It had agreed to instruct an independent specialist to conduct an overheating survey. As part of their review they would consider whether replacement windows with triple glazing would be of benefit. It was in the process of instructing the independent specialist to provide options to reduce the temperature in the property. This survey was subsequently carried out in December 2022.
3. It would need to carry out further, long term monitoring of his property and ongoing advice and support would be provided regarding the use of air conditioning units to try and maintain a regulated temperature. It would offer additional air conditioning and the associated running costs, which it would contact him to discuss.
4. As it needed to find a longer term solution to this issue, and considering the nature of the potential works required, it was considering temporarily moving him to another property. This was partly due to his health concerns and the time taken to resolve the issues. It had spoken to him about this and was looking to source another property in the same block, if possible. It would cover any costs associated with the decant, including removals and redirection of mail.
5. It apologised for the ongoing delays and inconvenience caused. Its communication throughout the process had fallen short. It should have provided regular updates but the resident had to chase for updates via his MP. It offered an additional £500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that this issue has been ongoing since he moved in to the property. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
In this case, the resident made a formal complaint in July 2021, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before July 2020, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident’s complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in November 2021, and it reviewed its handling of this matter in October 2022. As the issue was and continues to be ongoing subsequent actions have been taken by the landlord in respect of this issue, including decanting the resident and replacing the windows in 2023.
The Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate matters which have not been assessed and responded to via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). Therefore, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s handling of this matter up until 31 October 2022.
Anything that happened after this date, including the replacement of the windows and the associated decant, falls outside the scope of this investigation. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether he wants to raise these issues as a new formal complaint. If he does, the landlord to raise and investigate these issues in line with its current complaints procedure.
The resident has reported that the excessive heat has negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports that the property is excessively hot

Under section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), including excessive heat.
When the resident reported this issue in July 2020, the landlord suggested action it could take to monitor the temperature in the property, which was sensible. Over the next 3 months, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions, and while there is evidence that the landlord chased this internally, there is no evidence that action was taken. This amounts to maladministration and caused frustration for the resident.
The landlord raised works to be done in January 2021, but it is not clear from the records provided what led to this. The resident has said that surveyors attended his property and recommended the works, but the landlord has not provided evidence of this, which is a concern.
Keeping detailed records of all contacts and decisions is extremely important so that landlords can account for its actions to residents and this Service, where required. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training to surveyors on the process for and importance of keeping detailed records of all visits/ inspections, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The works raised in January 2021, were not completed until 4 months later. The landlord told the resident that this was due to the COVID-19 restrictions, which was reasonable as the contact restrictions in place prevented non-emergency repairs being completed. While installing the window film was important, it would not have been classed as an emergency repair. Considering the circumstances, it was reasonable that the works were delayed, however, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident this until after he chased it for an update. This was unfair and left him uncertain on what was happening regarding this issue.
The landlord fitted the window film internally on 2 occasions; however, it later confirmed that this was more effective when fitted externally. It is unclear how or why this error occurred twice; however, it is a concern that it did and that the landlord did not identify the error until four months after the second set of film was fitted.
Even after the landlord identified the error, it was a further 3 months before it installed the film correctly. The landlord first proposed this action in January 2021, however, it did not correctly install the film until 14 months later. This was a significant and unreasonable delay, which could have been avoided. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord.
It was reasonable that the landlord wanted to monitor the temperature in the property, particularly after actions were taken to check whether these improved the situation. It was sensible that the landlord deferred doing this until Spring time on one occasion, to allow for the increased amount of sunlight.
While reasonable to progress this action, the evidence provided indicates that the landlord’s handling of this was poor as on one occasion it provided a monitor with a flat battery and did not keep to commitments to deliver and collect these. This was frustrating for the resident and led him to believe that it was not taking the matter seriously.
It was sensible of the landlord to take an incremental approach to this issue and the actions proposed in the 3 step suggested plan were reasonable. Adopting this approach showed that the landlord was committed to resolving the matter. However, the landlord did not adopt this approach until more than a year after the resident first reported this issue.
When it did adopt this approach, it did not proactively manage and progress the suggested actions in a timely manner. This meant there were extended periods where no action was taken, particularly between August 2021 and January 2022. The lack of proactive management meant the landlord took too long to progress the proposed actions, which resulted in the resident living in an excessively hot property for an extended period.
It is particularly concerning that even after the landlord visited in November 2021 and noted that the temperature in the property was “extreme”, it was still a further 3 months before any action was taken and a further month before it completed any works at the property. As the landlord was aware that the excessive heat was negatively impacting the resident’s health, it should have done more to progress the actions as quickly as possible. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that it did not care about the impact on him.
By the landlord’s own admission, its communication with the resident regarding this issue was poor. The resident had to repeatedly report and chase the landlord for updates, both directly and via his MP. During the 2 year period that this investigation has covered, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 16 occasions to report this issue and chase for updates, including raising and escalating his formal complaint. This shows that the resident incurred significant time and trouble in pursuing this matter. The landlord’s poor communication amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that it was not taking the matter seriously.
In January 2022, the landlord committed that the external window film would be fitted that week. However, this did not happen until 1 month later. The works required scaffolding to be put up and so the timescale this was completed in was reasonable. However, the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations and when it did not complete the works in the timescale given, this left him disappointed.
It was sensible of the landlord to suggest decanting the resident when it realised the works required to resolve this issue would take some time. This was particularly important as the resident had told the landlord that his health was being affected. While sensible of the landlord to suggest this, it should have discussed this with him directly, before including this in a response to an MP enquiry. The suggestion of a move was unsettling for the resident, considering his age and health issues and suggesting it via the MP was insensitive.
It was sensible of the landlord to undertake a specialist heat loss survey prior to replacing the windows, as the work would be costly and disruptive for the resident. Therefore, it was important that it obtained expert reassurance that this work was likely to have a positive impact. The landlord subsequently went ahead with the window replacement and decanted the resident while this happened; however, these issues are not being assessed as part of this investigation for reasons set out earlier in this report.
It is noted that the resident has reported that this issue is ongoing as the property continues to be excessively hot and that the landlord is continuing with actions to investigate this. While positive that investigations are ongoing, it is important that the landlord provides reassurance to the resident on how it will manage and resolve this issue in the long term. Especially considering the failures in its past handling of this issue have caused the resident to lose both faith and trust in the landlord.
Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to visit the resident to explain how it will investigate and resolve this issue for him. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the action plan, including timescales for actions to be completed.
The landlord has acknowledged there were failures in its handling of this issue. It has apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has offered the resident a total of £700 compensation for its handling of this issue, for the period of this investigation. Considering the full circumstances of this case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this amount is considered insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation, which is inclusive of the £700 already offered, if not done so already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property is excessively hot.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Visit the resident to explain how it will investigate and resolve the ongoing issue with the property being excessively hot. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the action plan, including timescales for actions to be completed.
2. Pay the resident £900 compensation for its response to his reports that the property is excessively hot (inclusive of the £700 already offered, if not done so already).
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training to surveyors on the process for and importance of keeping detailed records of all visits/ inspections; with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether he wants to raise a new formal complaint about its handling of this matter post October 2022, including its handling of the window replacement and associated decant. If he does, the landlord to raise, investigate and respond to this in line with its current complaints procedure.
The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendation, within 4 weeks.