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

Housing 21 (202445677)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445677

Housing 21

29 May 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The level of rent and service charge.
    2. Communication about the rent and service charge.
    3. Concerns about the heating system and the resident’s property temperature.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a one-bedroom flat in an extra care scheme. Her tenancy started on 22 August 2011. The resident has a family member acting as her representative. The landlord said it became aware of this in September 2016. The landlord is aware that the resident has a number of medical conditions.
  2. The resident pays the landlord both rent and service charges. The landlord said that it produced a draft service charge budget for residents at the housing scheme to consider in November 2022. It also said it sent a letter addressed to the resident on 30 January 2023 that explained that it proposed to increase the rent and service charges in 2023 to 2024. Both the landlord and representative agree that the representative received these some months after the landlord issued them.
  3. The representative complained to the landlord on 25 February 2023 about the resident’s rent and service charge increases and said that he felt they were above inflation. He also told the landlord that he felt that the resident’s property was excessively heated, and that her heating system was wasteful, which caused inflated energy bills. Between March 2023 to April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident with explanations for the increases, which the representative did not accept.
  4. The representative complained again on 12 May 2023 and 12 July 2023. He told the landlord that he believed:
    1. that the landlord had not “constitutionally or contractually proposed or notified or debated” the increases
    2. that the landlord had used a wrong formula based on the consumer price index figure (CPI) that included costs for non-rent related items (energy, food, alcohol, tobacco) when calculating the increases instead of a “core CPI” figure of 5.3%
    3. that the landlord had not provided evidence that the increase was in line with the Regulator of Social Housing’s guidance
    4. that the increases discriminated against self-funded residents and the landlord’s charge was more than the energy price cap
    5. that the landlord had not properly consulted on the increases and the landlord’s explanations were confusing and lacked transparency
    6. that the resident had incurred “excessive and unfair” heating charges because of a “wasteful” and a poorly managed heating system, which meant that the resident had no control over the temperature in her property or energy use.
  5. The landlord provided the representative with its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023 and said:
    1. it offered residents an opportunity to discuss the draft service charge budget in November 2022, and it undertook to provide the representative with communications of these discussions in future
    2. it noted it gave the representative notice of the rent and service charge increases on 22 February 2023 (copy letter dated 30 January 2023) and that it introduced the increases in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement
    3. it increased rent in line with the Regulator of Social Housing’s rent standard that allowed rent to increase by CPI + 1 %, and which it had sent him a copy of. This amounted to 11.1 % based on a CPI inflation figure for 2023 to 2024
    4. it provided a frequently asked question sheet on 5 April 2023 and met him on 24 May 2023 to discuss his concerns
    5. the service charge budget from November 2022 did not include rent, as this was a separate liability, and this is also why it had not discussed rent increases during the service charge discussions in November 2022, it added that it was under no legal duty to consult on charges
    6. it provided the representative with some information on how its board decided on the increases
    7. service charges were variable and affected by the cost-of-living crisis with increases in energy costs and it had to pass these onto residents, and any advice from the regulator did not limit service charge increases
    8. the resident had control of her heating via a thermostat and was aware at the outset of the tenancy that there was a communal heating system
    9. it had checked the resident’s internal heating controls, and these were working. It had taken steps to mitigate the costs of communal heating and agreed to look at ways to become more energy efficient
    10. it partially upheld the representative’s complaint regarding the level of communication, and it accepted that the use of the word “consultation” was misleading, as it was not legally obliged to, and residents could only influence limited costs relating to gardening, window cleaning, and guest accommodation charges
    11. it was unable to uphold the representative’s complaint about the increases but offered £150 compensation for the communication failures.
  6. The representative escalated the complaint on 30 July 2023 and asked for the assumptions that the board used to approve the increases. This was in addition to the minutes of its meeting when the landlord’s board agreed on the increases. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023 and said:
    1. its rent increase was set at an amount to ensure that it could remain commercially competitive and maintain services
    2. it increased rent using a formula approved by the Regulator of Social Housing, as explained in its stage 1 response, and reiterated it had sent the representative a copy of the regulator’s rent statement, some frequently asked questions, and had met the representative in person
    3. the directive from the Regulator of Social Housing on service charges the representative said limited any service charge increases was advisory and non-binding
    4. service charges reflected the costs incurred, including the increases in energy and utility costs caused by the war in Ukraine, and the costs were payable irrespective of whether a resident received welfare benefits or was self-funded
    5. the statement of year it provided had a separate amount for service charges for communal areas and residents’ properties on an apportionment basis, where it had split the costs between communal areas and the number of individual flats, and the cost of this was less than the energy cap
    6. it attempted to reduce overall energy costs, and had provided residents with support services to help with the increased costs, but residents within the housing scheme had different heating needs
    7. the resident was aware of the method of heating and their contribution towards heating costs
    8. it was unable to share the minutes of its board meeting or the assumptions because these were commercially sensitive, but it provided the representative with an extract of the board meeting discussion
    9. it apologised that it had not informed the representative of the discussion meetings on service charges in November 2022, but it agreed to invite the representative to future meetings
    10. it accepted that, as the only areas residents could influence related to gardening costs, window cleaning, and guestroom charges, its use of the word “consultation” in respect of its meetings was misleading, so it agreed to review this
    11. it accepted that its communication was inadequate, and partially upheld this aspect of the representative’s complaint, but did not accept the increases in charges were unfair, as they were in line with the regulator’s guidance and the resident’s tenancy agreement
    12. it offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, caused to the resident by its communication.
  7. The representative has told the Ombudsman that he is of the opinion that the increases in rent, service charge, and utilities are “excessive” and “unfair”, as they are not in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement or the regulator’s guidance. The representative expressed dissatisfaction at the transparency of the landlord’s communications, and its response to his concerns about the resident’s room temperature and heating systems. The landlord accepted it failed to invite the representative to meetings but has stated it feels the charges are fair and offered £200. The representative has requested a rent and service charge rebate.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The Housing Ombudsman is not free to investigate every complaint referred to this Service. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is set out in our Scheme rules and is called our jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: d. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”

  1. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: f. concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”

  1. Our guidance on remedies states:

“Regardless of the circumstances (in relation to their ability to pursue a complaint with the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) or the court) of the resident we cannot consider a complaint if it falls outside jurisdiction under para 42(d).”

“As stated above, we may consider that a complaint would be better dealt with by the court or the FTT [or the court (words added)] if it relates to service charges and is not already excluded under para 42(d).”

  1. We have carefully considered the resident’s complaint as brought by the representative, and our Scheme rules. It is clear the complaint about the level of rent and service charge was based on technical calculations. These are better dealt with by the tribunal (where the service charge is variable) or the court. It would be for the representative to seek appropriate advice on whether the court or tribunal would be best placed to consider the matter. Nevertheless, in accordance with paragraphs 42.d and 42.f the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaints about the level of the service charge or rent or their increases.

The scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman can investigate the communication about the rent and service charges. This investigation in respect of rent and service charges will focus on that.
  2. The representative said that he told the landlord about his concerns about the efficiency of the housing scheme’s heating system and the resident’s property temperatures since 2011. The representative also asked the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s handling of rent and service charges since 2011. While it is concerning that the resident has experienced issues for several years, we may not consider complaints that a resident or their representative have not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the representative raised or pursued a complaint about these issues earlier than 25 February 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would be unfair and impractical to investigate these matters going back to 2011, as the landlord did not have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its complaint process, and because of the lapse in time. Therefore, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of these matters since February 2022, which is 12 months from when the representative made the complaint. The focus of the investigation is on the issues that the representative raised and which went through the complaint process.

Rent and service charge communication

  1. While we cannot determine the correct level of rent or service charge we can consider if the landlord acted reasonably in its communication with the representative. The representative received a copy of the landlord’s explanation for the rent increase on 17 March 2023. It was appropriate of the landlord to add additional detail on how it calculated the rent increase on 24 May 2023. This is because the representative complained on 22 March 2023 that the landlord used an incorrect formula (consumer price index of 10.1% + 1%). The representative said that the landlord’s response on 24 May 2023 was confusing, as it did not relate to the headings in the rent and service charge demand of 30 January 2023.
  2. The landlord’s letter of 24 May 2023 explained that the rent increase was based on the Regulator’s 2023 Rent Standard. This Standard aimed to explain how social landlords should increase rents in line with government policy. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord’s explanation was contradictory. This is because it said it increased the rent charge in line with the rent standard but also said the Standard did not apply to supported housing. This caused the representative a level of confusion, but the Ombudsman considers that the landlord sought to clarify this in its stage 1 response.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that the frequently asked questions (FAQ) document addressed the reasons for the increase in service charge. The landlord said it provided this to the representative on 5 April 2023, and the representative has not disputed he received this. This explained that an increase in wholesale gas price costs was behind a significant increase in utility costs. The landlord remains accountable to the resident in respect of the money it spends on service charges, and it must be able to explain them. As the representative felt that the service charges were excessive it was important for the landlord to explain to them how and why the charges were applicable.
  4. The landlord explained to the representative on 24 May 2023 that it had to increase service charges because of inflation, under budgeting, and an increase in utility costs. The Ombudsman’s insight report on service charges, published in December 2023, states that landlords should provide residents with clear information about a charge that is payable. Landlords should be able to explain what it is for and show how the landlord correctly charged for this. The Ombudsman notes that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) recorded large increases in inflation in 2022 and increased energy prices because of global factors. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the representative disputed the landlord’s explanations, the evidence shows that the landlord sought to explain the increases, which was appropriate.
  5. The representative also complained about the landlord’s communication over consultation over the rent and service charge increases. The landlord told the representative on 28 July 2023 that there was no legal obligation to consult with residents on rent increases. It also clarified that there was no legal duty to consult on service charges either, but it said that it discussed these with residents as a matter of custom. The tenancy agreement is clear that the landlord may increase charges and rent by giving notice. The word ‘consult’ is traditionally used to mean a consultation in respect of service charges costing more than £250 to a resident, pursuant to s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy agreement does not require a consultation and under s.13 of the Housing Act 1988 – the landlord only needed to serve ‘notice’ in the prescribed form. The landlord’s notices in this case, set out what the resident could do (refer to the tribunal) if they were not satisfied with the increase. The use of the word consult was confusing, and the landlord accepted this. 
  6. The landlord told the resident initially (on 17 March 2023, 26 May 2023, and 14 June 2023) that there was a formal service charge meeting on 28 November 2022. The landlord’s minutes of this meeting stated no residents attended. The landlord apologised for not inviting the representative and promised to ensure that it invited him to future meetings. The landlord also apologised to the representative on 24 May 2023 for not providing the draft service charge from November 2022 to him until then. It agreed to ensure to provide documentation in future. The Ombudsman considers that this was an appropriate step of the landlord to have taken. Whilst it would be appropriate to serve any notices at the resident’s address, the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to ensure the representative was informed of the changes.
  7. While there is no dispute that the representative was unaware of the meeting on 28 November 2022, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude that, had the representative attended, it would have had influence on the landlord’s decision to increase the rent and service charges. This is because the landlord’s position was that it was under no obligation to consult, and secondly that the service charges reflected increased costs, which it had to pass on to residents.
  8. The representative expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided him with a copy of the assumptions that the landlord’s board based their rent increase decision on or the minutes of the board meeting where it agreed on the increase. The landlord told the representative on 14 June 2023 that it could not provide these, as they were commercially sensitive, however it provided the representative with some information on the discussions on 7 July 2023. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s explanation and action to offer some information to help the representative further understand was proportionate. However, if the representative believes the resident is entitled to full minutes – he should refer the matter to the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority who are responsible for regulating registered co-operative societies, such as the landlord.
  9. The landlord told the representative on 28 July 2023 and 20 September 2023 that its use of the word consult in relation to rental and service charges was misleading. It apologised and agreed to review its publications considering this. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take because the resident’s handbook (in force at the time) and the FAQ stated that the landlord would consult on these and this differed from its stated position.
  10. The representative expressed dissatisfaction with several documents the landlord provided. The representative said the weekly charge in the draft service charge document (from November 2022) was different to the service charge and rent increase letter of 30 January 2023. The landlord explained to the representative on 28 July 2023 that the reason for this difference was because the draft document did not contain a rent figure. The Ombudsman considers that this explanation was reasonable as the draft document was missing a rental figure, as it related to service charges (and not rent) and the total weekly charges in both documents was otherwise the same once rent was excluded.
  11. The representative also complained that the statement of year from September 2023 was confusing when compared to the rent and service charge increase of 30 January 2023. The statement of year was for an earlier period (April 2022 to March 2023) than the rent and service charge demand (April 2023 to March 2024). However, as the landlord stated the dates which the two documents related to, the Ombudsman finds no fault in the landlord’s presentation of the statements.
  12. The landlord addressed the representative’s concerns about the accuracy of the statement of year in its stage 2 response. It explained the reason why there were separate utility costs under the service charge and utility charge section. The Ombudsman considers that this explanation was reasonable, as it explained how it put the statement together but accepted that there may be improvements that it could make.

Summary

  1. Overall, the landlord made reasonable attempts during the complaint process to explain to the representative the reasons for the rent and service charge increases and its documentation. It apologised appropriately for failing to invite the representative to a meeting on 28 November 2022 and agreed to review the use of the word consultation in its documentation. It accepted that its communication had been inadequate at times and took steps to engage and inform the representative following his complaint. The offer of £200 compensation was reflective of the compensation that the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for the failings, which adversely affected the resident but did not permanently impact her. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably to put things right by offering reasonable redress, which satisfactorily recognises the landlord’s errors. We have recommended the landlord re-offer the redress to the resident if this was not paid.

Heating system and property temperature

  1. On 17 March 2023, the landlord told the representative that it had no control over the heating usage of residents. It referred the resident to a £400 rebate on energy costs available from the government. This was a reasonable step, as this was aimed at helping residents with increased heating costs that the representative complained of. The representative expressed dissatisfaction at the allegedly wasted energy caused by the heating system, and at the internal temperatures in the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord responded on 28 July 2023 and explained that it had the communal heating switched off between May to September each year, and that it was looking to recruit an energy officer to help advise on other heating efficiencies. The Ombudsman considers that this showed a willingness by the landlord to reduce energy wastage.
  3. The landlord also explained on 5 May 2023, 24 May 2023, and 28 July 2023 the reasons for the variation of temperatures in the resident’s property. It offered to consider moving the resident to another property in a cooler part of its housing scheme if one became available. The landlord’s explanations were reasonable, as it sought to explain the reason for why the resident’s property temperature exceeded her thermostat setting. The offer also showed that the landlord was willing to consider options to help the resident find a cooler property, given that she was having difficulties in controlling the internal property temperature.
  4. The landlord told the representative that its engineer had checked the resident’s thermostat and the heating system and found that it was working. The record of the heating engineer’s visit on 12 April 2023 shows that they checked the operation of all thermostats and actuators and found them to be working. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable of the landlord to offer to monitor the temperature in the resident’s property. The evidence shows that the representative disapproved of its offer of specialist monitoring equipment. However, the landlord states that its housing and care manager on site visited the property each morning for two weeks in April 2023 to check the temperature within the property’s sitting room using an infrared lasered thermometer. Its records show that the temperature ranged from 23°C to 26°C. Under the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps by monitoring the temperatures and offering to move the resident if an alternative cooler property became available.
  5. The landlord completed a comparative study of the heating in the communal areas with 3 other schemes within the local area over a 6-year period. The study shows that consumption of energy within the resident’s housing scheme was in the mid-range of other sites and was not excessive in comparison. The study also indicated that energy consumption within the housing scheme had decreased each year over a 6-year period. This confirmed that it was the cost per kWh of energy that had increased, not usage. The minutes of the meeting on 24 May 2023 indicate that the report was discussed with the representative, but he did not feel that they were relevant.
  6. Although it provided useful additional context, the comparative study did not address the representative’s concern that the communal heating system was not working efficiently and was not fit for purpose. During the meeting on 24 May 2023, the minutes indicate that the landlord acknowledged that ‘the communal system is not the best’. The landlord’s follow-up letter to the representative dated 24 May 2023 also stated: ‘You also mentioned to me the heat wastage within communal areas, you told me that whilst the floors are warm, we have windows open throughout the building on the ground floor, I did acknowledge that we needed to review this’.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the need for a review and then provided its findings of a very limited review. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to complete a more formal review which would seek the opinion of heating or energy experts. Particularly because the landlord’s previous explanations had suggested the communal heating was partly responsible for the high temperatures in the resident’s room. The available evidence indicates that there is further work for the landlord to undertake to show that it has properly responded to the representative’s concerns about the efficiency of the communal heating system.
  8. The landlord has continued to investigate and monitor its energy usage and it has taken reasonable steps to reduce its consumption. The evidence it has provided shows that it has taken additional measures since September 2023 to reduce energy usage and keep costs down. The landlord has provided a copy of a presentation delivered to residents (in 2023 and 2024) which included energy efficiency advice. Its energy officer is also meeting with residents to discuss energy consumption. In addition, the landlord has completed energy savings works, including new kitchens and bathrooms and replacing timber-framed windows for more energy efficient triple A rated PVC-U windows.
  9. The landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities which would make her susceptible particularly to cold or hot temperatures. It also acknowledged that the comfortable living temperature is 21°C. Given the age of its residents and the likelihood of minimal physical activity, the landlord uses 21°C as a minimum temperature. The landlord’s monitoring of the resident’s room indicates that the temperature can occasionally exceed 26°C. Government guidance on supporting vulnerable people before and during hot weather highlights that high-risk groups that are vulnerable to the effects of heat can find it hard to cool themselves efficiently once temperatures rise above 26°C. The guidance includes simple measures that staff can use to reduce indoor temperatures. Where this is not possible, care homes or other residential settings should ensure that there is a cool room or area (able to be maintained below 26°C) where people can go to cool down – cool areas can be developed with appropriate indoor and outdoor shading, ventilation, the use of indoor and outdoor plants and, if necessary, air conditioning. We have recommended that the landlord confirms that it has a cool room or area available to the resident should temperatures exceed 26°C.
  10. The Ombudsman has made an award of compensation and made orders to acknowledge this and to put things right. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance allows for awards of up to £250 for service failure resulting in distress and inconvenience from delays in getting matters resolved, as the resident experienced from the landlord’s handling of her heating and property temperature. The landlord has also been ordered to apologise to the resident, inspect and share a report for her thermostat and heating, completing any repairs identified, and complete a communal heating review. It has been further recommended to review its staff’s training needs on heating and energy complaints, including on the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this, to prevent its above failings from occurring again.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, at the time the representative complained, had 2 stages. The landlord had to deal with complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The complaints policy does not refer to service requests. Instead it differentiates between formal and informal complaints. The policy states that it will ‘deal with any informal complaints around dissatisfaction with our services or employees as quickly and effectively as possible. If an issue cannot be resolved quickly and simply and without further enquiries, the issue must be logged as a complaint’.
  2. The representative complained on 25 February 2023 and the landlord ought to have treated this as a complaint. This is because the representative expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s previous communications. The landlord’s letter dated 17 March 2023 acknowledges this by referring to the representative’s ‘concerns’. While the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the representative at least 14 times between March 2023 and July 2023, it took more than 4 months to log the complaint. It is understandable why the landlord identified the letter dated 25 February 2023  as a service request. However, the landlord failed to clearly inform the resident that it was treating the matter as a service request. This is a shortfall in complaint handling.
  3. The implementation of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in 2024 clarified that informal complaint stages are not permitted by the Ombudsman in landlord complaint policies. This was the Ombudsman’s position in the 2022 version of the Code, but the 2024 version made this clearer. The Code in 2022 stated that ‘it was not appropriate to have extra named stages’. That is, landlords should deal with all complaints formally using the stage 1 and stage 2 process. The landlord’s complaints policy should therefore not have included reference to informal complaint stages in 2023. The landlord’s current complaints policy has resolved this issue, but its error previously is a shortfall in its complaints handling.
  4. By 6 April 2023, given the number of emails back and forth, it was clear that the landlord, in line with its complaints process at the time, was unable to resolve the matter ‘quickly and simply… without further enquiries’. In such circumstances, its complaints process instructs that ‘the issue must be logged as a complaint’. The landlord did not take this action until July 2023. There is mitigation for the landlord’s handling of the matter outside its complaints process prior to July 2023. The landlord informed the representative on multiple occasions that they had the option to raise a stage 1 complaint. The landlord also provided a copy of its complaints process. Emails and letters dated 22 March 2023, 4 April 2023, 6 April 2023, 5 May 2023, 25 May 2023 and 16 June 2023 confirm this.
  5. The representative did not initially respond to the landlord’s invitations to log a complaint. The representative’s letter dated 22 March 2023 states that he wanted a response to each of the items he raised and a face-to-face meeting once the information was received. The representative made a similar request in his letter dated 5 April 2023. However, the representative’s letter dated 12 May 2023 marked a change. The letter was addressed to the ‘Complaints Dept.’ and was headed ‘Complaint’. The representative also referred to the points he had raised as complaints. It is difficult to understand why the landlord did not log a complaint at this time. This was now the landlord’s third clear opportunity to log a complaint. Irrespective of whether the resident specifically replied to a landlord query asking if he wanted to raise a complaint, the landlord already held sufficient information to confirm a dissatisfaction with its service. The previous two opportunities to log a complaint were explicable, the decision not to log a complaint following the receipt of the 12 May 2023 letter was not.
  6. The landlord’s failure to log the complaint at this point caused a delay in its complaints responses and the referral to the Ombudsman of about 2 months. The failure to deal with the representative’s complaint on behalf of the resident within the formal complaint process would have been likely to have caused some frustration and delayed the process.
  7. When the landlord escalated their complaint on 30 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. It took the landlord 37 working days to provide this against a target of 20 working days. Although the landlord was in contact with the representative to arrange a meeting during this period, this was unreasonable, as the delay was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord’s delay in responding caused additional frustration and added to the delay in dealing with the complaint.
  8. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, which likely caused a detriment to the resident. This is because the delays in dealing with the complaint also delayed a referral of the complaint to us. The Ombudsman has therefore made an award of compensation to reflect this in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends over £100 compensation to recognise failures that adversely affected the resident. We have also recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs on its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to prevent its above failings from occurring again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.d and 42.f of the Scheme, the complaints about the level and increases of the rent and service charges have not been investigated by the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of communication about the rent and service charge.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the concerns about the heating system and the resident’s property temperature.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and her representative to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. The apology should be provided in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
    2. Arrange a convenient date, with the resident and her representative, to inspect the thermostat and heating within the resident’s property. The landlord must share a copy of the report with the representative and the Ombudsman. If the landlord identifies any repairs, it must complete the repairs in line with its repairs policy.
    3. Complete a review of the efficiency of the communal heating system. The landlord should seek the views of its energy officer and a heating specialist as part of its review.
    4.  Pay the resident directly £400 in compensation. This is made up of:

(i)     £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s service failures in not showing it took all reasonable steps to address the concerns about the heating system and property temperature. The award recognises that the issue is still not resolved.

(ii)   £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling, including the inappropriate delay in accepting a complaint under its formal complaint procedure, which caused frustration and delayed a referral to the Ombudsman.

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must confirm that it has considered the Government guidance on supporting vulnerable people before and during hot weather. In particular the landlord should confirm if there is a cool room or area (able to be maintained below 26°C) where residents can go to cool down when temperatures exceed 26°C.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response (if this was not paid) within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, this is in addition to the compensation ordered above.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs on heating and energy complaints, including on the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water, and energy in social housing, to prevent its failings in handling the resident’s heating and property temperature from occurring again.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs on its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to prevent its failings in handling the resident’s complaint from occurring again.