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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202207408)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207408

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 October 2023


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:
    1. Handling of reports of issues with the heating system in the property, including low heat output and excessive electricity costs.
    2. Communication and complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant in a ground-floor flat. The tenancy began in July 2018. The resident is a wheelchair user and has several health conditions. The property is heated by an Air Source Heat Pump.
  2. The resident has advised this service that he was in correspondence with the landlord from 2019 about issues with his central heating system. The resident believed that the system was causing excessively high heating bills, and often said he felt cold despite the system being set to the highest setting. Multiple complaints were made after this time; the resident was often unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these complaints. The resident wanted the heating system to be fixed, and for the landlord to contribute to the energy costs.
  3. The landlord’s contractors attended on several occasions. Multiple issues were identified with the heating system on different visits, and then resolved. The resident reports to this service that he was reimbursed approximately £515 in energy costs in respect of the first three bills, up to January 2019, which the resident explained he received in April 2019. However, the high bills and low heat output persisted. On one occasion, the contractors pressure-washed the underfloor heating pipes, to ensure they were functioning correctly.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint at some point in 2020, which the resident claims the landlord did not respond to. The resident chased the complaint “a few months later”, on 2 November 2020. The resident was unhappy that the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) provided by the landlord at the start of the tenancy in July 2018 had rated the property “B”. As a result, the quoted estimated usage and bills were modest. However, in reality, the resident explained that usage was almost double that which was quoted.
  5. The resident chased his complaint on two occasions; the landlord did not respond or contact the resident. On 18 March 2021, the resident called the landlord again and explained he would be contacting the Ombudsman. On 19 March 2021, the landlord took action, stating internally that “there is no evidence to suggest any contact was made with the resident to discuss his concerns. He has mentioned [contacting] the Housing Ombudsman and [the landlord] would rather prevent that from happening”.
  6. The landlord instructed a senior staff member with relevant energy expertise to be a point of contact for the resident. The resident explained that the landlord’s point of contact had stated that an energy survey would be required and that they would call back when it was booked. The resident heard nothing, calling the landlord on 28 June 2021 to complain that the staff member responsible had been ignoring his calls. He said that when the staff member eventually answered the phone, they denied any knowledge of the issues. The resident was very distressed and explained that due to his disabilities and health conditions, which included mental health issues, the landlord’s handling of the matter was negatively impacting his health. The landlord later apologised for this, citing poor record keeping.
  7. On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended the property. The landlord identified an issue with the heating system and explained that the repair “should resolve usage of excess energy”.
  8. On 15 October 2021, the landlord issued its final complaint response. The landlord explained that it now believed the issues were resolved, following its most recent repair. The landlord explained that staff shortages were responsible for delays, poor communication and complaint handling. It explained that the point of contact had communicated poorly with the resident due to poor record-keeping. The landlord apologised that the issues had spanned back to 2019 when the resident had complained at the time the issues were not being investigated properly. The landlord accepted that its complaint responses from the time had stated “there were no issues with the contractors”. The landlord said it “failed to support the resident proactively” since the issues were first reported. It offered £750 in respect of the issues experienced and offered to “make any reimbursements [for energy costs] necessary for this year”.
  9. The resident later complained that water damage had appeared on the laminate flooring, above where pressure washing had taken place on the pipes. The resident contacted the landlord for help pursuing an insurance claim for the damage to the flooring. The landlord explained that laminate flooring was covered by the resident’s contents insurance. The resident explained that he was unable to claim through his contents insurer, without written confirmation that the damage was not caused by a leak for which the landlord was responsible.
  10. The resident asked the landlord to investigate. The resident also sought the advice of a flooring specialist. The specialist believed the damage to be caused by water coming up from beneath the floor and was therefore unable to confirm that leaking pipes were not the cause. As a result, the resident remains in a deadlock with the insurer.
  11. The resident said the repair to the heating system was ultimately ineffective. The landlord replaced the entire system in August 2022.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and the scope of complaint

  1. Paragraph 42(a) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made before having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord took definitive action about the heating system by replacing it in full in August 2022. The resident has explained that issues persist after this date. However, given that the reported issues relate to a new system, and may be unrelated to the issues affecting the previous system, it is determined that these issues should go through a separate complaints process to allow the landlord to respond. This means the Ombudsman can only investigate up to and including the date of the final response in October 2021. And the current issues with the system need to be raised as a new complaint.

Handling of reports of issues with the heating system in the property, including low heat output and excessive electricity costs.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. Usually, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate only a reasonable period before the initial complaint, usually six months. However, this Service has seen evidence that the resident has complained regularly and repeatedly about high bills since 2019. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not “support the resident proactively” at the time of these complaints to deal with the issues appropriately or draw the correct conclusions about the issues with the heating system. As such, it is not in dispute that there were failings in its handling of the issues. The Ombudsman has therefore considered whether the landlord has taken action to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ‘learned from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord was right to offer compensation for the costs incurred, after discovering the cause of the issues of high bills was caused by a faulty heating system. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord reimbursed the resident’s additional heating costs as promised, or how it calculated any payments it did make. The resident told this service that he was compensated £515 for high energy costs in April 2019, in respect of November, December and January’s bills. When the resident requested on 13 December 2021 for energy costs to be reimbursed from January 2019 onwards, the landlord replied on 16 December 2021 saying that it “agrees the resident should be reimbursed for the excess since the last reimbursement”. On 2 March 2022, the resident complained that no compensation offer had (at that time) been made and the bills remained high. This was not appropriate. The landlord ought to have made an offer without the need for the resident to complain.
  4. On 9 March 2022, the landlord explained it was still waiting for information from its contractors to inform how much compensation to pay. When this service contacted the landlord in May 2023, it explained that it was waiting for “comparison bills” from the resident. It is unclear why the landlord requested comparison bills, as the evidence shows that the resident made the landlord aware that the heating issues had been present since the start of the resident’s tenancy in June 2018. He therefore explained that he had no “accurate bills” to compare. The resident has instead suggested that the landlord refer to the predicted usage attached to the property’s EPC rating.
  5. This service has also seen evidence that the resident went to excessive lengths and spent considerable time and trouble chasing the issue with the landlord, which often did not respond in a timely way or at all. The resident often did this “from his hospital bed”. The resident incurred unreasonable costs for energy even when not living in the property, for example during extended hospital visits of up to three months. The landlord accepted that these costs were due to a faulty heating system. The landlord described the resident’s experience as “unacceptable and avoidable”. The resident also explained to this service that he had incurred “considerable debts” and suffered an adverse impact on his physical and mental health.
  6. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by how the landlord handled the issues with the heating system. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross-examined during a live hearing. This means that the Ombudsman is not able to say with any degree of certainty that the resident was affected in the way explained. However, the Ombudsman accepts that the financial pressures which persisted for the length of time described in this case mean that it is highly likely that the resident suffered considerable distress as a result. There is also no evidence that the landlord sought to better understand the impact it may have caused.
  7. It is also of concern that the landlord’s approach changed significantly only after the resident made clear his intention to approach this service. There is no evidence that the landlord gave any indication to the resident that contacting the Ombudsman was an option whilst his complaints were not being responded to. Instead, the resident was referred to this service by his local MP. The evidence suggests that the resident’s prior requests for help on the grounds of fuel poverty and health concerns had not caused the landlord to take effective action. It was not until the resident referred to this service that the landlord took action to address his concerns. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), by which the landlord is bound, states that “Landlords must publicise the complaints policy and process, the Complaint Handling Code and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme […] as part of regular correspondence with residents. Landlords must provide residents with contact information for the Ombudsman as part of its regular correspondence with residents. Landlords must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaints process is exhausted.” There is no evidence the landlord did this, indicating that the landlord was bypassing its responsibilities under the Code.
  8. The landlord offered £750 for “the service received”, however it is unclear how this was calculated. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there “was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”, compensation of £600 – £1000 is recommended. The landlord cites multiple failures in its stage 2 response, for which the resident claims he suffered adverse effect. The landlord took no steps to assess this or to explain how it calculated its compensation offer. In light of the evidence seen by this service, the compensation offered is considered somewhat low to recognise the impact on the resident and ‘put things right’.
  9. There is also no evidence that the landlord has delivered on its promise to investigate and reimburse excess energy costs. The landlord has explained that it has been “waiting for comparative bills” from the resident. This service has seen evidence however that the landlord is aware that the resident cannot produce comparative bills. The resident has also more recently reported that issues have persisted after the heating system was replaced, meaning that bills from after the period of complaint are not suitable, either. There is no evidence that the landlord has taken this into account or taken an alternative approach to calculating the compensation due, as it apparently did in 2019, given that it appears to have offered a specific amount at that time. As a result, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the heating system.
  10. Orders are made below to “put things right”. In this instance, the landlord has accepted that issues persisted from May 2019, from which reimbursements should be backdated. This investigation spans only up until the final response on 15 October 2021. The landlord should ensure when calculating what is due, that it considers the precedent it set in previous reimbursements to the resident. Ofgem advises that typical electricity consumption for a property of this description is approximately 1,800kWh annually. The landlord may choose to use this as a point of reference when calculating what reimbursement amount is reasonable.

Communication and complaint handling

  1. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however received”. The Code states that a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 days and responded to within 10 working days (at stage 1) and 20 working days (at stage 2).
  2. The evidence shows that the resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord, in writing, throughout 2020 and early 2021. The landlord acknowledged that there was no evidence that it responded to any of these complaints.
  3. The landlord began to take notice in March 2021. The landlord asked for more time to send a stage 1 response on 6 July 2021. By 22 September 2021, it stated that instead of responding at stage 1, it would escalate to stage 2, due to the delays. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 October 2021. This was the only formal complaint response the landlord issued, despite evidence that the resident complained on multiple occasions, via multiple channels, from before November 2020 onwards. Further, this was not in line with the two-stage complaint process as set out in its complaint policy. The response which the landlord issued exceeded the prescribed timescales.
  4. In reply to the singular response to his complaint, the resident said that he had reason to believe that the jet washing works carried out by the landlord resulted in a temporary pipe leak, causing damage to the laminate flooring. When the resident reported the damage, the landlord explained that this was the resident’s responsibility as it counts as a “covering” and should be claimed via his contents insurance, in line with the repairs and responsibilities policy.
  5. Had the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint in line with its complaint policy, the resident would have had the opportunity to raise this issue as part of any stage 2 escalation request. The landlord then could have either responded to this formally in its stage 2 response or directed the resident to make a fresh complaint about the issue should he wish to. The resident has explained to this service that while the landlord has investigated the pipes and ruled out any current leak, he needed proof that there either was, or was not, a previous leak, which may have been the landlord’s responsibility. The resident explained that the ongoing “deadlock” with the insurance company, and the landlord’s lack of response to this element of the complaint, has caused a great deal of stress.
  6. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for the complaint-handling failures experienced, stating that it had “learned lessons to ensure this would not happen again”. However, in January 2022, the resident and landlord were in correspondence about the water-damaged flooring, in which the resident again made expressions of dissatisfaction. The landlord did not raise these through the formal complaints procedures. This indicates that the learning was ineffective.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord “will always attempt to speak to the customer in person”. However, there is no evidence that the landlord made any outbound calls to the resident before 5 July 2021.
  8. On 18 March 2021, internal landlord emails suggested that complaint handling failures may have been due to previous complaints being dealt with as “informal complaints” rather than “formal stage 1 complaints”. This suggests that the landlord was not following the Code (or its policy) when dealing with complaints at this time. This is because the Code states that, to be compliant, “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure.”
  9. There are also unnecessary delays in delivering on the resolutions offered on 15 October 2021, with evidence showing that no progress had been made on these resolutions by March 2022. As of May 2023, there was no evidence that the position had changed.
  10. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. The landlord offered £750 compensation for the “service provided” in relation to the heating issues. It is unclear how much, if any, of this is offered in respect of complaint handling failures specifically. As such, orders are made below to ensure things have been put right.

 

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the heating system in the property, including low heat output and excessive electricity costs.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, to pay to the resident £1,625 made up of:
    1. £1000 in respect of its handling of reports of issues with the heating system;
    2. £375 compensation to recognise the impact on the resident of the complaint handling and communication issues.
    3. £250 in respect of the additional time and trouble the resident went to following the stage 2 response on 15 October 2021, to chase the resolutions offered.
    4. If the £750 already offered in respect of its handling of reports of issues with the heating system has already been paid it can be deducted from the total compensation ordered.
  2. The landlord must also, within four weeks of the date of this determination, establish a reasonable method for calculating the additional energy costs incurred by the resident due to the faulty heating system. This should cover the period from the most recent reimbursement, believed to be up to January 2019 (but paid later) to the date the heating system was replaced, in August 2022. It should then pay this amount to the resident within a further four weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must write to the resident, copying in the Ombudsman, setting out its calculations.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should conduct a review into the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report. The landlord should assess this against the learning it undertook following the stage 2 response, to assess any areas where this learning may have been ineffective.
  2. The landlord may want to have an independent survey of the heating system and underfloor pipe network to determine any repairs issues with the new system.