London Borough of Enfield (202217564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217564

London Borough of Enfield

26 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports regarding a lack of first floor heating.
2. The resident’s complaint
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint included her concerns about the landlord’s handling of heating provision in her home since commencement of the tenancy in 1997. Under the rules of the (then) Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The resident expressed her complaint to the landlord in June 2022.
This Service has focused its investigation of the landlord’s handling of the heating provision from the point of the resident’s report made January 2022. It is not considered reasonable to review the landlord’s handling over 25 years. No complaint was brought forward to the landlord during that period and this represented a significant length of time. This Service has accordingly considered the historical background and records only as relevant background and where it is directly relevant to consideration of the landlord’s handling from January 2022 onwards.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the heating issue had a negative impact on the health of her household. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident raised issue with the landlord’s provision of data relating to her home and sought finding regarding its accuracy and handling. Full consideration of this matter would fall properly under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). The ICO is an expert in the rules concerning personal data and requests for information.

Background

The resident has a sole secure tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident in February 1997 by way of mutual exchange. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives with her adult daughter.
The 3 bedrooms of the house are situated on the first floor, that also houses a bathroom. The resident has advised us that on moving in, there was no heating in the bedrooms and the sole form of first floor heating was a radiator in the bathroom.
The resident’s liaison with the landlord during the period under investigation took place mainly via her daughter acting as her advocate. References to ‘the resident’ include the contact that her daughter raised on her behalf.
The landlord said it was unaware of any vulnerabilities of the resident. The landlord’s records show correspondence describing adverse physical health.
The resident settled a disrepair claim with the landlord concerning repair issues outside of the scope of this investigation. During this process, the resident obtained logs of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance records up to 2016.
The repairs log obtained included a report by the resident on 6 December 2000 that she had 3 radiators throughout the whole house and her request for the installation of additional hearing. The landlord reviewed this report on 19 December 2000, referring to an inspection and noted the request for an ‘upgrade’ as ‘non-essential works’. No further action was taken.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2022 the resident reported by email to the landlord damp and mould growth to the window areas in the bedroom/s. She expressed concern that the cause was insufficient heating to the first floor and described the only form of heating as a small radiator in the bathroom. She described impact to respiratory condition in winter and requested a timely resolution.
The landlord logged the resident’s report the same date and confirmed by email that it would attend to investigate and remedy the mould, with notice of an appointment on 19 January 2022.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord attended the property and inspected the first floor. Its attendance record noted that it found no radiators present except in the bathroom. It raised an internal request for radiators to be fitted in each bedroom and the hallway.
On 15 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, raising concern that no action had been taken to improve the first floor heating system in line with its prior advice or to complete a mould wash. She reported excess cold and ongoing black mould growth in the bedrooms. She requested prioritisation of the works and raised exacerbation of a respiratory condition.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord replied by email. It apologised for delay to its response and that ‘the issue with mould’ had not been resolved. It advised having raised a request to its contractor to investigate and complete a mould wash. The landlord gave notice of an appointment on 12 April 2022. The resident replied requesting the awaited heating improvements and the landlord’s report from its January visit.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s home and completed a wash of areas affected by black mould on/around the bedroom windows.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on multiple dates in April 2022 about her request for a copy of its January 2022 visit report. The landlord required the resident to raise a separate request with proof of identification. The resident complied with the landlord’s requirements on 28 April 2022.
On 5 May 2022 the resident referred the landlord to its visit in January 2022. She reminded the landlord of the repeat mould growth. The landlord acknowledged her email and advised the matter was with its repairs service.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the heating works and her report request by emails of 24 May and 1 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged her contact on 1 June 2022, stating it required more time to respond to her information request. The resident replied the same day, seeking reasons for the delay.
On 9 May 2022 the resident chased a response to her previous email. The next day the landlord replied, expressing apology for its delayed response, and advising it would provide information as soon as possible.
On 11 June 2022 the landlord sent to the resident a link to a spreadsheet containing data from its repairs system. The resident was unable to use the link provided, leading to the landlord sending a direct copy on 13 June 2022.
On 13 June 2022 the resident requested that the landlord raise a complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. She raised concern that the records did not reflect the visit conducted in January 2022. She reminded the landlord of the sequence of events earlier in the year and said its attending officer in January advised mould would keep returning without heating. The resident chased a response 4 days later.
On 22 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would aim to achieve early resolution of her concerns by referral to ‘the service area’ within 20 working days.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord provided its ‘service area’ complaint response. It described her complaint as being about inadequate heating. It stated its investigation found it had failed to action a request made in March 2022 to assess the installation of radiators. It provided notice of an appointment on 26 July 2022. The landlord apologised for inconvenience and distress.
The resident contacted her MP in July 2022 to seek his support advancing her circumstances. On or around 27 July 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to her landlord on her behalf. He raised concern that the landlord had failed to upgrade the heating system to the first floor of her home, implement requested temporary measures, subjected the resident to delay, failed to keep appropriate records of its visit and communicated poorly in response to her correspondence. He relayed the resident’s account of events since her email in January and the worsening of mould growth and a respiratory condition of a household member.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 5 August 2022 made reference to its contractor’s visit to the property on 27 July 2022 to assess the installation of radiators. It noted only one radiator present on the first floor and an order for 4 radiators to be installed. It chased internal progress of the works and flagged this as urgent.
On or around 16 August 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s MP. It apologised that she had not received any ‘follow up’ regarding the additional radiators required to her home. It acknowledged noting the lack of radiators at its visit in January 2022 and updated the MP that it would be installing 4 radiators. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication.
The resident’s MP brought to her attention an email he received from the landlord on 26 August 2022. The MP described the landlord as having apologised for delays and that the radiator works had been raised as urgent.
The landlord completed installation of radiators to the bedrooms at the property and hallway towards the end of August 2022.
On a date in September or early October 2022, the resident’s MP raised the resident’s concerns about delay to actioning the installation of heating to meet standards and a request for explanation for prior failing. The MP relayed her request for compensation to redress years living in excess cold.
The landlord logged the request and representations as a complaint at stage 1 of its process on 13 October 2022. It sent an automated copy of its log of the MP’s representations of complaint by email to the resident. The resident sent a swift reply, describing stress awaiting resolution to her dissatisfaction. She also reported the presence of mould growth and requested a mould wash. The landlord emailed a separate acknowledgement of her complaint that it advised receiving on 29 September 2022. It described her complaint as about the landlord’s delay to provide adequate heating to her home. It advised of its standard response time of 10 working days.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord competed a mould wash to the windows/ surrounding areas of the upstairs bedrooms.
The resident chased the landlord’s complaint response by email on 1 November 2022. She raised dissatisfaction with a lack of communication during the complaint and delay to responses. She described feeling she had to ‘plead and chase’ the landlord and repeated her request for compensation.
The resident referred the landlord’s complaint handling for consideration by this Service on 2 November 2022 and updated the landlord the same date. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 December 2022, requiring that it comply with its complaints policy by provision of a written response to the resident.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord emailed the resident a copy of its ‘first stage’ complaint response, dated 2 days prior. The response said the following:
1. It was sorry for its delayed complaint response.
2. A description of its actions following the resident’s email in January 2022. It acknowledged having referred the lack of radiators for action on 19 January 2022. It stated the request was subject to internal error of incorrect system categorisation, description and service assignment causing delay and confusion. It apologised for any inconvenience.
3. Review of its records was unable to establish why the resident’s home previously had insufficient heating.
4. Due to its lack of records indicating prior lack of heating, it refused her compensation request. It sought any information held by the resident to enable its further investigation. On receipt, it would then review and provide an additional response.
5. It confirmed an upcoming appointment for a mould wash to the bedroom windows of 18 November 2022.
On 8 December 2022 the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She set out the below position:
1. The landlord made an incorrect statement that it was unaware of the lack of heating. Its records would show heating was never in place and that this had been raised previously, including from its annual gas check.
2. The landlord had responsibility to ensure its property was in line with standards and to be aware of the heating system at letting. She was dissatisfied the landlord had placed the burden on her to evidence its own provision.
3. The landlord had failed to consider the detriment from its 2022 delay.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised the name of the stage 2 complaint handler. It set out its standard timescale for response of 20 working days.
The resident provided further representations to add to her escalation request by emails of 14 December 2022 and 5 and 19 January 2023 that said:
1. The landlord provided no explanation for its complaint response delay.
2. The landlord failed to acknowledge its responsibility to know what heating system was present in the property or that it met requirements.
3. The landlord was on notice of the pre-existing (inadequate) system from its annual gas reports that noted all radiators in the property.
4. The landlord had previously failed to accept the recommendation made in January 2022.
5. An apology was insufficient to redress the particular detriment experienced by the household.
On 25 and 30 January and 6 February 2023, the resident chased the landlord for its final complaint response. She requested compensation for the delayed response and detailed the redress sought. She described ‘stress and torment’ from inadequacies in its handling of the heating issue and her complaint.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord replied to the resident with an apology for its delay responding.
On 15 February 2023 the resident sent an email to the landlord raising dissatisfaction at its failure to provide a final complaint response.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord sent its final stage complaint response to the resident, dated the day prior. It said:
1. It had no record of insufficient heating at the property prior to the resident’s report in January 2022. An Energy Performance rating completed in July 2021 rated the heating as ‘good’ and did not identify lack of radiators.
2. It was unable to identify ‘who’ was responsible for removing the radiators as it had no evidence the council removed radiators.
3. It acknowledged failing to act or providing a ‘viable’ solution for its handling of the heating issue between January to August 2022 and offered a sum of £1150 as a ‘gesture of goodwill’.
4. It apologised for delay to the resident’s initial stage complaint, with incorrect internal allocation being explained as a factor adding to delay.
5. It apologised for the final complaint response delay outside of its policy.
On 17 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord seeking revision of its complaint response. She stated the following:
1. The property was never let with radiators and there was no evidence of any heating system eg capped pipework. The resident supplied old photographs dating back to July 2019 that showed a lack of heating system in the bedrooms.
2. The landlord should have kept appropriate records of its property condition.
3. The landlord was responsible for ensuring the habitable condition of the property at letting and throughout the tenancy. It had failed to do so at the point of mutual exchange or following annual checks at her home.
4. The resident had raised the inadequate heating to the landlord previously but was advised she would not be given an upgrade.
5. The final offer of compensation was insufficient to cover the costs and effects she had previously outlined to the landlord, as well as the expense of gas bills from overworking the boiler to seek to warm the whole house.
The resident chased a response on 20 February 2023. On 22 February 2023, she updated the landlord she had referred the matter to this Service.
The next day, 23 February 2023, the landlord replied to the resident setting out a revised offer of compensation further to its final stage complaint review. It:
1. Accepted service failing for partial lack of heating provision to the property for the 4 year period evidenced by the resident. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Apologised for its failure to adhere to its complaints policy
3. Set out an updated offer of £2,840 that it said was in line with its compensation policy:
  1. £2,190 for lack of heating at a rate of £1.50 per day over 4 years.
  2. £600 for trouble, inconvenience and distress for its service failure.
  3. £50 for failure to adhere to its complaints policy.

Post-complaint

On 2 March 2023 the resident forwarded to the landlord the repairs history log obtained in the course of her former disrepair case. She highlighted its record of December 2020 of the property having only 3 radiators in the house, reports made by the resident of lack of heating and visits it made to the property during the period covered by the log.
The resident flagged this further to the landlord in an email the next day and set out her expectations of financial remedy. She described the impacts previously listed, including impact to mental health. She expressed feeling the landlord had suggested she was not telling truth and dissatisfaction at this position. The resident chased a response on 9 March 2023.
The resident referred the matter for investigation by this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

This Service has not been supplied with a copy of the full terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, only the signed cover page confirming tenancy assignment. This page cross references conditions of tenancy. The version provided to this Service related to a version post-dating the start of the tenancy.
The landlord must ensure that its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For a home to be considered ‘decent’, it must be free of ‘serious’ hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm and include excess cold and the presence of damp and mould growth. Governmental guidance on the rating system recognises respiratory difficulties and ill mental health as potential harms arising from mouldy and cold living conditions.
It was implied into the tenancy by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 an obligation that the landlord ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the HHSRS is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
The landlord’s housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy said that it would do the following:
1. Ensure its properties met the (then) decent homes standard as a minimum.
2. On receiving report of condition issues, it would take the time to ‘fully understand’ the issue and identify any special needs or vulnerabilities.
3. Keep the resident informed of progress and any likely delays when follow on work was identified.
4. Provide a temporary supply of heating when necessary.
The landlord had a complaints policy that detailed a 2 stage procedure. At initial review, it would provide a response within 10 working days. At final review, its final response would be issued within 30 working days. During both stages of its process, if the landlord required an extension of time, this was to be communicated to the resident.
The landlord had a policy about awarding compensation in the event of service failure. It stated that awards offered in line with the policy were to take account of the individual factors of the customer’s case. This included the degree of time, trouble and inconvenience experienced and its own failure to follow policy. It gave guidance for suggested payment awards and included provision for payments linked to payable rent in the event of loss of habitability.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as then in force set out the following expectations of landlords:
1. A response to a complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process was to be provided within 20 working days. There was provision for extension of time following contact with the resident.
2. Residents were to be kept regularly updated about the progress of the complaint investigation.
3. Residents were to be given a fair chance to comment on any adverse findings before a decision was reached.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding a lack of first floor heating.

The landlord showed efforts at compliance with its duties towards the resident’s living conditions by its response to the resident’s report in January 2022. It appropriately recorded her report and made arrangements to attend the property within a timely period. On inspection, it noted the lack of heating to the first floor and identified work required to install an appropriate heating system.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord had regard to the interim ongoing risks to the occupants pending completion of works it identified as necessary. While the resident had flagged the occupants living with respiratory conditions and sleeping in bedrooms with mould growth, there is no record it considered the interim potential harm from underheated accommodation. The degree of under heating was significant and confirmed by the landlord in the middle of winter.
The landlord paid no evident regard to the health risks associated with mould spores, excess cold or the stated vulnerabilities of the residents. This was contrary to the approach recommended by this Services’ Spotlight Report on damp and mould and its works policy that required identification of any vulnerabilities. While its works policy said it would provide a temporary supply of heating ‘when necessary’, the landlord’s records show a lack of reflection of mitigation measure/s, for example temporary heating, a decant. It showed no focus on whether and how it could manage the interim discomfort and risks presenting to the household from excessively cold living conditions.
Despite noting the need for heating to the first floor, the January internal request was not actioned. No steps were taken by the landlord in response to the recorded works. Considering the degree of heating deficiency and the above noted risks, a degree of urgency to complete the works would have been appropriate. The lack of implementation of works needed to bring the resident’s home to a habitable standard was a significant failing. It represented a failure to comply with its own works policy and its obligation to ensure the resident and her household were living in habitable conditions.
It was only after the resident made contact with the landlord in mid-March 2022 to raise concern about progress and her living conditions that the landlord noted further action was necessary. While it apologised for its failure to resolve the matter, the landlord subsequently failed to action the heating installations again. It simply cleaned mould spores. This demonstrated a failure to give reasonable regard to its own prior recorded works request, the resident’s correspondence or its ongoing duties as to the resident’s living conditions. It failed to show compliance with its policy requirement to take time to fully understand the repairs issue.
The resident sent correspondence to the landlord between April and June 2022 seeking to demonstrate its prior actions and her living conditions. This caused her to incur unnecessary time and trouble. The landlord’s records do not show any reflection against its records to examine whether it had failed to take the action she reported. The landlord failed to use the opportunities afforded by the resident’s contact to reflect on its compliance with its duties or identify required action. While it acknowledged the resident’s contact and advised having referred the matter to its repair service, there is no evidence of any action.
Further, it failed to engage in any substance with her concern about its prior findings of heating deficiency. When it provided records requested as part of her efforts to demonstrate its January works request, it did not provide full transparency. It is evident from the resident’s subsequent correspondence that this failing added to the inconvenience she encountered. The landlord was made aware of the distressing impact to her of repeatedly re-asserting promises made and receiving responses that failed to disclose its prior action/s.
Notwithstanding the resident’s efforts to provide clarity of the position to the landlord, there is no apparent review of actions required until its ‘service area’ complaint investigation. Its response of 20 July 2022 recognised a need to install radiators and gave a timely appointment to begin works. However, the landlord failed to provide full accountability from the records seen by this Service about its January visit or to acknowledge the failings arising from its inspection. This lack of disclosure, whether in error or otherwise, was deeply unhelpful to the landlord and tenant relationship and the ability of its response to put matters right. Although it apologised, its failure to acknowledge the fuller extent of its failings and the resident’s experience caused her further distress and burden from further repetition of the position.
While the landlord took reasonable subsequent steps to action the heating installation, its records show an interim failure to keep the resident informed of its progress and any delays in line with its policy. This lead to the resident seeking updates by assistance of her MP, incurring further time and trouble. It is noted that the landlord apologised for failings in its communications in its correspondence to the resident’s MP on 16 August 2022.
The landlord in this correspondence reflected further on its January 2022 visit. It acknowledged the detail shown on its records: that it had noted the lack of heating provision and requested installation of radiators at that time. While the landlord provided an apology for its errors and their impact, the landlord failed to show consideration of the particular detriment experienced by the resident up to that point. It further demonstrated no regard to its own compensation policy.
Despite the landlord’s admission of failings, significant in both degree and impact, the response offered no other form of redress. An apology was inadequate considering its failings had left the resident without adequate heating in the coldest months of the year. Further, it had repeatedly failed to identify or disclose its errors, causing undue her distress and significant time and trouble by her efforts to bring this to its attention.
The installation of heating at the end of August was over 8 months from the resident’s January 2022 report. The landlord’s delay taking effective action to resolve an acute heating shortage was significant. It represented a failure to comply with its obligation to ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response added little to the apology communicated through her MP months earlier. It offered no form of remedy for its failings other than an apology. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised, this alone was inadequate to address the level of detriment caused.
The landlord’s stage 2 response and subsequent revised response went further. It acknowledged failing to act or resolve the heating issue for 8 months and the appropriateness of financial redress. By its revised response, it made an offer of a daily rate for partial lack of heating at £1.50 per day and £600 for trouble, inconvenience and distress arising from its failings. It communicated the offer as being in line with its compensation policy. The level of this award was not proportionate to the individual detriment caused to the resident and her household because of the landlord’s significant failings set out above.
The landlord’s compensation policy provided for financial redress to be offered to address adverse impact to the habitability of a resident’s home. It guided the landlord to offer a percentage of the weekly rent as a compensatory sum, described as ‘habitable room loss’. This Service considers it unreasonable that the landlord identified a daily rate of £1.50. Considered as a percentage of the rent in line with its policy, this did not reflect appropriately the impact of the lack of heating to the habitability of the resident’s home.
The resident and her household endured no heating provision to all bedrooms and the hallway during cold winter months. Further, the landlord was aware of the presence of mould spores, having attended to on multiple occasions due to its repeat growth. The landlord’s own damp and mould guidance detailed excess cold as an evidenced contributing factor. Such conditions were not reasonably reflected by the landlord’s identified rate of payable rent.
Whie it was appropriate for the landlord to identify a separate figure to account for the substantial inconvenience caused to the resident, it failed to show acknowledgment and thus any redress for the impact arising from its prior failure to correctly disclose or relay details of the January visit. This represented additional distress to the resident. The failing placed significant burden of time and trouble to the resident whose persistence forced disclosure of the accurate information.
The landlord’s response showed no reflection of the detailed breakdown of financial detriment listed by the resident in her submissions. The resident supplied a list of expenses that would be reasonably foreseeable arising from a failure to supply adequate heating to a property.
The landlord’s response failed to put matters right as it did not go far enough in addressing its failings or by its financial redress. This Service finds the landlord responsible for maladministration from its handling of the resident’s reports regarding a lack of first floor heating.
This Service considers it appropriate that the landlord pay the resident more appropriate financial redress in line with its habitable room loss provision. A percentage of 20% is assessed as reasonable taking account the degree of impact in winter months, that the loss of heating was almost total to a whole floor and impacted all rooms used for sleeping. Use of the area affected and for long periods was unavoidable.
This Service also orders the landlord to pay an additional sum to account for the time and trouble incurred by the resident and reasonable specific costs incurred.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first raised her complaint by her email of 13 June 2022, explicitly requesting that her concerns be subject to a complaint investigation. A response was provided by the landlord’s letter of 20 July 2022.
The response was subject to the landlord’s ‘early resolution’ process at initial review. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the timescale set by the landlord’s complaints policy. This came only after the resident had been put to time and trouble chasing a response. It also failed to provide a response within the 10 working days deadline detailed by the policy or contact the resident to discuss delay.
The resident raised further expressions of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of her heating issue via her MP from July 2022. These were not treated as a complaint or continuation of her complaint until September/ October 2022. The landlord provided only partial records, therefore this Service was unable to assess this period fully to make any finding concerning its complaint handling at this time.
The date of receipt of contact treated by the landlord as a further first stage complaint was stated by the landlord as 29 September 2022. The partial records prevent this being confirmed by this Service. The representations were logged as a complaint on 13 October 2022, 2 weeks later. There is no evidenced or apparent good reason for this delay. The landlord’s policy required an acknowledgement within 3 working days but this was sent to the resident 10 working days after the stated date of receipt.
The landlord subsequently failed to engage with the resident in respect of her complaint. It did not act in line with the Code by keeping her updated about the progress of its investigation. At no stage did it update the resident of its delay to investigation or response. This placed additional strain on the resident having to chase the landlord and subsequently contact this Service for assistance.
Also out of compliance with the requirements of the Code, it failed to liaise with her to seek comment on its intended adverse finding. Instead, its response sought more information from her in response. This could reasonably have been achieved by an inquisitive and thorough approach to investigation and by putting these matters to her as required. This placed additional burden on the resident who was faced with a time limit for escalation rather than the matters being queried in due time and during the investigation process.
Following the intervention of this Service on 2 December 2022, the landlord supplied a ‘first stage’ response letter on 8 December 2022. This was 55 working days after the landlord’s stated date of receipt, against its 10 working days policy timescale. It represented an inappropriate delay that added to the distress and inconvenience encountered by the resident. While the landlord apologised for its delay, it failed to offer any other form of remedy for its complaint handling failings up to that point. This was despite its compensation policy specifically providing for financial redress in case of non-adherence to the policy. This was an inappropriate failure to apply its relevant policy.
The landlord’s response at the final stage of its complaint process was also subject to delay. The resident sought escalation on 8 December 2022. The landlord’s response was supplied on 16 February 2023, 48 working days later. This was contrary to its policy timescale of 30 working days and the Code expectation of 20 working days. Common with its handling at the first stage, the landlord failed to engage with the resident appropriately in respect of her complaint. It failed to seek an extension for its delay, explain the delay or provide updates on progress. The resident responded by sending multiple chasers. The impact of the landlord’s continued pattern of poor engagement was evident from the content of her representations. It is clear the landlord’s handling caused distress and particular time and trouble.
The landlord’s final stage response offered an apology for its delay to reply and further acknowledged first stage delay. However, it made no offer of financial redress as guided by its compensation policy, despite admission of complaint handling failings. The landlord noted delay and should reasonably have noted its lack of communication and the intervention of this Service. These were clear indicators of failings of such extent and likely detriment that the failure to offer an additional remedy was inappropriate .
The landlord’s provision of a supplementary final response showed an effort to put matters right. It was reasonable that the landlord adopted flexibility to review its position in light of the resident’s further information. However, its response demonstrated little additional reflection upon its complaint handling failings. It repeated an apology for failure to adhere to its policy, however it failed to acknowledge with explanation its failings in service outside of delay. It failed to identify or address the interim lack of engagement and the associated detriment caused.
The landlord offered £50 for failure to adhere to its policy. This would appear to be due to delay only. While this showed some engagement with its compensation policy, the figure offered was disproportionate. It failed to demonstrate account of the individual detriment expressed by the resident’s representations. It was a standard figure with no reflection on the extent of its failings or their particular detriment to the resident. The apology, partial acknowledgement and offer were insufficient to put matters right.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its complaint handling.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

The landlord’s explanations for accepted failings were linked to inaccurate recording and use of its information management systems. Errors concerning the appropriate recording of data and tasks fell across multiple services, impacting the delay to actioning the heating installation and replying to the complaint.
The works records supplied to this Service further raise concern as to the landlord’s information management. Some actions or events key to the progress of the heating resolution and the resident’s concerns had no particular record eg inspection, the August heating installation. These were discoverable only by their reference within subsequent emails or correspondence. This would inevitably have limited the accessibility of important information within the landlord’s information management system and an ability for a system overview of the issue at the heart of the complaint.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its knowledge and information management. The poor handling of information contributed to the delay faced by the resident across its services.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding a lack of first floor heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

Despite the landlord identifying it needed to install heating shortly after the resident’s report in January 2022, its subsequent action was subject to significant and unreasonable delay. It failed to comply with its own works policy and its obligation to ensure the resident and her household were living in habitable conditions. The landlord showed a lack of regard to the potential harm arising to the occupants from excess cold and took no proactive steps to manage interim risks. When the resident made substantial efforts to draw its attention to the matter, the landlord failed to provide any timely accountability or redress. While the landlord’s complaint response accepted failings, it did not identify or provide redress for the extent of failings considered above. Further, it offered redress disproportionate to the level of detriment caused.
The resident’s complaint was subject to inappropriate delay at every stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord failed to engage during its complaint investigations with the resident despite her chasers. While the landlord apologised for its delay, it failed to recognise the extent of its failings and its final offer of compensation was disproportionate to the detriment it caused the resident.
The landlord failed to appropriately record data and tasks across multiple services, contributing to its delay to resolve the heating installation and reply to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation in line with the following requirements:
  1. The landlord is ordered to recalculate its offer of 23 February 2023 in line with its compensation policy provision for loss of habitability, using a percentage rate of 20%. The landlord is to pay the resident this sum net of the previously offered daily rate calculation of £2,190.
  2. £175 to address the time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her reports regarding a lack of first floor heating.
  3. £350 to address the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
  4. £130 to address the additional distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by its knowledge and information management.
  5. Pay the sum of £2,840 previously offered by its final response of 23 February 2023 unless this has already been paid to her.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears of rent or service charge.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the failings identified by this complaint investigation and consider what steps it should take to prevent reoccurrence. The landlord should provide a copy of the review report to the Ombudsman with any proposals.