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

London Borough of Hounslow (202218743)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218743

London Borough of Hounslow

15 January 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of a new heating system.
    2. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 1989. The landlord is a local authority. The resident pays for heating and hot water as part of his rent.
  2. In or around early 2021, the landlord began major works in the resident’s block to replace the water supply and heating system. The water supply was replaced on 9 April 2021. At this time, the resident’s heating and hot water supply was disconnected.
  3. It is not disputed that the landlord offered to install an immersion heater around this time. The landlord required that the resident not be present during this installation due to COVID-19 social distancing requirements. The resident has noted he declined this offer as he wanted to be present while workmen were in the property. It is also evident that the landlord noted it may consider enforcement action if the resident did not provide access. The resident subsequently disputed he had refused access.
  4. This service has not been provided with the landlord’s records in relation to this period of contact. No evidence has been provided that it considered alternative arrangements or offered space heaters at this time.
  5. In November 2021, the landlord advised it was now in a position to install the new heating system. The resident queried if the works could proceed with him present in the property, and the landlord confirmed they could. Works were initially booked in for January 2020; however, these were postponed due to illness.
  6. The works were booked in again for March 2022; however, the landlord noted these had to be cancelled. It is not evident why this was. Throughout April and May 2022, the resident sought updates. The landlord periodically advised it was chasing its contractor but did not provide him with any updates.
  7. In May 2022, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction at the length of time the arrangements were taking. He noted the inconvenience of having no heating or hot water, at which point the landlord expressed surprise, as it had not accurately recorded that he was without those facilities.
  8. The heating works were completed on 5 July 2022. On 18 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about how the landlord had handled the works and in relation to his request for compensation of rent, given that he had not received heating and hot water for over a year. He further noted that the landlord had claimed it offered temporary space heaters, which he disputed, nor had it made him aware they were an option.
  9. The landlord did not initially acknowledge the complaint, and so the resident came to this service, which chased the landlord for a response. The landlord subsequently provided its stage one response on 17 March 2023, which included the following:
    1. It apologised for failing to acknowledge the complaint.
    2. It noted the resident had declined its offer for works to install an immersion heater and so did not accept responsibility for the inconvenience caused.
    3. It did not address the resident’s position that it had not offered temporary space heaters.
    4. It apologised for its communication around the refund of rent and confirmed it would refund the amount relating to heating costs for the period of 9 April 2021 to 8 July 2022.
  10. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 April 2023, and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 10 May 2023. It subsequently provided its stage two response on 8 June 2023, which included the following:
    1. It confirmed that a rent refund of £518.05 had been paid on 14 April 2023 and a further payment of £664.81 would shortly be paid.
    2. It reiterated it did not consider itself responsible for the inconvenience caused by the lack of an immersion heater.
    3. It offered £50 compensation for its poor communication regarding the rent refund and for the delays in making payment.

Assessment and findings

Heating system

  1. As part of the landlord’s heating and water supply replacement works, it is not disputed that the landlord sought to provide interim assistance with hot water by way of an immersion heater. While this service has not been provided with the landlord’s communications surrounding these temporary works, it is evident that it required the resident to vacate the property during the day of the works in line with COVID-19 social distancing requirements. It is also evident that the resident declined this offer due to concerns about workmen being left unaccompanied in his property.
  2. Where works have been unsuccessful, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to confirm this with the resident and provide its position as to whether alternative arrangements could be made. However, in this case, it is not evident that the landlord recorded the resident’s position or sought to discuss it with him. It did not consider any reasonable adjustments or alternative approaches.
  3. Similarly, the landlord has advised that it offered temporary heaters or otherwise considered that the resident was aware that these were available to him. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that he should have been aware. It appears to be the case that these would have been provided should the temporary works have gone ahead, but that in the absence of those works, there was no attempt to arrange for them to be provided separately.
  4. Ultimately, the landlord had an obligation to ensure the resident had access to heating and hot water. When its temporary works did not go ahead, it failed to explore any alternative arrangements with the resident. It is also evident that there was a failure in its record keeping and internal procedures, as its staff later expressed surprise when the resident noted he had no heating or hot water, demonstrating the landlord had failed to accurately record his circumstances.
  5. Following the landlord contacting the resident in November 2021 to begin the final works, there were several periods of delay, partly due to illness, which was beyond the landlord’s control. However, works were later cancelled in March 2022 without explanation. The landlord should have provided a clear explanation for these delays both at the time and in its formal responses, which it did not do. It also failed to follow up with the resident to rebook the works at the earliest opportunity, which led him to expend time and trouble chasing updates.
  6. The landlord was subsequently made aware in May 2022 that the heating was not working. Given that the works were not yet booked in, this was an opportunity for it to revisit any heating or hot water needs for the resident. However, it did not do so. While it was now the warmer months, he was still left without hot water until July 2022.
  7. In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately recognised that the resident had been paying for heating and hot water, which he had not been able to use. It appropriately offered to reimburse him £1,182.86. While it offered £50 compensation for its poor communication, this offer did not fully reflect the impact its failings had caused. Its position that it would not offer compensation for the lack of heating and hot water due to the resident declining works was unreasonable as it had not explored alternative options.
  8. Given the initial failure to consider other options, ensure that the resident had understood the access to temporary heaters, and the missed the opportunity to consider further mitigating the impact caused to the resident when it became aware of the matter in May 2022, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £600 compensation has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is made up of £500 for the failings relating to the temporary heating works and £100 for its poor communication. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a twostage complaints policy. It will aim to provide a stage one response within 15 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 November 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint or provide a response in the timeframes noted in its policies. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request for updates in December 2022. This led the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing the landlord’s response through this service.
  3. The landlord provided its stage one response on 17 March 2023. This was 82 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s policy timeframes. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it failed to offer an explanation or consider compensation for the impact the delay had caused.
  4. Similarly, it took the landlord 31 working days to provide its stage two response following the resident’s escalation request. This was once again beyond the timeframes of its policy, and it also once again failed to provide an explanation or consider compensation.
  5. In summary, it should not take the resident to have to come to this service in order to get a complaint response from the landlord. Additionally, while it was appropriate that the landlord apologised, the landlord should have considered compensation to reflect the impact caused to the resident, which it failed to do. Given these failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £100 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This order is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of a new heating system.
    2. Complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700, comprising:
    1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the heating works;
    2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to ensure that the reimbursement of heating payments are complete.