London Borough of Islington (202316876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316876

Islington Council

27 February 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 decision to restrict the resident’s heating and hot water.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord holds no record of vulnerabilities for the resident. Heating and hot water is supplied to the property via a communal heating system.
3. In September 2022, the landlord wrote to tenants that received communal heating. It proposed changes because of the increased energy prices. It informed tenants that it intended to reduce the operating hours of the communal heating system by 5 hours, and it would end the heating season 2 weeks earlier on 10 May 2023. It asked tenants if they agreed with the changes. Its website states that 67% of the 719 responses agreed with the proposed changes.
4. On 9 May 2023, the resident reported that there was no hot water at night in his flat. He asked for the landlord to address the issue urgently as he often needed to use the shower during the night. On 22 May 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it had restricted the communal heating and hot water between 12pm and 6am. It said that it made the decision to help reduce energy costs for its tenants. It said that it would be installing heat meters later that year which would give tenants greater control of the cost of their heating.
5. On 16 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint. He said that the tenants should decide if the heating and hot water restrictions were worth the reduced costs. He noted that the cost of energy had reduced significantly in recent months. He asked for a revised financial calculation so that tenants would know what savings the hot water restrictions would be. He also asked if the landlord could keep the hot water running even if it was restricting the heating.
6. On 5 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had engaged in a tenant’s survey before implementing restrictions. It said that the majority of tenants supported the decision to restrict the heating. It said that it would conduct additional consultations later in the year, where it would present various options along with their associated costs. It said that the resident’s heating system does not have the ability to separate the heating and hot water functions.
7. On 14 July 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that he had not been consulted about the restrictions and queried how the landlord conducted the survey. The resident asked for precise savings that had been achieved and estimated future savings so that tenants could make an informed decision on the restrictions. He wanted the landlord to conduct a new, transparent, and inclusive survey given the severity of the inconvenience caused, the shortcomings of its previous consultation, and the significant recent changes in energy prices.
8. On 3 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that it sent letters to 4,700 tenants and responses were published on its website. It did not survey tenants of the resident’s estate because the restrictions proposed to that estate were less than that of other sites. It acknowledged that it failed to demonstrate best practice by failing to include the resident’s estate. It also accepted that it should have notified all affected tenants before implementing the restrictions. It offered the resident £75 for inconvenience caused by its failure to notify him of the restrictions.
9. When the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, he remained unhappy that his heating and hot water was restricted. He highlighted that this issue was affecting others on the estate. As a resolution, he wanted the hot water restored.

Events after the internal complaints process

10. The resident provided the Ombudsman with correspondence with the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) dated September 2024, confirming its intention to restore tenants of the resident’s estate to 24 hours heating and hot water when 80% of meters were had been installed on the estate.

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. While it is evident that the issues raised by the resident affected more tenants in the estate, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint as a group complaint. This is because there was no evidence that the resident had authority from other tenants in the estate. Furthermore, the impact of any landlord failings would be different depending on individual circumstances.

The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s hot water and heating 

12. In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for the provision, maintenance, and renewal of heating systems on the estate and the cost of the fuel required to provide such heating. The resident is responsible to pay for the heating costs through his service charges.
13. In its complaint response the landlord identified service failures. It accepted that it should have notified the resident, and it failed to follow good practice in omitting to include the resident’s estate in the consultation. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. The landlord’s website sets out that there are 3 main types of communal heating systems:
    1. 2-pipe systems – these cannot be turned off without losing hot water to the properties, so remain switched on overnight and during the summer
    2. Standard (3 and 4 pipe systems) – these provide heating and hot water through separate pipework, meaning the heating and hot water can be controlled separately
    3. Heating only systems – only provide heating to the property and switch off overnight and during the summer
15. The survey letter sent to tenants in September 2022 only refers to heating restrictions. The landlord did not consult with tenants of the resident’s block because it intended to restrict the heating to 18 hours per day, whereas it intended to restrict other sites to 13 hours per day. This was an unreasonable position for the landlord to take because it restricted both the heating and hot water on the resident’s estate, whereas it only restricted heating on other sites. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the impact of loss of hot water to the resident’s estate when it decided not to consult with them.
16. The Ombudsman cannot determine if the outcome for the resident would have been different had the landlord consulted with the tenants of his estate. However, when it acknowledged that it failed to consult with the tenants of the resident’s estate, it should have taken action to address the issue. It could have considered writing to apologise to the affected tenants and to explain its reasons for the reduced services. It could have considered if a further consultation was justified in the circumstances. (This was a resolution sought by the resident). Its failure to consider any action was unreasonable.
17. The evidence indicates that the basis of the complaint was the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had ongoing correspondence with the resident’s TMO and that “this information would have been shared with the residents”. The resident’s lease agreement is with the landlord, and it is the landlord’s responsibility to communicate with the resident. This was a further communication failure.
18. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s heating and hot water. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the impact of the loss of hot water to the resident’s estate. Its compensation offer only considered its failure to notify the resident before implementing the change. Its failure to include the resident in its consultation was a communication failure which warranted compensation.
19. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation below of £300 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident considering the individual circumstances and the communication failures identified in this investigation.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s heating and hot water.

Orders and recommendations

21. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for the distress and inconvenience caused. If it has already paid £75 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.
22. It is ordered for the landlord to write to the resident and provide:
    1. an apology for its communication failings
    2. an estimated timescale for the heat meter works 
    3. if it intends to restore his heating and hot water to 24-hour access and, if so, an estimated timescale