London Borough of Lambeth (202318964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318964

Lambeth Council

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Boiler repairs boiler and the installation of a new boiler.
2. The installation of radiator thermostats.
3. The installation of a new electric fire.
4. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since February 1985. The landlord is a local authority, and the property is a 2 bedroom terrace house. It said that the resident is vulnerable and has vision and hearing loss.
On 20 December 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Her complaint was about its handling of the repairs to her bedroom wall, which we are not investigating. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 15 June 2022. It apologised to the resident for not responding to her complaint sooner.
On 13 November 2022 the resident reported her radiators were not heating up and the hot water was lukewarm. The landlord repaired the boiler on 13 December 2022. On 21 December 2022 it inspected the boiler and then installed a new boiler 2 days later. It then connected the boiler to the thermostat on 29 December 2023 and completed the repairs to the boiler cupboard on 18 January 2023. The resident reported that in December 2022, the landlord rescheduled 1 repair appointment, and in January 2023, it missed others.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord disconnected the resident’s gas fire because it was unsafe. On 18 January 2023 it explained that as a replacement to her gas fire, it could either install an electric fire or a radiator. It noted that the resident was unsure on how to proceed and on 1 February 2023, it showed her some brochures of electric fires she could have.
In January 2023, the landlord said the resident needed 5 new radiator thermostats. She said she chased the landlord several times in January 2023, for the installation of the radiator thermostats. She explained that on 23 January 2023, the landlord informed her that it would not install the thermostats because the radiators were working. However, she said that on 1 February, it inspected her property to determine the number of required thermostats. The resident informed this service in April 2025, that the landlord had not installed the new radiator thermostats.
On 17 March 2023, the supplier tried to deliver the new electric fire but could not because the landlord’s engineer was not at the property. The resident said that the electric fire was delivered on 24 March 2023 but was damaged. She also said that once she realised the amount of work needed to install the new fire, she asked the landlord to install a wall mounted electric fire instead.
On 28 March 2023 the resident said the landlord agreed to remove the unwanted fire, buy and install a wall mounted electric fire. On 28 April 2023 the landlord informed her that it could not purchase her chosen fire for her. She then agreed to buy her own electric fire for the landlord to install.
On 14 April 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Her complaint was about its handling of the repairs to her boiler and the installation of the new electric fire.
The landlord booked a repair on 10 May 2023, to prepare the area for the installation of the new fire on 17 May 2023. The resident said the contractor did not arrive on 10 May 2023 and the landlord rescheduled the repair for a week later. It also rescheduled the fitting of the new fire and installed it on 24 May 2023.
On 14 June 2023, the landlord’s complaint team provided the resident with an informal response to her complaint via email and confirmed that it had installed the new fire on 24 May 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 3 October 2023.
1. It explained that in December 2022, it informed the resident it had to reschedule a repair appointment to enable its gas engineer to attend with the builder. It acknowledged that it rescheduled the appointment shortly after making it because of the Christmas holiday period. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It explained that its contractor rescheduled a repair appointment from 4 January 2023 to a week later. It also said that on the morning of the rescheduled repair, it contacted the resident and rebooked the work for 18 January 2023. It did not consider this was a missed appointment.
3. It found no evidence that it had booked a repair appointment with the resident for 27 February 2023.
4. Its supplier tried to deliver the resident’s new fire in March 2023, but it did not go ahead because there was no access, and its electrician was not there to take the delivery. It recognised the resident said the new fire was damaged, but it found no evidence of this. It acknowledged that in March 2023, the resident informed the landlord she wanted it to purchase a wall mounted fire, but this was not approve by the Council. In April 2023 she informed the landlord that she would buy her own fire for the landlord to install. It installed the resident chosen fire on 24 May 2023.
5. It was satisfied it had rearranged appointments in keeping with its policies and procedures and could not award compensation to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Procedures and policies

The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says that when a repair is an emergency, which could cause serious health and safety problems, it will promptly attend to make safe. It says that it will complete such repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 7 to 28 days, depending on the nature of the problem.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation to a resident when the loss of heating and hot water in their property continues for more than 3 days. It elaborates that this applies to residents paying a heating and hot water charge as part of their rent. The policy also says that it will pay £20 compensation when it missed an agreed appointment.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It says that it will acknowledge residents’ complaints within 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also says that if its needs longer to respond, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint.

The repairs to the boiler and the installation of the new boiler

The resident said that she reported an issue with her boiler on 13 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs log did not show when she reported the problem. However, she said to the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that she reported the issue in November 2022, and it did not dispute her version of events. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude she reported the problem on that date. We understand that the resident reported her radiators were not warming up and her hot water was lukewarm. The landlord noted on its repairs log that she had no heating or hot water and was an elderly resident.
We recognise that the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timeframe to attend to a report of loss of heating and hot water or complete the repairs. However, its compensation policy says that it will compensate residents for loss of heating and hot water for more than 3 days. We understand it says this relates to resident paying a water and heating service charge. However, although the resident does not pay a heating charge as part of her rent, it is our opinion that it is reasonable to extend this element of its compensation policy to her.
After taking this into account, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord aims to address a loss of heating and hot water within 3 working days. While we understand it might not always be possible to complete the repairs within that timeframe when the landlord needs to get parts or renew the item. However, in such cases the landlord should communicate with residents about any delays and manage their expectations. It should also explore measures to minimise the impact on the resident until it restores heating and hot water in the property such as providing temporary heaters.
In this case, the resident reported the issue on 13 November 2022, the landlord said it completed the repairs on 13 December 2022. It did not show that it attended prior to that date or discussed the delays with the resident. This was an unreasonable timeframe for the landlord to attend to such repair, especially as it had noted the resident was without heating or hot water and was elderly. This was also during the winter months. It should have attended sooner or communicated and explained its reasons for the delay to the resident. If it could not attend sooner, it should have offered temporary heaters to the resident and checked she had access to washing facilities with hot water, such as an electric shower. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable, its failings left the resident without adequate heating and hot water for a month.
We recognise that the landlord promptly acted on the operative recommendations that it should replace the boiler. Within 6 days of the recommendations the landlord surveyed the property for a new boiler, which it approved 2 days later. The landlord installed the new boiler on 23 December 2022. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. Once it knew it should replace the boiler, it acted promptly in keeping with its repairs and mould policy timeframes.
Once it had installed the boiler, the landlord explained that it needed to carry out follow up works. It explained it needed to do repairs to the boiler cupboard and link the boiler to the thermostat. We understand that the resident immediately phoned to book the repairs, and the landlord said it would return that afternoon to complete them. We also understand that it later cancelled the repair appointment and rescheduled it for after Christmas. We recognise the resident was disappointed and it caused her inconvenience because she could not control her heating with the thermostat until it completed the repairs.
Nevertheless, we also recognise that by booking the repairs with the resident on 23 December 2022, the landlord raised her expectations that it would return that day to complete the follow up works. While we understand the landlord was trying to do right by the resident, it should have managed the resident’s expectations. It should have checked it could book a contractor at short notice before confirming the repair appointment with her. Managing expectations is key to nurture trusting relationships with residents. The landlord’s failings to do this was unreasonable and impacted on his relationship with the resident.
We recognise that although the resident’s heating was working, she could not control the heating in her property because the landlord had not linked the boiler to the thermostat. The evidence shows that the landlord completed this repair on 29 December 2022, 6 days after it installed the boiler. While we recognise it was difficult for the resident to manage her heating during that time, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It completed the repair in keeping with its repairs and damp policy to complete such repairs within 7 to 28 days.
We understand the landlord reschedule the follow up works to the boiler cupboard for 4 January 2023. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had not been able to reschedule the works during the Christmas period. We understand that landlords may have reduced staffing levels during the Christmas period and less repairs appointments may be available. Therefore, booking the repairs for after the Christmas period was reasonable. The evidence also shows that the landlord rescheduled the repairs for 4 January 2023. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed that it recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and rescheduled the follow up work as soon as the trades returned to work.
The resident said that on 4 January 2023, the landlord did not attend the agreed appointment to repair the boiler cupboard. She said she then contacted the landlord to reschedule the repairs. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that while it had rescheduled the repairs, there was no evidence this was because it had failed to attend as agreed. It said that because of this it did not consider that it missed the appointment. Additionally, it noted on its repairs log that it had rescheduled the appointment at the resident’s request. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord because the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side.
In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that on the morning of 11 January 2023, it contacted the resident to reschedule the appointment booked for that day. We understand that the landlord said it did not consider this was a missed appointment because it rescheduled it. However, we disagree because the resident would have planned her day to accommodate the repair appointment. We understand the landlord’s repairs policy does not say how much notice it should give when cancelling a repair appointment. However, it is our opinion that cancelling a repair appointment within less than 24 hours, would amount to a missed appointment. In this case, the landlord should have considered the 11 January 2023 as a missed appointment.
We understand the landlord completed the follow up works to the boiler cupboard on 18 January 2023. This was 26 days after it identified the repairs. The landlord acted reasonably and in keeping with its repairs and mould policy to complete such repairs within 28 days.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the boiler and the installation of the new boiler. We recognise that the landlord installed the new boiler and completed the follow up works in keeping with its repairs and damp policy. However, it did not repair the old boiler within a reasonable timeframe or consider how it could mitigate the impact on the resident such as offering temporary heaters. It also did not manage the resident’s expectations when it booked the follow up works in December 2023 and failed to attend the agreed repair appointment on 11 January 2023.
Therefore, in accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £290 to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This is equivalent to £250 for the delays in repairing the boiler, £40 for not managing the resident’s expectations when booking a repair appointment in December 2022 and for the missed appointment in January 2023. This also reflects that the resident is vulnerable and elderly.

Installation of the radiator thermostats

Radiator thermostats are useful tools to provide more efficient and cost effective heating by regulating the temperature of each room. Their use helps residents to reduce energy waste and manage their overall heating costs.
The evidence shows that on 4 January 2023 and 11 January 2023, the landlord said the resident required 5 new radiator thermostats to enable her to manage the heating in her property.
In her stage 2 complaint, the resident shared a timeline of events with the landlord. Within the timeline she provided, she described how, in January 2023, she had contacted the landlord several times about the installation of the new thermostats, and it gave her conflicting information. She also said it did not attend a repair appointment to install the thermostats. The landlord did not show that it confirmed or disputed the resident’s accounts. However, it had the opportunity to dispute her version of the events in its stage 2 response and did not. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it agreed with her recollection of what happened.
In her stage 2 complaint the resident said that although the landlord had informed her that it would attend on 18 January 2023 to install the radiator thermostats, it did not turn up. This was unfair to the resident who expected the landlord to complete the repairs on that day. Additionally, the landlord did not show that it tried to cancel the appointment or explained its reasons for not completing the repairs that day. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It caused inconvenience to the resident who had to ask for a new repair appointment.
We understand the resident made several phone calls to the landlord about installing the radiator thermostats. She said that on 23 January 2023, it informed her that it would not install the thermostats because her radiators were working. She explained that 3 days later, it asked how many thermostats she needed. This was confusing for the resident, who did not know whether the landlord would install the thermostats or not. We understand the landlord may have mistakenly informed the resident that it would not install the thermostats. However, we saw no evidence it apologised to her for the misunderstanding or explained its reasons for changing its mind. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
The resident explained in her stage 2 complaint that when the landlord attended to survey the new fire on 1 February 2023, it also checked how many radiator thermostats she needed. While this was reasonable by the landlord, we saw no evidence it then installed the thermostats or explained its reasons for not doing it. The resident informed this service in April 2025, that the installation of the new radiator thermostats is still outstanding. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have either explained why it would not install the thermostats or completed the repairs within its published timeframe.
Furthermore, the evidence showed that although the resident raised the issue of its handling of the installation of the radiator thermostats in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord did not address it in its stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge its failings or try to put it right. This was unreasonable. This was not in keeping with the Code to respond to each element of a resident’s complaint and take steps to put things right. It was a missed opportunity to acknowledge its failings and resolve the matter sooner.
Overall, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the installation of the new radiator thermostats. It provided conflicting information to the resident and did not install the thermostats as agreed or explain why it did not. This caused inconvenience to the resident who has found it difficult to effectively manage the heating in her property for the past 2 years and 4 months without the promised thermostats.
Therefore, in accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £450 to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. This reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident who had to raise the issue with this service. This also takes into account that the landlord said she was elderly, which is an aggravated factor.

The installation of the new electric fire.

We understand that on 23 December 2022, the landlord disconnected the resident’s gas fire because it was unsafe. On 18 January 2023 it offered to install a new electric fire or a radiator as a replacement for the gas fire. It noted that the resident was unsure on how to proceed, and she asked what electric fire she could get. On 1 February 2023 the landlord showed her some brochures of the electric fires available to her. She explained that the landlord then said it would be in touch once the supplier had delivered the fire. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it clearly explained the options to the resident and provided her with information to make an informed decision.
As previously mentioned in this report, we are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, we cannot conclude there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure. In this case, we understand that the resident said that the landlord booked the installation of the new fire on 27 February 2023. In Its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had no record of the repair appointment. We saw no evidence to prove or disprove either side, therefore we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord.
Additionally, we understand that the resident said the fire delivered in March 2023, was damaged. However, the landlord disputed this in its stage 2 response. Based on the evidence provided, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord. We also recognise that if the fire delivered was damaged, this would have been out of the landlord’s control and would not amount to a service failure on its part.
We understand that the resident said the supplier tried to deliver the new fire on 17 March 2023 at 8.45am, but the landlord’s engineer was not at the property to receive the delivery. The evidence shows that on that day, the landlord had booked an engineer from 8am. In Its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord recognised that its operative had not been there to take the delivery as planned. While it did not explain the reasons for this, it did not dispute that it had booked an operative for that day. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord knew about the delivery and should have been at the property to take it. Its failing to attend or explain its reasons for not attending, was unreasonable.
The resident said that once she realised the extent of the works to install the new fire, she asked the landlord to install a wall mounted fire instead of the one it had ordered. She said that on 28 March 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would supply her with a wall mounted electric fire. The evidence shows that the landlord considered her request for a wall mounted fire and 4 weeks later it explained to her that the Council had declined the request. Based on the evidence provided we cannot determine whether the landlord had promised the resident it would buy the fire she had chosen or said that it would put her request forward for authorisation. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord in managing the resident’s expectations.
The resident said that on 28 March 2023, it agreed to block the hole where the old fire had been. She said that the landlord contacted her on 2 May 2023, to book the repair appointment. We understand that the landlord explained in its stage 2 response to her complaint that during that time, it was considering whether it could buy the resident’s chosen fire. However, this does not explain the delay of approximately 6 weeks to block the hole in the wall. This was unreasonable by the landlord, who did not explain the reason for the delay or its failing to complete the repairs in keeping with its published timeframe. This also caused inconvenience to the resident who had to contact it several times about the issue.
We understand that on 28 April 2023, she agreed to buy her own fire for the landlord to install. The landlord installed the new fire 26 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its repairs and damp policy to complete such repairs.
However, the resident said that the landlord had booked to do the preparation works on 10 May 2023 and install the fire on 17 May 2023. She said that it did not attend on 10 May 2023, which delayed installing the fire until 24 May 2023. The landlord had the opportunity to dispute her version of the events when she raised it in her stage 2 complaint, but it did not. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude it agreed with her recollection of what happened. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not attend on 10 May 2023, as agreed. Additionally, it should have explained its reason for not attending the repair appointment and apologise for its failings. Its failing to do so was unreasonable.
After considering the above, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the installation of the resident’s electric fire. We recognise that it took approximately 5 months for the landlord to install the new fire. However, some of the delays were out of its control such as the delivery, the resident considering her options and then buying her own fire. We also recognise that while this may have delayed installing the new fire, the landlord was trying to do the right thing by the resident when considering whether it could buy her chosen fire. We understand that once the resident bought her own fire, it installed it within its published timeframe.
However, the evidence also shows that the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident on the matter, and she had to chase it for updates. Additionally, the landlord did not complete repairs such as blocking the hole where her old fire had been within its published timeframe. It also did not attend 2 repairs appointments as agreed and did not explain to the resident how this occurred. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord for updates and raise the issue as a complaint.
Therefore, in accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident who had to chase the landlord for updates and raise the issue as a complaint. This also takes into account that some of the delays in installing the fire were out of the landlord’s control.

Complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2021. We recognise her complaint was about a repair not considered by our investigation. We acknowledge that the events relating to landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint started more than 12 months prior to her raising the issue with us or escalating her complaint to the landlord. We also understand that when she escalated her complaint, she raised new repair issues, which we are investigating.
In May 2025, the landlord clarified the timeline of the complaint with us. It said the resident made a formal complaint in December 2021, and it provided its stage 1 response on 15 June 2022. It also said that when the resident requested to escalate her complaint in September 2023, it was in relation to this complaint. The evidence shows that it had used the same complaint reference number for its stage 1 response in June 2022, and its stage 2 response in October 2023. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to consider the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint between December 2021 and October 2023. This is also in keeping with the Scheme to apply our discretion when considering the timespan of our investigation.
As mentioned above, the resident made a formal complaint on 20 December 2021, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2022. This was 110 working days outside its published timeframe, which was unreasonable. The landlord acknowledged to us that the resident contacted it asking for a response to her complaint in January 2022. Its handling of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable and not in keeping with its complaint policy or the Code.
Additionally, we understand the landlord explained it had high volume of complaints during that period, which resulted in delays in its handling of residents’ complaints. However, this is not a reasonable reason to explain a delay of approximately 6 months in responding to a complaint. Furthermore, the landlord did not show that it provided regular updates to the resident. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its complaints policy or the Code. Its handling of the resident’s complaint caused inconvenience to her. This also impacted on its relationship with the resident who felt ignored by its lack of response.
The resident said that on 17 April 2023, she raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the repairs in her property and the installation of the electric fire. The landlord informed us in May 2025 that it had no record of this complaint. However, the resident provided evidence to us that on 14 June 2023, its complaints team provided her with an informal response to her complaint via email.
The Code, which was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint, says that while we encourage early and local resolution to residents’ complaints, landlords must agree this with the residents and keep accurate records of their interactions. It also says that 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 elaborates that when a resident makes a complaint, the landlord must acknowledge and log the complaint.
In this case, we understand the landlord may have handled the resident’s complaint as a service request. However, it did not show that it had informed her it was doing this. It is understandable that the resident believed the landlord had handled the issue she raised as a complaint, because its complaints team responded to the issues she raised. It did not show it had offered her the choice of making a complaint or the opportunity to escalate the issues to its formal stage if she was unhappy with its response. Furthermore, it did not provide her with information on accessing our service. Those were unreasonable actions by the landlord and not in keeping with the Code.
In July 2023 the resident contacted this service. She said she raised a complaint with the landlord in April 2023, and it had not adequately responded to her. With our support, on 12 September 2023, she escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged her request 2 days later, which was reasonable. However, because it had not logged her complaint in April 2023, it escalated her complaint from 2021. We recognise there is no evidence this impacted the resident because she sent a detailed email to the landlord about the issues she raised, and it responded to those in its stage 2 response.
The evidence shows it responded to her stage 2 complaint 10 days after acknowledging her request to escalate her complaint. This was reasonable from the landlord. This was also in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
We recognise the landlord provided a detailed response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. However, it did not address all the issues she raised. For example, it did not respond to the delay in installing the radiators thermostats or the delays in repairing her old boiler. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the Code to answer each element of the resident’s complaints.
After considering the above, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. We recognise the landlord issued it stage 2 response within its published timeframe. However, it did not respond to all the elements of her complaint. Additionally, there were lengthy delays in responding to the complaint the resident made in 2021. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delays or show that it had kept the resident updated. It also failed to log her complaint in April 2023 or agree with the resident to treat her complaint as a service request. Its failings caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. She contacted the landlord several times for responses to her complaints and contacted this service for support in reaching a resolution.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This is equivalent to:
1. £300 compensation to reflect the 6 months delay in responding to the complaint she made in December 2021. This reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident who had to chase it for a response to her complaint.
2. £200 compensation to reflect its failings in logging her complaint in April 2023 and not responding to all the elements she raised in her stage 2 complaint. This reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident who had to raise the matter with us.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of Boiler repairs boiler and the installation of a new boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of the radiator thermostats.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of the new electric fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £1190 in compensation directly to the resident. The compensation is equivalent to:
  1. £290 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs and installation of the boiler on the resident.
  2. £450 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the installation of the radiator thermostats on the resident.
  3. £150 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the installation of the new fire.
  4. £300 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling on the resident.
3. To inspect the resident’s radiators thermostats and either agree a reasonable date to replace them or explain to the resident why it is not necessary. The landlord is to share the outcome of its inspection and its schedule of work, if relevant, with the resident and us.