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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202310872)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310872

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 November 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third-floor of a block. It has underfloor heating. The landlord’s records show the block is a “new build” with a communal heating system. The resident has diabetes and mobility issues. She is also recovering from several strokes. She has stated that cold temperatures can put her health at risk. She lives in the property with her son, who helped with her complaint. For readability, this report refers to “the resident” throughout. It does not make a distinction between the resident’s actions and those of her son.
  2. The resident’s complaint relates to persistent issues with the property’s heating system. In particular, it involves a lack of heating over a prolonged period. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord about the heating over the years. Records show the heating stopped working entirely in September 2022. The landlord’s contractor completed an initial visit but it was unable to resolve matters. After making several requests for updates, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 November 2022. She highlighted her vulnerabilities and expressed concern about a lack of communication.
  3. Records show the landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month. They suggest the landlord upheld aspects of the resident’s complaint and awarded her some compensation. Subsequently, the resident escalated her complaint in January 2023. This was after further visits from the contractor failed to restore the heating. She said the situation was “dangerous” due to her vulnerabilities. She also said the landlord had not offered to provide any temporary heating solutions. She told the landlord she was sleeping “in a car overnight for heating”. She felt its previous compensation award was inadequate.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident’s escalation request promptly. It said it was unable to provide a response timescale because it had a significant backlog of complaints. The resident chased the landlord regularly over the following months. In turn, the landlord also chased the contractor. After a direct intervention by one of the landlord’s senior managers, the contractor eventually started responding to the landlord’s enquiries. On 28 March 2023 the contractor told the landlord it had successfully repaired the property’s heating.
  5. The resident approached the Ombudsman in June 2023. She told us the landlord had not responded to her escalated complaint. In November 2023 we contacted the landlord and asked it to issue a final response within 5 working days. In line with the Ombudsman’s deadline, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 November 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her a total of £1,074 in compensation. This was based on various failures related to the repairs and the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. The resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s response. In January 2024 she raised another complaint with the landlord because the heating had stopped working again. During a phone call in November 2024, the resident told us the situation was ongoing and there was damp and mould in the property. She also said she wanted a permanent move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation was distressing the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress,  inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings.
  2. The resident raised similar heating complaints in January 2022 and January 2024 (before and after the complaint that is the subject of this report). In relation to her previous complaint, the evidence shows the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 21 February 2022. Our records show she subsequently approached the Ombudsman in June 2023. This was around 15 months later.
  3. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the amount of time that has passed since the events in question. Under paragraph 42b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are not brought to us within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months after the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, the resident’s previous complaint is beyond the scope of this investigation.
  4. Similarly, there is no evidence to show the resident’s more recent complaint has completed the landlord’s ICP. Since we lacked sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment, this complaint was also out of scope for our current investigation. However, we will take steps to ensure that the landlord responds accordingly. If she remains unhappy, the resident can bring her recent complaint to the Ombudsman when it has completed the landlord’s ICP.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues

  1. During her complaint to the landlord, the resident consistently said the heating issues had been ongoing for several months before she complained. In January 2023 she reported she had spent 6 months “without heating” (this suggests the issues began around July 2022). In late March 2023 she reported it had been “almost” a year with no heating (this suggests the problems began around April 2022). Having checked the landlord’s records, there was no evidence to show it logged any heating related repairs between 14 January and 29 September 2022. Since we lacked sufficient evidence to support the resident’s timeline of events, we considered events from 29 September 2022 onwards.
  2. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s initial request for a repair. However, it raised a repair order on 29 September 2022 to address a lack of heating. The notes said underfloor heating throughout the property was not working. They also said the property did not have an alternative source of heating. It is reasonable to conclude these comments reflected the resident’s initial report to the landlord. A specialist contractor attended the property on 4 October 2022. This was 3 working days after the landlord raised the repair order. Its relevant repairs policy, effective April 2021, shows the landlord aimed to complete routine repairs (where there was no immediate danger to the resident) “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. The evidence suggests the landlord’s response was in line with its repairs policy at this point.
  3. The landlord did not provide a first-hand record of its contractor’s visit. The landlord’s record keeping will be considered during our assessment of its complaint handling. However, subsequent records show the property’s heating system needed several replacement parts. The landlord monitored the situation on 6 and 10 October 2022. Its initial notes said it had told the contractor about the resident’s vulnerabilities. It is possible that the landlord supplied this information to ensure the repairs were prioritised. The landlord’s initial notes also said the contractor had confirmed it would contact the resident in due course (presumably when it had obtained the necessary parts). A subsequent note said the landlord had chased a “supplier” and advised the resident to get a small electric heater.
  4. The landlord should have been mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities given the property had no heating. The evidence shows it was proactively monitoring the situation and it had briefed its contractor accordingly. These were reasonable steps. However, its relevant repairs policy shows it was obliged to ensure residents “[had] ready access to space heating”. While it was reasonable to discuss temporary solutions with the resident, the landlord’s approach was not consistent with its repairing obligations. In line with its repairs policy, it should have supplied the resident with electric heaters to ensure the property had “ready access” to heating. Instead, it put the onus on the resident to solve a problem and mitigate the associated risk. This was unfair and inappropriate.
  5. The resident chased the landlord on 19 and 27 October 2022. Corresponding notes show the landlord initially offered to call the contractor to obtain an update. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The notes said the resident declined the landlord’s offer. A subsequent record said it had been difficult for the contractor to obtain the parts. However, the parts had recently been sourced and the contractor would upload a quote within 1 hour. From the evidence provided, it was unclear if the contractor complied with this timescale. Ultimately, the contractor was the landlord’s agent and the landlord was responsible for its actions. The landlord should have managed it accordingly.
  6. On 1 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. Corresponding notes said she was unhappy because the property’s heating had not worked for “several months”. They also said the resident was “very ill and dependent on the heating”. The notes show she was also unhappy about a lack of communication from the landlord’s contractor. They said the resident had called the contractor several times for updates. Other records show the landlord logged the complaint and updated the resident on the same day (about the repair and her complaint). This was prompt and effective action by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint. However, given the lack of heating,  these actions did little to improve the resident’s immediate situation.
  7. The landlord notified the contractor about the resident’s complaint on the following day. This was good practice and gave the contractor an opportunity to address any performance issues. The contractor replied there had been a delay because some of the necessary parts were obsolete and alternatives had to be found. It also said it had recently provided a quote which was awaiting the landlord’s approval. In addition, it was likely the parts would take “a couple of weeks to arrive.” The landlord relayed this information to the resident on the same day. This was further evidence of prompt and effective action by the landlord. It was appropriate to alert the contractor to the resident’s complaint.
  8. On 14 November 2022 the landlord asked the contractor for an update following a chaser from the resident. It is unclear whether the contractor replied. The evidence suggests the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident around this time. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the response and we were unable to obtain it from the resident. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the landlord upheld aspects of her complaint. The correspondence also suggests it awarded some compensation at this point. From the evidence provided, we were unable to establish the amount of compensation the landlord awarded at stage 1. This is further evidence of record keeping issues on the landlord’s part. To avoid double-counting any failures, the landlord’s recording will be considered separately in the complaint handling section.
  9. On 24 November 2022 the landlord updated the resident. It assured her it was monitoring the situation and it would provide a further update when it received a specific timescale for completing the repair (presumably from the contractor). Subsequently, the landlord called the resident on 1 December 2022. Corresponding notes said a repair appointment had been scheduled and the parties had discussed compensation. They also said the landlord had advised the resident it would provide a “final [compensation] figure” when the repairs were complete. The evidence indicates the resident may have updated the landlord during the call. Nevertheless, the call confirms the landlord was monitoring the situation and maintaining contact with the resident. Overall, the evidence shows its approach was reasonable at this point.
  10. On 6 December 2022, the resident reported the scheduled appointment had taken place but the wrong part had been ordered. The landlord’s records said she was “very upset”. Soon afterwards, the landlord asked its contractor for an urgent update. The contractor replied it had replaced 2 heating components as planned. However, it had found a thermostat was faulty when it switched the property’s heating back on. During a subsequent email exchange, the contractor said the thermostat was obsolete and it was trying to source a replacement. Later that day, the contractor confirmed it would attend the property again the following morning. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an urgent follow-up appointment. The evidence shows that, at this point, it made significant efforts to resolve the problem as swiftly as possible.
  11. On 8 December 2022 the resident reported the heating was still not working (despite the contractor’s follow-up visit). On 13 December 2022 the landlord raised the situation internally. It stressed the resident had health issues and said the cold weather was causing her “a great amount of distress”. These comments show it was aware the situation was serious. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek internal assistance given the circumstances. However, it should have reasonably explored interim measures to mitigate the cold and/or improve the resident’s situation. There was no indication it did this. Reasonable solutions would have included providing electric heaters or exploring the possibility of a temporary move under the landlord’s decant policy.
  12. “Excess cold” is a potential hazard to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. It also shows health risks for people with vulnerabilities begin to increase when temperatures fall below 16°C for long periods. Landlords typically use inspections to assess, monitor, and control hazards. While the landlord was monitoring the situation, there was no evidence it did this from a risk or welfare based perspective. For example, there was no indication it attended the property to check the temperature. This suggests it lacked evidence that would have improved its decision-making. Its approach was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the approach required by the HHSRS.
  13. Records show the resident chased the landlord on 16 December 2022. Later that month, the contractor contacted the resident directly. This was to arrange an appointment in early January 2023. The contractor’s repair records show it attended the property on 3 January 2023 to replace the thermostat. They also show the resident reported that none of the underfloor heating was working when they arrived. The contractor said it had released a valve that was stuck. However, an “underfloor wiring harness was [found to be] faulty”. The landlord asked the contractor for an update the following day. The contractor said the property had heating but further works were needed to the controls. The evidence suggests this was around 14 weeks after the resident’s initial report.
  14. On 10 January 2023 the contractor supplied the landlord an additional quote for the heating control works. Its records show the landlord raised a corresponding repair order on the same day. The resident chased the landlord for an update around a week later. The landlord’s notes show she reported that the property still lacked heating. Given her comments, the evidence suggests the contractor had given the landlord incorrect information during its previous update. The Ombudsman was unable to clarify matters using the landlord’s records.
  15. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 January 2023. She said she had “spent 6 months without heating with sub-zero temperatures”. In addition, she was “constantly falling sick” and the situation was “dangerous” due to her health conditions. She also said the landlord had not offered to provide any temporary heating solutions. The resident’s other key points were:
    1. The landlord had shown a “lack of care and respect”.
    2. The family were currently “sleep[ing] in a car overnight” for warmth.
    3. They had purchased a small electric heater which doubled their electricity bills.
    4. The electric heater was insufficient given the cold weather conditions.
    5. The landlord’s previous compensation award was inadequate.
  16. The landlord replied the same day. It did not respond to the resident’s comments about her welfare or the lack of temporary solutions which was inappropriate in the circumstances. If it was unsure how to respond, the landlord could have asked the resident what help she was seeking. It could have then explored whether any requests were feasible. The evidence shows it missed another opportunity to improve the resident’s circumstances. Its lack of engagement and/or proactivity was inappropriate given the severity of the situation that the resident described in her escalation request.
  17. On 31 January 2023 the resident exchanged emails with the landlord. She reiterated the contractor had recently attended the property but it still lacked heating. The landlord said it would relay details of the resident’s case to a manager in its contracts team. This was to try and progress matters with the contractor. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord in the circumstances. Subsequently, the resident chased the landlord for updates on 10 and 27 February 2023. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s second email. This prompted the resident to chase it again subsequently. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient.
  18. The resident chased the landlord again on 2 March 2023. She referenced a lack of heating and reiterated her previous request for additional compensation. She also said she had been unable to work due to ill health caused by the cold conditions in the property. She wanted the landlord’s compensation award to include a £4 daily payment for energy usage (due to the electric heater). On the same day, the landlord updated the resident, apologised for not responding to her previous email and chased the contractor. These were reasonable actions by the landlord in the circumstances.
  19. The resident chased the landlord again on 10 March 2023. The landlord emailed its contractor soon afterwards. It copied several members of the landlord’s staff into the email. It said, since January 2023, the contractor had ignored its requests for updates. It also said this was “unacceptable” given the resident had “no heating and health issues”. The evidence shows the landlord had chased the contractor at least 5 times during the interim period. It is reasonable to conclude a number of these chasers were prompted by contact from the resident.
  20. On 15 March 2023 the contractor began to respond to the landlord’s emails. This was due to a direct intervention by one of the landlord’s senior contract managers. Around 10 days later, the contractor told the landlord it would attend the property on 28 March 2023 (to install a wiring centre that had been on order). On this date, the landlord asked the contractor for an update. The contractor replied all the issues were resolved and the property’s heating was “operating well”. The evidence suggests this was around 6 months after the resident’s initial report in September 2022.
  21. As mentioned, the landlord’s relevant policy did not include a specific timescale for completing routine repairs. Since the complaint involved a heating repair, we considered 1 month to be a reasonable timescale in the circumstances. It is noted the evidence shows the landlord had to order parts at various points. Overall, the evidence suggests there was an unreasonable delay of around 5 months. It is noted the resident chased the landlord multiple times after the contractor’s update. It is also noted she did not reference any outstanding repair issues subsequently. In April 2023 she told the landlord she was withholding rent because it had not responded to her complaint.
  22. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 November 2023. It accepted that delays and communication issues had caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. It also acknowledged her vulnerabilities. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her a total of £844 in related compensation (it awarded additional compensation for complaint handling failures which will be assessed in the relevant section below). The compensation comprised £124 for loss of service – no heating, £240 for distress, £240 for inconvenience and £240 for time and effort. The landlord said it would offset the compensation against the resident’s arrears. The evidence shows it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation given what went wrong. Given the amount it awarded, the evidence also shows it made a considerable effort to put things right during its internal complaints procedure (ICP).
  23. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  24. Based on the period between 29 September 2022 and 28 March 2023, the property lacked adequate heating for 180 days. This was during some of the coldest months in a year. The evidence confirms this reduced the resident’s enjoyment of the property. It suggests she had a single electric heater to keep warm. The landlord provided a compensation policy that was effective from August 2023. It shows the landlord can award a discretionary amount of compensation for a loss of individual services such as heating. In line with its compensation policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to award separate compensation to address the resident’s loss of amenity/enjoyment.
  25. The evidence suggests the landlord’s loss of heating compensation was based on a daily rate of around £0.69 (£124÷180). Its policy did not include any guidance around the level of compensation that the landlord considered to be proportionate. While the landlord’s calculation was consistent with its policy, the evidence shows it was disproportionate given the impact to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, £5 per day is reasonable in the circumstances. This figure reflects the resident’s vulnerabilities and the unique circumstances of the case.
  26. The landlord accepted the resident was impacted by delays and communication issues. It rightly awarded a significant amount of discretionary compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with its policy. However, it did not recognise the full extent of its failures in its response. Our assessment shows it failed to provide “ready access” to heating in line with its obligations. Similarly, the landlord did not acknowledge it had failed to provide any temporary solutions, unfairly put the onus on the resident, failed to engage with her welfare concerns and failed to adopt a risk-based approach in line with the HHSRS. It is likely these issues compounded the resident’s distress and the lack of sufficient heating was a source of considerable distress given her health conditions. As a result, the landlord’s distress related compensation is disproportionate in the circumstances.
  27. Given the above, there is evidence that significant failures by the landlord had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation award should have reflected this substantial level of impact. While it made a considerable effort to put things right, the landlord did not recognise some of the most serious aspects of its failures. As a result, there is a disparity between the amount of compensation that it awarded and the level of redress that is needed to put things right. Since the disparity is the key issue to resolve in this case, maladministration is a proportionate finding in the circumstances. Had the landlord not taken the positive action it did, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
  28. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award replaces the landlord’s previous calculation. It reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies. Significantly, it is proportionate to the gravity of the failures that the landlord overlooked. As mentioned, these failures broadly relate to the landlord’s obligations, the resident’s welfare and the landlord’s approach to risk.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 November 2022. In line with its applicable policy, the landlord should have logged and acknowledged complaints within 5 working days at stage 1. A response should have been issued within 10 working days after logging. The landlord’s records suggest it issued a stage 1 response around 14 November 2022. The evidence indicates the response was issued in line with the landlord’s policy timescales. However, the landlord was unable to supply a copy of the response and we were unable to obtain it from the resident. The landlord’s inability to provide a key complaint document was concerning.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2023. The landlord replied to her request in an informal email on the same day. It said it would escalate the complaint but it was unable to provide a timescale for the response. This was on the basis there was a “considerable backlog [of complaints at stage 2]”. The email included the Ombudsman’s contact details. The landlord’s policy shows it should have escalated complaints “without delay”. It did not include other provisions around logging and acknowledging complaints at stage 2. There were relevant provisions in the applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in March 2022.
  3. Section 5.10 of the Code said landlords must set out their understanding of a complaint on receipt of an escalation request. This shows the landlord should have promptly issued a formal acknowledgement to the resident. Section 5.13 said landlords must issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. It also said, in exceptional circumstances, landlords could provide an explanation to the resident “containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received”. The above shows the landlord’s approach was contrary to the Code and therefore inappropriate. Subsequent events show the resident was impacted by the landlord’s approach.
  4. On 2 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she felt it had ignored her escalation request and closed her complaint on its systems. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of a formal acknowledgement and a clear response timescale may have given her this impression. It is likely the lack of clarity was distressing and may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. It is noted that between 27 February and 26 June 2023 she chased the landlord at least 9 times for its response. This level of contact should not have been necessary. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was avoidable and inconvenient for the resident.
  5. On 20 July 2023 the landlord issued the resident a formal holding letter. It apologised for the delay but it did not provide a clear response timescale. Ultimately, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. The response was dated 14 November 2023. This was around 10 months after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord awarded the resident £50 to address its record keeping failure at stage 1. It said it was unable to retrieve its stage 1 response due to an error by the previous complaint handler. It also awarded £180 to address the delays at stage 2. It was reasonable for the landlord to award this level of compensation to the resident given what went wrong (£230 in total).
  6. The evidence points to a number of issues with the landlord’s response. It shows record keeping problems impacted other aspects of the landlord’s operations. It is noted the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s initial repair report from September 2022. It is also noted the response did not attempt to establish the date of the report. It is reasonable to conclude the missing information reduced the accuracy of the response. As noted in the previous section, record keeping issues impacted several other aspects of the landlord’s operations. Ultimately, the landlord’s record keeping hindered parts of our investigation.
  7. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
  8. The evidence suggests the resident was impacted by a more significant record keeping failure. During her complaint to the landlord, she said several times that she wanted compensation to cover her increased energy bills. She also said she had bought her own electric heater. The landlord did not address this aspect of her complaint in its response. Its compensation policy shows it should have reimbursed the resident for “any relevant out-of-pocket expenses” that she incurred due to its service failures. Section 5.6 of the Code said “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 2 response was unfair and inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s failure to engage with a key complaint point may have stemmed from its failure to record the full details of the resident’s complaint.
  9. The evidence shows the resident’s concerns around expenses have not been addressed to date. This points to an unreasonable delay of around 12 months based on the timing of this assessment. The situation is likely frustrating for the resident. Given the circumstances, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Since it overlooked key issues and the resident was impacted, the landlord’s compensation is not sufficient to put things right. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay a proportionate amount of additional compensation based on the evidence we have seen. We have also ordered the landlord to address the resident’s expenses.
  10. The Ombudsman has not made any additional orders in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It is noted the landlord updated its complaints policy in October 2024. The landlord was previously subject to a special investigation by the Ombudsman and we published our findings in July 2023. The landlord has undertaken various measures to improve its performance subsequently. It has done this in cooperation with the Ombudsman.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of heating issues.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. This is to ensure its senior leadership is aware of the serious failings in this case. The apology should recognise that the landlord failed to provide ready access to heating in line with its obligations, put the onus on the resident to mitigate the risk, failed to engage with the resident’s welfare concerns and failed to consider the situation from a risk-based perspective in line with the HHSRS approach. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter/call summary within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2,250 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £900 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the lack of adequate heating (£5×180 days=£900). If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £124 that it awarded the resident at stage 2.
    2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her reports of heating problems. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £720 it previously awarded the resident at stage 2.
    3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord can deduct the £230 it previously awarded the resident at stage 2.
  3. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and gather details of her expenses. It must then assess them and respond in line with its policy. Since it was responsible for a significant delay in the first-instance, the landlord should avoid imposing onerous evidence requirements on the resident. It should also provide her with contact details for its insurance team. This will allow the resident to pursue any claims for health impacts or lost earnings. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord should notify its contracts management team about the performance issues that are highlighted by the resident’s case. Its internal feedback should reiterate that the contractor failed to respond to numerous communications between January and March 2023. The landlord should explain how it handles contractor performance issues and provide a summary of its response to the specific issues in this case.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to meet with the resident and discuss her rehousing options. In considering any request it should consider her circumstances and needs.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord is encouraged to inspect the property for damp and mould within 4 weeks and address any repair issues it identifies.