Longhurst Group Limited (202227504)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227504

Longhurst Group Limited

26 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the air source heating pump (ASHP) in her home.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a one-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy began in July 2008 and the property is heated by an air source heat pump.
The landlord has noted the resident is vulnerable primarily due to her age.
The landlord carried out an annual service on the ASHP on 16 December 2021, which was undertaken by its contractor (A). A further check on the ASHP was made on 30 June 2022. This was undertaken by a different contractor (B). The landlord in its communication to the resident incorrectly referred to the previous annual check having been undertaken in February 2022. It has now confirmed to this Service that the appointment in February 2022 had actually been for an electrical check and not for the ASHP.
The resident called the landlord on 16 July 2022. She explained that she had been unable to turn the ASHP off. The resident added that she had previously suffered from a heart attack and did not do well in the heat. The landlord attended on that day and A noted that the resident had been confused. It stated the heating had not been on when it had arrived. A noted that the resident wanted the heating turned off as she had an electric shower and it had done this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2022 to explain that since the last visit by the landlord’s operative she had felt like she was “sedated” every time she had used the heating.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 5 September 2022 it had contacted B about the issues which the resident was raising, in that she had felt something had been added to the ASHP. B informed the landlord that it had added 15% more glycol to the system which already had 20% in it when it had attended on 30 June 2022. This meant that the addition of the glycol should not have changed anything. It added that the “the glycol we use is non-toxic, not harmful to marine life and soluble”. It also informed the landlord that the heating system was a sealed system and therefore, if there had been a leak in the system, the ASHP would not have worked.
The resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 7 September 2022 to make a formal complaint. She asked the landlord to reply within 20 working days in line with its complaints policy. The resident explained:
1. The issue concerned the ASHP and she understood the landlord’s operative as part of the annual service “had put conditioner in the pump and believe I witnessed him drilling a hole into the heat pump”.
2. Following the contractor’s visit she noticed that when she spent time in the property she felt nauseous and dizzy which she felt was related to the substance put into the pump as she had not previously experienced this.
3. She was now unable to use the system as she did not wish to feel unwell.
4. She had telephoned the landlord four weeks ago and was informed that an assessor would be sent within two weeks to investigate. This had yet to take place.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 September 2022 and explained it would formally investigate the matter. It stated it would aim to provide the response by 12 October 2022 but, if this was not possible, that it would be in touch to explain the reasons why and to agree to a response date.
The landlord’s internal communication on 10 October 2022 noted that it had contacted a different contractor (C) to the one who had carried out the annual service to attend for an audit however it had not responded to it.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 19 October 2022 in terms of trying to book an appointment for C to attend. The resident’s son also contacted the landlord on 24 October 2022 about the heating system. The landlord’s internal notes show that it raised an order on that date to yet another different contactor (D) to check the resident’s system. This was scheduled for 4 November 2022.
D attended on 4 November 2022. The notes of its visit explained that it had turned on the heating systems and tested it and noted it was all working correctly and had not made the contractor ill. The contractor had shown the resident how to use the controls and noted “she’s now happy to use it”.
C attended on 9 November 2022 to undertake an audit of the heating system. It had confirmed that the system was working correctly. C’s report noted “on operation of the heat pump and heating/hot water systems no issues were identified. A sweep test of the property was carried out to confirm no migration was taking place”.
C emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022. It said in terms of the resident’s comments about a drill having been used “I suspect the pump used to inject the glycol was the issue”. C added that the resident had been informed to ventilate the area which she had done for days, and that she had not used the heating system for months and had only put it on a few days before it had attended. It confirmed there were no smell coming from the unit and no evidence of increased carbon monoxide or dioxide levels.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response to the resident on 13 December 2022. It offered the resident an amount of £50 compensation which was £25 for the delay in carrying out the audit and £25 for the delay in the complaints handling. It stated:
1. There were delays in having the heating system serviced following the resident raising concerns about it on 24 August 2022.
2. It had carried out a service on 9 November 2022. This had found no faults with the system nor of any signs of any drill having been used. It did add that “there may have been some confusion when glycol was put into the system as the pump does look similar to a drill”.
3. It should have acted quicker about the concerns over the safety of the system although it stated when it did do an audit it had found no fault with it.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 December 2022. The letter was received by the landlord on 4 January 2023. The resident explained that she had not received the landlord’s letter until 20 December 2022 and she had tried to get in touch on that day but had not been able to speak to the complaints team. She stated:
1. She had spoken to her psychiatric nurse in June 2022 about the heating and the nurse had been the one to get in touch with the landlord who had confirmed to him that they had put something in the heating. The resident stated she was “not talking about conditioner”.
2. She had been relying on her stand-alone radiator to stop her from getting hypothermia as if the ASHP was on it affected her sinuses and made her feel groggy.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 January 2023. It acknowledged her complaint and confirmed that it would formally review it at stage 2. The contemporaneous notes of the conversation set out that the resident wanted the system taken out as she could not have the heating on. The landlord explained that it would send someone out to double-check the system. It followed up the call by sending the resident a letter on this date in which it summarised her complaint and set out parts of its stage 1 response. The landlord explained that it would respond by 6 February 2023.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 16 January 2023 to explain that she wanted the whole system drained. She asked to speak to the case handler who had spoken to her the previous week however they were unavailable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2023. She set out:
1. The suggestion that she did not know the difference between a pump and a drill was “an insult”.
2. That, having reflected on the landlord’s suggestion that it would send out someone else to check the system, this would be a waste of time. The resident added that “whatever substance was put in my heating system that made me unwell can only be resolved by draining the system down, and then resetting it to a normal setting”.
3. She had called in on 16 January 2023 to speak to the call handler who had not returned her call.
The landlord’s internal notes set out that it had called the resident on 26 January 2023 in terms of providing its stage 2 response. However it had been unable to speak to the resident so had left her a voicemail.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 24 February 2023 which followed on from a call to the resident on that day. It explained:
1. It had reviewed the information provided by C when it had attended on 9 November 2022. It explained in addition to checking the system, C had undertaken a sweep test which looked for increased carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels. This had been normal.
2. In addition to C attending, D had also attended on 4 November 2022 to review the heat source system. It stated D had tested the system and found it to be working correctly and it had also showed the resident how to use the controls.
3. It apologised for the delay in dealing with the stage 2 complaint as it stated it should have responded to the resident by 6 February 2023. It stated whilst it had phoned the resident and left a voicemail on 26 January 2023 in which it stated a letter would be sent, but this had not been done. It offered £150 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint and £25 for the failure to send out a letter.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 27 February 2023. She stated no message had been left by the landlord on 26 January 2023 despite it saying it had left a voicemail. The resident added she remained unhappy that chemicals were put into the system without her permission and that she did not use the ASHP instead relying on an independent source.
Whilst the resident explained that she would refer the matter to the Ombudsman she wrote to the landlord on 24 March 2023 to accept its offer of compensation. The amount of £175 in keeping with the stage 2 response was paid to the resident.

Assessment and finding

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ASHP.

From the resident’s communication to both the landlord and to this Service the Ombudsman understands how concerned the resident has been and we acknowledge her belied that there is an issue with her ASHP. In cases where a resident raised such concerns, we would expect a landlord to carry out appropriate and proportionate checks to ensure that a resident is not being affected by something it has or has not done whilst maintaining their home. This may involve more than one visit, and it can be useful to seek more than one opinion, and the ruling out of potential causes.
The landlord has confirmed that, during the period from December 2021 to November 2022, four different contractors had attended the property on its behalf. It explained that one of these, B had attended a number of its properties to carry out a review of the service undertaken by A and this had taken place on 30 June 2022. This appeared to be the only visit carried out by B, with A having visited on 16 July 2022 and then a gap until November 2022 when two further contractors had attended to audit the system. Given the number of different operatives who have attended, it is not entirely clear to confirm which of the contactors was the one who had put the substance into the system that the resident had complained about, and during which visit.
The landlord has accepted there was a delay in it carrying out an audit on the system following the resident’s complaint. Whilst it had obtained evidence from B and had attempted to contact C about attending, it did not provide evidence that it had regularly chased C for its response on the matter.
The landlord had obtained details from B following its visit to the resident on 30 June 2022 but did not contact A about the matter. It explained this was as the contract with A had finished by the time it was looking at the resident’s complaint. This is unfortunate and as a result the Ombudsman has had to look at the remaining contemporaneous evidence. This includes A’s brief notes following the visit on 16 July 2022. B’s notes, which the landlord received in September 2022, indicated that it had put glycol into the system on 30 June 2022 and that whilst the system contained 15% already, it had added a further 20% to the system. A’s notes did not include a lot of information about what actions it had taken during the 90 minutes that it had attended on 16 July 2022.
The Ombudsman understands that the glycol, in the system provided three main purposes. These were providing anti-freeze protection, helping to provide resistance to corrosion and finally aiding with heat transfer. In terms of the anti-freeze protection this worked as the glycol lowered the freezing point of the fluid in the system.
B had also confirmed to the landlord that the glycol it used was non-toxic and soluble and so should not have had the effect that the resident had stated. In terms of the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s contractor had used a drill, two independent audits of the system by C and D undertaken in November 2022 had not identified any such hole in the system. These audits had also confirmed that there was no smell or any fumes which were being given off. B had also confirmed that “the heating systems are hermetically sealed so if there was a leak on the system the ASHP wouldn’t work”. In other words, had there been any hole in the system caused by the drilling that the resident had stated had occurred, the ASHP would not have worked. Whilst the resident has opted not to have the heating on, there was no indication that the ASHP was not working. This was confirmed both by C and D as well as the resident who explained that to stop the property developing damp and mould she had set the heating to the lowest level possible.
Although the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that whenever the heating was on she felt unwell as if she was sedated, several different parties have checked the ASHP system since the resident raised the concerns, and whilst they were in attendance at the property none of them reported any similar symptoms. The Ombudsman understands the resident wanted the ASHP system removed completely. Whilst this may have been the resident’s preference, as the landlord had found no fault with the ASHP system it was under no obligation to have to change the system in the property.
The resident had, in her letter of 23 January 2023, set out that the only way to resolve the issue of whatever substance was in her heating would be to drain the system down completely and then reset it. The landlord did not do this, although it explained that it had asked D to do this when it attended on 4 November 2022. This was as D had been able to test the solution which was in the ASHP at that time. However it has confirmed to this Service that, in hindsight, it should have ensured the glycol flush was completed to give the resident “peace of mind”. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation in keeping with regards to this which is set out at the end of this report.
Overall the landlord did take on board the resident’s concerns about the ASHP and the possibility something had been added to the system which was making her feel unwell when it was in use. It made arrangements for the system to be audited however there was a delay taken by it to do this. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord has not been able to provide an explanation of why it took around two months from the time it had received the information from B before it was able to send another contractor out to the property to carry out an audit of the heating system. Whilst an appointment would have needed to be booked with the resident by the contractor, there is no evidence that the delay taken by the contractor was due to the non availability of the resident. The impact on the resident on this delay would have been to cause her a degree of distress and inconvenience. Whilst the landlord made an offer of £25 for the delay in the audit being arranged, the Ombudsman considers that this is not proportionate to the failings identified and resulting impact on the resident. An award of £100 is fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions”. It adds that complaints should be reported within six months of the resident being aware of the issue.
The complaints policy set out that the landlord operated an informal complaints process and a formal complaints process. An informal complaint was one where the issue had not previously been dealt with as a complaint and it could be resolved either on the spot or within two working days. In terms of the formal complaints process this comprised two stages. At stage 1 the landlord would contact the resident within two working days to discuss the complaint, advise the resident of the timescales and agree a preferred means of communication.
At stage 1 the landlord set out it would aim to notify the resident within 10 working days but if this was not possible it would explain this to the resident and any extension would not exceed a further 10 working days. If the resident requested to escalate the complaint, the landlord would contact the resident within two working days to gain further information and evidence and would respond within 20 working days although if an extension was required this would not be more than a further 10 working days.
The resident had written to the landlord on 7 September 2022. The letter had been received by the landlord on 12 September 2022 however its internal communications had marked the complaint as being received on 16 September and it was only acknowledged by the landlord on 28 September 2022, 12 days after the complaint had been received. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord had in its acknowledgment letter given the resident any estimated response time of 12 October 2022, in line with its complaints policy. However it did not issue the stage 1 response until over two months after this time. Whilst the landlord had been awaiting on its contractor to check the resident’s system, this had been completed on 9 November 2022. It still took the landlord over a month for it to reply to the resident. This was a failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident would have been to cause a degree of distress and inconvenience as it appeared it had not taken her complaint and concerns about safety seriously.
Following the issuing of the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident had communicated to the landlord on 20 December 2022 that she was unhappy with it. However the landlord did not escalate the complaint at that time and had only done so following receipt of the resident’s letter which was not received until 4 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this complaint one day outside of the time limits in its complaints policy and confirmed to the resident that it would pass it to stage 2 on 9 January 2023. Its letter had informed the resident that it would respond by 6 February 2023. Whilst the landlord has stated that it had called the resident on 26 January 2023 and left a voicemail this has been disputed by the resident. Regardless of whether or not the landlord had left a voicemail, it failed to follow up the call with a copy of the stage 2 response which was not issued until four weeks later, and a total of 34 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint.
In terms of the delay in the complaints handling the landlord made an offer of £175 compensation. This offer was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for the delay and this Service understands this payment has been made to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ASHP.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £100 in respect of the delays taken by it to audit the ASHP system.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that in the event of similar concerns about possible contamination in the ASHP system, that it considers that the system is completely drained and then refilled.
The landlord should contact the resident to make an appointment to carry out a glycol flush of the ASHP system.
The landlord should ensure that it provides residents clear explanations and literature about any substances which are used in its heating systems. This should include details about the purpose of the substances and assurances that they pose no health risk to the resident.