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

Magenta Living (202427013)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427013

Magenta Living

15 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water and heating.

Background

2.             The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since December 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident’s partner lives with her.

3.             The resident and her partner both liaised with the landlord. For the purposes of this report, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all communication from the resident and her partner are referred to as coming from the resident.

4.             The resident made a complaint on 21 June 2024 about the lack of heating and hot water in the property since her report of 10 June 2023. She said:

  1. Multiple operatives had visited but had been unable to identify or resolve the issue. Follow-ups were promised but did not materialise.
  2. She had not been kept updated or informed, requiring her to chase the landlord. She had then received confusing information which added to her upset about the situation.
  3. She had experienced problems with the landlord’s communication before and did not want a repeat of this. She was not able to chase it repeatedly due to her disability.
  4. She wanted it to keep her better informed, resolve the issue, and pay compensation.

5.             The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 July 2024 and upheld the complaint. It apologised for taking 4 weeks to reinstate the heating and hot water, far outside its response timeframe. It said the repair was completed on 9 July 2024 and the system had been working as expected since. It offered £150 compensation (just above 30% of the rent for the period in question) for the delays and poor communication. It said it would use the resident’s feedback to make improvements, and would review its contractor’s practices to reduce repair times and improve customer experience.

6.             On 2 September 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, saying:

  1. A bypass was implemented on 9 July 2024 to allow access to hot water. An operative had later visited to attempt a fix and had failed.
  2. She had reported loss of hot water on 31 August 2024, which was logged as an emergency repair. No one had attended.
  3. She had called twice since and been given attendance timeframes, which had passed without anyone attending.
  4. The original repair had not been completed, the landlord’s communication remained poor, and her trust was broken.

7.             The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2024. It upheld the complaint and said:

  1. Its contractors had failed to accurately diagnose the problem and had taken too long, causing the resident distress.
  2. There were clear service failures with missed timeframes, attending unannounced, sending the wrong tradesperson, poor communication, and delayed repairs.
  3. It was deeply sorry for the anxiety and distress caused by its failures, and for the delay in escalating the complaint when requested.
  4. It offered a further £300 in compensation.
  5. As a learning, it had:
    1. Changed the way it handled complaint escalations.
    2. Repaired and serviced all boilers and was undertaking this at other blocks.
    3. Reviewed all long-term jobs with the contractor to ensure they were completed.
    4. Arranged a meeting at a senior level with its contractors to do a learning exercise and improve service delivery.

8.             The resident referred her complaint to us on 31 January 2025. She said, despite several repairs over the last 7 months, she was again without heating and hot water that day. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

9.             Although the resident has said the issues with a lack of heating and hot water continue, the evidence does not support this. The issue was largely resolved following a visit on 6 December 2024. In communication exchanged with the landlord over January and February 2025, the resident’s partner also confirmed that the issue was resolved. We asked the resident to clarify this, but have not received a response. The landlord has confirmed that it made some final adjustments to the heating interface unit on 12 February 2025 and had received no further reports since.

10.        Should the resident experience another occurrence of this issue, she should report this to the landlord in the first instance. If she is then unhappy with how it responds she can log this as a new complaint. Once the new complaint has completed the landlord’s internal process, and if she should remain unhappy, this can then be referred to us. In this investigation, we have only considered events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2024.

11.        The landlord has accepted its own and its contractors’ poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.

12.        The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs and gives associated response times as; emergency (24 hours), urgent (5 working days), routine (21 working days) and planned routine (60 working days). The resident’s report met the definition of emergency and urgent repairs. As it has accepted, the landlord did not complete the repairs within its policy timeframes.

13.        Some of these delays were due to its contractors struggling to correctly diagnose the problem. Multiple visits were made by engineers, plumbers, and the boiler manufacturer before the issue was identified and a solution implemented. The resident was not without hot water throughout the months it took to resolve, and it is acknowledged that some of the period of no heating fell during warmer months. However, the recurring issue, poor communication, and the lack of a permanent solution doubtlessly caused the resident stress and inconvenience.

14.        The landlord has accepted its failings, sincerely apologised, and offered £450 compensation. This sum is in line with our own remedies guidance for mid-level maladministration. It has also taken steps to learn from its mistakes to ensure it does not repeat them going forward. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

15.        In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.

16.        Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £450 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the heating and hot water repairs.

17.        The landlord previously paid the resident £150, so a recommendation is made for it to pay the remaining £300 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Determination

18.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.

Recommendations

19.        The landlord is recommended to pay the remaining £300 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.