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

MHS Homes Ltd (202347219)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347219

MHS Homes Ltd

14 April 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 repairs to address heat loss.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began in 2004. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat constructed in the 1970s. The landlord has said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2023. He raised concerns about how cold the property was. He said he believed the insulation in the loft space above the property had not been laid properly and asked the landlord to inspect it.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints department on 13 December 2023 as he had not received a response to his previous email. The landlord’s complaints department responded the following day. It said it would arrange for its gas contractor to carry out a heat loss survey of the property. On 15 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would be replacing the radiator in his bathroom based on the heat loss survey’s findings. It said it would also inspect the loft insulation.
  4. On 19 December 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it would not be logging the matter as a complaint due to it being a service request. After the resident disputed this, the landlord logged a complaint on 20 December 2023 as it acknowledged that it had not responded to his email of 6 December 2023 within its advertised timescales.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2023. It said that:
    1. The property had an energy performance certificate (EPC) from 2023. This had found that the loft insulation was “the correct amount”.
    2. However, it had arranged to relay the insulation as “it wasn’t flat” or “evenly spread”.
    3. It had inspected the loft space on 5 January 2024 and confirmed the insulation was now laid correctly.
    4. There were further repairs needed to address the heat loss. Its gas contractor would be replacing the bathroom radiator, and another contractor would contact him to inspect the windows.
  6. The resident emailed us, copying in the landlord, on 17 March 2024. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had still not repaired the windows in the property. The landlord logged this as a stage 2 complaint.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2024. He said that its contractor had now carried out repairs to the windows, but had not addressed “the main problem which is the metal panelling under the windows, identified as the main source of heat loss”.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 April 2024. It said that:
    1. It had carried out repairs to the windows and loft which would reduce heat loss in the property.
    2. It acknowledged that the panel below the window may contribute to the property being cold. However, it was not the only reason for this, the location and design of the block “does not help”.
    3. It would need to look at all properties of a similar construction and resolve this in “a cost-efficient manner”.
    4. The resident’s windows were due for review in 2029. It would look at windows in the area in the next few years to see how it could replace these.
    5. Its gas contractor would be replacing the radiator in the bathroom.
    6. It was upholding his complaint as it could not evidence that he was kept informed of the progress of the repairs. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the issues and its lack of communication about this.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. On 25 April 2024, the resident told us he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the window panelling was the main cause of heat loss, and the landlord was refusing to address it for another 5 years.
  2. The landlord’s gas contractor replaced the bathroom radiator on 3 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident contacted the landlord to raise his concerns about the loft insulation on 6 December 2023. The landlord’s website says that it will “Get back to you within three working days when you contact us by email, or letter”. 5 working days later, after still not receiving a response from the landlord, the resident contacted its complaints team about the matter.
  2. The landlord initially treated the resident’s email as a service request, to be dealt with outside of its complaints process. However, when he challenged this, it appropriately recognised that it had failed to respond to his original email within its publicised timescale. It accepted his complaint on this basis.
  3. On 13 December 2023, the landlord told the resident it would arrange for its gas contractor to conduct a heat loss survey of the property. The contractor attended the following day and completed this. It identified that the bathroom radiator was too small and should be replaced.
  4. The resident expressed concern that the contractor only examined the central heating system. He said he believed the issues were with the loft insulation, windows and possibly cavity walls. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of its gas contractor’s report to determine the scope of its survey. However, on 15 December 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would inspect the loft space itself.
  5. The landlord attended the property on 21 December 2023. It was unable to fully inspect the loft as it did not have the necessary equipment – despite the works order clearly specifying the inspection was for loft insulation. However, it did identify issues with the windows which were contributing to heat loss. This meant the visit was not entirely wasted, although it did result in undue delays in the landlord inspecting the loft.
  6. The landlord returned to the property on 5 January 2024. This time it fully inspected the loft and adjusted the insulation. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the levels of insulation were sufficient, and it was unable to increase these as this would risk causing damp and mould issues in the property.
  7. In the stage 1 response, the landlord referred to an EPC for the property which “was done last year” (that being 2023) and found the loft insulation level to be adequate. However, the government EPC database lists the latest EPC for the property as being from 2017. It is unclear whether the landlord was mistaken or has just not appropriately updated the database. We have made a recommendation regarding this below.
  8. Regardless of this, the EPC from 2017 also lists the level of insulation in the loft as ‘average’ for energy efficiency. It recommended increasing the level from 100mm to 270mm – the current building regulation requirement. It is unclear whether the landlord followed this recommendation. However, this building regulation standard was only introduced in 2010 and does not apply retrospectively. Due to the age of the block, the landlord would only be obliged to increase the insulation to this level if it was carrying out major works such as a roof renewal.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would send a contractor to inspect the resident’s windows. On 17 January 2024, the resident emailed it to say the contractor had arrived unannounced and he had been unable to grant it access at that time. The landlord appropriately said it would pass this to its contract manager to feedback to the contractor.
  10. Following this, the contractor did not reattend until 21 February 2024, where it identified multiple issues with the windows. It returned to repair these on 28 March 2024. The landlord’s website says that it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Its contractor repaired the windows 26 working days after its initial inspection and 67 working days after the landlord first identified issues with the windows.
  11. Whilst the need for its contractor to inspect the windows prior to carrying out works could be expected to cause some level of delay, the extent of this was unreasonable. The landlord has also not provided any evidence that it kept the resident updated on the works. This led to the resident escalating his complaint on 17 March 2024. Had he been aware the landlord’s contractor would be attending on 28 March 2023 this may have been avoided.
  12. After the contractor attended, the resident emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction that it had not addressed the panelling below the windows. He said he felt this was also causing heat loss. We do not dispute this, nor did the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
  13. However, there is no evidence that the panelling was in a state of disrepair, only that the resident took issue with its design. Any changes to it would therefore be classed as an improvement, which the landlord is not obligated to make, rather than a repair or renewal. As established above the existing window design with the panels were sufficient to reach a C rating on the 2017 EPC with the windows listed as ‘average’ for energy efficiency.
  14. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that this was a matter it planned to address in “a cost-efficient manner” for all properties of a similar construction. It is reasonable for the landlord to address such works at scale to ensure best value for money and equitable treatment of affected residents. It was also reasonable for the landlord not to deviate from its planned works schedule to review the resident’s windows in 2029. There is no evidence the windows were in disrepair or otherwise unfit for purpose to necessitate bringing this forward.
  15. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the replacement of the resident’s bathroom radiator was still outstanding. The landlord’s gas contractor had recommended this following the heat loss survey on 14 December 2023. The landlord’s records show that its gas contractor was awaiting an asbestos survey of the bathroom, which it did not receive from the landlord until 18 April 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
  16. After receiving the asbestos survey, the landlord’s gas contractor promptly tried to contact the resident on 19 and 24 April 2024 but was unable to reach him. It eventually attended and replaced the radiator on 3 May 2024. This was over 4 months after the gas contractor had first identified the issue. Well outside of the landlord’s 20 working day target.
  17. When arranging appointments for repairs, the resident told the landlord that he was unable to give access to the property before 10am “due to a disability”. Whilst the landlord appropriately accommodated this in this case, it is concerning that it states it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. This is likely to lead to the resident having to repeatedly request this reasonable adjustment when arranging appointments. We have made an order regarding this below.
  18. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to pay discretionary compensation “when there has been a failure of service which has caused delay, distress or inconvenience”. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident informed about the progress of works and had been delayed in completing them. However, it failed to consider an offer of compensation. This would have been appropriate considering the length of delays in both the window repairs and radiator renewal. Due to this we make a finding of service failure.
  19. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer “£50 to £250” for instances of service failure where “impact may be of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome”. In keeping with this, and our remedies guidance for findings of service failure, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address heat loss.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
    2. Contact the resident and ensure it appropriately records his disabilities/vulnerabilities and any reasonable adjustments he requires on its systems.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that the landlord ensures that the latest version of the EPC for the property is available on the government’s online database.