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

Midland Heart Limited (202310188)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310188

Midland Heart Limited

14 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.     The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

  1. Concerns about the safety of the hot water tank.
  2. Concerns about the property’s windows.
  3. Reports of stains to the living room ceiling.
  4. Request for new white goods.
  5. Reports of repairs to the bathroom.
  6. Associated complaint.

Background

2.     The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord that commenced in November 2008. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord informed this Service that the resident does not have any vulnerabilities.

3.     On 16 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint. He was concerned about:

  1. The lack of regular maintenance and safety of the hot water tank, which he also believed contributed to a recent leak.
  2. The functionality of the single-glazed windows in the property.
  3. Stains on the living room ceiling which had reappeared following repeated leaks from the flat above.
  4. The age and functionality of the cooker and fridge freezer.
  5. The safety of the kitchen floor which had become worn and damaged.
  6. The condition of the bathroom which he believed was a health hazard and due for an upgrade.

4.     As a resolution the resident asked for:

  1. The hot water tank to be replaced immediately and compensation for damaged belongings following a leak.
  2. New windows and compensation for the cold days endured in the flat, plus the additional costs spent on heating.
  3. The living room ceiling to be redecorated, and compensation for the costs incurred for previous redecoration.
  4. The landlord to supply a new cooker and fridge freezer.
  5. The kitchen floor to be repaired or replaced.
  6. The bathroom to be repaired and made safe.
  7. Additional compensation for the inconvenience caused.

5.     The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023 and offered the resident a total of £1,120 in compensation. It said that:

  1. It had an obligation to conduct repairs or replacements when a hot water tank was faulty, but there was no requirement for it to undertake regular servicing. It confirmed that inspections of the tank in May 2019 and March 2023 verified there was no risk to health. It stated that an issue with the hot water tank was reported on one occasion on 13 March 2023, and was resolved on 17 March 2023 by replacing the fibre washer and ball valve. The landlord offered to clean the tank or flush the system to provide the resident with peace of mind.
  2. It agreed that the property would benefit from additional glazing. It had therefore arranged for its contractor to contact the resident directly to schedule an appointment to measure the windows.
  3. There were no records of the resident raising concerns about a leak through the living room ceiling until the recent contact. It would arrange a repair appointment to rectify the outstanding issues.
  4. If a previous tenant left white goods, it would usually gift them to the incoming tenant for them to maintain and replace. As it had no records to establish what was agreed, the landlord agreed to contribute towards the replacement cooker and fridge and offered the resident £350.
  5. The bathroom was due for replacement in 2021. It apologised to the resident that it had not kept him informed about the upgrade. The landlord offered the resident £600 in compensation for the delays and advised it would upgrade the bathroom and kitchen flooring at the same time.

6.     On 3 April 2023, the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged and opened the stage 2 complaint on 20 April 2023 and provided its final response on 26 May 2023. Within the response it stated that:

  1. It had followed all requirements in relation to the hot water tank and did not identify any health and safety concerns. It would therefore not pay compensation in relation to this, but to provide reassurance to the resident it reoffered the flushing out of the system.
  2. If the resident wanted a breakdown of all reports of repairs, he would need to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR).
  3. In relation to the single-glazed windows, it was sorry that it had not provided an answer in the stage 1 response regarding reimbursement for additional heating costs. However, it stated that as it was the first time the resident had made it aware of the issue and it had since taken appropriate action, it would not pay compensation.
  4. It had calculated the compensation for the delayed works to the bathroom in line with its compensation matrix.
  5. Since the stage 1 complaint, it had repaired the kitchen flooring and scheduled the new bathroom installation for June 2023. The living room ceiling was still outstanding, and it apologised for the delay.
  6. In addition to the £1,120 already offered, it offered a further £170 in compensation for the delays, complaint handling and the inconvenience it caused the resident.

Events after the end of the complaint process

7.     Both the resident and landlord informed this Service that the bathroom upgrade and repairs to kitchen flooring and windows were completed in July 2023, and the living room ceiling was repaired in November 2023. In addition, due to a leak that was beyond repair, the landlord replaced the hot water tank in July 2023.

8.     The resident confirmed that to date, he had not accepted the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9.     The Ombudsman notes that the resident suggested the landlord’s perceived failure to service the hot water tank on a regular basis could have negatively impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. In line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, this issue is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this, however, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the landlord may have caused the resident in its handling of his concerns.

10. The resident told this Service that he disputed the landlord’s records of the 2019 risk assessment relating to the hot water tank. In line with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, as the landlord has not investigated this matter as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matter arising, the Ombudsman has not considered this within the current investigation.

11. The resident told this Service he was happy with the action taken in relation to the kitchen floor repair, therefore the Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to this within our assessment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the hot water tank

12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will comply with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Homes Standard, Decent Homes Standard and statutory regulation related to water hygiene, and health and safety more generally. It states that it will deal with an emergency repair within 24 hours, a routine repair within 28 days and a major repair within 90 days.

13. Section 3.4 of the tenancy agreement states, “Where [the landlord] has notice from [the resident] that works are needed, it will keep in repair and proper working order the installations in [the home] for space heating and heating water.” The landlord’s repair handbook also states that it will “look after” water tanks.

14. The resident reported an issue with the hot water tank on 13 March 2023. Within the initial report, the records show that the tank was “repeatedly failing, constant issues with hot water pressure.” An electrician attended the property on 15 March 2023 and arranged a follow-up repair for a plumber on 29 March 2023 as there was “a slight leak from the tank.” This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.

15. The resident raised the issue again to the landlord, via a formal complaint, on 16 March 2023. He stated that he was unhappy that the landlord had not serviced or flushed the hot water tank on an annual basis. He felt that the landlord’s perceived lack of action had caused him a significant health and safety risk and contributed to the recent leak which had damaged some personal belongings. He was also frustrated that the tank was making loud noises which disrupted his sleep.

16. The landlord brought the appointment forward for the plumber to attend on 17 March 2023. Given the resident’s concerns about the hot water tank, this prompt action was appropriate. The records show that it replaced a fibre washer and ball valve which resolved the leak.

17. The evidence illustrates that throughout the stage 1 investigation, the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the safety of the hot water tank seriously, discussing the case at length internally with relevant parties before it provided a response. It explained to the resident its specialist water hygiene contractor had undertaken a risk assessment in 2019. This did not highlight any concerns over the safety of the hot water tank, and did not suggest any need to service or replace the cylinder. To provide further assurance to the resident, it arranged for another inspection on 24 March 2023 which confirmed no risk to health. This was an appropriate course of action in the circumstances.

18. The landlord told the resident that it had no obligation to service the hot water tank, and this Service has found no evidence to the contrary. As a “gesture of good will” and to provide the resident with peace of mind, the landlord offered to clean the tank or flush the system, which was a reasonable offer.

19. The landlord stipulated that as it had not identified any service failures in relation to the hot water tank, it would not pay compensation to the resident for any damage to possessions caused by the leak. It recommended that the resident should claim for any damages on his home insurance. This response was fair, and in line with section 3.3 of the tenancy agreement which states that the landlord “will insure the structure of the home, but not fixtures and fittings or personal belongings.”

20. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision because he said he had made numerous phone calls to the landlord over the duration of his tenancy about the hot water tank. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claims, we have not seen any evidence that shows that the resident had reported these issues in the 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint or that the landlord failed to respond. We have therefore been unable to make a finding in relation to this, as our findings must be based on documentary evidence.

21. The resident asked the landlord to explain how it had reached its conclusions regarding the safety of the hot water tank. Within the stage 2 response the landlord provided an explanation of the functionality of the sealed hot water tank and that the inspections and repairs confirmed it was safe for use. It set out its position that it would not look to replace the hot water tank until it was beyond economical repair. It offered an appointment to flush out the system to ensure the resident felt safe and comfortable using the hot water tank. The landlord’s explanation of its decision making, confirmation of its position and solution-focused offer were reasonable in the circumstances.

22. Overall, this Service has found that the landlord responded appropriately as it identified necessary repairs, conducted an inspection, and offered appropriate action to provide the resident with assurance that the hot water tank was safe for use. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the hot water tank.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s windows

23. Section 3.5 of the tenancy agreement states that “where [the landlord] has notice from [the tenant] that works are needed, it will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the home including windows, window catches, windowsills, and frames.”

24. The resident reported an issue with the windows to the landlord on 13 March 2024. The records stated, “please assess windows throughout property, tenant reporting they are extremely draughty, reseal as required.” The landlord scheduled an inspection for 24 March 2023, which was reasonable and in line with the timescales outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy.

25. The resident raised the matter as a complaint on 15 March 2023, expressing his dissatisfaction with the functionality of the single-glazed windows in the property. He requested compensation for the cold days endured, and for the increased costs of energy bills. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that following the inspection on 24 March 2023 it agreed that the windows would benefit from additional glazing. It stated that it would arrange for a specialist contractor to contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment to measure the windows. This was an appropriate response and in line with the repairs and maintenance policy. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord had made no reference to the resident’s compensation request, and therefore the resident remained dissatisfied.

26. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised to the resident for its failure to address its position on the compensation request for the windows. It offered the resident additional compensation for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling. This was appropriate and demonstrates that the landlord aimed to put things right for the resident.

27. The landlord’s compensation matrix outlines that it can compensate for out-of-pocket expenses such as increased utility bills if there has been excessive usage due to a service failure. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported any window faults prior to 13 March 2023. Therefore, the landlord’s confirmation within the stage 2 response that it would not offer any compensation for the window repairs was fair and in line with its compensation matrix. The landlord’s offer at this point to make a referral to its money advice team to support with the resident’s energy bills was also appropriate.

28. The landlord stated that its specialist window contractor recommended the installation of internal secondary glazing to minimise the draughts, and the records show that this was completed on 3 July 2023. It also confirmed that it had conducted external maintenance to the building by treating all window frames with resin treatment while it proceeded with the planning application process for Listed Building consent to replace the windows from timber to UPVC.

29. Taking the above into account, the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property’s windows.

The landlord’s handling of reports of stains to the living room ceiling

30. Section 4.29 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident must “keep the property in a good and clean condition and decorate inside the property as often as is necessary to keep it in a reasonable decorative order.” Additionally, the landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for internal walls, and the resident is responsible for internal decoration.

31. Within his request to make a formal complaint on 15 March 2023, the resident reported an issue with stains to the living room ceiling. He told the landlord that it was not the first time that he had experienced leaks through the ceiling from the flat above. As a result, he said that he had already redecorated and would therefore like compensation for the costs incurred.

32. The landlord confirmed within its stage 1 response that it would arrange an appointment to repair the ceiling. It stated that as this was the first time it had been made aware of the issue, no service failings had been identified, and therefore would not offer compensation. This Service has seen no evidence that the issue had been reported previously, and therefore the landlord’s response at stage 1 was fair.

33. The resident was satisfied that the landlord had offered to redecorate the ceiling, however, did not agree with the findings as he believed he had reported it previously. The resident requested a comprehensive report of the repair history to conduct his own investigation.

34. Within the stage 2 response on 26 May 2023, the landlord provided the resident with details on how to submit a SAR. The resident told the landlord he felt it was not transparent within its response. While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s frustration, given the volume of information that the resident requested, signposting to the SAR process was a fair and appropriate response from the landlord.

35. Within the response, the landlord apologised to the resident that the living room ceiling had not yet been repaired as promised and provided an appointment date of 30 May 2023. It considered this failing within its additional offer of compensation, which was appropriate.

36. On 20 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the work to the ceiling remained outstanding and acknowledged that it was himself causing the delay. The evidence provided by both parties does not provide any further information or context as to why the repair was not completed until 6 November 2023, so this Service is unable to comment on this matter.

37. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the living room ceiling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for new white goods

38. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that the resident is responsible for their own kitchen appliances.

39. On 16 March 2023, within his request for a formal complaint, the resident told the landlord that the cooker and fridge that had been “lent” to him when the tenancy began in 2008 were breaking down and unreliable. As an outcome, the resident requested that the landlord replace them.

40. Within the stage 1 response the landlord stated that it would not usually provide tenants with white goods when the tenancy begins. However, it said that where a previous tenant leaves white goods behind, they could be gifted to the incoming tenant, but it would be their responsibility to replace and maintain them. It stated that as it was unable to confirm what it had agreed with the resident at the start of the tenancy, it would offer a contribution of £350 towards the replacement of these goods. The resident was happy with this offer, however told this Service that he has not accepted this from the landlord to date.

41. As the landlord had no obligation to repair or replace the white goods, its use of discretion in offering a contribution towards their replacement was reasonable. There was therefore no maladministration in relation to its handling of the defected white goods. This investigation has not considered the appropriateness of the compensation offer on the basis that no failing has been identified.


The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom

42. Within his request for a formal complaint on 16 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with the condition of the bathroom as he believed that it was a health hazard and due for an upgrade.

43. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the bathroom was due for replacement in 2021. It apologised to the resident for its failure to keep him informed and confirmed that it had put plans in place to have a new bathroom installed.

44. The landlord’s compensation matrix outlines that it will offer £50 for a ‘failure to honour commitment to carry out a planned installation’ and a maximum payment of £70 for a service failure because of delay or admin error. Taking into consideration that this Service has seen no evidence that the resident had contacted the landlord about any repairs or an upgrade to the bathroom during this period, the landlord’s offer to the resident of £600 in recognition of the delays was reasonable.

45. Following the stage 1 response, the resident stated he was satisfied with the landlord’s plan to upgrade the bathroom but requested an explanation from the landlord of the compensation calculation, as he felt it was not reflective of disrepair calculations he had researched online. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the compensation calculation was not related to disrepair calculations and the offer it had made was in line with its compensation matrix. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further clarity to the resident on its calculation method.

46. The bathroom installation was completed in July 2023 and the Ombudsman notes that the resident was pleased with the works undertaken by the landlord.

47. Overall, as 16 March 2023 was the first time the resident informed the landlord about the condition of the bathroom, this Service finds that the landlord responded appropriately. It conducted an inspection, identified its failings, offered fair compensation in recognition of the delays, and communicated its intended actions to the resident to address the problem. While added clarity within the stage 2 response on the compensation calculation would have been helpful, it does not warrant an adverse finding.

48. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

49. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a previous version of its complaints policy which was effective after the events of this investigation. However, a copy of the correct version was sourced to enable an accurate review of the issues raised.

50. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales were not possible due to the specifics of the complaint, the policy stated it would agree an appropriate extension for response with the customer.

51. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 March 2023 to make a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged and opened the stage 1 complaint on 17 March 2023. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 March 2023.

52. The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 April 2023. As he had not received a response or acknowledgement, he contacted the landlord again on 20 April 2023 for an update on the complaint and the landlord confirmed the same day that it would open a stage 2 complaint. It is unclear why the response was delayed, however this was unreasonable as the acknowledgement took 11 working days, rather than the 5 days outlined within its complaints policy.

53. The landlord informed the resident that it would respond to the stage 2 complaint by 20 May 2023, which was appropriate (although this date was a Saturday). On 19 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise and explained that it needed to extend the response date to 26 May 2023. The resident responded to say he was disappointed about the delay and expressed how the prolonged stress and anxiety was affecting his mental health. The landlord’s policy allowed for extensions, however, given the earlier delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint and as it had not agreed the extension with the resident, this was unreasonable.

54. Within its stage 2 response issued to the resident on 26 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the complaint handling delays. The landlord’s compensation matrix stipulates that it can make a maximum payment of £100 for upset or inconvenience caused, and a maximum payment of £70 for failure of service because of a delay. A breakdown of the calculation would have been helpful, however, the additional offer from the landlord of £170 for the delays, complaint handling and the inconvenience caused was fair and appropriate.

55. Considering the complaint handling overall, the landlord did not fully comply with the timescales outlined within its own complaints policy, although the delays were not excessive. It also failed to provide an answer to the compensation request for the windows within the stage 1 response and failed to complete the repair to the living room ceiling within a reasonable time following the stage 1 response. However, the landlord recognised these failings within its stage 2 response and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, provided reasonable redress to put things right for the resident.

Determination

56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the hot water tank.

57. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s concerns about the property’s windows, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

58. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s reports of stains to the living room ceiling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for new white goods.

60. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the delays to the bathroom installation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

61. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

62. Our reasonable redress findings are made on the basis that the resident receives the £1,290 that the landlord previously offered at stages 1 and 2 (£1,120 plus £170). Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should therefore pay this directly to the resident and provide evidence to this Service it has made the payment.

63. The resident told this Service that although he has not reported it to the landlord, he is still experiencing draughts from the windows. The landlord should therefore arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to inspect the windows and undertake any works required.

64. If it has not done so already, the landlord should review the learning from this case with reference to:

  1. ensuring adequate record keeping processes are in place for planned works programmes.
  2. ensuring relevant staff members understand the timescales outlined within the complaint handling code.
  3. the adequacy of its capture of, and response to, all elements of complaints made.
  4. the adequacy of monitoring outstanding actions and learning from complaints.