One Housing Group Limited (202310823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310823

One Housing Group Limited

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about excessive heat and poor ventilation in the property including its offer of compensation.
2. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She moved into the property in December 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord holds the head lease for the flats and internal communal areas in the block, and is responsible for maintaining these. The superior landlord is responsible for the plant room, overseen by its managing agent, which contains the district heating system.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she has reported concerns about her physical and mental health to it, including a diagnosis of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
On 14 June 2021 the resident told the landlord she was experiencing high temperatures in the property which had caused her to faint. The landlord logged this as a complaint and its operative attended on 16 June 2024. The operative said the heat was unbearable and likened it to a sauna. They reported ambient temperatures of 33°C and said the south facing windows were hot to touch. It followed up by conducting a ventilation survey on 29 June 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 12 July 2021. It acknowledged the intense heat and attributed it to the heat interface unit (HIU) in her property as well as the hot water pipes coming from the district heating system. The pipes ran underneath and above the property and were dissipating heat. It said there was insufficient cool air into the flat through the trickle vents on the bedroom window and kitchen door, and the kitchen air grille was not working. It said it could consider a heat reduction unit and its heating team might be able to regulate the hot water temperatures. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis that the investigation was ongoing.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord logged a second complaint from the resident who said it had taken no action. On 8 June 2022 the resident agreed to withdraw the complaint on the basis that it would resolve the issue by conducting repairs to the ventilation system and pipes, windows, and by providing an air conditioning (AC) unit. She explained that she had experienced heat stroke and the conditions had exacerbated her depression and insomnia. She had also been unable to reside in the property during hot periods. She asked for compensation for the detriment caused.
On 28 September 2022 the resident requested that the landlord re-open the complaint and compensate her. She said there had been no follow up or resolution. While the landlord had provided an AC unit, she said her energy bills had risen by £80 a month.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 October 2022. It confirmed its surveyor had visited on 7 October 2022 and it had raised a job to install a cooker hood. It said its heating and gas team would be contacting her to find a solution to the temperatures. It offered her £130 in recognition of its poor communication and as reimbursement for her rising bills.
The landlord contacted the resident for feedback on how it had handled her complaint in January 2023. She reported that it had not resolved the issues and said the AC unit was insufficient as it only covered 1 room at a time. It logged this as an escalation request and provided a stage 2 response on 10 March 2023. It offered a further £200 compensation and agreed 4 steps to investigate and progress the issue. It said it would:
1. Audit the resident’s HIU and would complete any necessary repairs following this.
2. If there was no fault with the HIU, arrange for an external heat/warmth consultant to conduct a survey and said it would undertake necessary works based on the findings.
3. Refund the cost of running the AC unit, based on the resident’s bills.
4. Allocate the Head of Heating and Hot Water as a point of contact, who would arrange the HIU audit and update her within 4 weeks.
On 2 February 2024 the landlord logged a third complaint for the resident who said it had failed to follow through on her previous complaints and resolve the issue for her. Nor had it provided the additional compensation she had requested.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 February 2024, in which it apologised for its lack of communication and its delay in progressing the issue. It offered an additional £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused and its Head of Heating and Electrical assured her that he would take ownership of the matter and provide an action plan to address the heat.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 June 2024 citing the landlord’s ongoing poor communication and its failure to provide a resolution or further compensation. The landlord responded on 17 July 2024 and upheld the complaint as it acknowledged the issue was ongoing. It noted it had adjusted the water temperatures to provide some relief and would provide additional AC units. It said it would consider her request for compensation upon receipt of her electricity bills.
The resident reports that there has been no resolution and wants the landlord to conduct works to reduce the temperature in the property. She also seeks compensation for the ‘massive’ impact the situation has had on her and reimbursement for the costs she has incurred trying to cool the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident feels that the landlord’s handling of the issue has impacted on her physical and emotional health and has exacerbated her existing health conditions.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any health condition. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which she experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of reports about excessive heat and poor ventilation

Under the tenancy agreement, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Act, the landlord is obliged to keep any installations ‘for space heating, water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity’, in repair and proper working order. While the district heating system was in a separate pump room which the landlord did not own, it was responsible for the supply of heating to the resident’s property (and other properties in the block) under the terms of the tenancy. It accepted responsibility for investigating and remedying the issue for the resident, but this has relied on it working with the property manager for access to the pump room.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. ‘Excess heat’ is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS and can lead to increased risk of dehydration, stroke, as well as cardiovascular and respiratory health issues. While it does not specify what temperature it considers to be excessive, the guidance notes that when the temperature exceeds 25°C, strokes and deaths are more likely. Given the potential risks posed by such temperatures, it is reasonable to assess that internal temperatures of 25°C and above can be classified as excessive, as were reported by the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out different timeframes for responding according to the urgency of the repair. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days, and routine repairs within 28 days. Upon reporting the issue to the landlord the resident shared that she had fainted due to the heat. While it is not clear how the landlord categorised the repair, it prioritised the issue by attending within 2 days of her report, which was appropriate given her health concerns.
It was also appropriate that the landlord followed up by arranging a ventilation survey which took place 2 weeks later. Its repair policy states that where it is necessary, it will complete an inspection within 7 days. While this was outside of the policy timeframe, the delay was not significant and it had to arrange for an external contractor to inspect.
It has provided no evidence that it contacted the property manager for access to the pump room prior to this visit. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given this was the location of the district heating system. As a result, it was unable to access the room and further investigation was necessary.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the inspection report to this Service, but it summarised its position in its complaint response. Its suggested possible interventions to reduce the heat, including regulating the water temperature and installing a heat reduction system, but did not progress this. It took a further 4 months and several calls from the resident before it updated her on 5 November 2021 that it had ‘requested full access’ to the pump room. It said it should have the fob by the following week.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord was reliant on a third party, it has provided no evidence to suggest it prioritised this and chased the property manager accordingly. Nor did it put appropriate interim measures in place to alleviate conditions in the property, such as providing AC units. It could also have considered less invasive interventions with a quick turnaround, such as window films to reduce solar heat penetration. The landlord was aware that temperatures had been as high as 34°C in the property. Its delays were during summer months when temperatures were at their highest, and to quote its own operative, ‘unbearable’.
Despite its correspondence with the resident on 5 November 2021, there is no evidence the landlord followed up by inspecting the pump room or taking any further action. The resident has explained that the heat issues subside during colder months and the records suggest she stopped chasing it throughout the winter. Regardless, the landlord was aware there was an issue. It failed to follow through on its obligation and assurance to the resident that it would resolve this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 when the heat became intolerable again. This sparked internal discussion about the way forward. The surveyor noted that it needed to investigate to identify where the kitchen duct ran so that it could put an extraction system in place.
However, he was clear that this was separate to the heat issue, which he believed it could resolve through a ‘redesign’ of the system. He referenced another block in which the recommendation was to change the HIU, fully insulate the pipes, and find ways to reduce the hot water temperature during summer months. While the lack of ventilation was not helping the situation, he did not believe that implementing an extraction system would address the problem of heat coming from very hot pipes.
The landlord raised a job for the kitchen duct on 22 April 2022. Its repair log suggests it attended on 5 May 2022 but there was no access. It is not clear whether it had no access to the resident’s property, or the plant room. It was not until 7 October 2022 that it re-attended to investigate the ventilation system and it installed the kitchen extractor on 2 November 2022.
While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the access issues or complexity of this repair, it was not reasonable that it took the landlord so long to install the kitchen fan. The landlord had identified that further investigation of this was necessary in its initial survey of June 2021 but it had allowed the issue to drift. The resident reported that the poor extraction in the kitchen had caused her furniture to smell.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 10 October 2022 the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its communication around installation of the kitchen fan had been poor and upheld her complaint on this basis. However, with regards the high temperatures, it acknowledged no failure and again said investigations were ongoing.
This response was inadequate; the resident had now experienced 2 summers in the property without any resolution. While the landlord provided an AC unit in June 2022, it had been slow to do this. The surveyor had assured the resident on 8 June 2022 that he would liaise with the relevant teams to find a solution and update her along the way but there is no evidence it did. The resident shared that she had sought other accommodation at times due to the heat and had ‘suffered massively’. The landlord not only failed to progress a resolution during this time, but its response also failed to acknowledge the scale of the impact on the resident. It was also vague about the next steps, saying it had referred the matter to its heating and gas team to find a solution.
Despite this the landlord’s repair log shows that it scheduled an appointment shortly afterwards on 19 October 2022 to investigate the overheating. The notes suggest it identified a fault with an ‘S’ valve causing the heating to be on when not needed. It is not clear whether it took any action during this visit and it was only after the resident’s escalation request on 10 February 2023 that it scheduled a further repair.
The notes suggest it booked a visit on 13 February 2023 to replace the ‘heating unit’ but later cancelled this. The landlord has since acknowledged that it does not know the circumstances around the cancellation and the relevant member of staff has now left the organisation. In the absence of further information it is difficult to assess the landlord’s actions with regards this repair, and whether this constituted a missed opportunity to alleviate conditions for the resident. The landlord is reminded to keep clear and accurate records of the actions it takes to provide an auditable account of its actions.
Despite the cancellation of the repair, the landlord provided clarity and assurance in its stage 2 response of March 2023. It acknowledged the complexity of the heating issue by explaining that the resolution had many parts which were reliant on establishing the cause, and appropriately outlined steps to this effect. It also offered an apology and compensation which, while insufficient, went some way towards repairing the resident’s trust and confidence in it. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation within the wider context of the remedy owed to the resident, outlined at the end of this assessment.
The response did not address the resident’s claim that it had promised to fit new windows to reduce temperatures in the property. She had asked that it follow through on this as a condition of withdrawing her complaint in June 2022 and raised it again when escalating her complaint in February 2023. This Service has not seen any records in which this was discussed and we cannot say whether it should have replaced the windows. However, the landlord should have responded to the resident on this point and been clear about what it would and would not do, and why.
The resident contacted the landlord 3 months later on 21 June 2023 to express her disappointment that it had not followed the steps outlined in its response. The resident called and emailed the landlord at least 4 times throughout July 2023, asking for an update on the works and for it to compensate her. While the complaints team responded to her, they were reliant on an update from senior management who were unresponsive. It was not until 1 August 2023 that an senior member of the directorate acted upon the team’s request to contact the resident. The Ombudsman understands that the situation was complex but there is no evidence it was working towards a resolution during this time and it left the issue to drift.
It also failed to provide further short-term support. Within her correspondence throughout July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to decant her to alternative accommodation and expressed concern about a pending heat wave which was expected to bring temperatures of 40°C. The resident had shared that the single AC unit was insufficient and she was waking up to 32.5°C heat in her bedroom. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the landlord should have moved the resident but it should have at least acted on her concerns and explored any temporary options at its disposal to alleviate her discomfort. Its lack of action and poor communication implied a lack of care and undermined her faith in it.
In the months that followed there was some confusion within the landlord about the best approach to resolve the heating issues. There is no evidence it took any action until 13 September 2023 when it raised a job to inspect the ventilation system in the building. The resident rightly noted that it had already previously done so and was frustrated that the landlord seemed to be ‘starting from scratch’.
The survey found that the pipes from the pump room were causing the overheating. It also suggested that the metal cladding on the building might be contributing to the heat. It recommended that the landlord install a ventilation system in the building.
Around this time the director responsible for approving the works left the organisation, and works to the ventilation system remained unapproved. 2 officers took on the ventilation and cladding issues respectively, but on 16 November 2023 the fire safety team expressed doubt that cladding was the issue. On 22 November 2023 another senior manager questioned the plan to install fans. He noted that if there was overheating, this came down to the design and materials used in the building and installing fans would be no more than a ‘sticking plaster’.
This was similar conclusion to that of its earlier surveyor. The Ombudsman appreciates that the cause of, and remedy, for the overheating was complex. It was positive that various teams were now involved and were giving their input and expertise. However, it had been 2 years since the resident reported the issue and the landlord had first surveyed the building. It was going round and round, suggesting the same possible causes and interventions without any progress.
This was in part due to a lack of clear and effective ownership. The member of the directorate who had been overseeing the case had been unresponsive and was slow to get a handle on the issues. There was no handover of the issue in mid-October 2023 when that member of the directorate left the organisation. It would have been reasonable for it to appoint a dedicated lead, to coordinate action by looking at the situation holistically, considering the previous assessments and the action plan outlined in the stage 2 response. That it did not was a failure.
The complaints team were receiving frequent queries from the resident and had no update to give her. They pushed the relevant internal teams for a response and coordinated an internal meeting on 5 December 2023. There are no notes of this meeting so it is not clear what was discussed and agreed. However, in an update to the resident the following day the complaints team told her a member of the senior management team was leading on liaising with the contractor as an ‘urgent matter’.
It is not clear what the landlord intended the contractor to do. The contractor was its heat and electrical specialist. In its stage 2 response of March 2023, it had said it would arrange for the contractor to assess the HIU. It also said it would arrange for a heating/warmth consultant to undertake a full survey of the property. It is therefore reasonable to assume this was its intention. However, it should have been clear about its approach. The meeting was a missed opportunity to set a clear action plan, to hold it accountable, and which could be shared with the resident.
The landlord did not demonstrate the promised due urgency in arranging and progressing the contractor’s appointment as the next step. It only raised the job on 3 January 2024. The landlord’s complaints team chased the senior member of staff on this in December 2023 and asked that it allocate a single point of contact to update the resident. It sent a further email on 16 January 2024 and stressed that the issue was ‘severely historic’. It said the resident had been very patient and was due a substantial update, referencing her vulnerabilities.
The senior manager responded to the internal email and said the team had been in touch with the resident and she would not confirm an appointment it had offered for January 2024. It did not record, or has not provided, details of its discussion with the resident and the circumstances around the scheduling of the appointment. While the landlord is not responsible for any delay caused by the resident’s unavailability, it was responsible for liaising with the resident and finding a suitable time. This did not negate the landlord’s poor communication to the resident’s frequent calls and correspondence over the past 7 months.
The landlord’s poor communication throughout this period was unacceptable and to the clear detriment of the resident, as identified by its complaints team. On several occasions the resident had been promised phone calls from a senior member of staff that did not take place, and updates that did not follow. Its actions did not align with its repairs policy, which requires that it ‘communicates effectively’ with its customers ‘at all times’ in relation to the delivery of its repairs service and enables customers to communicate effectively with it.
The landlord logged a further complaint from the resident on 2 February 2024 and it acknowledged its poor communication in the response, offering an apology and compensation. There was also an assurance from a senior member of the heating and electric team that he would provide ownership of the issues and an action plan going forward. While these were appropriate steps offering the resident some hope, its offer of £300 compensation was an inadequate remedy.
It is not clear at what point the issue was passed to the heating and electric team. They contacted the resident on 12 February 2024 and tried to attend on a couple of occasions the following week, to get an understanding of the issues. Due to sickness and the resident’s appointment overrunning they were unable to. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable. It acted promptly following its call to the resident and could not attend for reasons outside of its control.
The officer from the heating and electric team visited the property on 19 March 2024 with a gas engineer. Following this he identified the next steps as being for the contractor to attend to investigate how the heating system worked and to provide a remedy. However, this had not taken place by the time of the stage 2 response on 17 July 2024. The resident has had no update to suggest the contractor has since done so and a resolution is outstanding.
In its stage 2 response the landlord noted that there had been ‘crossed communications’, and the heating and electric team had contacted her to arrange appointments that had not been convenient at the time. It is not clear if this relates to the appointments it attempted in February 2024. The landlord has provided no additional evidence so it is not possible for this Service to comment further.
The landlord explained to this Service that delays occurred because it has been difficult to coordinate access to the plant room. The Ombudsman has not been provided with records showing the actions it took following its third stage 1 response, which makes it difficult to determine the extent of its efforts to gain access.
Regardless of the complexity of the access arrangements, and the resident’s availability for appointment, the issue was long overdue and it should have pursued this with urgency. Given it had a responsibility to its resident, it should have established ongoing access from when she initially reported the matter. The access issue does not provide sufficient justification for it failing to inspect and conduct repairs to the heating system over the 3 years.
The resident provided this Service with some correspondence following the stage 1 complaint which shows the landlord engaged the property manager and was able to adjust the setting on the heating system from winter time to summer time. It informed the resident that it hoped this would give some relief no matter how small, but the resident said she has not noticed any difference. While the landlord acted reasonably by attempting this, its previous surveyor had suggested it as early as 2021 and it took 3 years for it to coordinate this.
The heating and electric team assured the resident on 8 April 2024 that he had sourced 2 additional water-based AC units and the landlord had agreed to cover the costs of running these. However, it had still not supplied them by the time of the stage 2 response in July 2024. Within the response it assured her it would deliver the units as soon as possible but the resident confirmed this did not happen. As a result, the resident reports that she endured excessive heat for a further summer.
The resident frequently notified the landlord that her energy bills were higher and that she was accruing debt on her account due to the cost of running the single AC unit. The landlord offered £180 to cover costs following its stage 2 response of March 2023. It also said it would reimburse her costs going forward as it worked to provide a resolution. The resident told this Service that she provided a copy of her bill to the landlord in February 2024 and it assured her it would pay the £1,000 debt on her account. She says it has not yet done so. The Ombudsman has not seen records to this affect so cannot comment on this.
However, it is fair and appropriate that the landlord covers the cost of any additional electricity usage for the resident. It said it would do so in its stage 2 response of March 2023, and had a responsibility to provide thermal comfort. An order has been to this effect below.
The resident also repeatedly requested that the landlord compensate her for the impact of its failings throughout its handling of the issue. While the landlord compensated the resident following its stage 2 response of March 2023, the resident requested additional compensation due to the ongoing nature of the situation. On 12 October 2023 she asked that it pay her £1,900, including for additional energy costs. She reports that the landlord agreed to this amount but there are no records to this effect and the officer involved has now left the organisation.
In the absence of information the Ombudsman cannot determine whether an offer was made or not. Overall the landlord has offered the resident a total of £450 as compensation throughout the complaints process. This does not include the £180 it offered as a reimbursement for electricity costs.
This is not sufficient remedy for the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord neglected its duty to provide thermal comfort to the resident, as it was required to under the HHSRS. The Ombudsman appreciates the complexity in resolving the issues, including the difficulties with access to the district heating system. However, the landlord did not do enough to progress a resolution, or to provide temporary relief for the resident. It has taken 3 years and 3 complaints and there has been little progress.
The landlord’s failure to get a handle on the situation and to see it through to completion has been to the detriment of the resident. It resulted in the resident experiencing ongoing and prolonged distress, inconvenience, and frustration. This was exacerbated by poor communication from senior staff and those responsible for progressing the works, which showed a lack of care and respect, and undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord has acknowledged delays, which it attributes to internal changes in staffing and extensive interdepartmental communications. The Ombudsman agrees these issues impacted on its ability to effectively progress the works. There was a lack of continuity in its approach and it did not see the issue through to completion at multiple junctures. When it revisited the issue, staff were unaware what conclusions it had previously come to and its agreed plan of action.
The landlord said it is reviewing its record keeping to ensure that changes in staff does not impact on customer experience. It is also reviewing its repairs processes to ensure that it tracks complex jobs more effectively and sees these through to completion. Unfortunately, since this update in April 2024, the landlord has allowed further drift of the issue. It should update this Service with its progress towards these goals as per the leaning order below.
In conclusion, for the above reasons, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration and orders the landlord to pay the resident £2,350 compensation. This is comprised of:
£1,800 for the landlord’s failure to progress the repairs from June 2021 up to the point of its final response in July 2024. This figure reflects the distress and inconvenience she endured over a significant period of time because of its failure to progress a resolution and put sufficient temporary measures in place to alleviate her discomfort.
£200 for the frustration caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s poor communication.
£350 as an additional payment for the period between June 2021 and June 2023, in which the resident went without any AC to alleviate conditions in the property. This is a loss of amenities payment based on a reduction in the resident’s right to peaceful enjoyment of the property. This payment constitutes approximately 10% of the rent throughout the months in which temperatures were excessive within the property (April-September).
This level of compensation is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where we have identified severe maladministration, which has resulted in significant physical and emotional impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
The resident should provide the landlord with her electricity bills dating back to 2022 when it installed the AC unit. Upon receipt of these bills, the landlord should determine the additional charges incurred by the resident and reimburse her accordingly.
The landlord must also update this Service and the resident with the status of its investigation into the excess heat and provide an action plan with timeframes to resolve the problem. It must allocate a dedicated point of contact to oversee this going forward. The lead must be clear on the outcome of its previous assessments and agreed steps. It must also keep the resident informed of its progress.
Finally, it should write a letter of apology to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its complaints policy and procedure which sets out its timeframes for complaint handling. The policy is dated April 2022, which was after the resident’s first complaint in 2021. In the absence of an earlier version of the policy, the contents are considered applicable to its handling of all 3 of the resident’s complaints. According to the policy, the landlord will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. It will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s records suggest the resident first complained to the landlord on 14 June 2021. It acknowledged the complaint 5 working days later on 21 June 2021. On 24 June 2021 its records state it ‘reactivated’ the complaint and notified the resident it would extend the deadline for the response to 9 July 2021, which was another 11 working days. It is not clear why it closed the complaint down temporarily. Its response then came on 12 July 2021.
The landlord’s policy allows it to request an extension of up to 10 working days but it must have a good reason. Overall, it responded after 20 working days. While the delays were not substantial, the landlord was late acknowledging and responding to the complaint and mismanaged the resident’s expectations about the deadline which was a failing. It did not explain the reason for its delay. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and apologise for its delays in its complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 and said it had not resolved the complaint. At this point the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint. While its policy states that residents must escalate complaints to stage 2 of its process within 28 days, it notes that, in exceptional circumstances, it can exercise discretion. It lists health and safety issues as reasonable grounds. Instead, it logged a new complaint, resulting in a protracted complaints process for the resident.
Additionally, it did not raise the new complaint until 20 May 2022, which was a month later. The resident had expressed her clear dissatisfaction and the landlord should have logged and considered this within its complaints process upon first notification.
It acknowledged the complaint 4 working days later on 25 May 2022 but the resident agreed to close the complaint on 8 June 2022 following a discussion with the surveyor. The resident’s complaint and desired outcome was not a simple issue and it would have been appropriate for it to address her concerns through its formal procedure. A landlord should welcome complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve as well as put things right for a resident However, the full details of the surveyor’s discussion with the resident are unknown and the landlord cannot be held responsible for failing to progress the complaint if it was acting upon the resident’s wishes.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2022 to confirm closure of the complaint but she noted the issues were ongoing. It was proactive of the landlord’s complaints team to do so, but it did not then log a formal complaint until 28 September 2022, and following further correspondence from the resident on the matter. This delay was unacceptable and prolonged the complaints process for the resident.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2022, after 10 working days, in line with its policy.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident a survey for feedback on its handling of the complaint and the resident expressed her dissatisfaction. It appropriately contacted her on 2 February 2023 to explore her concerns. She informed it that it had not completed the works, the AC was insufficient, and she requested additional compensation. Based on this information, it would have been reasonable for it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at this point but it did not do so until a week later, on 10 February 2023.
It notified the resident on 9 March 2023 that it would need to extend the complaint deadline, but despite this it issued its response the following day. This was 20 working days from the date it logged the complaint and within the timeframes outlined in its policy.
Following the resident’s contact with it in June 2023, the complaints team remained involved and pursued internal teams and its senior management for a response to the resident’s concerns. It acted appropriately and in line with its policy, which says it should monitor actions through to completion.
By 2 February 2024 there has been little progress and no resolution to the overheating and the landlord logged a further complaint. This was a reasonable step given the resident’s clear dissatisfaction and request for further compensation. The landlord responded on 22 February 2024 which at 14 days, was outside of the timeframe outlined in its policy. However, in its acknowledgement of the complaint on 9 February 2024 it requested additional time due to the historical nature of the issues. Given it provided an explanation and subsequently responded by the extended deadline the landlord acted appropriately.
The Ombudsman has only had limited access to information following the stage 1 response so the full circumstances around the resident’s escalation request are unknown other than what the landlord noted in the final response of 17 July 2024. It states that the resident escalated her complaint on 20 June 2024, and the response was therefore within the 20 working days.
While the complaint handler acknowledged and apologised that the works had not progressed as promised in the stage 1 response, it did not demonstrate learning. It explained that the resident had expressed that she was happy it was progressing her concerns and noted the officer overseeing the works had tried to arrange appointments that were inconvenient at the time. While this may have been the case, it missed an opportunity to reflect on its failings and why there had been delays on its part.
The resident informed this Service that she has had little follow up contact from the complaints team. In the absence of information this Service cannot comment in any detail but the landlord should ensure that its staff are aware of the complaints policy and their role in overseeing actions through to completion.
Overall, there were some delays in logging and responding to the resident’s complaint and it lengthened the complaints process unnecessarily by failing to escalate her first complaint. For these reasons the Ombudsman finds maladministration. The landlord should compensate the resident £150 for the inconvenience she experienced as a result, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s guidance. The landlord should ensure it has regular training for complaint handling staff to include awareness around logging a complaint promptly when residents express dissatisfaction with its services.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive heat and poor ventilation in the property including its offer of compensation.
2. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £2,500 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £2,350 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports.
  2. £150 for failures in its handling of the complaint.

If it has paid the £450 to the resident that it previously offered as compensation, it can deduct this from the total.

Write a letter of apology to the resident, acknowledging the failures identified in this report. This should be from a member of the executive leadership team and it should provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
Contact the resident and request copies of her energy bills. Provided the resident submits copies of these it should calculate the increase in her energy costs based on her use of the AC unit dating back to June 2022. The landlord must demonstrate to this Service its efforts to engage the resident to supply these bills. It should explain to this Service and the resident the total it owes, how it has calculated this, and reimburse her accordingly. It must also reconfirm its commitment to cover any increase in her energy costs as a result of this going forward.
Allocate a senior and relevant dedicated point of contact, tasked with overseeing the ongoing heating issue through to resolution. It should confirm that they have been briefed on the issues and the outcome of its previous investigations and assessments, as well as the failings identified in this report. They should also contact the resident to introduce themselves as the responsible officer and provide evidence of this to Ombudsman.
Update this Service with its action plan detailing how it will resolve the heating issues. The steps should include realistic timeframes for completion. It should specify intervals for updating the resident with its progress on an ongoing basis. It should also evidence that it has shared this plan with the resident. The plan should include any temporary measures it considers appropriate to alleviate or reduce temperatures while working towards a permanent solution.
Contact the resident and coordinate the delivery and installation of the additional water-based AC units it promised her.

Within 8 weeks from the date of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management case review. It should provide a written report to this Service on the outcome of its review. This should include the issues identified below:
1. It should review its repairs process to ensure that it tracks jobs through to completion.
2. It should consider how it can ensure that changes in staff do not impact on its customer experience.
3. It should consider how it commissions and responds to inspections and surveys, to ensure it progresses cases to resolution.
4. It should also identify whether any other residents in the block are affected by the heating issues and how it will address this.
The landlord has informed this Service that it was reviewing its repairs process and the impact of staff changes on customer experience. If it has already commenced or completed this review it can provide an update to this Service on its progress or outcomes. This should include any changes it has implemented.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Liaise with the property manager and establish a plan to ensure access to the pump room on an ongoing basis.
2. Review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
3. Ensure it has a training program in place for staff dealing with complaints, which includes awareness around logging a complaint promptly upon a resident’s dissatisfaction with its services. It should also cover the requirement that it see the actions it has promised in its complaint responses through to completion.