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

Settle Group (202420827)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420827

Settle Group

28 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 the resident’s request for cladding on his property.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of a local authority from May 1979 to March 2003. In 2023 the ownership of the local authority housing stock moved to a housing association, which is the resident’s current landlord. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2003. The property is a 3 bedroom end of terrace house. The landlord said both residents living at the property have health conditions, it said that the resident has arrhythmia and his wife is in remission from cancer. The resident said he is registered disabled.
  2. The landlord’s said it is committed to improve the energy efficiency of its properties and to bring them to a minimum of an EPC rating of C. It explained that to achieve this, it applied to the Government Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) programme.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 August 2023, to book the SHDF survey. The resident explained he was unwell in hospital and asked for the landlord to put the survey on hold.
  4. In March 2024 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the SHDF programme works. The landlord carried out a detailed and technical survey on 26 March 2024. The surveyor made recommendations on measures to improve the property energy efficiency such as upgrading the ventilation, upgrading the loft insulation and installing solar panels. It did not recommend external wall insulation (EWI).
  5. Between March 2024 and May 2024, the resident reiterated several times to the landlord that he wanted cladding on his property and asked for a completion date. The landlord explained the process for the SHDF programme to the resident and that it could not confirmed the details or completion of the works until it had reviewed the surveyor’s recommendations. On 17 May 2024 the landlord said that its surveyor had confirmed the measures to improve the property energy efficiency at the property. It said that once it reviewed those the architect would then draw the plan, and it would schedule the works.
  6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 May 2024. His complaint was about its failings to provide him with a date for its planned SHDF programme works.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 4 June 2024 and said:
    1. It contacted the resident on 16 August 2023 to schedule a SHDF survey, the resident was in hospital and asked to postpone the survey.
    2. The resident then contacted the landlord on 5 March 2024 about the SHDF works. On 15 March 2024 it informed the resident that his property EPC rating was D. 
    3. On 18 March 2024 the landlord confirmed that a surveyor would contact the resident. It said it then completed the survey on 26 March 2024. It confirmed that the property EPC rating was below C and because of this it would include his property in its SHDF programme.
    4. It explained that it assessed a property EPC rating to decide if the property qualified for funding works. It also explained that following a survey, its surveyor would recommend measures to obtain a C rating. It would then review the recommendations and instruct a contractor to carry out the works. It said that depending on the works, it estimated completion within 6 to 8 weeks.
    5. On 14 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the installation of cladding. The landlord explained that it had not yet received the full report on recommendations from its surveyor and could not confirm the works or provide the resident with a timescale for completing any recommended works. It said it would be in touch as soon as it got the full report from its surveyor.
    6. It offered to pay £75 compensation to the resident in relation to matters not considered by this service.
  8. On 12 June 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because the landlord had not provided him with a date for the planned SHDF works.
  9. Between June 2024 and August 2024, the resident continued to ask the landlord for a date to install the cladding and the landlord repeated the SHDF programme process. On 19 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it had finalised the measures to improve the energy efficiency in his property and had instructed its contractor to go ahead with the works. On 30 July 2024 the contractor contacted the resident to book the pre-condition survey and explained the details of the works he would do. The resident refused the appointment because the works were different to what the landlord had promised him.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 7 August 2024 and said:
    1. It reiterated the timeline of events it shared in its stage 1 response.
    2. On 19 July 2024 the measures to bring the resident’s property to a C rating had been finalised and shared with the relevant contractor.
    3. On 30 July 2024 it contacted the resident to arrange the pre-condition survey to explain the details of the work to him. The resident said that he was unhappy with the proposed works because these were different to the neighbourhood properties. It had explained to the resident that it tailored the works to each property requirements, but he refused to book the pre-condition survey. It confirmed it would continue to discuss scheduling a pre-condition survey with him but until then the SHDF works would be on hold.
    4. It was satisfied that it had followed the correct SHDF programme process and effectively communicated with the resident throughout. It did not uphold the complaint.

After the internal complaint process

  1. Between August 2024 and November 2024, the resident reiterated to the landlord that he wanted cladding. He said that he felt singled out because the landlord has installed cladding to the other properties on his street. The landlord continued to offer the SHDF works. It denied that it had promised the resident it would install cladding on his property. It also said that the SHDF programme would end in March 2025, and encouraged the resident to make a decision about doing the works prior to that date.
  2. In April 2025 the resident informed this service that as a resolution to his complaint he wanted the landlord to install cladding on the external wall of his property to help keep the heat.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that the situation had affected his and his wife’s health. He described that he had mini strokes, which were brought on by “stress”. He also said that his wife’s recovery from cancer was slower than expected because of the distress she experienced over the SHDF works. While we sympathise with the resident, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

Resident’s request for cladding to be installed

  1. The SHDF is a government scheme designed to upgrade the energy efficiency of housing, tackle carbon emissions and improve the living conditions of residents. Its aim is to support social landlords in making improvements to properties that rated EPC below C. To access the scheme, landlords are expected to provide an up to date EPC for each property, detail the energy measures needed to improve the EPC rating, present a breakdown of costs and how co-funding will be secured, provide a timeframe for completion and ensure this is in keeping with the funding deadlines. They also need to explain how this will help residents.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that its programme works relate to bigger jobs which it aims to complete within 12 months as part of its ongoing investment in resident’s properties. Its asset management strategy describes its commitment in investing in its existing properties. It says that a focus of its strategy is to improve the energy efficiency of its properties to bring them to a minimum of an EPC rating of C. The landlord said that to achieve this, it applied to the Government’s SHDF scheme.
  3. We understand that in August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to book a SHDF survey and it put the survey on hold at the resident’s request. We recognise the resident had been unwell at the time and his wife was also unwell with cancer. It is unclear whether the landlord and the resident had agreed a time to revisit the matter. We recognise this was a challenging time for the resident and the landlord may not have contacted him about the SHDF survey because of this. We saw no evidence that neither parties discussed the matter between August 2023 and March 2024. Therefore, we cannot say there was a service failure by the landlord for not chasing the resident about booking the SHDF survey or responding to his queries about it.
  4. In March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord asking when it would carry out works on his property after he saw that it had on his neighbours’ properties. The landlord promptly contacted him and explained that because his property had an EPC rating D, it would include it in its SHDF programme works. It said that it could not provide him with a timescale for the works and booked a survey. It carried out the SHDF survey 21 days later. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. Once the resident made contact it promptly responded to his queries and completed the SHDF survey.
  5. In May 2024 the landlord reiterated to the resident the details of the SHDF programme process. It explained that that it would have to review the surveyor’s recommendations, then plan and schedule the works once approved. We understand the process in managing SHDF works involves many steps and this may have felt like a long time to the resident. However, some of those steps were out of the landlord’s control such as getting the survey’s report and the architect’s plans. The landlord showed it responded to the resident’s queries within a reasonable timeframe, clearly explained the process and managed his expectations. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  6. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord reiterated to the resident the purpose and processes for the SHDF programme. It explained that once the surveyor confirmed the measures needed to obtain an EPC rating C, the next step was the retrofit design. It described that this was when the specifications, details and drawings would be put together to provide all necessary information for its appointed contractor to complete the works. It also said that it could not confirm the works until it had received the recommendations from its surveyor. This was reasonable from the landlord.
  7. On 19 July 2024 the landlord finalised the works and instructed its contractor to complete them. The evidence shows that it acted on the recommendations made by its surveyor to upgrade the loft insulation, the ventilation and install solar panels. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it appropriately considered its expert’s recommendations.
  8. The evidence shows that 2 weeks later it tried to book a pre-condition survey to explain the scope of the works to the resident. It also explained that this was when it would do the paperwork before the contractor could go ahead with the works. We understand that the resident refused the pre-condition survey because the proposed works were different to what he expected and to what his neighbours had. We recognise the landlord explained to the resident that it tailored the works to the requirements of each property. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord.
  9. We understand the resident made several requests for the landlord to install cladding on the external walls of his property and repeated that it had promised him it would do this. We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure.
  10. In this case, we did not see evidence that the landlord had told the resident it would install cladding on the external walls of his property. We do not disbelieve the resident, who clearly believed the landlord would do this. However, the landlord showed that it repeatedly informed the resident it could not confirm the works until it received and reviewed the surveyor’s recommendations. Therefore, we cannot determine that the landlord misled the resident on the works it would do or did not manage his expectations.
  11. We recognise that the resident feels he has been treated unfairly by his landlord because it had installed cladding on his neighbours’ properties but not on his. We understand the landlord has installed EWI on 2 properties out of the 12 properties it owns on the resident’s street. The landlord denied it had been unfair to the resident and explained to the resident in August 2024, that it tailored the works to each property requirements. Based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot say that the landlord unfairly treated the resident because it installed EWI on other properties and not on his. The landlord showed that it provided a prompt and reasonable explanation to the resident about this.
  12. The resident said that the survey report noted that no disabled residents live at the property, when the resident is registered disabled. However, there is no evidence that the surveyor knew this. There is also no evidence this would have changed the outcome of the survey and the recommendations for making the property more energy efficient. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord.
  13. The evidence shows that between August 2024 and November 2024, the resident and the landlord continued to communicate on the matter. The resident called or visited the landlord’s office at least twice weekly. He repeated his request for cladding and the landlord continued to explain that the works recommended were based on its experts’ recommendations. It also explained how the works would benefit him and shared the surveyor’s report with him. Additionally, it referred the resident for support. It also showed within its internal communications that it had tried and explored other avenues to meet the resident’s request. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  14. We recognise that planned work can take time and the process can feel lengthy to residents. In this case, the landlord completed the SHDF survey in March 2024 and offered an appointment to the resident for starting the works approximately 4 months later. It also said that it expected to complete the works within 8 weeks. This was reasonable from the landlord. This was also in keeping with its repairs and maintenance policy to complete such works within 12 months.
  15. After considering the evidence of the case, we found no maladministration by the landlord. We recognise there seemed to have been a misunderstanding whereby the resident believed the landlord would install cladding on the external walls of his property. However, we saw no evidence that the landlord was the source of this. The evidence shows that the landlord clearly communicated with the resident on the matter and took reasonable steps in managing his expectations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for cladding on his property.