Southern Housing Group Limited (202219974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219974

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 March 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:
1. The landlords handling of the residents reports of her issues with the heating system and the suitability of the heating solutions offered.
2. The landlords decision not to replace the residents kitchen sink and drainer.
3. The landlord’s handing of reports of a pest infestation in the loft space.
4. The landlords handling of the residents complaint.
5. The Ombudsman is also including the landlords record keeping as part of the investigation.

Background

The exact date the residents tenancy started is unclear as the landlord cannot provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. There is evidence via a deed of variation on 16 December 2002, that this property provided supported accommodation to the resident which was supplementary to an assured tenancy agreement. At the time the floating support was provided by the local Society for the Blind.
The property is a 1-bed semi-detached bungalow. The resident lived in the property with her husband, but he passed away a couple of years ago, so she now lives there alone.
The resident describes herself as having vulnerabilities, apart from evidence of being partially sighted, she is 76 years old and has experienced a number of health issues in recent years, which reportedly includes, hip and knee replacements, MRSA, which has affected her knees and her mobility, severe arthritis as well as having undergone gallbladder surgery. She can only walk with the assistance of a walking frame and has an accessibility ramp to enter and exit the property.
The property is heated by older style electric storage heaters, with a secondary form of heating in the lounge which is a log burner. The resident says that she does not use the storage heaters as she is unable to afford to run them. When her husband was around, they relied on the log burner, but she is unable to use this due to her limited mobility.
The landlord said it attended 8 October 2021, to address faulty taps. It said the kitchen sink was one that was installed by the tenants, so was tenants responsibility, however it attended to the taps to ensure water provision, so that the homes fit for human habitation requirements were met.
The residents original landlord, amalgamated in 2010 with a partner housing association to form the landlord that is now responsible for the property.
The resident has a designated representative acting on her behalf, for ease of reference in the report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as “the resident”. It is noted the majority of the contact instigated with the landlord has been via the residents representative, as was the residents preference.

Summary of events

The resident reported in February 2022, that they had not used the electric heating system for over 10 years, and was now concerned to do so in case it was not safe. The landlords electrician attended, he cleaned out the heaters, checked out the heating input and output controllers on the bedroom and hallway heaters which were reported to be working. The lounge heater needed replacing but the tenant did not want a new storage heater, she wanted a panel heater, which he relayed to the landlord.
There was conflicting views as to the follow up to this report. The resident wanted a heater which produced instant heat and was slimline, as bulky storage heaters, made laying out the room so that she could easily navigate it with her walking frame, more difficult. The resident was of the view that she was told her heating was to be upgraded by the landlord and in the interim a slimline lounge panel heater was agreed.
The landlord said it had always refused to provide the slimline panel heater requested, as it does not supply that type of heater. The resident and her representative disputed this as they know of other properties belonging to the landlord that have this type of heater, which includes the residents representatives property. The landlord offered her the large storage heater or nothing, it remained available if she changed her mind.
Since the new taps were fitted in 2021, the resident said she had reported that they were too short, for the round singular bowl sink at the property and she was unable to use them. She had asked if the landlord could replace the sink with a standard sink and drainer (the exact date of this report is unclear).
A copy of a repairs order was provided by the landlord dated 16 February 2022, which requested the operative attend to advise “if the kitchen sink is too small and needs bigger, and taps are too short”, and if a bigger sink could be installed with mixer taps as she finds it difficult to use.
The operative attended the same day and reported the resident has an inset circular stainless-steel sink but no drainer. Standard high neck sink taps are in good working order. Surveyor to advise whether we fit new right-hand drainer sink top.
The resident said that the replacement sink was agreed, but she would be required to clear out the under-sink unit, prior to fitting. The resident said due to her mobility issues, she had to pay a carer to do this for her. When the sink did not materialise, the resident chased the landlord and was advised, that the sink would not be replaced. The kitchen was installed by the resident some time ago under a permission to improve agreement, and as a result it was her responsibility to maintain, repair and replace. The landlord denied ever agreeing to a replacement sink and drainer.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord received an email from the councils senior housing renewal officer. (This team carry out the functions of the more commonly known Private Sector Housing teams), acting on the residents behalf. In summary it said it had been advised:
1. The heating system had not been used in excess of 10 years, and they were not sure if it still worked. The resident was not prepared to switch it on in case of a fire starting, could the landlord carry out a safety check to make sure.
2. There were concerns about the size of the heater in the living room and the residents desire for “on demand” heating to meet her medical needs. It had advised her that it cannot stipulate the type of heating provision only that suitable heating is provided.
3. The kitchen sink is unusable for the resident and requires replacement.
4. Defective external drainage to the kitchen allowing rodent ingress.
5. It requested the landlord look into the issues and update the resident and itself at the earliest convenience.
The following day the landlord sent a pest control specialist to the site. They reported that rats had undermined the sewer, exited from under the drain, and. made their way into the cavity wall and up into the loft. In response it had baited the sewer chamber, under the drain and the loft. Intending to return the following week.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord arranged for a specialist drainage inspection to be completed. This found a significant amount of circumferential cracks to the pipework on the final section of pipework to the neighbours. They were not a major cause for concern, but would need remedial works at some point. They suggested spot repairs on the sections with the cracks, but as there were so many it may be more cost effective to do a full relay.
On 1 November 2022, the resident and her representative called the landlord to confirm the representative had data processing agreement (DPA) and the resident wished all contact, including emails, from this point on to go through the representative. During this call they made a formal complaint, in summary the notes of the complaint said:
1. The resident was unhappy with the taps fitted to the sink they were too small and unsuitable.
2. The resident said she was promised upgraded heating by a named surveyor as the heaters do not give out any heat. They had been changed for all residents but not her, and she felt discriminated against.
3. The lounge heater was not working, the surveyor, advised she would get a thin panel radiator which would work and be easy to use, as any large heater would obstruct access to the kitchen with the furniture layout. An operative had attended to fit a large storage heater, but this was unsuitable and not installed.
4. This had been reported months ago, the resident said she is older, with ill health and mobility and has no heating, and she had not been provided temporary heaters. There are documents on the case file with proof of her health and disability problems.
5. There were also issues with loose paving covering exposed drains in the garden which the resident cannot use, and as result has had a rat infestation.
6. The resident had previously sent in a handwritten letter asking for a formal complaint and requesting electrical safety (EICR) and energy efficiency (EPC) certificates. This was raised as a query and not a complaint, even though she followed up with a call on 26 October 2022, and stated this was a formal complaint request. She requested the landlord listen to the call and backdate the complaint request.
7. As an outcome they wanted the EICR certificate urgently, the drains replaced and a rat blocker installed, the heater in the living room changed to a slimline heater, the remaining heaters checked, tested, and replaced as needed and for the surveyor to visit again and assess all the faults and repairs needed within 4 weeks. They also requested compensation for the service failures.
On 3 November 2022, the internal correspondence showed the landlord determined the residents complaint was not set up on its system correctly, it fit the criteria of a multi-faceted complaint and as such it should have been raised as 2 complaints and passed to 2 different teams to investigate (complaint refs ending in 274 and 325).
The pest control specialists caried out 4 more follow up visits to the residents property. On the 2nd visit it used a CCTV camera in the sewer and found mud coming from the sewer pipe which services the kitchen drain, indicating that it was broken. This would need to be repaired and then a rat blocker fitted. By 1 November 2022, there was no further evidence of the rats being in the loft. On 8 November 2022, the rat blocker was fitted to the sewer.
On 29 November 2022, the resident sent out a holding response to the stage one complaint (ref ending 325). In summary it said:
1. It concluded the kitchen was non-standard and was fitted by the resident, therefore any repairs were her responsibility. Kitchen sink taps were changed 8 October 2021, this was authorised because access to cold and hot water is essential.
2. It had found no record of any heating upgrade being agreed.
3. Storage heaters were cleaned and serviced on 19 April 2022, and they were tested and working. The lounge heater needs to be replaced but the resident did not want like for like.
4. A camera survey had been carried out and no remedial repairs had been identified. If any making good was required, the operative would advise on 5 December 2022.
5. It would make enquiries with its electrical team for a copy of the electrical certificate.
6. Temporary heaters were delivered on 22 November 2022.
On 4 January 2023, the residents rep emailed the landlord with an EPC certificate she had obtained through the government website. It stated that the energy rating was E. She indicated as a result the heating should be upgraded throughout. The email also advised the resident had become extremely unwell with her gall-bladder condition and any delay would cause her further harm; she needed instant heating.
On 5 January 2023, the complaints officer raised the EPC with the surveyor. The surveyor noted the report stated the property only had 50mm loft insulation and suggested raising an order to check it. It also stated the property had no secondary heating, which the surveyor believed to be incorrect as it had a stove or open fire, which indicated the data was inaccurate. She reiterated the landlords position remained the same, the storage heater would be replaced “as and when the resident allowed access”. It said it would try and speak to the resident directly.
An email from the residents representative to the landlord on 18 January 2023, said she had made both recipients aware that the resident was returning home from hospital following surgery, and suggested it was imperative the heating was installed urgently.
On 10 February 2023, the Customer Services team reported to the surveyor that the resident’s rep had called about a heater being installed in the residents property, but she could not find any details of a panel heater being agreed. A call with the residents representative earlier in the week did advise that the landlord would be attending to fit a panel heater, but she thought the member of staff had just got confused between a storage heater and a panel heater.
The landlords surveyor advised the same day, that while the operative was at the address they had spoken to the resident on his phone and told her it would not install a panel heater, its only offer was to replace the storage heater in the lounge with a new one. The resident had refused due to the size of the heaters. It said she had temporary heaters and the other storage heaters were cleaned and tested a year ago, this was a recurrent issue, and the rep was asking for heaters that it does not install.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response (ref ending 325). In summary it added the following to the holding response:
1. Storage heaters were cleaned and serviced on 19 April 2022 and 10 February 2023, they were tested and working, but not switched on. It said temporary heaters were on site, so she did have heating.
2. A new storage heater was offered to her, in a call from its surveyor, it was confirmed that it would not be a panel heater, and the resident refused it.
3. No follow-on works were reported in regard to loose paving, the gullies had been cleared.
4. It had attached an electrical certificate carried out in 2021 and a valid EPC certificate dated 24 November 2022, and valid for 10 years.
5. The complaint was partially upheld for the day-to-day works mentioned above. The complaint had now been closed.
The residents representative requested that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlords complaints process on 13 February 2023. When she had received no response by 10 May 2023, she contacted this Service. We instructed the landlord that day to provide the resident with a response to the complaint by 17 May 2023.
The landlord responded, advising it had acknowledged and logged a stage 2 complaint. In the acknowledgement it had apologised for the delay in escalation and the internal delay would be considered as part of the response. The timeframe for the response had been set out and was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord completed its investigation into the stage 2 complaint and provided its response. In summary it said:
1. It summarised the complaint as:
  1. Problems with the heating system and suitability of the temporary solutions.
  2. Resident is unhappy with the decision not to replace the kitchen sink and drainer.
  3. The pest infestation to the loft which the resident believed was due to cracked drains.
  4. It had not taken the residents vulnerability into account when handling her complaint.
2. It acknowledged the storage heater in the lounge required replacement. It had offered a new digital storage heater which was programable and more energy efficient, the replacement had been refused.
3. It was unable to provide a panel heater, but was still prepared to install the storage heater. It noted the residents comments that other residents have panel heaters but said it was not able to disclose information on other properties.
4. The kitchen was installed by the residents partner and as advised in the stage 1 response; this made the resident responsible for its maintenance and repair. When the property was due a kitchen replacement in line with the landlords planned upgrade works, it would contact her to arrange an inspection, when she can decide if she would like the landlord to replace the kitchen. If the landlord replaces the kitchen, it will then become the responsibility of the landlord.
5. It only had reports of pests in the garden and not the loft. It attended and installed a drain blocker, but if she had needed to report new repairs contact it, so they can be raised.
6. It was sorry she felt they had not considered her vulnerabilities, when handling her complaint, it had liaised with her neighbour as requested and was prepared to review further information or specific need if details were provided.
7. It accepted there was a delay in escalating the stage 2 complaint, it apologised for this and offered £50 for the delay and £100 for the inconvenience time and trouble (6-12 months).

Post Complaint Information

On 3 November 2023, the residents GP’s surgery contacted the landlord with concerns that the lounge and bedroom heater were not working. It was reported the resident has many health issues. An order was raised that day for an electrician to attend although it is not clear whether the electrician attended or the outcome of the visit.
The same day the council’s Occupational Therapy team contacted the landlord to say the resident had contacted them to chase the outcome of a referral made in August 2023, which the resident had said had also been chased by the GP surgery, but they had no open referral, there had been no contact since June 2023. The landlord responded to the council, advising it had contacted the resident and asked her to obtain a medical letter from her GP.
20 November 2023, heating engineers attended to sweep the chimney for the stove/log burner. Work could not be completed due to a void behind the closure plate that they could not access. The closure plate was not fit for purpose and resident had been advised not to use.
The resident advised the engineer she had not been able to use the log burner so it had not been used in 5 years, and she would be happy for it to be removed. She asked about an alternative heat source. The engineer told the landlord the storage heaters were very old and not heating the property sufficiently, she was extremely vulnerable and required the property to be heated to a certain temperature, it understood the landlord had previously been advised of this. He said other properties in the area have had heating upgrades to air source heat pumps (ASHP), this system would be better suited as they are best when run at constant low level. It reported the cylinder was also considerably oversized for the usage and would incur unnecessary costs to the resident heating it up every day. It noted the EPC was very poor, and suggested the recommended heating system and added loft insulation would improve this significantly.
On 20 November 2023, the landlord requested an estimate for the ASHP system, to make a business case for it. The estimate was provided on 1 December 2023. On 5 December 2023, the landlords heating team confirmed an order had been raised for ASHP installation via its team.

Assessment and findings

The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement from 20 March 2020 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, including excess cold, pests and inadequate provision of food preparation and cooking facilities.
The Decent Homes Standard, is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government. Its criteria includes that a decent home:
1. meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing, dwellings which fail to meet this criterion are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (‘Category 1’) under the HHSRS.
2. provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, this criterion requires dwellings to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.
The Governments rent a safe home guide says living in cold conditions can cause serious health problems, a cold home is one that cannot be maintained at a temperature between 18°C to 21°C at a reasonable cost to the occupier.
The landlords current assured tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property as well as any installations it has provided for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water, and sanitation. It commits to the landlord carrying out any repair work that is its responsibility within a reasonable time of receiving the report and to a reasonable standard. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The tenancy agreement also set out that residents must get written permission before making improvements or alterations to their properties. Improvements or alterations include kitchens. The agreement states that residents will be responsible for repairing and maintaining items they fitted unless the landlord agrees to take responsibility for it.
The landlords repairs and maintenance procedure requires the landlord to identify who is responsible for the repair. If it is the tenant’s responsibility, then generally they should be advised to carry out the repair themselves. The landlord may, however, carry out repairs that a tenant is usually responsible for:
1. to make the property safe and fit for habitation; or
2. where failure to act may have direct health implications for a resident; or
3. where we asses this is necessary due to the vulnerability of a resident.
Its section on vulnerabilities and disabilities states that this may cover any aspect of a resident’s wellbeing or personal circumstance that may impact their ability to maintain their property within the landlords published guidelines. If a vulnerability or disability is preventing a resident from carrying out a repair themselves the landlord can offer a rechargeable repair or agree to take responsibility for this repair back.
The procedure also states that, if a potential vulnerability is identified, the landlord should arrange for its local housing management team to carry out an assessment visit, to identify any support or repair needs.
Under section 3, tenants repairs responsibilities it states that “anything that belongs to the resident or was bought onto the property by the resident”, would normally be the responsibility of the resident.
The landlords Home Management Procedure on pests requires that it will only provide a pest management service to tenants where the pest represents a clear risk to health or safety, the list included rats.
The Equalities Act 2010, came into force on 1 October 2010, providing a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all and applies to all organisations. Section 20 of the Equalities Act (EA) imposes a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments. There are three ways landlords may make adjustments:
1. Take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages presented by a provision, criterion, or practice.
2. take steps to avoid a disadvantage presented by a physical feature.
3. provide extra aids or services (auxiliary aids and services). See also Schedule 4 of the Act.
The EA in section 6 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative affect on a person’s ability to carry out normal daily activities.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, requires that landlords shall comply with the Equality Act 2010 and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 the complaint will be investigated and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint. If a resident is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 1 investigation, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2, within 20 working days, setting out the reasons why they are unhappy in the response. This will be investigated and responded to within 20 working days from acknowledgement of the escalation request.
The landlord has a compensation policy, which will be considered, when it has acknowledged services have fallen below an acceptable standard, and it will use the guidelines in its compensation framework to assess the amount.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of her issues with the heating system and the suitability of the heating solutions offered.

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold is a potential hazard and in addressing this the landlord is required to consider whether its heating and insulation provision in the property is sufficient to prevent this.
The landlord had provided electric storage heaters in the property, which it had serviced and confirmed were safe and running, which was appropriate. However, in assessing whether the heating was adequate, the landlord should also have taken into account the age and efficiency of the appliance, and if the level of insulation throughout the property was sufficient. It was not evident that the landlord had done so.
The resident made several requests to the landlord for the energy efficiency rating for the property, which the landlord delayed in supplying. The resident eventually had to resort to obtaining a copy from the Government’s website, which was not reasonable, landlords are obliged to provide residents with a copy of the most current EPC. The certificate identified the property only had a very low energy efficiency rating of ‘E’, (anything less than an E in a rented home is classed as substandard under regulation). This low rating was an indicator that the property may be at risk of excess cold. Registered social landlords are exempt from any minimum standard efficiency requirements, and while an energy efficiency rating of ‘E’ meets the minimum regulatory standard, in 2020, only 4% of social rented homes in the UK had a rating of E, the decent homes standard, encourages social housing landlords to be aiming for an energy rating of ‘D’ or above.
People over 60 are in the ‘vulnerable group’ and at higher risk for excess cold, under the HHSRS. The resident was in her late 70’s with multiple health problems, which was likely to have increased her risk further. It was appropriate for the landlord to have taken this into account when deciding what action to take but there was no evidence that it did so. Even when it became apparent that the energy efficiency rating was low, and her health needs required warm living conditions, it did not see a need to review her case, or its decision not to consider replacing the heating, which was not reasonable.
Instead it suggested the EPC data was wrong because it did not mention the provision of a log burner as secondary heating. If the landlord had assessed her need, it would have been apparent that the log burner was not a viable secondary heat source for the resident due to her mobility issues, she had been unable to use it for 5 years. In addition it transpired post the complaint process that the log burner was faulty and was not deemed safe to use at all.
The landlord did request an inspection of the loft insulation to confirm it was as low grade as the certificate reported, which was appropriate, but there was no follow up information on the findings. When a heating engineer (post the complaint process) raised his concerns about the resident and the adequacy of her heating, he confirmed the insulation was only 50mm, it was changed as part of the works he recommended which was undertaken nearly a year later.
The landlord agreed to replace a faulty storage heater in the lounge, with one described to be digital and more energy efficient. The resident explained that she did not want another large storage heater in the room, with her limited mobility she was struggling to manoeuvre around the lounge and found accessing the kitchen very difficult because of how the furniture had to be laid out to accommodate a large storage heater. She requested a slimline panel heater instead, the same as her neighbour had. This would provide her with an instant and controllable heat source, that she needed for her medical condition and to improve her ability to navigate the lounge and access the kitchen. The landlord refused the request, without providing any justifiable explanation why, which was not reasonable.
It was noted by the resident in her complaints and later by the landlords heating contractor, that other similar properties in the area had, had their heating upgraded to modern energy efficient systems such as air source heat pumps. The resident said she felt discriminated against, that they would not consider hers. When she questioned the landlord about other residents having their heating systems upgraded, some that included panel heaters, it said it was unable to disclose information on other properties. This was not a reasonable response, there are no data protection issues for the landlord in divulging information to residents about planned maintenance programmes or the condition of its stock. Landlords should be honest with residents on requests about these matters, not to do so, lacks transparency and damages residents trust in their landlords.
When considering the vulnerability of the resident, the age of the heating system, the low energy efficiency rating and other similar properties receiving heating upgrades, it is difficult to understand and not clear why the residents property had not been put forward. As the resident had asked this question it would have been appropriate for the landlord to give clear reasons to the resident to explain this, it was not acceptable that they avoided responding to the issue as they did.
The resident’s disclosure of her age and several health and mobility problems was a trigger for the landlord to consider whether the resident had a disability and protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, and what duties it might have towards her. Under the S20 of the Act, landlords have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to residents who do not have a disability. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident has a disability, it is our role to look at whether the landlord had considered whether she had, or any other protected characteristic where its responsibilities under the Act would apply.
In addressing the issue of the lounge heating, the landlord refused the residents request for a slimline instant control panel heater. This might have been considered reasonable if it had provided a justifiable reason why this could not be done in this property, and looked at other heating options that might improve the resident’s ability to move around her lounge and into the kitchen. It did not, it failed to consider any other option other than a like for like storage heater (despite being advised of the problems it presented) it did not undertake any sort of assessment of her needs or consider a referral to occupational health services, which was not reasonable.
The landlord’s overall approach was, that the resident had refused the offer of replacement heating, it had provided a temporary heater until she changed her mind, and it had therefore met its responsibilities to the resident. The Ombudsman would only consider a portable plug-in heater appropriate as a very short-term solution in an emergency, any longer is not appropriate. They are usually considered expensive to run and for a resident with her mobility issues and walking frame could present a trip hazard. The resident has reported to this service that some days she was not well enough to bend down and switch it on. It is not known exactly how long the resident lived with temporary heaters, but there was evidence it was at least a year. This was not acceptable and demonstrated again that the landlord had not appropriately considered the residents vulnerabilities and had failed to consider its duties under the Equalities Act.
When the landlord was alerted to the fact that the resident was not using the heating at all because she could not afford it, it should have raised general concerns for her welfare. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a safeguarding referral, to adult social care to ensure she had support or help and did not succumb to the established risk of excess cold. There was no evidence that it did this despite evidence of her representatives ongoing concerns.
Given the residents issue of affordability, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to provide or signpost the resident to tenancy sustainment or money management advice. The landlord publicises financial support services on its website offering a wealth of online information and signposting for financial advice and support to residents who might be struggling, which is reasonable. However not all residents have digital access and can be at a significant disadvantage in these circumstances if they are not. It is therefore important that landlords make sure they offer this support and advice via other means. The resident met a number of socio-economic criteria for people who are most likely not to have digital access, so the landlord should have asked the question. It has since been confirmed that the resident does not have digital access, despite this there was no evidence the landlord discussed its online support services with her and no other form of advice provision or signposting was evident.
The resident also has a visual impairment which can be an additional challenge in accessing online information. Even if people do have digital access, many websites including the landlords, are not accessible for people with visual impairment, so reasonable adjustments need to be considered. In the absence of an accessible website this would be, providing information in other formats the resident can use, or visiting and discussing the options available with them. This again showed that the landlord had not taken the residents vulnerabilities into account and neglected to consider its duties under the Equalities Act.
Post complaint information from the landlord and an update from the resident confirms that an air source heat pump was fitted in the residents home in January 2024. It is noted that this was instigated not by the landlord, but through the concerns of one of its heating contractors who was attending to sweep the chimney. The heating engineer confirmed what the resident had been telling the landlord all along, that the storage heaters were old and not heating the property effectively. While this Service welcomes the landlords decision to provide appropriate affordable heating for this vulnerable resident, it was evident that this should have been done at least 2 years beforehand, when the resident bought the issue to the landlords attention, along with her deteriorating health. The detriment to the resident has been significant, living in a cold property, with very poor health and genuine concerns about affordability. The resident has advised this service that her property is now warm, and her fuel costs have halved this year, compared to the same period last year. Had this operative not gone out of his way to raise his concerns, it is highly likely the resident would still be living in the same conditions she was, which was not reasonable.

The landlords decision not to replace the residents kitchen sink and drainer.

The landlord has acknowledged that it had replaced the residents kitchen taps back in 2021. Because the kitchen had previously been installed by the resident under an improvement request, the repair and maintenance of it, was the residents responsibility.
The landlord replaced the taps with a set of standardised taps that they use, and not a replacement of what was previously there which they would be entitled to do. The resident advised the landlord that the new taps were too short and with the type of sink that was there (single sunken bowl sink) she was unable to use them, if they put a standardised sink/drainer in she would be able to use them.
It was the residents view that the landlord had agreed to this. She said she paid her home help to empty the sink unit for her, in preparation as she said she was requested by the landlord to do. When the resident chased the landlord, for the sink it said it was not considering this work as the kitchen installation was completed by the resident and it was the residents responsibility to replace. There was evidence, to support why the resident would think this, as an order was raised for an operative to attend and check out the sink and taps and see if a new sink could be fitted. While there is no recorded evidence of the landlord agreeing to the work, with the lack of evidence provided generally by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to fully rely on the records we have and is unable to conclude that it did not agree to the work. A request to empty the kitchen unit is an action that would be required for the sink to be replaced, and it seems too specific for the resident to have misunderstood.
If the repair was the residents responsibility, it would be reasonable to expect that the front-line repairs call handler would know this, and the residents expectation managed at the point of request, but it raised an order to consider it, which raised expectation. This was not the only time that the residents expectation had been raised by a repairs call handler, on 23 February 2023 the resident was advised a panel heater was being fitted the next day when an electric storage heater had been ordered. It was not clear why this type of miscommunication was happening, but the concern is that there was a lack of clear communication between call handlers and the housing team. Whatever the reason, there was an obvious service failing that needed to be addressed, which should have been recognised in the complaint investigation, and it was not.
Even though the landlord determined the kitchen was the residents responsibility, the landlord has acknowledged it replaced the taps when they were broken. Its reasoning for this in its complaint response was that access to water was essential under the HHSRS, so its agreement to replace them was reasonable. However the resident, once the taps were changed, said they were too short for her to use them, which means that she still did not have access to water in the kitchen. In this instance the landlord did not apply the same reasoning and took no further action to address the issue, which was a failing. The landlords repairs policy allows it to carry out repairs that a tenant is usually responsible for, to make the property safe and fit for habitation; or where it is necessary due to the vulnerability of a resident. Both applied, in the residents case, but the landlord failed to apply this aspect of its repairs policy as it should have done. The policy also stated that if a disability or vulnerability prevents a resident from meeting its responsibility in carrying out a repair, it can agree to take back responsibility for the repair. This was also applicable in the residents case.
Not being able to access water, and particularly in a food preparation area such as the kitchen, is a potential hazard. While a water provision was present, the residents disabilities prevented her from accessing it. The landlord had the policy framework to consider the residents vulnerabilities and could have assisted with a new sink, through the vulnerabilities and disabilities aspect of its repairs policy, but it chose not to. We asked the landlord for confirmation of whether it considered the kitchen facilities (including the sink, tap and draining area) were suitable for the resident’s needs, it was unable to answer this question, which indicated her needs in respect of her use of the sink had not been assessed. In this Services view, the landlord’s lack of action, constitutes a failure by the landlord to meet both its legal repairing obligations and to consider its duties under the equalities act.

The landlord’s handing of reports of a pest infestation in the loft space.

The local council raised the issue of the residents property having a rat infestation in the loft, on 10 October 2022. It said it had been advised that this was due to a problem with the drainage in the garden.
In response the landlord arranged for the attendance of pest control specialists the following day, which confirmed via CCTV that rats were accessing the residents property from a potential problem in the sewer pipe. The specialist laid bait and returned fortnightly to monitor, until the infestation was gone which was appropriate and timely. Its final response was to supply and fit a rat blocker to the entrance of the drain, the infestation was eliminated by 15 November 2022.
On 11 October 2022, the landlord arranged for drainage experts to attend and inspect the drainage and sewer pipes for damage. The landlord was advised that there were a number of minor cracks in the last run of the sewer pipe, these did not require any emergency work, but would require attention in the future. The landlord took no immediate action on the sewer pipe, which was not unreasonable, as it is entitled to rely on the advice of the qualified specialists that it employs.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman published its complaint handling code in July 2020 (amended 2022), with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self–assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
The resident sent a handwritten letter to the landlord in October 2022 making a formal complaint, this was said to have been followed up with a telephone call on the 26 October 2022. Evidence shows the landlord did not take the complaint; the resident was advised it was to be raised as a query which was not reasonable. The Code requires that the landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The only element of the complaint that could be considered to be exempt was the report of the rat infestation, which was a service request. This should not however have prevented the landlord taking the complaint. The complaint should have been accepted, with an explanation provided that this aspect was being treated as a service request, and details of the action it was taking.
When the landlord eventually accepted the complaint from the resident on 1 November 2022. The landlord decided to split the complaint and log it as two separate complaints. Although unnecessary, this would have been acceptable if this resulted in both complaints being clearly defined and responded to in accordance with the policy. However they were not, there appears to be only one complaint responded to at stage 1 (ending 325), the complaint ending 374 had no response at all, so only part of the complaint was investigated, which was not reasonable. At escalation of the complaint ending 325, all the issues raised in the residents original complaint were responded to. This rendered the division of the complaint pointless, caused un-necessary confusion for the resident and was not handled in accordance with the Code or the landlords complaint handling policy.
The Code also recommends a 2-stage complaint process, to ensure the fastest resolution to complaints. The landlord added an extra stage in its stage 1 complaint handling process by issuing a holding response, on 29 November 2022, its actual response at stage 1 was issued on 14 February 2023, which was 72 working days from the date of the complaint. This did not align with the landlords complaint handling policy which commits to a full response in 10 working days. It is not appropriate to delay a final response whilst awaiting issues to be resolved. To do so prevents residents from escalating their complaints should the issues continue to be unresolved. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response should be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The Ombudsman’s Code also requires that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlords stage two investigation was poor. It failed, to address the resident’s concerns on the issue of her vulnerabilities. This was potentially because of a misinterpretation of the complaint, in the complaint definition. The residents complaint was about the landlord not taking the residents vulnerabilities into account when dealing with the substantive issues of her complaint, such as assessing whether the heating was adequate and not being able to use the sink, rather than just the complaint handling process itself.
The evidence suggested that the review consisted of going back to the person who made the original decision and reiterating it, instead of reviewing whether those decisions were right in the first instance and that legislation and policies had been adhered to. If this complaint had been defined correctly and properly reviewed it should have picked up that the landlord had not considered its duties under the Equalities Act 2010 and addressed the issues sooner.
Furthermore, the landlord had provided significant evidence to this service of its findings and treatment of a pest infestation in the residents loft, but the stage 2 response stated the landlord had no record of reports of rats in the loft. Providing inaccurate information in a complaint response was inappropriate, it indicates that either the investigation was not thorough, or the records were not accessible, either way it was a failing in the complaint handling process.
The resident on several occasions, due to her ill health had requested that the landlord liaise with her neighbour as her representative. This was clearly reconfirmed to the landlord in the telephone conversation logging the residents complaint on 1 November 2022, and was noted on her records. Despite this request evidence showed that the landlord consciously ignored this request on several occasions, both in the handling of her repairs and her complaint, which caused upset and distress to the resident, who was not well enough to deal with either, which was not reasonable.

The Ombudsman is also including the landlords record keeping as part of the investigation.

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme a member landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. On request, the landlord was unable to provide a significant amount of the documentation required for the investigation. This included file notes, technical opinions, tenancy agreement and details of the residents vulnerabilities.
Despite the significant amount of detail and updates that have been provided on the residents health and well-being, the only evidence the landlord provided for the residents vulnerabilities was over 20 years old. A medical letter from the residents Consultant Ophthalmologist dated from December 2000 and a deed of variation for housing related support, for the residents visual impairment dated December 2002. The resident has stated that she has advised the landlord of all her medical problems on a number of occasions, and provided Dr’s letters, but the landlord did not have this information recorded and updated which was not reasonable.
The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. Record keeping is a core function of a housing management service not only so that evidence can be provided to this service, but to provide an audit trail, an understanding of the condition of its properties, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may be required to engage in. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure.
In light of the above, this Service finds that redress is warranted to the resident for the impact the landlord’s record-keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of issues with the heating system and the suitability of the heating solutions offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords decision not to replace the residents kitchen sink and drainer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of reports of a pest infestation in the loft space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords record keeping.

Reasons

When refusing the residents request for more efficient and affordable heating, the landlord failed in its duty to adequately assess the hazard of excess cold within the property and the risk to the resident, who was elderly and experiencing rapidly declining health. It did not acknowledge the age and efficiency of the appliances or the lack of adequate insulation in the property. Despite having the knowledge that the property’s energy efficiency rating only met the minimum standard (E), and the resident was highly vulnerable, it refused to reconsider its decision, that the heating was suitable. Even though the resident had explained the difficulties being partially sighted and reliant on a walking frame that a large lounge heater presented on her ability to move around the room and access the kitchen, the landlord refused to consider other options. Its response was to leave a resident who struggled with her sight and mobility with temporary portable plug-in heaters for an unacceptable amount of time. The landlord failed completely, to acknowledge the residents vulnerabilities or recognise and accept it had duties under the Equalities Act. It did not listen to the resident’s concerns and failed to carry out any assessment of her needs. The detriment to the resident has been significant, living for years, in a cold property, that she struggled to get around in, with extremely poor health and genuine worries about affordability. The residents representative has spent considerable time and trouble, in trying to get the landlord to consider the residents needs without success, and the frustration at not being able to do so, was evident. The issue has only been resolved now due to the conscientiousness of a heating engineer who did acknowledge the residents extreme vulnerability and raised his concerns to the landlord. On providing proposals for heating and energy efficient improvements that would benefit the resident to the landlord, it finally agreed, but should have been done much sooner.
In dealing with the residents request for a replacement kitchen sink, the landlord failed to appropriately implement its repairs policy. When a vulnerable resident, who because of their disabilities, is no longer able to meet their obligations to maintain and repair, the landlord has the framework within its policy to carry out those repairs for the resident, to make the property safe and fit for habitation. It can also, in cases of vulnerability and disability just agree to take back responsibility for the repairs, but in the residents case it chose not to do so.
With regard to the rat infestation in the loft, the landlord implemented its process for tackling an infestation within 24 hours of the report. It simultaneously commissioned drainage inspections to identify if any urgent works were required. Pest control took the appropriate actions, and the infestation was confirmed as resolved within 10 weeks.
The landlord failed to implement its complaint handling policy correctly. It deviated from the policy, unnecessarily dividing the complaint, and issuing a holding response. It took 72 working days to complete the full stage 1 response which prevented the residents ability to escalate ongoing unresolved issues. Responses contained incorrect information casting doubt over the quality of the investigation. At stage 2 there was little evidence that any meaningful review had been carried out, original decisions from the stage 1 were obtained from the officers who previously made them and were reiterated in the stage 2 response. As a result the landlords failure to meet its repairing obligations and its duties under the equalities act remained undetected. As its failings went unrecognised the issues were not resolved and the resident was not offered any form of redress.
Record keeping was considered by the Ombudsman, because on request, the landlord was unable to provide a significant amount of the documentation required for the investigation. The omissions indicated poor record keeping which unduly delayed the investigation.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that in 4 weeks the Chief Executive apologises to the resident in the presence of, or through her representative.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord pays to the resident (in addition to any compensation previously agreed) the total sum of £3,700 as set out below:
1. £1,800 for the failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents heating, including its failure to consider its duties under the Equalities Act.
2. £800 for the failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents request for a new sink, including its failure to consider its duties under the Equalities Act.
3. £600 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.
4. £500 for the impact the landlord’s record-keeping has had on the timeframe, fair and thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks the landlord reviews the residents request to replace the kitchen sink in accordance with the vulnerability and disability aspects of it responsive repairs policy and its duties under the equalities act. A copy of the outcome of this review should be shared with this service.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has recently developed and published (January 2024) a reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy, to address its failings in this area, so an order in respect of this matter is not required.
The Ombudsman is aware that following recommendations from its paragraph 49 investigation, evidence has been proved by the landlord that it trained staff on reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs in late 2023, to address failings in this area. An order on this matter is therefore not required.
The Ombudsman is also aware following the P49 recommendations that members of the landlords staff have completed our Knowledge and Information Management e-learning and attended our virtual workshop. It has also self-assessed against the recommendations in our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report, and has an action plan in place. An order in respect of this matter is not required.