Unity Housing Association Limited (202308746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308746

Unity Housing Association Limited

22 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to install solar panels at the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy and moved into the property on 21 June 1999. The property has 3 storeys and 4 bedrooms. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that there are no individuals with reported vulnerabilities at this property.
4. On 24 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask whether it would fit solar panels at the property as other similar properties had solar panels fitted. The landlord responded on 26 July 2021 stating:
   1. A number of trials had led to solar panels being installed at a number of properties.
   2. The landlord’s current policy was to ensure all properties had an Energy Performance Rating (EPC) of C or above by 2030. 97 properties were below this rating, and the resident’s property was one of them. Works proposed to improve EPC ratings included solar panel installation, insulation, and solar water heating.
   3. Not all properties could have solar panels installed due to their positioning and roof space.
   4. Its ‘Asset Management Strategy’ was in the process of being updated, and once complete a draft would be sent to the resident for her comments. This would also highlight the plan for the energy efficiency improvements.
5. We have not been provided with any correspondence between July 2021 and June 2022. On 20 June 2022, a letter was sent to the resident to say that her roof was due for renewal that year, and the landlord had agreed to upgrade her kitchen at the same time. It also stated that it would make a decision about whether her bathroom would be upgraded.
6. On 18 August 2022 internal emails show that the landlord’s maintenance manager requested that the resident be informed that her roof would be replaced on that year’s schedule. It also stated that solar panels were a consideration, provided the roof was suitable for them. The emails also show that the landlord agreed that the kitchen would be upgraded ahead of its scheduled date so that it coincided with the roof works, to minimise disruption to the resident as there were “severe health issues” in the family.
7. A further letter was sent to the resident on 23 November 2022 thanking her for her input. It is unclear what this letter is referring to as we have not been provided with the preceding communications. The letter confirmed that a stock condition survey was completed and that the landlord was confident that the timescales for upgrades did not need to be amended.
8. On 21 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for a copy of the report which had been completed following an asbestos survey. She said she was concerned that there may be a safety risk she was unaware of and wanted clarification on whether she should be worried. She also chased the landlord for an update on the kitchen and roof replacement, along with the installation of the solar panels.
9. Internal emails from 11 January 2023 state that the maintenance manager took responsibility for the delay in issuing the asbestos report to the resident. He confirmed that no asbestos was located and there was no reason for this to be withheld from the resident. He said that:
   1. he wanted to trial the installation of solar panels at the same time as a roof replacement however this would depend on whether the property was suitable.
   2. he indicated that this decision was made because the resident had a positive relationship with the landlord.
   3. he felt that the resident could provide valuable feedback and insight into the installation process and the effectiveness of the decision to complete the two jobs at once.
   4. he intended to proceed with the replacement roof however the works had been delayed due to contractor negotiations.
   5. the kitchen had “some life in it” however he had informed the resident that he would bring the installation forward to minimise any disruption to the household “given illness in the family and difficult social circumstance”.
10. The resident made a complaint on 19 January 2023 as she was unhappy that the planned works had been pushed back to 2023-2024. She felt that the original timescale of completing the works in 2022-2023 should be honoured. There is no record of a formal acknowledgement being sent to the resident, however internal records show that the complaint was received. An internal email to the maintenance manager from 20 January 2023 states “have not put as formal complaint would be good to have our actions to her in writing”. It is not clear to this Service when the complaint was logged formally.
11. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 7 February 2023 as she had not received a response.
12. We have been provided with a copy of the stage 1 response however the date is incorrect. The landlord has since advised this Service that the letter was uploaded to its system on 10 February 2023 but it cannot confirm when it was sent to the resident. In the stage 1 response the landlord stated:
    1. it apologised for the delay in complaint response and said this was due to staff absence.
    2. the resident’s roof replacement was included in the works programme for 2022-2023.
    3. it did not routinely fit solar panels but was running a trial installing them on suitable properties.
    4. it felt the resident’s property would benefit from them due to the age of the property and its construction however there could be issues which would prevent installation such as the direction of roof elevations, overshadowing from other structures and the overall size of the roof.
    5. the kitchen was originally scheduled to be replaced in 2027-2028 however the maintenance manager brought this forward to minimise disruption.
    6. the works programmes had been delayed due to contractor negotiations however it hoped to begin between March and June 2023.
13. On 31 May 2023, the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord’s chief executive officer issued a stage 2 response on 8 June 2023 noting that the original letter which was sent to the resident in 2021 said that there was a number of things which could prevent installation. It concluded that no promise was made, rather an expression of willingness to install solar panels if it was feasible. It also stated:
    1. it was unable to fit solar panels for any tenant as they were no longer part of the service offer.
    2. the cost-of-living crisis had led to a 25% increase in cost of repairs and, to meet extra costs, savings had to be made. This had an impact on overall financial capacity, and it had needed to cut back on non-essential items.
    3. It would issue an order for the roof and kitchen works that week.
    4. The stage 2 review was completed with the decision upheld, and the resident may approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
14. The landlord has since informed this Service that the roof was replaced on 28 July 2023 and the kitchen was replaced on 24 October 2023. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to install solar panels.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s decision not to install solar panels

15. The Ombudsman recognises that this issue has been frustrating for the resident, and that she feels as though she has been ‘let down’ regarding proposed upgrades to her property.
16. The proposed works to the roof were sufficient to meet the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations and were fair and reasonable given its budgetary considerations. While there may have been benefits to adding solar panels at the same time, the landlord was not compelled to do so. This is because the addition of solar panels would be classed as an improvement to the property, rather than a repair or essential maintenance work.
17. The landlord’s Asset Management Strategy states that it is committed to considering renewable energy technologies for the benefit of its residents and wider communities. It also recognises the positive impact that renewable technologies have on its ‘affordable warmth strategy’ and commits to undertake works as part of the planned maintenance programme to timescales set by the government. At the time of this report, the target for all properties to have an EPC score of C or higher is 2030
18. When determining what works to complete, a landlord must consider its budget, the needs of its stock, and the needs of its residents. It is reasonable that the landlord’s focus was on planned maintenance rather than adding newer technologies.
19. It is positive that the landlord has highlighted its previously positive relationship with the resident, although this complaint may have had a negative effect. The original offer to install solar panels while replacing the roof was a result of this positive working relationship as the landlord indicated that, based on previous interactions, it felt the resident’s feedback would be useful to gauge resident satisfaction with the installation, the effectiveness of the panels and the overall customer journey. However, despite the landlord’s best intentions, it was understandable that budgetary constraints could delay or lead to the cancellation of non-essential works.
20. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to install solar panels at the property. While it is understandable that the resident may be frustrated by the landlord’s change of position, the landlord was not committed to completing the work as it was outside of the scope for its planned maintenance programme.

Complaint handling

21. The Housing Ombudsman introduced a Complaint Handling Code in 2022 to ensure that social landlords manage complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair, put it right, learn from outcomes’. The Code states that landlords must keep a full account of any complaint, including the original complaint and date received and all correspondence with the resident. This is echoed in the landlord’s own complaints policy. In the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. There is no clear record of the resident’s original complaint, or any evidence of a formal acknowledgement being issued.
22. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It says it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy specifies that residents should request escalation to stage 2 within a “reasonable timeframe” which would normally be within 20 working days. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
23. In this case, the stage 1 response came 17 working days after the complaint was made by the resident. At stage 2, the response was issued within the 20-day timescale. The landlord acknowledged the delay in stage 1 response but did not offer compensation. Its compensation policy states that discretionary compensation is offered when a resident has experienced inconvenience or incurred losses or additional costs because of a service failure on its part. For minor service failures the landlord offers up to £50 compensation to affected residents. The resident was required to chase the complaint response as she had not received an acknowledgement or response within 14 days. The landlord should have offered compensation due to the inconvenience experienced by the resident by it not acknowledging her stage 1 complaint or responding within timescale. An order will be made at the end of this report for compensation to be paid in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to install solar panels.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

26. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £50 to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced during the complaint handling process.

Recommendations

27. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s property is one of 97 the landlord had identified as having an EPC rating lower than C and it should therefore confirm to her any plans it has to improve this rating by 2030 in line with its policy, with a provisional timescale for any further works.
    2. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.