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

Westminster City Council (201815568)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201815568

Westminster City Council

23 December 2020


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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the cost and efficiency of the heating system within the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non-short hold tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom flat. The resident has lived in the property since December 2012 and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for making sure ‘all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order’.
  3. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for paying ‘Council Tax and any water charge and any other outgoings in respect of the property such as gas, electricity, and telephone charges’.
  4. The landlord’s best practice guide for effective complaints handling states that complaints that are more than 12 months old i.e. where the matter that gave rise to the complaint was known about by the customer but which was not reported to the Council within 12 months may not be accepted, unless there was a good reason for the delay.

Summary of events

  1. It is accepted that there had been ongoing complaints in regard to the cost of the electricity at the property dating back to 2014. This report will focus on the period from mid-2018, closer to the time the formal complaint was made by the resident.
  2. When the resident moved into the newly built property in 2012, the landlord provided her with the user manual of the heating, ventilation and hot water system. This was to ensure that there was efficient use of the system, the guide also explained general system of plumbing, lighting and electrics, ventilation and walls within the property.
  3. Following ongoing historical complaints from the resident the landlord commissioned a report into the heating installation at the property. The report from July 2018, was provided to the Ombudsman and the findings suggested that a service of the the heating, hot water and ventilation system at the flat could improve the efficiency and could increase the overall effectiveness of the system.
  4. On 18 and 19 September 2018, the landlord contracted an independent company to inspect the heating and ventilation system in the block. The contractors recommended that the system was due its annual servicing, all flats were serviced in November and December 2018. The resident did not allow access to the property and the contractors were unable to renew the air filter to the ventilation system in the resident’s flat.
  5. On 6 November 2018, the landlord arranged for the contractor that fitted the laminate flooring in the property to attend the resident’s home. The contractor investigated whether the laminate flooring and the underlay, was adversely affecting the effectiveness of the underfloor heating in the property. The contractor reported that, the floor cover in the resident’s flat was within the requirements of the floor coverings in dwellings with underfloor heating system, and therefore had no significant adverse effect on the level of heat provided by the system.
  6. On the 28 February 2019, after further complaints from the resident about the ineffectiveness of the underfloor heating and a potential leak, the landlord attended the property. The landlord found that the heating and hot water were operational. The pressure gauge to the underfloor heating system, was visually inspected and found to have no drop-in pressure and was recording similar pressure to those in the other flats in the block. The landlord discovered the leak was coming from the roof in the above flat, at this meeting the resident asked for a transfer to another property.
  7. On 14 March 2019, the landlord provided the resident with the report which found that the flooring in her flat was laid correctly and that the floor cover posed no significant adverse effect on the level of heat provided by the underfloor heating system.
  8. In March and April 2019, the landlord asked the resident for copies of the resident’s bills to enable realistic comparison of the energy consumption to be made with the consumption of similar sized properties in the block.
  9. On 7 October 2019, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property and service the heating and ventilation at the premises. The service engineers fitted a new air filter to the ventilation system at the property.
  10. On the 11 October 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and confirmed the service however advised that she was still unhappy with the underfloor heating system. On 25 October 2019, the landlord arranged for a heating engineer to attend the property, to address the alleged uneven distribution of heat. The engineer renewed the heating pump and left the heating at the property in working order.
  11. In January 2020, the resident made a complaint that there was no heating in her son’s room. A heating engineer attended the property on 24 January 2020, the engineer tested and found that the heating in the room was working, at the time of testing, and the room thermostat reading was between 21-24 degree Celsius.
  12. After carrying out multiple tests the landlord offered the resident a transfer to another property. The resident agreed to the proposal and the landlord was actively looking for an alternate property.
  13. On 12 February 2020, the resident made a formal complaint by telephone to the landlord disputing the cost and efficiency of the heating system within the property. The resident also complained about a leak from the under-floor heating at the property.
  14. On the 26 February 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its formal stage one response. The landlord investigated the complaint and did not uphold either of the points of the complaint by the resident. The landlord attributed the high cost of energy in part to the high tariff imposed on the resident by the energy company for default in payments of her bills and from past arrears which were also being recovered. The leak aspects was not upheld as the landlord inspected the property and confirmed that there was no leakage from the underfloor heating system and that the water leak originated from the flat roof.
  15. On 10 March 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s formal stage one complaint. The resident claims that the increase in her electricity cost increased after the installation of the laminate wood flooring and was not associated with the general rise in overall heading costs. The resident acknowledged the several engineers that attended the property to assess the ongoing issue and stated that one had found issue with the installation of the flooring. The resident stated that by the landlord offering an alternative property that this was essentially ‘an admission of guilt’. There resident expressed that there was a delay in the landlord providing a report about the flooring in writing and asked for the issue to be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.
  16. On 1 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its formal stage two response. The landlord failed to uphold the resident’s complaint based on the following:
    1. The landlord addressed the rise in electricity cost as well as the resident’s current tariffs for the increase in costs. The landlord stated that the resident’s domestic hot water, heating and ventilation systems in her home were all electric and conducive of higher costs and the resident was informed of this before they moved in.
    2. The landlord investigated the rise in cost after the installation of the laminate wood floors and a specialist confirmed that the floor covering was laid correctly and compatible with underfloor heating systems.
    3. The Landlord has maintained the heating, hot water and ventilation system in the resident’s flat in a timely fashion, through routine planned annual maintenance and by reactive response to requests the resident had made for repairs. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it was not aware of any period when the resident has been left without hot water and heating longer than the standard response time. The landlord has stated that all home visits by the landlord were followed up by written emails confirming what was discussed.
    4. The landlord confirmed that the offer for the resident to transfer properties was not an admission of guilt but as the resident is an assured tenant the resident can swap homes (mutual exchange) with another council or housing association tenant or request and be considered for a transfer to another property subject to the usual terms and condition of the landlord’s allocations procedures.
    5. When the resident began the tenancy the landlord explained her rights and obligations as contained in the tenancy agreement. The resident was provided with information on the services provided by the landlord to her block, including the handbook and guides on how to use the heating, hot water and ventilation systems in the property.
  17. The resident wrote to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its stage two response. The resident stated that the investigation should have gone back to 2014. The resident highlighted that her bills decreased in energy usage in 2019 not due to the heating system but rather responsible usage. The resident stated that the landlord’s observations relating to tariffs were made using no evidence.

Assessment and findings

  1. The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if the cost and efficiency of electricity at the property is too high. It is this Service’s role to assess if there was an issue with the heating and how the landlord responded to such reports. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for making sure all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order. It was therefore accepted that it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports about issues with the heating system at the property.
  2. This Service has been provided with a list of contractors that had attended the property in response to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating system. Between July 2018 to 24 January 2020, the landlord had contractors visit the property on six separate occasions. On each occasion the heating system was found to be sufficiently operational and there were no indications that it was not performing as required. In addition, the landlord sought an independent professional to conduct a report into the heating system and on 18 and 19 September 2018 carried out the servicing recommendations of the report, therefore meeting its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
  3. It is appreciated that the resident believes that the heating system was not working properly and is frustrated by the landlord’s position. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff in confirming its position on any investigation into the functioning of the system. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow its contractor’s reports that on each occasion it visited, the heating system was working as it should be. In doing so, the landlord remained compliant with its repairing obligations. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (beyond the resident’s own opinion) the landlord’s final position was satisfactory.
  4. Before the resident moved into the property the landlord provided her with documentation including the user manual of the heating, ventilation and hot water system. It is recognised that having electric heating, ventilation and hot water can substantially increase electricity costs. By the landlord providing the above information and manuals for the systems efficient use, the landlord is complying with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. When the landlord discovered that the high price was not associated with a fault in the system the resident was given the option of transferring property in an attempt to alleviate the cost burden. This option demonstrated a flexible approach in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the cost and efficiency of the heating system within the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord actively responded to the resident’s reports about issues regarding the cost and efficiency of electricity at the property in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord contracted experts to assess the different issues and then made informed decisions on their recommendations.