London Borough of Wandsworth (202337259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337259

London Borough of Wandsworth

15 August 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, which we have carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports about the heating system.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1996. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a two-bedroom flat, on the second floor of a block.
During an annual gas safety check in November 2022, the engineer found the boiler and radiators to be in poor condition. The landlord condemned the boiler on 8 November 2023. It installed a new boiler and radiators on 22 November 2023. When installing the radiators, the contractors found a hole in the bedroom wall.
The resident raised a complaint on 22 November 2023. She was unhappy with the poor workmanship when the landlord originally installed the radiators. The resident said the property had suffered with a lack of heating since she moved in because of this. The resident also said that fungus had been growing in the hole, which could have affected her health. The landlord also did not install a new radiator in the kitchen.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 November 2023. It said it installed the radiators before the tenancy started. It had no details about the installation of the radiators, due to the length of time that had passed. The radiator was flush to the wall, meaning that the hole was hard to spot. It said that packing material in the hole meant the property would not have lost heat. The landlord did not find any fungus. It confirmed it had now replaced the full heating system, except the kitchen radiator.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. She was unhappy with the stage 1 response, and stated:
1. She said she had raised issues about a lack of heat from the radiators during annual inspections. The engineers never checked the radiators.
2. The landlord sent a contractor to complete a survey in March 2023, without prior notice.
3. The landlord did not offer temporary heaters after the contractor condemned the boiler, meaning the resident had no heating or hot water.
4. The landlord has installed a bigger radiator in the bathroom, meaning the resident will have to re-tile.
5. Contractors left dirt and debris on the landing and in the bedroom. Nobody returned to clean the mess despite the resident’s request.
6. She was unhappy with the explanations and lack of apology in the stage 1 response.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 January 2024. It said:
1. The contractor did not always check the radiators as part of annual service and did not always switch the heating on.
2. It arranged the survey of 3 March 2023 at the resident’s request.
3. Engineers will cover existing scar areas when installing radiators, which may involve installing slightly larger radiator. The landlord said it was unsure why there would be a need for re-tiling.
4. It apologised if the contractor left debris and confirmed it would address this.
5. It contacted the contractor about the allegation of threatening comments from one of its staff. The engineer says the resident shouted abuse and threw a liquid at them.
6. It apologised that it did not provide temporary heaters when the contractor condemned the boiler. It confirmed that it had taken steps to stop this from happening again.
7. The resident had not previously reported heating issues.
8. It was waiting for contact from the resident to install the kitchen radiator.
9. It apologised for the incorrect explanation about heating loss and lack of apology in its stage 1 response.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. She wished for the landlord to admit its failings, resolve the outstanding issues, and provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says they have experienced heating issues since moving into the property in 1996. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with landlords promptly. As time passes, it becomes more difficult for the landlord or an independent body to investigate. Considering the availability of evidence, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from November 2022 until the landlord’s stage 2 response of 22 January 2024.

Reports about the heating system

The landlord has provided a copy of its tenancy conditions. This says the landlord will manage repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. It will also manage heating and hot water systems.
The landlord’s repairs procedure says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will respond to urgent repairs, such as the total or partial loss of heating and hot water, within 3 working days. It will respond to non-urgent repairs within between 10 and 20 working days.
For clarity, we will address the installation of the new heating system and the issues which occurred after this separately in this report.

Handling of installation of new boiler

The landlord’s repair notes show it sent a contractor to inspect the boiler on 25 November 2022. This was after the contractor raised issues in a gas safety check. It said the boiler and radiators were in poor condition and the landlord needed to change these.
While the contractor noted the heating system was in poor condition, it was still working. As such, the landlord would not have considered this to be an urgent repair as per its repairs policy. The landlord arranged for an inspection 5 working days after finding the boiler was in poor condition. This is reasonable, as it is in line with its policy.
The landlord has provided copies of internal emails. These show that the contractor called the resident on 28 November 2022. This was to arrange a survey to fit a new heating system. It says it did not receive a response so sent an email asking the resident to contact it. The notes say the resident next contacted the landlord on 2 March 2023 to request a survey for the next day. The contractor attended the property on 3 March 2023 but says the resident refused access to measure the radiators.
The landlord tried to raise an appointment with the resident for a survey. The resident says the contractor turned up on 3 March 2023 unannounced. However, the evidence suggests the resident requested the survey. The landlord’s actions were reasonable. The notes show the resident did not allow access.
On 8 November 2023, the contractor completed an annual gas safety check. During this check, the engineer condemned the boiler as it was unsafe. This meant the resident had no heating or hot water. The landlord arranged a survey for 17 November 2023 and installed the new heating system on 22 November 2023.
A warm home and hot water are basic needs for any household. A lack of heating or hot water does not just cause discomfort. It can be a risk to health and well-being. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out health risks when temperatures fall below satisfactory levels for extended periods. As such, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to provide temporary heating.
The resident says the landlord did not provide temporary heaters when they did not have a working heating system. The landlord has not disputed this. This is a failure, which meant the resident had no heating or hot water for 14 days during winter.
The landlord took 7 working days to complete the survey, and a further 3 working days to install a new heating system. The repairs policy says it will respond to urgent repairs within 3 working days. The time the landlord took to complete the survey and works was unreasonable, as it did not meet the timescales in its policy. This led to the resident having to wait for longer to have a new heating system installed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had raised the issue of temporary heaters with the contractor. This was to make sure that, in future, the contractor offers residents temporary heaters when they do not have a working boiler. The landlord took reasonable action to try and stop this from happening again in future.
During the survey for the new heating system, the contractor did not include a radiator for the kitchen. The landlord would likely not have been aware of this until the contractor fitted the new heating system.
After the landlord became aware of this, it asked the contractor to arrange an appointment with the resident to install the radiator. The resident was unavailable for appointments until 27 January 2024. The contractor installed the radiator on this date.
The contractor completed the survey for the new heating system. There are no notes to show that it ordered the kitchen radiator. This is a mistake by the contractor, not the landlord. Once the landlord became aware of the issue, it took reasonable action to resolve this.

Handling of repair works after the new heating system was installed

While installing the new heating system, the contractor found there was a hole in the wall behind the radiator in a bedroom. This held an old flue and packing material. The landlord has provided a photograph to show the contractors filled in this hole before installing the radiator. This was reasonable action to take, as the landlord made the hole safe while arranging to fix the external wall.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will confirm any repairs with a resident. The landlord’s internal emails show it requested a contractor attend the property to repair the hole in the external wall. There is no evidence to show it made the resident aware of the need for more work, or any appointments for this. This is unreasonable, as the landlord did not keep the resident informed of any work needed at the property.
The contractor attended the property to fix the external wall on 24 November 2023. It was unable to complete this work as other contractors were working on scaffolding around the hole. Prior to arranging this visit, it have been reasonable for the landlord to make sure it was able to complete the work. There were other contractors working on the outside of the property at the time. The landlord did not arrange this repair around the ongoing work, which led to delays in fixing the external wall.
The resident has raised concerns about the behaviour of the engineer during this visit. The engineer also raised concerns about the resident. As we were not at the appointment, we are unable to say what went on. However, the landlord took reasonable action, as it investigated the allegations with the contractor. The landlord also sent a different engineer for the next visit, at the residents’ suggestion. This was reasonable, as the resident was unhappy with the behaviour of the original engineer.
The resident says the engineer just placed two bricks into the hole, rather than fixing it. We do not have evidence to show what actions the contractor took on 24 November 2023. However, the landlord has said it did not repair the external wall on this date.
The contractor attended the property again on 30 November 2023. The landlord has provided photos from before and after the contractor completed the work. This shows the contractor removed the old flue and bricked up the hole. This resolved the issue with the external wall. However, the landlord still needed to complete a permanent repair to the internal wall.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the hole would have caused no noticeable impact on heating within the property. We have no way of knowing whether the hole had an impact on heat loss, so cannot comment on the landlords response to this.
As the contractor installed the new heating system around the same time it fixed the hole, it would be difficult to compare the energy usage before and after the contractor fixed the hole. This is because the new heating system may be more efficient than the old one, meaning the energy costs may be different.
The resident says they raised concerns about the heating to the contractors during each annual gas safety check. The landlord has provided copies of its gas safety records from 2019 onwards. The contractor did not note any issues with the heating of the property. While the resident says they raised concerns with the contractor, it would be reasonable to expect her to have contacted the landlord about this.
The resident also raised concerns about fungus on the packing material in the hole. She complained about contractors leaving debris in the property and communal areas, and the bathroom needed to be re-tiled after the landlord installed the new radiator.
The landlord addressed these issues in its stage 2 response. It contacted its contractor, who confirmed there was no evidence of fungus in the hole. It was reasonable for the landlord to query this with the contractor, as it completed the work.
The landlord apologised for any debris left in the property and communal areas. It said it would address this with the contractor and instruct contactors to take photographs after completing work. The landlord also asked the contractor to arrange an appointment with the resident to clear up any mess.
The landlord took reasonable actions to address the concerns the resident raised. It requested a follow up appointment to clear any debris. The landlord request pictures of areas after contactors completed work in future. This would allow the landlord to check that contractors had left work areas in an acceptable condition.
The resident has not provided any evidence to show they need to re-tile the bathroom after the landlord installed a new radiator. The landlord has explained it installs slightly bigger radiators to cover the scar area of the old radiator. This is a reasonable response, as it provided the resident with an explanation for the difference in radiator size, and there is no evidence that there are any issues with the installation.
In the resident’s escalation request, she says that her and her daughter have faced years of emotional distress and duress. There is no evidence to show the resident previously raised concerns about the condition of the property, or the impact this had on them. In its stage 2 response, the landlord asked the resident to contact it directly if she had any concerns. This is a reasonable response, as the resident had not provided specific information about the cause of distress, which the landlord could look to address.
The stage 2 response does not confirm the further works that the landlord needed to complete. It does not provide a schedule for it to complete any works. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to confirm any planned actions in relation to the complaint issues in its stage 2 response. This is another instance in which the landlord has failed to communicate with the resident about the works.
We consider the landlord to have addressed the resident’s complaint issues in its stage 2 response. However, it did not offer any compensation in recognition of the issues the resident experienced.
In its complaints policy, the landlord says it will consider compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This suggests compensation of £50 to £100 for service failures. It suggests compensation of £100 to £600 for findings of maladministration. The landlord has not offered any compensation, despite finding failings. This is unreasonable.
In summary:
1. The initial delays in replacing the heating system were due to a lack of contact from the resident.
2. The landlord did not visit the property or install the new heating system within the timescales in its repairs policy, in November 2023.
3. The landlord did not provide the resident with temporary heaters when they were without heating and hot water for 2 weeks.
4. The contractor did not order a radiator for the kitchen. The landlord took reasonable action to resolve this.
5. There is no evidence to show the landlord communicated appropriately with the resident about works needed to repair the hole behind the radiator.
6. There is no evidence to show the resident suffered heating loss due to the hole behind the radiator. There is also no evidence of fungus in the hole.
7. While the landlord did address the resident’s complaint issues in its stage 2 response, it did not consider the distress its failures caused.
In relation to the landlord’s handling of the reports of issues with the heating system, we find there has been maladministration.
In recognition of the findings set out above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced.
We have also ordered the landlord to send the resident an apology which addresses the failures highlighted in this report and the learning taken to prevent recurrence.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says it will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The policy says the landlord may extend the timescale by 20 working days, but it will contact the resident to explain why it needs more time.
The evidence shows the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day. It sent its stage 1 response on 30 November 2023. This was within the required timescales.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 December 2023. It said it would provide a response by 2 January 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 January 2024. It says it took longer to send the response due to staffing issues over the Christmas period. However, it has not provided evidence to show it made the resident aware of an extension to the timescales, and the reasons for this, in line with its complaints policy. This is a failure.
The landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy in responding to the stage 2 complaint. However, the delays were not significant. Considering this, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In recognition of the delays, we order the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports about the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report, including the complaint handling delays, and the learning taken to prevent recurrence.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300.
3. Provide evidence to us that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks.