London Borough of Enfield (202332101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332101

London Borough of Enfield

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of energy efficiency works at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident has lived in a house under a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council since 7 June 2010.
3. The landlord started completing energy efficiency works to all the properties on the resident’s estate in 2021 after receiving funding from an external source. It cancelled these works part way through the project due to the cost exceeding the funding. The resident’s property was one of several that did not have any works completed before it cancelled the project.
4. From August 2023 the resident started chasing the landlord for updates on when it would start energy efficiency works again. He said his property was cold and while some of his neighbours were benefitting from the energy efficiency works he, and others, were not. It responded by saying it was seeking alternative funding to continue the project. In the interim, it completed an energy efficiency survey at his property which gave an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C. In October 2023, its appointed external contractor started works at his property.
5. The Ombudsman has not seen copies of the resident’s first complaint to the landlord. However, in its responses it said he had raised a complaint to it on 26 October 2023. At both stages of his complaint it said his complaint was it had taken too long to start the works. In his stage 2 escalation he also complained it had not given him sufficient notice for the works currently underway and the contractors’ conduct had been poor.
6. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged delays in starting the works. It explained why it had cancelled its original project. It also explained why there had been delays getting new works approved It acknowledged it had given a shorter notice period for works starting but this was due to forecasted poor weather. It said its contractor had taken sufficient action in dealing with the conduct of its staff.
7. Works at the resident’s property ended on 21 December 2023. However, the landlord’s follow up inspections of these works found several outstanding issues that required repair.
8. On 26 March 2024, the resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. At both stages he said it had started works without sufficient notice. He also said the contractors work was not to standard and the conduct of its staff was poor. He said works were still outstanding and had overrun. He also said the contractor had bribed him to stop him reporting issues to the landlord.
9. The landlord issued its final response on 14 May 2024. It said it had previously responded to the resident’s comments in the previous complaint. It said the contractor had taken appropriate action to deal with the issues he had raised about its staff. It also said the compensation the contractor had offered was for disruption and not a bribe. It also said adverse weather conditions had caused delays. It did not uphold his complaint and provided him with details on how to bring his complaint to the Service.
10. In his complaint to the Service the resident said his property was still cold after the works, which he felt had been done poorly. He wanted the landlord to appoint a specialist company to either repair or redo this work. He also said several neighbours had been benefitting from savings to their energy costs since they had works done to their properties in 2022. He therefore also wanted it to compensate him for the additional cost to heat his home since 2022.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and planned works policy defines planned works as those that have been identified following a stock condition survey of a property. These works are needed, but do not pose an immediate risk to the resident or property. It says it aims to complete planned works within 90 days. The policy also says it has an ongoing programme to improve the energy efficiency of its properties.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy says if a complaint is about one of its contractors they may respond instead of the landlord. The contractor’s response must, however, comply with the standards in its complaint policy. If a resident remains unhappy with a contractors’ response the landlord may then provide its own.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not offer compensation for issues such as adverse weather conditions as this is outside its control.
14. The Government’s Domestic Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) Regulations sets a minimum energy efficiency level for domestic private rented properties. These levels are determined by a survey that produces an EPC which gives a rating ranging from A (most energy efficient) to G (least energy efficient). At the time of the resident’s complaint, and this determination, the minimum expected level set by the regulations is an EPC rating of E.
15. Across both the resident’s complaints he said he was unhappy the landlord had not completed energy efficiency works at his property under its original scheme on his estate. He said while his property was cold, neighbouring properties who it had completed works on were benefitting from warmer homes and lower energy bills from 2022 onwards.
16. In the resident’s later complaint, he said while the landlord had started energy efficiency works at his property the appointed contractor’s work and conduct had been poor. He said it had given him 2 days’ notice before starting the works and that works had taken 28 weeks to complete instead of the planned 4. He said the contractor had offered him £500 which he felt was a bribe to stop him reporting issues to the landlord. He wanted it to instruct a specialist contractor to inspect the property and either repair or redo the external insulation and render works. He also wanted it to reimburse him for additional heating costs he had paid compared to his neighbours since 2022.
17. In the landlord’s response to the resident’s first complaint it explained it had cancelled energy efficiency works because the cost of works exceeded the funding. It acknowledged there had been delays in communicating this to residents still awaiting works and apologised. It said that following his concern that his property was cold it had completed an EPC survey in August 2023. The survey gave an EPC rating of C and had made some recommendations for works that could improve the rating.
18. The landlord said despite this EPC rating meeting the energy efficiency regulations it agreed to complete some of the recommended works. It acknowledged there had been some internal delays in getting this approved, for which it apologised. It said its contractor had started works in November 2023 after giving him a week’s notice. It recognised this was less than usual, but a forecast of upcoming adverse weather meant it needed to start works as soon as possible. In response to the resident’s concerns about conduct of the contractor’s staff it said the contractor had taken swift and appropriate action to deal with the individuals involved and apologised.
19. In the landlord’s response to the resident’s second complaint it said it had already answered many of the issues raised in its prior complaint response. It said it was aware the contractor had contacted him, apologised for issues with its staff and offered him £500 as compensation for any disruption caused. It felt the contractors overall response to the issues he had raised was fair and the money offered was not a bribe.
20. In response to the resident’s request for a specialist contractor to inspect the insulation works the landlord said independent contractor had already post-inspected the works in January 2024. This contractor had highlighted some issues, and these were fixed by the original contractor. When the independent contractor inspected the property in April 2024 it had found all works had been completed satisfactorily. It acknowledged this had caused some delays to completing works, alongside adverse weather conditions and some issues with access to the property. It apologised for this but overall did not uphold his complaint.
21. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine if it was reasonable for the landlord to cancel some of the planned energy efficiency works on the resident’s estate. However, landlords have a responsibility to manage the cost of any works and sometimes unforeseen issues result in certain works cancelled or scaled back.
22. In response to the resident’s complaint that it was unfair his property had not had energy efficiency works whilst others had, the landlord gave a clear explanation about costs exceeding the funding it had for the scheme. It recognised it could have communicated this more clearly, and quickly, to residents who would no longer be benefitting from the scheme and apologised. This was appropriate as it recognised the impact this failing had, and gave clear reasons for the decision to stop the work.
23. In addition, in the absence of any specific repair issues in the property, the landlord was not obliged to undertake energy efficiency works given that the EPC rating of C was above the minimum E rating. Nevertheless, it recognised both that the survey had made suggestions on how to improve this rating further, and the resident was concerned about heating his home and therefore decided to proceed with works. This was an improvement to the property, and not something the landlord was obliged to undertake. It showed the landlord’s willingness to help make the property as energy efficient as reasonably possible.
24. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that it had only given short notice for the work in November 2023 acknowledged it had been shorter than it would usually be. It explained the reasons for this. The resident had not advised what the impact starting works with short notice apart from frustration. Accordingly, the landlord addressed the issue and nothing in the evidence contradicts its explanation.
25. When works started the evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to report problems with the contractor’s staff. The evidence shows it responded by passing these concerns onto the contractor and asking it to contact him directly. The contractor emailed the landlord in December 2023 saying it had discussed his concerns with him, apologised and taken action against the relevant staff. It said it had also reminded all the staff working on site of its code of conduct. The landlord explained why it was satisfied the issue had been appropriately addressed, and its explanation is supported by the evidence.
26. The evidence suggests the contractor wrote to the resident to apologise for the conduct of its staff and to offer him £500 compensation for the issues found. This letter has not been provided,, however both the resident and the landlord confirmed this happened during the internal complaints process. The landlord was also aware the contractor had offered this amount as compensation. This response was reasonable as its complaints policy clearly states in some cases contractors will respond to complaints and offer remedies as required. £500 was in line with its compensation guidance for the level of failure found and was therefore also reasonable.
27. The landlord’s response that the contractor’s compensation was not a bribe was also reasonable. The landlord was aware the contractor had offered this amount as compensation prior to the resident’s complaint. There is no evidence to contradict its finding that it was not a bribe.
28. While it did not specifically acknowledge the need for further work after inspections had played a part, the landlord acknowledged works had taken longer than planned. When works started it had told the resident it expected works to be completed by 25 November 2023. The contractor reported all works were completed on 21 December 2023, which was already over schedule. When further works were identified in post inspections, this took until March 2024 to complete. In its response it explained a combination of poor weather conditions and access issues had led to the delays, which the evidence supports.
29. The landlord did not directly respond to the resident’s request for it to appoint a specialist contractor to reinspect and fix the external wall insulation. He made this request at both stages of the later complaint. It should have, as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must respond to all elements of a complaint.
30. Nevertheless, the evidence shows the resident had raised concerns about the quality of external wall insulation work to the landlord in December 2023. It had explained that once works were completed an independent surveyor would complete an inspection and notify it of any issues found. This surveyor’s inspection was done on 21 December 2023 and 30 January 2024. Their report found several issues that needed work but they raised no concerns about the external wall insulation. The evidence says the outstanding works were completed in March 2024 and were again inspected in April 2024. None of these inspections found issues with the external wall insulation or render.
31. When the resident requested for a specialist external wall insulation contractor to inspect the work in his complaint the landlord failed to provide a response. It could have explained that an independent surveyor had already completed an inspection several times. This would have been sufficient to address his request. However, given these surveys had already been done it was not obliged to undertake further ones. While it could have explained this, the landlord’s actions in regard to this part of the resident’s concerns were appropriate to the situation and are supported by the evidence.
32. Similarly, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests to compensate him for additional heating costs he said he had accrued compared to his neighbours from 2022 onwards. It should have done so in line with the Code. However, there are a wide range of factors involved in individual household energy usage and costs, and the resident provided no evidence to support his concern. Accordingly, there does not appear to have been anything the landlord could usefully have said in response. Nonetheless, a recommendation has been made below about this issue. .
33. Overall there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the energy efficiency works at the resident’s property. It did not communicate effectively with the resident when it cancelled the original works, there were issues with the contractor’s staff, some of the time taken to complete the work was due to poor workmanship, and it missed an opportunity to explain its independent surveyor’s findings. The landlord appropriately addressed these issues across its complaint responses and provided meaningful explanations for the failings. It apologised and offered reasonable compensation (via its contractor). Its response to the resident’s complaint remedied its failings.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of energy efficiency works at his property.

Recommendation

35. In light of the resident’s concern about his heating usage and costs when compared to neighbours, the landlord should be open to considering and responding to any meaningful and relevant evidence he provides to it in support of his concern.