Acis Group Limited (202330057)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom bungalow until 14 January 2024. The home used electric storage heaters as the main heating. The resident said the heaters were unsuitable and expensive to run. The landlord knew the resident had limited mobility and physical co-ordination difficulties.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the heating system and the cost to run it.
3. The landlords handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the heating system and the cost to run it.
5. There was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the heating system. However, it did not give the resident a full explanation. It also failed to inspect the property or check whether the heating system was suitable. This left the resident without clear information and without assurance that the heating was suitable.
7. The landlord had an opportunity to escalate the complaint to stage 2 but did not take it as it mislaid the residents request. It also failed to respond to all the points the resident raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

8. We have not reviewed the reports about the repairs to the storage heater, the burnt-out plug, damp and mould, or the request for compensation for damaged belongings. Another case (reference 202340801) is waiting to be allocated, and that case will look at these issues. We understand this may cause frustration for the resident because these issues remain outstanding for her but separating them allows us to look at each matter in detail and provide a fair outcome.

What we have looked at

9. The resident told the landlord she was worried about the heating system and how much it cost to run. She asked for compensation because she believed the system was inefficient and expensive, especially given her vulnerabilities.
10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it had tried to arrange an inspection of the heaters but did not receive a date from the resident. On 5 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident, and she replied confirming the heaters had already been inspected multiple times. The landlord did not respond to this email or explain why another inspection was necessary. This lack of communication likely caused confusion and frustration for the resident, who understandably was unclear about the reason for this action. The landlord’s approach to communication was not reasonable. Its failure to follow up also meant it could not show that it had satisfied itself at that point that the heating system was working as intended.
11. The landlord said the Decent Homes Standard requires it to provide efficient heating, which can include gas or oil programmable central heating or electric storage heaters. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint or offer compensation because it believed the heating met this standard. The landlord has the right to choose the most suitable heating source for its properties, and it may consider factors such as access to gas mains. It is not for us to decide this. However, because the resident raised concerns about affordability and efficiency, the landlord needed to satisfy itself that the system was suitable and clearly explain how it reached that conclusion. Without this explanation, the resident could not understand the decision or feel assured that her concerns were properly considered. The landlord’s failure to inspect the heating and provide clarity undermined trust and fell short of its value and commitment to putting customers first with clear, accessible, and timely communication.
12. The landlord said the complaint period coincided with a national energy crisis. This context explains why energy costs were high but does not address whether heating was affordable for the resident. The landlord said it would offer referrals for financial assistance where needed, but it has provided no evidence that it did. This was a missed opportunity to support the resident. The landlord’s website includes advice and signposting for support during the energy cost increase, and it would have been appropriate to share this information. This was especially important because the landlord knew about the resident’s health conditions, which made it important for her to keep her home warm.
13. The resident provided the landlord with a breakdown of her heating charges compared to the national average and said her costs were above average. She explained that she could not afford to run the heating and feared damp and mould as a result. The landlord did not consider this evidence or offer support. This was a missed opportunity to address affordability concerns and show the resident it had considered the suitability of the heating.
14. In January 2024 the resident moved out of the property. She told us that this decision was partly due to concerns about the heating costs. While we acknowledge that the situation would have been challenging for the resident, the decision on ending the tenancy was outside the landlord’s control. Therefore, we are unable to comment on this.
15. In conclusion, the landlord failed to explain why it wanted another inspection after replacing the heaters, which left the resident without clarity. It did not address her concerns about affordability and efficiency. The landlord relied on the Decent Homes Standard but did not show how it satisfied itself that the heating was suitable or communicate this clearly. During a national energy crisis, it missed an opportunity to provide support or signposting, despite knowing the resident’s health vulnerabilities. These combined failings show poor communication and missed opportunities. This does not meet the landlords stated value of fairness and transparency in its Code of Conduct, which commits to honesty and accountability. It also conflicts with its priority of ‘putting customers first,’ which requires doing what is right and reinvesting in quality as well as clear communication. We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation and issue a written apology to the resident. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance and reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant edition in this case was the 2022 Code. At stage 1 of its complaint process, the landlord responded after 10 working days, in line with the Code and its own policy.
17. The resident asked her landlord to escalate her complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord did not respond, so the resident asked our Service to help. We contacted the landlord on 22 December 2023, and it said it could not see a request for escalation from the resident.
18. We asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response, and it agreed to do this by 22 January 2024 but sent the response on 23 January 2024. Although this was only one day late, the resident had already experienced delays and spent time and effort chasing the complaint, which added to her frustration.
19. The landlord did recognise that it lost the resident’s escalation request and apologised. However, under its Customer Feedback Policy, it could have offered compensation for this service failure of between £50 and £200. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance and the landlord’s policy, and it reflects the time and trouble caused by poor complaint handling.
20. In her escalation request, the resident said electric heating costs more than gas. She also referred to a previous issue where the bedroom heater was set incorrectly and said the landlord had not compensated her for this. The landlord did not address these points in its stage 2 response, even though its Customer Feedback Policy says written responses should address all parts of the complaint. This weakened its complaint handling and left issues unresolved.

Learning

21. The landlord did not act on the resident’s escalation request because it said it had no record of it. It later found the request and apologised. Poor record-keeping delayed the complaint response. The landlord should review whether it has sufficient systems to monitor and capture all complaint escalations

Communication

22. The landlord missed chances to explain decisions, follow up on inspections, and offer support. These gaps left the resident without reassurance and increased her concerns. It should explain decisions clearly, follow up on agreed actions, and offer support where needed. Doing this helps prevent complaints and builds trust.

Record Keeping

23. Whilst the landlord kept fair records for certain information such as repairs and maintenance it did miss the residents request to escalate her complaint even after we asked it to respond. Missing these details can lead to delays and extra effort for residents. Clear and consistent record-keeping will help the landlord respond promptly and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.