London Borough of Hounslow (202339645)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339645

London Borough of Hounslow

12 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. concerns that the property is too cold and draughty.
2. reports about the temperature of the water, problems with the water pressure and a chemical smell from the hot water cylinder.
3. associated request for a combi boiler to be installed.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom house where she lives with her 2 adult children. The landlord has no disabilities or vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord employs the services of a partner contractor for heating and hot water repairs. Residents must contact the contractor directly to report heating repairs with some exceptions which are outlined on its website, in which case residents should contact the landlord directly.
Between February 2023 and January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord several times to report issues with the heating, hot water and draughts in the property. She said the radiators were faulty, her house was too cold, and she was using electric heaters.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 January 2024. She said she had experienced problems with the heating and hot water since 2013. She said her property was “freezing” and this was affecting her health.
The landlord held a meeting with the resident, several of its own representatives, and its contractor at her home on 29 January 2024, to discuss how the reported issues might be resolved. The resident expressed frustration at having had multiple inspections over time without solutions and said it had impacted her health and financial position.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident a total of £50 compensation to reflect the delays in addressing her concerns.
On 16 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed all the points of her complaint and she was dissatisfied with the offer of compensation and lack of solution offered.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2024. It summarised its position on the concerns about heating, hot water and draughts. It said it would not be replacing the resident’s boiler and explained why. It did not uphold the stage 2 complaint and did not offer further compensation.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. In a conversation with this Service on 14 August 2024 the resident said her complaint was solely about the heating and hot water at the property and that she barely had any hot water. She also referred to a smell from the cylinder.
In a further conversation with this Service in August 2025 the resident said the problems with her heating, hot water and cylinder remained unresolved despite ongoing visits from the landlord’s contractors, and she felt the landlord was blaming her for the issues she was having. She said she wanted a resolution to her complaint but did not want the landlord to carry out any further inspections.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. In this case, the investigation will consider the concerns addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, with a focus on events in the 12 months leading to the resident’s formal complaint on 22 January 2024. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issues remain unresolved.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said excess cold in the property was affecting her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We can consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.
There were numerous aspects to the resident’s complaint. This service has spoken with her and confirmed that the substantive issues are concerning the heating and hot water supply, the draughts in the property and the residents request for a combi boiler to be fitted. These are the aspects that the resident has asked this Service to investigate.
The landlord and resident have provided records to this Service in respect of the resident’s complaint. It is noted there has been a significant amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding her concerns. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, this report will not be addressing every specific issue or incident. Rather we have carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says it will keep in repair and working order any installations it has provided for space heating and water heating. It also says that residents are “responsible for any fixtures and fittings that (they), or any previous tenant, have installed (with or without our written permission)”.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out repairs to the heating and hot water, plumbing, outside walls, windows and doors, drains and gutters. The landlord will attend urgent repairs within 24 hours. The loss of water or space heating (for non-vulnerable residents) is considered an urgent repair under the landlord’s policy.
The repairs policy also says it will “confirm whether or not the repair is (its) responsibility” when repairs are reported. It will confirm repair appointments with residents by letter, email or text.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. HHSRS guidance says that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the property is too cold and draughty

The landlord’s repair records lack consistency and at times there is no evidence of when the resident reported repairs, when these were attended and when they were completed and/or considered closed. While we have still been able to investigate the complaint, the incomplete records provided to this service hindered our investigation.
The landlord initially acted appropriately when the resident reported excess cold in her home. It sent its contractor to the property. The contractor made 4 visits between March 2023 and January 2024. On one visit the contractor simply turned up the thermostat which heated the radiators. On 3 of the visits contractors commented that although the radiators were heating effectively, the property was cold and draughty. It is not clear if the operative’s comments are their own, or if they are relaying the resident’s comments. From the evidence seen, the landlord did not respond appropriately to this feedback. It had been informed several times that there was no issue with the radiators but failed to investigate other possible reasons why the property may have been too cold.
When a contractor visited in January 2024, they bled a radiator and after finding black water inside they told the landlord a power-flush should be carried out. There is no evidence the landlord raised an order for a power-flush of the system in response to this recommendation, but the landlord said in subsequent correspondence it would only carry out a power-flush after fitting a new cylinder. There is no evidence that the landlord made this clear to the resident at the time, because in late January and early February 2024 she had chased for an update. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed and it was unfair that she had to chase the landlord unnecessarily.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a heating loss calculation (HLC) assessment which found the resident’s radiators were the correct size and working as they should be. This was an appropriate action to take. When carrying out the HLC assessment, the contractor reported that they could feel a draught in most areas of the property and recommended the landlord arrange a visit to address this. We have not seen evidence the landlord followed up on the operative’s recommendation until 10 months later when repair records show it eventually requested an inspection into the draughts in January 2024. This was an unnecessary delay and the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
The landlord mentioned the draughts inspection in its stage 1 complaint response in February 2024, stating it had checked the outside walls, windows and doors and found no problems. This was contrary to the resident’s view, who said in her January 2024 complaint that she had been told repairs were needed to the outside wall. The landlord has not provided this Service with an inspection report or information to show when this was done or what it revealed. This failure in record keeping has meant the landlord could not clearly justify its conclusion that no repairs were needed, leaving this open for dispute. Overall, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out this inspection much sooner, in line with the March 2023 HLC assessment. It did not share the inspection results with the resident or keep her informed. It was not proactive in arranging a timely inspection, which was a failing.
It is good practice to consider a holistic approach when responding to concerns around property temperature, considering property condition alongside individual circumstances. Financial hardship or fuel poverty can be a factor in residents being unable to heat their homes adequately. It is therefore important that appropriate support is offered to support behavioural change and help residents manage their heating costs effectively.
The resident emailed the landlord twice in January 2024 to say her property was cold and draughty. She also said she was using 8 electric heaters which she could not afford to do. A few weeks later the resident emailed the landlord and said she felt ridiculed when she asked it for financial assistance regarding the cost of running the electric heaters. She also said she did not understand why the landlord needed copies of her electricity bills.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for evidence of her increased energy costs before considering any reimbursement. However, it missed opportunities to reassure the resident that it empathised with her situation by offering additional support or signposting to assist her.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the radiators were working correctly and the property was of solid construction with no cavity. It told the resident she should keep her heating on constantly at a low level and offered the services of its Welfare Benefit and Money Advisor. The landlord was aware the resident had reported struggling with affordability from comments in her January 2024 email.
The landlord’s suggestion that the resident change how she was using her heating could have been perceived as inferring blame on her for failing to heat her home properly. In October 2021 the Ombudsman published the Spotlight Report on damp and mould. A key recommendation from the report was that landlords take care not to use language that leaves residents feeling blamed. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure that relevant staff are reminded of the guidance set out in the spotlight report.
In January 2024 the landlord exchanged emails with its contactor, highlighting the resident thought she needed a new boiler or pump. In its repair notes, the landlord disputed this, confirming it did not intend to replace the boiler. There is no evidence it clarified this with the resident. This was unreasonable and failed to manage her expectations fairly. The landlord closed this repair case in the same month, noting the matter had been referred to the Housing Office team. The landlord cannot evidence that any subsequent communication from its Housing Office team was appropriate, or that it responded at all.
After the resident complained on 22 January 2024, several representatives from the landlord met with her and the contractor at her property on 29 January 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of what was discussed at this meeting, however the resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2024 to summarise her perspective on the visit. In her email the resident said she understood the landlord had agreed to replace the cylinder and boiler “like for like”. This suggests the communication with the resident was ineffective, and as there is no evidence provided by the landlord to confirm what was discussed at the meeting, this Service cannot determine if it acted appropriately.
At the home visit on 29 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord for copies of the inspections carried out at her property. She asked for this again on 19 February 2024 but the landlord did not acknowledge or action the request. While landlords are not obligated to share inspection reports with residents, doing so would have shown transparency. Regardless of its position, it would have been fair to respond to the resident’s request and confirming this.
The resident said in her email of 3 February 2024 that her mental health was being negatively affected by the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord responded appropriately by offering additional support.
The landlord had been told on numerous occasions by its contractor that despite the radiators working, the resident could not maintain a warm temperature in the property. As well as this, the resident had told the landlord in March 2023 and again in January 2024 that the excess cold was affecting her health. Landlords have a responsibility under the HHSRS to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold.
In line with the HHSRS, the landlord referred to an offer to install data logging equipment at the property. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident did not want any more visits or inspections, but it urged her to reconsider its offer. It asked her again to reconsider this offer in its stage 2 complaint response.
With this in mind, and noting the resident’s repeated concerns about cold, the landlord was right to offer data logging at the resident’s property. This would have helped it to confirm whether the property could be heated to a reasonable temperature and determine whether there was any significant loss of heat caused by the reported draughts. Evidence provided by the landlord does not say when this was offered, so we cannot determine if it offered this within a reasonable timeframe of it becoming aware of the reported issue.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 complaint response, acknowledging it had taken too long to respond to her concerns. It said it had carried out a case review on 13 February 2024 to agree a coordinated approach to the repair issues, which was an appropriate response. The landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays. This compensation offer was not a fair reflection of the extent of the delays experienced by the resident, as she had raised her concerns almost a year before. It was also not fair recognition of the distress and impact on the resident from continuing to live with the reported excess cold in her home for that duration.
On reviewing the evidence provided, this Service concludes the landlord delayed unreasonably in taking appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports about the temperature and draughts in the property, despite her contacting many times. Between February 2023 and January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord 8 times to raise her concerns, which would have caused inconvenience. It was reasonable the landlord sent its contractor out in response to the reports. It was also positive it agreed a coordinated approach in its home visit with the resident in January 2024, however this took too long to initiate, having been aware of the issues for almost a year before this.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the property was too cold and draughty. While we acknowledge the landlord made some attempts to identify the cause of the reported issues, it took too long to respond appropriately. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout and she said she was “deeply distressed” as a result.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about the temperature of the water, problems with the water pressure and a chemical smell from the hot water cylinder

In April 2023 the resident had asked the landlord’s contractor to check her cylinder because she reported that it was emitting a smell. The landlord’s contractor commented that they could “smell something maybe chemical but can’t be heating related”.
She said she had been told on several occasions by the landlord and its contractor that they agreed there was a “chemical” smell coming from the hot water cylinder. However, when representatives from the landlord and its contractor visited the resident at home on 29 January 2024, this was disputed.
On 19 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said she disputed the position stated in its stage 1 complaint response, in that it did not agree there was a smell from the cylinder. The resident had received conflicting information from the landlord and its contractor, and despite not noticing the smell on its visit in January 2024, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge her concerns and take reasonable steps to explore any potential causes. This would have reassured the resident it was not dismissing her concerns, particularly as she had said in January 2024 the smell was affecting her daughter.
The resident first raised concerns about the reported smell from the cylinder in April 2023, 9 months before the landlord visited her at home. While the landlord has since offered to replace the cylinder and flush the system, there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s reports and poor communication. This was a failing.
The resident reported low water pressure twice in December 2023, and there is evidence to show she reported the issue as far back as August 2020. There is no indication that the landlord responded appropriately in an acceptable timeframe. In January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord twice to say she had little to no running hot water, which she later confirmed had improved after the landlord’s contractor cleared an air lock in February 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 January 2024 about insufficient hot water at the property. On 29 January 2024 several representatives from the landlord met with the resident. The landlord did not provide evidence clarifying the outcome of this visit. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2024 to summarise her perspective of the visit and said that since moving into the property, she had had little to no hot water from the taps.
In its stage 1 response in February 2024, the landlord noted the resident had carried out her own kitchen and bathroom improvements. It said its Housing and Tenancy Services team had confirmed that although they had some related correspondence with the resident in November 2017, there was no record of written consent for the alterations she had made. It was fair for the landlord to prompt further investigation into this matter, so it could ensure its records were updated with the right information. The landlord’s repair policy says it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain any fixtures or fittings they have installed.
The landlord determined the problem with water pressure was due to the resident fitting incompatible plumbing. It offered to replace her taps with its standard specification and in February 2024 it replaced mixer taps on the resident’s bath. However, it noted it was unable to replace the taps on the basin or jacuzzi bath because they were not compatible with its standard tap specification. As the landlord is not responsible for maintaining residents’ own fixtures and fittings, it acted fairly when using its discretion to offer replacement taps where possible.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that the cause of the low water pressure was a result of the kitchen and bathroom installations she had fitted, which were incompatible with the low-pressure hot water system in the property. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to confirm this finding with the resident soon after it had made that conclusion.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the residents reports of low water pressure in the property. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by offering discretionary remedial works to replace the taps where this was possible, and by updating her promptly when it had determined the cause of the low pressure to be her responsibility. However, while it responded appropriately in the run up to, and following her complaint, it took too long to reach this resolution, having been aware of the issue since 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated request for a combi boiler to be installed

Between February and March 2023, the resident reported that her boiler was not working 3 times. She also asked the landlord on 3 separate occasions in February, March and December 2023 to provide her with a combi boiler. In the most recent request she told the landlord this was on the advice of a solicitor.
The landlord cannot evidence that it responded to the resident’s request until February 2024, a year after she had first enquired. In reviewing the evidence we found that:
1. the resident reported being told by the landlord’s contractor in January 2024 that they were waiting for approval from the landlord for a new combi boiler for her property.
2. the resident reported being told that she would get a new cylinder and boiler “like for like” after the landlord had visited her at home in January 2024.
3. in internal correspondence from January 2024 the landlord said it had already told the resident it was not fitting a new boiler yet.
4. in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 February 2024, the landlord said it would not be installing a combi boiler at the property as this would not have any effect on the heating output.
5. the resident reported that the contractor had told her in March 2024 they would be in touch about removing the leaking cylinder and would “most likely” be giving her a combi boiler.
6. in its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2024, the landlord said it was satisfied with its justification for not replacing her boiler.
During the 13-month period since first asking for a combi boiler, the resident did not receive consistent information about her request. We have seen no evidence to show the landlord had responded to the resident about this until February 2024, a year later. While the landlord did confirm its position in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it delayed unreasonably in doing so and was not consistent or open in its communication. This was a failing.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for a combi boiler. The landlord and contractor were not aligned in their approach, and it was unfair that the resident’s expectations were not appropriately managed. The landlord missed opportunities to communicate effectively with the resident and offer reassurance it was responding appropriately to her concerns.
We are aware that the landlord has agreed to a pre-action settlement with the resident further to a separate disrepair claim. Where any maintenance or inspection works that form part of its disrepair settlement replicate our “specific action” orders, the landlord may use evidence of the works it has completed to demonstrate compliance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s concerns that the property is too cold and draughty.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports about the temperature of the water, problems with the water pressure and a chemical smell from the hot water cylinder.
2. associated request for a combi boiler to be installed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident acknowledging the range of service and communication failings that occurred. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and a copy should be provided to this Service.
2. pay the resident £350 in compensation, which must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. Its previous offer of £50 in compensation should be deducted from this total if this has already been paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication and delays in its handling of the residents’ reports of a cold and draughty property.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication and delays in its handling of the residents’ concerns about the temperature of the water, problems with the water pressure and a chemical smell from the cylinder.
  3. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication and delays in its handling of the resident’s associated request for a combi boiler to be installed.
3. contact the resident and re-offer data logging to determine the extent of the resident’s concerns and establish any environmental or other factors which may be affecting the heat retention at the property. If the results show that temperatures within the property would be classed as a hazard under the HSSRS, the landlord should:
  1. instruct a suitably qualified independent thermal expert to carry out a heat loss survey during November or December 2024 and arrange to complete any recommended actions from the survey.
  2. provide the resident and this Service with a plan of works to resolve the issue, including timescales.
Within 6 weeks of this decision, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident with an appointment for a boiler inspection and service. If any remedial works are identified, the landlord must arrange to complete these in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord is ordered to share the outcome of the inspection with the resident and this Service and inform the resident when her boiler is due for replacement on its planned works schedule.
Within 6 weeks of this decision, the landlord is ordered to either:
1. re-offer the resident the option of a replacement hot water cylinder, or
2. arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified plumber or water treatment specialist to investigate the cause of the reported smell. The inspection report should be provided to the resident and this Service. Equally, if any remedial works are required as a result of the inspection, these must be completed within a reasonable timescale and an update provided to both the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its service level agreements with its contractors to ensure contractors understand their position when communicating with residents and ensure the information they are relaying is accurate and aligned with the landlord’s directions.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to explain its findings concerning the cause of the issues with water pressure at the property. It should ensure the resident is informed of her obligations concerning the maintenance of any improvements she has made.
It is recommended that the landlord remind its relevant repairs staff of the guidance set out in the Spotlight Report on damp and mould, with a particular focus on Chapter 2 – “Avoiding Blame”.