London Borough of Croydon (202405151)

Background

1. The resident says the landlord left him without a fully working heating system in his flat “for years.” The resident has a mental health condition, which he says was affected by the lack of heating and told the landlord about, but it has no recorded vulnerabilities for him. He also says the lack of heating meant he had to use expensive portable heaters that increased his heating bills, which he wanted to be compensated for the whole period for, and that contractors kept turning up at the wrong time.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system.
   2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, the Ombudsman found that:
   1. the landlord made reasonable attempts to attend the property to carry out the repair it correctly identified as urgent.
   2. the resident did not provide access to the property on these visits.
   3. the landlord has not evidenced that it communicated the date and time of the contractor’s visits to the resident.
   4. the landlord cancelled the jobs in line with its no access policy.
   5. the landlord has not made any reasonable adjustments for the resident’s mental health.
   6. the landlord did not correctly identify the resident’s stage 2 complaint email as an escalation request, and this highlights a training need.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 did not investigate

5. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident told us he has been without heating since 2020 and requests compensation from this period until the landlord completed the repair in November 2024. He raised a formal complaint in March 2024. However, there is no evidence he raised complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we based our decision on evidence from the heating repair reported on 19 February 2024 and the landlord’s actions afterwards.
6. In parts of his complaint, the resident refers to the effect on his mental health condition. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord identified the resident’s repair request on 19 February 2024 as an urgent repair, in line with its policy, and it attended to carry out the repair within the policy’s required 5-working-day urgent timeframe on 26 February 2024. This was also appropriate because its policy made it responsible for repairing electric heating it provided. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
8. The contractors identified additional works were needed to complete the repair, and it was reasonable to allow time to arrange quotes and approval.
9. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident about the investigations and delays between 19 February to 25 March 2024 and it would have been reasonable to do so. This is because it re-attended within another 5 working days on 1 March 2024 and identified further storage heater works were needed that it asked for a quote for on 13 March 2024 and received it on 25 March 2024. The landlord’s subsequent actions were outside its policy’s urgent timeframe, so it should have updated the resident on them.
10. The landlord’s policy states that it is the resident’s responsibility to be available for its access to the property to carry out necessary repairs. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 and 12 April 2024 to carry out the repairs but could not gain access. The contractor reported difficulty in contacting the resident to arrange the repair. Although the landlord says the resident was aware of these visits, we have seen no evidence of the date and time communicated to the resident, and he told us the contractors always arrived at the wrong time.
11. Had the landlord communicated with the resident through additional forms of contact, such as email, text message, and phone call, it may have had more success in engaging with the resident and securing access. Especially after the first time it could not gain access. This highlights a need for more accurate record keeping, reflecting that the resident was aware of the date and time agreed with him for the repair appointments.
12. The contractor attended for the repairs on 1, 7, and 25 May 2024 but could not gain access again. The landlord says the resident was aware of these planned visits. The landlord had informed the resident of the intended visit on 1 May 2024 in its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024 but had not given a time. We have seen no evidence of the other date and times of the visits being communicated to the resident. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy requiring it to make sure residents are notified of repair appointments.
13. The landlord received conflicting information from different contractors about the repair. The contractor attended on 18 June 2024 found no fault with the storage heaters, tested them, and left them working normally.
14. The landlord raised the job again to install peak power supplies to the storage heaters on 17 July 2024 and the contractor struggled to contact the resident to arrange these works. The resident advised the landlord he would call back to book this in.
15. The resident called the landlord on 1 November 2024 to arrange the works, and these were completed on 15 November 2024.
16. The landlord told us it did not know about the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities. But, on 30 April and 20 May 2024, the resident clearly described his vulnerability in emails to the landlord, which he said was being worsened by the lack of heating. It is unclear why the landlord did not update its records regarding this and make reasonable adjustments for the resident.
17. Given the resident had told the landlord about his mental health vulnerabilities, regular and varied communication from the landlord was likely to have been helpful to the resident. In being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident more support in being available for repair visits. It could have, for example, told him of contractor visits via letter, text, email, phone, and any other preference the resident had for his needs. There was no vulnerability policy available on the landlord’s website to refer to.
18. Due to the repeated difficulties the landlord experienced in the resident being available for repair visits, it would have been reasonable for it to consider that this may be linked to the resident’s mental health needs. If so, it could have then explored whether the resident required support from additional agencies to help him comply with the pre-arranged visits.
19. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with temporary heaters. We have not seen evidence of when these were provided to the resident. There is no statutory requirement for landlords to compensate residents for the increased cost in electricity for using them. But considering the period the resident had been without a fully working heating system and his mental health difficulties, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the increased electricity costs to the resident and make an offer of a daily rate for use. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which says residents may be compensated for making reasonable additional heating payments when the landlord has failed to repair heating.
20. The resident reports a rise in his electricity costs and from the temporary heaters. While it is likely that the resident’s use of the temporary electric heaters has contributed to the rise in his electricity bills, he has not provided an electricity bill before this period for comparison, to measure the increase since using the electric heaters. We have seen no evidence about his previous electricity debt. It is not possible from the information provided so far to decide how significantly, if any, the use of these electric heaters contributed to the resident’s debt.
21. Although the landlord made multiple attempts to carry out repairs between February and November 2024 and says it could not complete the repair due to continued lack of access, it is unclear why the landlord did not follow its policy about access. This says it may ‘force entry’ into the resident’s property if there is a failure to allow access, particularly if there is a health and safety risk, which he reported to it.
22. The landlord did not provide evidence of how it eventually overcame the difficulties in engaging with the resident to repair his heating on 15 November 2024, which may suggest there was previously a barrier between them in doing so.
23. While the landlord could have taken further steps to communicate and identify additional support needs, however, the resident had to allow it access for the repairs.
24. The landlord has not provided clear evidence that it told the resident of each date and time of its contractor’s visits and that the contractor always attended at the expected time. Despite its efforts to carry out the heating repair, this issue continued for an unreasonable time period of almost 9 months from February to November 2024, including during the colder winter and autumn months. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation does not fully reflect how this has affected the resident, given his mental health vulnerabilities and the extra heating costs he reported. This is because our remedies guidance recommends up to £600 compensation to recognise such failures negatively affecting the resident.
25. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system. We have therefore ordered it to apologise and pay him £600 compensation, made up of the £200 already offered for distress and service delays, and another £400 for the inconvenience caused by its lack of reasonable adjustments and communication. We have also recommended the landlord ask the resident for his past electricity bills (before electric heaters were provided) to compare costs and determine an appropriate contribution toward the increased expenses. We have further recommended it offers to refer him to any internal support it has and external support from debt and fuel charities to support him with his electricity bills and debt.

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, respectively.
27. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
28. The Code says that, if the landlord needs an extension to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this in advance.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 22 March 2024 stage 1 complaint within the expected timeframe on the same day. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 April 2024 to request a 10-working-day extension for its stage 1 response, which the resident agreed to. The landlord provided its stage 1 response almost within this timeframe on 30 April 2024, which was 12 working days after its extension request, and so this was mostly in line with the Code.
30. The resident sent his escalation email to the landlord on 30 April 2024, and the landlord did not recognise this email as such. The landlord identified this email as a Subject Access Request and did not follow the correct process in acknowledging the email as a stage 2 complaint. Had the landlord made efforts to contact the resident, it may have clarified his position and saved the resident time and trouble pursuing a response.
31. The landlord did not respond to and acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until after we told it to do so on 26 June 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement was 45 working days late on 11 July 2024. On this date, the landlord requested an extension for its stage 2 response to 31 July 2024, to which the resident agreed, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response within this timeframe on 30 July 2024.
32. The Code states that, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. In the resident’s email on 30 April 2024, he clearly explained the complaint was not resolved and he was unhappy. This highlights a training need to make sure that the landlord correctly identifies escalation requests from residents.
33. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures negatively affecting the resident. We have also recommended it provide refresher training to its staff around its process for escalating complaints.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s overall record keeping during the complaint period was good. But there were gaps in its accurate recording of its contacts with the resident about its intended repair visits and the contractors contact with the resident, including recording the time of each visit.
35. The landlord should have made sure the previous contactor information was transferred over. We have therefore recommended it review its record keeping processes to make sure it keeps access to repair logs and records if it changes contractors, so it can refer to this information.
36. The landlord also should have made sure its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustment needs, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident. We have therefore recommended it contact him to do so.

Communication

37. The resident would have benefited from more regular and varied forms of communication regarding the delays in repairs and any actions taken following no access visits.