Be One Homes (202347342)

Background

1. The resident lived in a property which he reported was cold. He said it required wall insulation. He complained in November 2023 to the landlord that it had not provided a reasonable response why it could not install wall insulation. The landlord said it had no planned works in the area of the resident’s property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for wall insulation for the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the request for wall insulation for the property.
   2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord offered compensation to the resident in line with its policy for the delay in communicating about an inspection. It provided a reasonable explanation why it could not provide wall insulation and moved the resident into a more suitable property.
5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timeframe. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and did not provide proportionate compensation to recognise the detriment caused to him

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it would complete responsive repairs within 21 calendar days and routine repairs within 90 calendar days.
7. The resident said in an email to the landlord on 30 November 2023, that he had asked about cavity wall insulation around 1 year ago. He said it could not do this as the property had single brick walls. He asked why it had not told him about external wall insulation. The landlord responded on 12 December 2023 and directed his query to the insulation and energy team. There was no evidence of the walls being in disrepair at this time, so it was reasonable for it to direct the query to the correct department.
8. It is possible to install insulation to the internal or external faces of solid brick walls. However, this type of work is generally costly and likely classed as an improvement rather than a repair. It is reasonable for a landlord to take account of financial constraints when deciding whether to carry out improvement works. It would be under no obligation to install insulation solely to improve energy efficiency where there is no evidence of disrepair. In this case, there is no evidence that the resident reported wall‑related disrepair that would have required the landlord to take action.
9. In communications between January and February 2024, the landlord told the resident there were no planned wall insulation works in the area. The resident said his heating was working, but the property was cold and would benefit from extra insulation. He requested an energy efficiency inspection on 12 January 2024. The landlord completed this on 26 January 2024, 10 working days after the request. The inspection confirmed the property required additional loft insulation. The landlord said it would add the property to a list of homes to contact if it later planned any wall insulation work in the area. This showed it took steps to assess the property and consider potential future improvements.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed there was no planned wall insulation work within the resident’s area. It acknowledged a delay in inspecting the property and offered £50 compensation for not responding in a timely manner. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there has been a minor delay in a landlord’s service which did not significantly affect the outcome for the resident.
11. The landlord completed the loft insulation on 4 March 2024. This was within the landlord’s policy timeframe of completing routine repairs within 90 days. This shows it looked at other options to make the property warmer for the resident when wall insulation was not available.
12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there was no planned works for wall insulation in the area. It said if any works were to start in the future, it would inform the residents of suitable properties. This is a reasonable step for the landlord to take and shows it would inform the resident if his property was suitable for any potential insulation work. The resident moved out after the stage 2 response to a property more suited to his needs.
13. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to assess the property’s energy efficiency and acted to improve the warmth of the home. It arranged an energy efficiency inspection and completed additional loft insulation when wall insulation was not available. It clearly explained to the resident that there was no planned wall insulation works in the area. It apologised for a short delay in arranging the inspection and paid £50 compensation. Therefore, we find that it offered reasonable redress in its handling of the request for wall insulation.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time compiles with the definition of the complaint in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code (the Code) April 2022. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaint policy complied with the Code.
15. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 November 2023. As he said, “I wish to make a formal complaint”, we consider this the start of the complaint process. It was not a service request. He chased for a response on 12 January 2024, it acknowledged the complaint on 17 January 2024. It should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days of the initial complaint. This is a failure as this was 26 working days outside the policy timeframe.
16. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024. This is 16 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This fall outside of providing a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint which lead to further delays.
17. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 8 February 2024, with the landlord acknowledging the escalation the next day. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 March 2024. This is 21 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and out with the timeframe of issuing a response withing 20 working days. It apologised for the delay in providing a response within the expected timeframe.
18. Overall, the landlord did not meet timeframes set out in the Code, with the overall delays being more than a few days. Whilst it acknowledged some of the delays, it was dismissive of the residents initial compliant, citing the issue as a service request. He had to chase it for an update, which is when it progressed the complaint to stage 1. This resulted in him waiting an extended period for an outcome of his complaint, with reoccurring delays throughout the complaint process. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
19. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there is a failing by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The landlord did acknowledge some of its delays, but the main delay of not escalating the initial complaint was not apologised for. It did not offer compensation for the failings in its complaint handling, which was not proportionate to reflect the detriment to the resident.

Learning

20. This case shows the importance of timely complaint responses, in line with the Complaint Handling Code. Delays occurred at both complaint stages, which required an apology and compensation to put matters right. Our centre for learning via our website offers resources to support landlord’s with complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The delay in the stage 1 complaint response highlights the importance of correctly labelling communication from the resident. When this does not happen, this can contribute to extended response times and frustration for residents.

Communication

22. The landlord showed it reasonably communicated with the resident. It provided short, concise explanations on several occasions, without the use of jargon, why it could not complete the wall insulation.