Town and Country Housing (202331438)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bed flat within a sheltered accommodation scheme operated by the landlord as he has a chronic back condition which affects his mobility. The resident’s heating is supplied through a communal heating system by the landlord. The resident first complained to the landlord about the heating in his property in March 2023 and the landlord took actions to assess and reassure the resident. He subsequently raised a second complaint, which is the subject of this investigation, along with fire safety concerns which were raised within his complaint escalation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports about the heating in the property.
   2. The resident’s reports of fire safety concerns.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating in the property.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fire safety concerns.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Heating

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about his heating in a timely way, with a competent contractor. It explained the findings and the wider context of the energy crisis, offered further investigations (which were declined by the resident) and provided information and support to the resident if he wished to move property.

Fire safety

6. The landlord responded fully to the resident’s concerns by explaining its fire arrangements and the professional advice it had relied upon when creating these. It also offered a referral for a home safety visit from the local fire and rescue service and a person-centred fire risk assessment.

Complaint handling

7. While the complaint acknowledgements were delayed at stage 2 and missing at stage 1, the landlord responded at both stages of the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales and processes within its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

8. The resident told the landlord that the heating in his property was inefficient, costly and required him to use auxiliary heating such as oil radiators. He also said that he had been promised by the landlord’s staff when he moved into the property, that this property’s energy bills would be lower as it was more modern and had better insulation. He said that the cold conditions worsened his health conditions and asked the landlord to move him to another property.
9. When the resident raised his first complaint in March 2023, the landlord instructed its contractor to attend and complete a heat survey. The contractor said:
   1. The property was warm when it attended and it found that the heating system was functioning correctly and adequate.
   2. The resident had told them he left the windows open at night and often only turned the heating on for around 1 hour per day.
   3. The radiators were the same design and size as the other properties in the building.
10. The landlord was entitled to rely on these professional views of its specialist contractor. Additionally, the landlord suggested that data loggers were installed in the property to check for issues with the heating system, however the resident declined this. This was a reasonable suggestion to confirm that there were no issues with the heating system in the property.
11. Within the landlord’s first complaint response it passed on these findings from its contractor and said that it had asked its staff not to make generalisations about heating costs in future when resident’s move into new properties. This was reasonable in the circumstances to avoid further misunderstandings upon letting its properties.
12. When the resident raised his second complaint in October 2023, the landlord referred to these earlier findings, and the contractor’s heat survey. Given it had already provided a substantive response on these issues, this was reasonable. It also said:
    1. Its relationship with its contractor was a standard business relationship and this did not affect the independence of the contractor’s professional opinion. This was a reasonable response as this is the situation with all contractors who are engaged by landlords to undertake specific or specialist services. The landlord is entitled to rely on these professional views.
    2. There were widespread energy cost rises in the sector at this time, due to the ‘cost of living crisis’. It explained this and said that it had applied to the government for grants to assist with this and would pass on any savings that it secured. This was a proactive step by the landlord to assist its residents at a time when costs were higher than normal.
13. The landlord maintained these positions in its stage 2 response. It only added that it was then consulting with other residents who had chosen to leave the communal heating system, to ensure that there were not other underlying issues, beyond the higher energy prices at the time.
14. As the resident was seeking to be moved from his property, the landlord provided options for him to do this as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This included information about the processes to complete an internal transfer, applying to the local authority housing register or moving independently into the private rented sector. It said its tenancy sustainment officers had previously supported him with looking at other similar sheltered housing nearby and the landlord offered further help with this in the future. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord to provide the resident with appropriate information and support to assist him with his move.
15. Overall, the landlord assessed the heating in a timely way, responded to the resident’s specific queries regarding the relationship between it and its contractor, appropriately provided reassurance and took practical steps to lessen the impact of the wider energy crisis and gave the resident advice and support to move property.

16. The resident was concerned that he could no longer hear the alarm sounding in his property. He felt that this put him at risk during a fire as he would not know when to evacuate.
17. The evidence shows that the landlord provided a response to this concern within its stage 2 complaint response, despite it not forming part of the resident’s initial complaint. This was a reasonable use of the landlord’s discretion to provide a timely response to the resident’s concerns given the potential implications of any emergency. Within the response it:
    1. Told the resident it operated a ‘stay put’ evacuation procedure, on the advice of its fire risk assessor and the local fire and rescue service. This meant the alarm no longer sounded in the properties, to avoid conflicting information in an emergency. Given that this process was based on the specialist advice of the landlord’s contractor and the fire and rescue service, this was a reasonable stance for the landlord to take.
    2. Offered the resident a referral to the local fire and rescue service for a home safety visit, which it did on 23 November 2023, prior to its complaint response, when the resident told it that he remained concerned about the arrangements.
    3. Offered the resident a person-centred fire risk assessment. It is unclear from the records whether the resident took up this offer, however it was positive that this was offered by the landlord to better understand the resident’s specific concerns and adjust its fire arrangements accordingly, if necessary.
    4. Told the resident that it had invited the local fire and rescue service to attend the next residents meeting, where it intended to discuss fire safety. It also said it would make the notes of this meeting available to all residents, and this was a positive and proactive attempt to allay the resident’s (and potentially other residents’) concerns about the new arrangements.
18. On this basis, the landlord responded fully to the resident’s concerns, explained its processes and that these were based on professional advice, offered tailored support to him and more widely available support to all other residents within the building and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
19. Post-complaint, there is also evidence of a new fire risk assessment being completed in January 2024. During this assessment some inconsistencies were raised by the assessor, however he also noted that these were addressed by the landlord in a timely way. This indicates a positive safety culture and a responsive approach to concerns or issues identified.

20. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which is in line with the Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and at stage 2 within 4 working days. The policy says that residents should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
21. It is noted that the landlord issued an earlier complaint response in March 2023 which, among other complaints, provided the landlord’s substantive response regarding the resident’s heating. This complaint was not escalated to stage 2. Given the passage of time between complaints (around 7 months), it was appropriate that the landlord raised a new complaint when the resident raised further concerns with his heating and fire safety in October 2023.
22. The records show that the landlord received both the resident’s initial complaint and escalation by telephone and it:
    1. Provided its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023, which was 4 working days after receipt of the initial complaint. The landlord’s records do not indicate that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
    2. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 20 November 2023, which was 12 working days after receipt. It then provided its stage 2 response 9 working days after the acknowledgement, which was 21 working days after receipt of the escalation.
23. On this basis, the landlord’s complaint responses were timely, however it took too long to acknowledge the escalation at stage 2 and does not appear to have acknowledged the complaint at all in its first stage. It is noted that the landlord made multiple attempts to reach the resident by phone, following his complaint escalation and could not speak with him until 15 November 2023.
24. Notwithstanding this, the detriment to the resident by the delayed or missing acknowledgements would have been minimal and the landlord otherwise provided its complaint responses within the timescales shown in its policy and the Code and there has been no maladministration in this element of the complaint.
25. In this instance it was appropriate for the landlord to have progressed the new concerns about fire safety as part of its stage 2 complaint response given this was agreed on by the resident and did not impact the overall outcome. However the Code requires additional matters raised as part of the escalation process to be raised as new complaints. The landlord should consider how it applies its policy and the Code in future to meet these requirements.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s records were generally well presented; however the landlord does not appear to create call notes directly and the resident’s calls were only referenced indirectly in internal emails. It was also unclear whether the resident accepted or declined the person-centred fire risk assessment, which would have supported the landlord’s evidence in future cases.

Communication

27. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgements were delayed or missing and this is an area for improvement. However, its wider communication with the resident was adequate, with evidence of service and partnership working to address the resident’s concerns.