Uttlesford District Council (202417008)

Decision
Case ID	202417008
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Uttlesford District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident has lived in a three bedroom bungalow since December 2022.One member of the household is a wheelchair user. In December 2023 the resident was advised by the landlord that the Mechanical Heat Recovery Unit (MVHR) needed yearly servicing. In February 2024 the resident reported an alarm was flashing on the MVHR display panel indicating that the filter needed to be changed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. Reports of repairs and servicing to a Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery Unit (MVHR).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:

a. Service failure in the landlords handling of the reports of repairs and servicing of the MVHR.

b. Service failure in its response to the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons             

MVHR repairs

4. The landlord did attend to or resolve the issues within a reasonable timescale. It also failed to demonstrate sufficient learning from its handling of the matter.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord’s complaint handling showed several failings. While it issued responses within its policy timescales, it did not address the resident’s request for compensation at stage 1. It set an unnecessarily short response deadline at stage 2 and failed to manage expectations when it did not meet this date. The landlord also did not explain that complaints can be closed while outstanding issues continue to be progressed. It did not adequately address all of the issues raised and did not demonstrate sufficient learning.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 May 2026
	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £350, made up as follows: £50 for the failures in its complaint handling. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the further failures. £200 previously offered. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct any amount previously paid from the total figure.	No later than 28 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend that the landlord provides targeted training for staff responsible for responding to complaints. This should help to ensure staff are familiar with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, so they can clearly explain how the complaints process operates in practice. Improved understanding would help staff set and manage resident expectations more effectively, including explaining when complaints may be appropriately closed, even where underlying issues are still being progressed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 June 2024	The resident complained the landlord has delayed servicing and fixing reported issues with the MVHR unit. He explained: That the MVHR unit has not received its required annual service and a fault alarm has not been fixed. He had made multiple reports and chased this up over more than six months, but no service or repair is completed and appointments were repeatedly delayed or not arranged. A detailed timeline evidenced his chases ups of the servicing from December 2023, with the fault/filter flashing alarm reported February 2024 and subsequent chase ups for that too. The property is an air tight design and requires the MVHR unit to help control condensation. He requested confirmation of when the work will be completed and asked for compensation for the prolonged delay and inconvenience.
25 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said that: It was sorry that it had failed to meet the residents expectations. It upheld the complaint, and noted that the resident had requested compensation. The landlord didn’t contradict the timeline outlined by the resident in his original complaint email. It noted the resident wanted the MVHR to be serviced and the flashing fault diagnosed and fixed as soon as possible. It committed to better maintaining communication until the works were completed.
27 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord with a list of questions following receiving the stage one response. The resident believed the stage 1 complaint was closed incorrectly as the main issues were still unresolved. The resident noted that the work had not been completed, no compensation has been offered for the delay. They also advised they had not been told why the unit was not serviced on time or why they had to chase it up. The resident asked for: An explanation for the delays. Compensation for the inconvenience and faults. A clear date for when the work will be carried out.
2 July 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage two. He outlines his remaining dissatisfaction: The agreed appointment was not properly completed. A contractor attended but could not finish the work, and the problem remains unresolved with no clear timeline for completion. He was also still waiting for answers to questions raised 27 June 2024 and feel his concerns have not been properly addressed.
18 July 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response in which it: Outlined the residents remaining dissatisfaction as:   The Stage 1 response did not explain why the resident was not contacted in time to arrange the MVHR service or why the delays occurred. The Stage 1 response did not address compensation. The resident wanted clear confirmation of when the contractor would contact them and a firm date for the works to be carried out, ideally within two weeks.   It explained that:   The contractor was unable to complete the MVHR service because they were not provided with maintenance instructions when the unit was originally installed. This caused difficulty in diagnosing and servicing the unit until the manufacturer was contacted and the correct instructions were obtained. Communication from the contractor should have been better, and apologised for this failure. A further appointment was expected to be arranged shortly, although this may be with less notice than the resident requested.   It concluded that:   The complaint was fully upheld. The resident experienced unacceptable delays and poor communication. £200 compensation was offered (£100 for delay affecting use of the unit and £100 for inconvenience). This was the council’s final response, and the complaint case was now closed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us and said the landlord:   Failed to complete essential maintenance within a reasonable timescale. Did not provide clear or confirmed appointments for the works. Demonstrated poor communication, with the resident having to repeatedly chase and lead contact. Closed the complaint process before the works were completed, leaving the issue unresolved. The resident considers the complaint handling unsatisfactory, noting that the: Upheld the Stage 1 complaint but did not resolve the issue or confirm an appointment. Issued the Stage 2 late, offered compensation, but still did not secure a confirmed date for the works. Despite assurances that the contractor would make contact, no appointment had been arranged as of 29 July 2024.   The resident believed the landlord should not close complaints until the works are completed, should provide a confirmed appointment within a reasonable timeframe, and should offer higher compensation.
19 September 2024	The resident told us that the final works to the MVHR were carried out on this date.

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.

Complaint	The servicing and maintenance of a Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit.
Finding	Service failure

6. On 25 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up servicing of the MVHR unit and reported that a fault alarm was flashing on the control panel. The landlord acknowledged the report and raised a works order shortly afterwards. This was appropriate, and it was positive that the landlord accepted responsibility for arranging the servicing and repair.
7. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord several times in March and April 2024 after no appointment was arranged. While the landlord advised that there was a target date for the works and that the contractor would make contact, this did not result in the servicing and repair being completed within a reasonable timeframe.
8. The contractor attended the property on 2 April 2024 but carried out an inspection only. The MVHR unit was not serviced and repaired, and the reported fault was not resolved.
9. The resident continued to contact the landlord in April and May 2024 seeking clarity on when the works would be completed. The landlord advised that the delays were because they were waiting for parts. While delays related to parts availability can be outside a landlord’s direct control, the landlord remained responsible for managing its contractor and keeping the resident informed. The evidence shows that during this period communication was largely reactive and driven by the resident.
10. By June 2024, the MVHR unit had still not been servicedor fully repaired. The resident therefore made a formal complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that the MVHR unit should have been serviced and repairs and upheld the complaint. However, it did not provide a confirmed appointment date or clear timescale for completion, which limited the extent to which the response resolved the substantive issue.
11. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint to stage 2. Around this time, the contractor attended again on 1 July 2024 but was still unable to complete the full service. The landlord later explained that this was because the contractor had not been provided with appropriate maintenance instructions when the unit was originally installed. While this explanation provides context, it does not fully account for why the issue took several months to identify or why it could not have been addressed sooner.
12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication, upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered £200 in compensation. It confirmed that this amount had been calculated with reference to the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and was intended to recognise the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord stated that the contractor would contact the resident to arrange a further appointment.
13. The stage 2 response acknowledged that the MVHR should have been serviced in line with the manufacturer’s instructions and best practice guidance. While this explained some of the delays and poor communication, the landlord did not fully account for or explain all of them. It also did not explain how it would prevent similar issues in future, or how it would improve the contractor’s performance. As a result, the response did not demonstrate that the landlord had identified or applied sufficient lessons learned in its handling of the MVHR unit.
14. The stage 2 response did not include a confirmed appointment date. It stated that the contractor would contact the resident the following week. However, the evidence shows that the contractor did not make contact until 20 August. The MVHR service and repair were completed on 19 September 2024. Although some of the later delay related to the resident’s availability, as they were going on holiday, the delay in contacting the resident was unreasonable.
15. Overall, the resident experienced avoidable delay and frustration while waiting for the MVHR unit to be serviced and repaired. The landlord acknowledged some failings, apologised, and offered compensation in line with Ombudsman guidance. It also ensured that the outstanding works were completed. However, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient learning and there was further poor communication and avoidable delay in completing the follow up works after the Stage 2 response.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

 

16. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within five working days. It further states that a formal response will be provided within 10 working days at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2 following acknowledgement.
17. The landlord issued a formal response at both stages of the complaints process. The Stage 1 response was issued within the landlord’s policy timeframe. The Stage 2 response was also issued within the landlord’s requirement of 20 working days and this was therefore compliant with the timescales set out both in the complaints policy and the Code.
18. The landlord did not address the residents request for compensation in its stage one response which was not reasonable given the significant delays already experienced with the MVHR servicing and repairs.
19. The landlord set and communicated an earlier target date for responding than requiredat stage 2. This went beyond what was required under its complaints policy. It is unclear why the landlord chose to commit to a shorter response timeframe than necessary. It responded two days late and the landlord did not proactively inform theresident. This created a perception of delay and was avoidable.
20. The landlord also did not explain to the resident that there is nothing within its complaints policy or the Code that prevents a complaint from being closed while outstanding issues are still being progressed. (In such circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to continue to monitor and progress the outstanding matter and maintain clear communication with the resident until completion.)
21. Taken together, these issues amount to a failure in effective complaint handling and communication, resulting in an adverse finding in this case.

Learning

The landlord should reflect on the findings in this case. We have included the following areas of learning:

Repairs

22. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
23. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Knowledge and Record Keeping

24. The record keeping provided by the landlord indicated that there were phone calls with the resident however it did not have records or logs of these calls available. Furthermore the resident has advised the Ombudsman that the property was a disabled adapted bungalow. However there was no evidence provided from the landlord to demonstrate it was aware of this. The copy of the tenancy agreement provided was incomplete and the landlord didn’t acknowledge the households vulnerability in its communications with the resident or in its complaint responses. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Record Keeping to assist it in improving how it records data in the future.

Communication

25. The evidence shows that the burden was on the resident to chase updates rather than receiving proactive updates from the landlord or its contractor. The landlord should reflect on this in the way it handles similar service requests in future.