Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Arun District Council (202441445)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441445

Arun District Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A heating repair and annual heat pump service.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives with her family in a 3- bedroom house.
  2. In 2022, the resident’s air source heat pump (heat pump) broke down and she was without heating for several days. On 18 October 2024, the resident’s heat pump stopped working again. The resident made a complaint to the landlord the next day. She said she had called the out of hours number provided by the landlord but was told assistance would not be available. She said her family had been “freezing” with no heat for several days and that her heat pump had not be serviced since 2022. She also said she did not get notice of the attempted service on 30 September 2024, when it attended while she was out.
  3. The landlord fixed the resident’s heat pump on 22 October 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 November 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delayed heating repair and lack of notice for the annual heat pump service. It also:
    1. Acknowledged issues with its service provision for heat pumps. It said its compliance manager would review the service arrangements within 6 months and would take account of the issues the resident had raised. It said it would update the resident of the outcome of the review.
    2. It said there were now no issues with the resident’s heating and hot water and that the annual heat pump service had been completed.
    3. It offered the resident £80 total compensation, made up of £50 for inconvenience and £30 (£10 a day) for each day of no heat and hot water.
  4. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 December 2024 (escalation not on file). This was because, according to its stage 2 complaint response, she felt the compensation was not sufficient and she wanted the landlord to provide an out of hours service for heat pump repairs.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 January 2025. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the inconvenience she had experienced. It stated a specialist inspection of the heat pump had been completed (date not on file) and provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report. It committed its contractor to contacting the resident to establish next steps for either repairs or a new system, followed by a yearly service plan. It increased the compensation offered at stage 1 to £500 for the loss of heating and hot water and for any distress caused.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she felt the landlord had not fully addressed her complaint or put in place an out of hours service for air source heat pumps.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a heating repair and annual heat pump service

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible for the upkeep of heating systems. Its gas and heating policy states it will complete a service of air source heat pumps every year. The tenancy agreement also states residents must allow access to the landlord to complete repair works. It states that, unless it is an emergency, the landlord should give reasonable notice (of at least 24 hours) of appointments.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint that she did not receive notice of the landlord’s annual heat pump service (30 September 2024) and the landlord accepted this in its stage 1 complaint response. It also appropriately apologised for this failure. It confirmed, however, that the annual service was completed on 22 October 2024, the same day it completed the heating repair.
  3. The resident also stated in her complaint that the landlord had not serviced her heat pump “since 2022”. The landlord’s repair log shows that, during 2023, the landlord attempted to complete an annual service on 6 December 2023, however this was recorded as “no access”. There was no evidence in the landlord’s file of prior notice of that service appointment to the resident, or of further attempts by it to complete the annual service. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord accepted in its complaint responses that its service to residents with air source heat pumps had not met service standards.
  4. The resident also said she did not receive assistance when contacting the landlord’s out of hours number to report the heating fault on 18 October 2024. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that, during the winter period (October – May) a lack of heating is considered an emergency repair and should be responded to within 24 hours. However, the landlord did not attend to complete the heating repair until 4 days later on 22 October 2024, which was 3 days over its 24-hour emergency response period. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failure in its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £30 compensation, (£10 per day) for the loss of heating and hot water in line with its policy.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord committed to completing a review of its service provision for residents with air source heat pumps. This was a reasonable step, as it showed the landlord was not only addressing the issues raised in the resident’s complaint but was committed to taking action to resolve the underlying issues and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord also said, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it would complete the review within 6 months, which was a fair and realistic period to allow for a comprehensive review. The landlord also committed to informing the resident about the outcome if its review, which was a positive step by the landlord to improve its communication with the resident.
  6. As part of this investigation, we recently (September 2025) asked the landlord for a copy of the completed comprehensive review as outlined in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not, however, provide evidence of a comprehensive review. Instead, it said that “meetings with the heating contractor had been held and service standards had improved as a result.”
  7. While this is a positive step, the landlord has not provided information which demonstrated that the landlord addressed, within the 6-month period, the specific service provision issues as promised. This failure is particularly concerning given a key aspect of the resident’s complaint related to an out of hours response service for residents with air source heat pumps. An order will therefore be made for the landlord to provide an update to the resident regarding what service improvements have been put in place regarding the specific issues raised in the resident’s complaint.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord was also unable to confirm whether the resident had been informed regarding the outcome of any review or service improvements made, as the staff involved were no longer in post. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, which should be sufficient to enable agreed tasks to be monitored and completed and appropriate communication maintained with residents, whether staff involved are available or not. The landlord’s lack of update to the resident was inappropriate and was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was committed to putting things right.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord increased its compensation to the resident to £500 for loss of heating and distress caused. It completed a specialist inspection of the air source heat pump (date unavailable) and provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report. The inspection identified faults with the heat pump, however information regarding the ‘next steps’ to address these described in the stage 2 complaint response were not on file.
  10. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute that the resident experienced delays and distress due to the loss of heating and hot water. It acknowledged and apologised for its repeated service failings related to appointment handling and annual heat pump services. It offered the resident a total of £500 compensation to also include the inconvenience and distress this caused. These were all appropriate steps towards putting things right.
  11. The landlord offered financial redress to the resident which was proportionate to the multiple service failures the resident experienced. This is because this was within with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident. However, its offer of compensation alone was not proportionate to put right the effect of its continued failure to provide evidence of a comprehensive review to the resident. We have not seen evidence that an ‘out of hours’ response service for air source heat pumps is in place or of appointment notification improvements. The landlord is therefore responsible for maladministration and is ordered to apologise to the resident for these failings.
  12. We have also made an order for the landlord to provide the resident with a written update of any service improvements that have been implemented in relation to the servicing of and out of hours response to air source heat pump faults.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint it will provide a resident with a progress report within 20working days.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 November 2024. This was within its 10-working day response period following the resident’s 19 October 2024 stage 1 complaint, allowing for its 5-working-day acknowledgement response period. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 January 2025 following the resident’s 1 December 2024 stage 2 complaint. Allowing for its 5-working-day acknowledgement period, this was within its 20-working-day response time. Information was not on file to assess whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and complaint escalation request within its 5-working-day response period.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, however, lacked detail and did not provide a clear breakdown of the increased compensation offered.
  4. Furthermore, there is no evidence of effective monitoring by the landlord of its stage 2 complaint response commitments. This failure led the resident to having to escalate her complaint to us in her efforts to seek a resolution and added to the inconvenience the resident had already experienced. This lack of oversight by the landlord was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
  5. While the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses were timely and in line with its policy, it failed to make sure it fully followed through on its stage 2 commitments to the resident. This failure further delayed effective resolution and therefore amounted to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation, which is proportionate to reflect the continued failing following its stage 2 complaint response. This compensation is also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a heating repair and annual heating servicing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident compensation of £600. This is broken down into:
      1. The landlord’s previous offer of £500 for the loss of heating and hot water and for any distress caused.
      2. £100 further compensation for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
      3. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
    3. Provided the resident with a written update of service improvements that have been implemented in relation to the servicing of and out of hours response to air source heat pump faults. If further improvements are required, it is to provide a reasonable timeline for the implementation of the recommended improvements to fully resolve the issues. If it decides not to do so, it should write to the resident and us with an explanation for that decision.