Aspire Housing Limited (202402787)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom, 1st floor flat in a block of 4 properties. The resident has lived in his home since 2017. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.  The resident reported that his home was cold and felt the landlord wasn’t carrying out the works required.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of low temperatures in his home
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low temperatures in his home.
4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not take appropriate action when the resident raised the issue of low temperatures in his home. But the landlord did obtain an independent survey at stage 2 of the complaint process, it apologised and offered compensation, and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed, and it was not in line with its own policies and procedures. But the landlord apologised to the resident, and this was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

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.

7. On 5 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord that his property was cold. On 14 March 2024 the landlord spoke with the resident who said the thermal comfort of his home, and the cost of heating, was unacceptable.
8. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident his flat had an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating the property as a “B.” It also told the resident that only heating his home for an hour a day was not sufficient to keep his home warm. The landlord referred the resident to the money advice team to investigate if the resident was entitled to any financial support.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and told this Service he spoke with the complaint handler and wanted to escalate his complaint. But the landlord told us it did not receive an appeal after the stage 1 complaint response. When asked to by this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
10. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged the investigations at stage 1 were not adequate. The landlord obtained an independent survey, and this was appropriate in the circumstances. The survey included:
    1. intrusive cavity wall insulation checks
    2. thermal imaging
    3. inspection of loft insulation
    4. assessment of ventilation and heating measures
    5. general damp and mould checks with moisture readings
11. The landlord agreed to the recommended actions in the survey. These were to replace the French door as they had previously been adjusted, and it had not worked. To install a windshield to the balcony and install a smart thermometer to monitor the heating use and temperature. It said these were part of the 90-day major works programme but was aware of the winter months approaching, and the resident’s health situation and it would try to bring this timescale forward.
12. The landlord also discussed with the resident a further recommendation from the surveyor. This was an additional radiator to the resident’s living room. It was agreed that would not be progressed as it would be destructive and require significant additional pipework. The landlord’s view was to take a phased approach and believed the replacement of the French door and wind shield would address the issues.
13. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £250 for the inconvenience, and this was appropriate in the circumstances.
14. The landlord’s records show that the French door was replaced with an aluminium sliding door, and the smart thermometer was also installed.
15. On 11 December 2024, the landlord’s records show its contractor had attended the resident’s home to install the mesh windbreak to the balcony. The contractor reported the resident refused the work as it was not what he had agreed to with the landlord. There is no evidence that a different windbreak was agreed.  The landlord has mitigation in relation to the windbreak as it was refused by the resident.  But a recommendation has been made for the landlord to speak with the resident about this.
16. On 6 November 2024, the resident told this Service that he was still waiting on the windows to be replaced. This Service has not seen any evidence that the windows were due to be replaced following the independent survey.
17. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns sufficiently when reported by the resident at his stage 1 complaint. But it acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord obtained an independent survey to investigate the resident’s concerns, and this was appropriate in the circumstances.
18. The landlord provided a detailed response at stage 2. It agreed with the surveyor’s recommendations and discussed these with the resident to resolve the issues. It offered an apology and compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

19. On 5 March 2024, the landlord’s records show the resident raised a complaint and reported the property was cold.
20. On 14 March 2023 the landlord’s records show it spoke with the resident about his stage 1 complaint. This was 8 working days from the resident raising his complaint and was not in line with its own policies and procedures.
21. On 18 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response.
22. On 15 July 2024 the landlord told this Service and said it had not received an appeal request from the resident after the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 following our request and contacted the resident the following day.
23. On 15 August 2024, the landlord requested an extension for the stage 2 response. It said it would provide the stage 2 response by 30 August 2024, and it said the customer was happy to agree the extension.
24. On 29 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
25. The landlord was delayed in its complaint handling. It did not adequately investigate the complaint at stage 1, and it did not apply its own policies and procedures. But the landlord apologised for its failings, and this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The resident told this Service that he verbally asked the landlord to escalate his concerns to stage 2 of the complaint process. The landlord stated it did not receive an appeal for the resident’s complaint. The landlord should assure itself that its process for complaints handling is robust and there are sufficient safeguards to prevent missed opportunities in complaints being escalated.
27. The landlord, in providing information to this Service, sent records which were not relevant to this investigation. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. A failure to keep adequate records indicated that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

28. The landlord communicated with the resident but provided a more detailed response at stage 2 of the complaints process. It should review its stage 1 responses to help prevent unnecessary escalation.