Bernicia Group (202226172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226172

Bernicia Group

20 June 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the safety of the boiler and gas pipework, including its handling of the installation of a gas meter at the property.
2. Concerns that the property was let without a valid Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
3. Concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
4. Reports of an infestation of flies in the loft.
5. Reports of damp and mould.
6. Reports of repairs to windows.
7. Associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property, a 1-bed first-floor flat, since August 2002.
The resident has not disclosed any vulnerabilities to this Service and the landlord has not stated that she has made it aware of any vulnerabilities. The resident does however within her communications refer to having a physical illness. She does not state what the illness is or how it affects her.
There is a long history going back approximately 13 years of the resident raising concerns about the performance and safety of her boiler. This Service has investigated previous complaints concerning matters up to October 2012 (201106693), from October 2012 to January 2015 (20156113), and from February 2017 to February 2021 (202002541). In our previous investigations, we found no maladministration on behalf of the landlord.
In December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that in order to install a new boiler at the property a meter to be installed as the resident had had the previous meter removed. At the end of December 2022 the landlord had the gas account for the property put into its name to arrange the reconnection of the gas supply to the property.
On 20 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the supplier would attend on 31 January 2023 to install the meter.
The meter was installed as arranged but the following day the resident asked the supplier to remove the meter. The landlord attended the property and the resident stated that the meter needed to be removed as there was a gas leak. The supplier’s engineer who was present said the gas supply was still capped and the meter and property were safe.
On 10 February 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She had made clear to the landlord for 13 years the issues with the heating system but it had “refused to take action”.
2. Its behaviour was “harassment and mental oppression”.
3. The landlord’s staff had displayed “aggression” towards her. The staff member waved her hands in the resident’s face and said if she tried to have the gas meter removed the landlord would seek an injunction against her.
4. No legal action could be taken against her as the property was let to her “illegally”.
5. The gas meter had not been installed with the permission of the gas supplier.
6. The heating system did not operate correctly as a space heater and replacing the boiler would not resolve the problem.
7. Environmental Health and the Gas Safe Register agreed that the document condemning the boiler was completed incorrectly. She therefore had the right to “insist all pipework has been condemned” and request a new heating system.
8. She had requested a safety check from the gas supplier to demonstrate that the whole system needed replacing but the landlord had stopped this.
9. The landlord had disrespected her, “attacked [her] integrity” and “sought to destroy [her] health”.
10. She was living in a flat with no heating or hot water and this was illegal.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 13 February 2023. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2023 and stated:
1. It had reviewed the telephone discussion between the resident and the staff member on 2 February 2023. It did not feel the staff member was aggressive or oppressive. The content of the call did not constitute harassment but was a “reasonable request to meet an obligation of the tenancy”.
2. It had installed a gas meter at the property to allow further works to provide gas central heating to the property. Prior to installation it had gained approval from the gas supplier.
3. The resident attempted to prevent the installation of the meter. Staff had therefore advised her that it may seek an injunction if she continued to be obstructive. The staff member did not feel they were threatening or intimidating.
4. The flat was not let illegally. It was attempting to install gas central heating and the resident was preventing this.
5. It had paid for independent gas engineers to inspect the property. All engineers who had inspected agreed the system was safe.
6. It had agreed to install a new boiler due to the length of time it had been out of use.
7. The resident had refused this insisting that the pipework throughout the property be replaced as it was unsafe. The landlord was unwilling to replace the pipework as it was safe.
8. The Ombudsman had previously found that it had acted lawfully.
9. It was not correct that the Environmental Health team and the Gas Safe Register had agreed with the resident. They had been given all information and were satisfied it had acted appropriately.
10. It would be happy to pay for the gas supplier to carry out any required checks.
11. It had “constantly tried to find a resolution” to the matter but the resident “repeatedly prevented this” through her actions.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 1 March 2023. She said:
1. She had been without heating and hot water for 13 years.
2. The property was illegally let. It was a breach of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as there was no heating or hot water or EPC.
3. No engineer had attended the property without finding problems. The landlord’s engineers were either “making innocent errors through lack of understanding, or deliberately falsifying statements”.
4. She had checked with the boiler manufacturer and Citizens Advice who confirmed that the landlord was wrong.
5. The gas supplier had not been aware that the heating system was condemned and when she had made them aware they had cancelled the installation of a meter but the landlord had gone ahead anyway. As the meter was installed without the supplier’s consent it was agreed it would be removed.
6. She had not obstructed the engineer.
7. The landlord’s conduct on the telephone call of 2 February 2023 was “harassment”. She felt unsafe with its staff in her home.
8. The pipework, supply, and boiler were all unsafe and needed to be changed.
9. There was “vermin” in her loft and the landlord refused to take action.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 2 March 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 March 2023 and said:
1. The property was not illegally let.
2. The property had no heating or hot water however it had attempted to install a new boiler on “numerous occasions” and the resident had prevented this.
3. If she was now happy to allow the installation arrangements would be made immediately. The boiler would be certified by a gas safe engineer thoroughly checked to meet all safety standards.
4. There was no evidence to suggest the supplier had installed the meter in breach of safety procedures. The landlord was within its rights to have the meter installed without her permission.
5. It was sorry if she had experienced distress during contact with the landlord. It could not however find any evidence that its communication with her constituted harassment or was “in any way aggressive”.
6. Pest control was the resident’s responsibility. She could contact the local authority’s Environmental Health team to arrange for assistance.
7. There was no evidence to uphold the complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 3 of its process on 21 March 2023. She said:
1. The vermin were in the loft space which was not her responsibility.
2. The telephone call on 2 February 2023 was “aggressive and not acceptable” – this had been witnessed by others.
3. The meter had been inappropriately installed.
4. She requested a copy of the EPC by the next day.
5. She would not accept a new boiler with “damaged pipework” as this would not address the issue.
The landlord provided a stage 3 complaint response on 5 April 2023. The review of the complaint was completed by 2 independent members of the landlord’s customer service committee one of whom was a resident. It said:
1. It had arranged for a new boiler to be installed following the concerns the resident had expressed over the current system.
2. In order to carry the works out a meter needed to be fitted and the gas supply reinstating.
3. The gas supply was currently capped at the property and a gas safety check completed every 12 months.
4. Staff had acted “wholly professionally throughout” and all allegations of harassment, aggression or disrespect towards the resident were investigated and denied by staff.
5. It had a zero-tolerance policy towards abuse of staff. This included inappropriate remarks and making false allegations.
6. It wanted to employ an independent mediation service to reach an agreement with the resident. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange tis as soon as possible.
7. Pest control was the resident’s responsibility and she should contact the local authority’s Environmental Health team.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said it understood that she was willing to consider its offer of mediation. It provided an overview of the mediation service and how the process worked and asked her to let it know if she was happy to go ahead.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident refers within her complaint to issues dating back to the start of the tenancy in 2002.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
The resident also refers to issues previously investigated and determined by this Service. This report will therefore only consider events which occurred after February 2021. Any reference to earlier events is for context only.
The resident has stated that one of the outcomes she wants from this investigation is for the landlord to compensate her for damage to personal belongings and the impact on her health.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to property or impacts on health and wellbeing. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health or property and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts, cross examine the parties and make legally binding judgements, including liability. The resident should seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

Jurisdiction

Issues with damp and mould and window repairs were not raised by the resident within her complaint to the landlord and therefore were not addressed by the landlord within its complaint responses.
Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, this investigation will only consider the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord if she remains dissatisfied with its handling of this issue.

Relevant policies, procedures and legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep pipework for gas and all installations for water and space heating in good repair.
Section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 places an obligation on the resident as an assured tenant to allow the landlord access to carry out any required repairs. The tenancy agreement also contains this obligation.
Pursuant to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and as set out in its gas safety policy, the landlord has an obligation to undertake annual gas safety checks.
Social housing landlords are required to ensure that their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. The standards state that the property must provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. This requires homes to have efficient heating.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. It stated it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It said it would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. The third stage of the complaints process was a review by an independent customer service committee member within 20 working days.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the boiler and gas pipework including its handling of the installation of a gas meter at the property.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2021 and said it was keen to restore the heating to her home. It advised a meter needed to be installed at the property and that if she arranged for this to be done it would cover any installation costs. The landlord explained that as the boiler had been out of use it would install a new one once a meter had been installed. It hoped this reassured the resident as to the safety of the property as the boiler would be brand new. We have not seen evidence that the resident responded to the landlord’s letter.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 20 October 2022 and offered to install a new boiler. It then telephoned the resident on 21 December 2022 and reiterated that it wanted to install a new boiler but needed a meter to be installed first. The resident told the landlord that the gas supplier had told her it could not install a meter at the property as the system had been condemned so all gas and water pipework would need to be renewed throughout the property. The landlord told the resident this was not the advice it had been given by its contractors and that it would contact the supplier to arrange a joint visit.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has stated several times that she has received advice from the gas supplier to state that it could not install a meter at the property. The resident has not provided this Service with any other evidence to confirm this. It also evident that no supporting evidence had been provided to the landlord at the time, or during the course of the complaint. In the absence of any supporting evidence we are unable to conclude that this advice was given, or that the landlord failed to consider this advice further.
The landlord contacted the gas supplier at the end of December 2022 and had the account put into its name to arrange the reconnection of the gas supply to the property. It advised the resident of this on 13 January 2023 and the resident responded and said that she had been told it was not possible for the gas supply to be installed to a “condemned appliance”.
On 20 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised it had arranged for the supplier to install a meter to enable the supply of gas to the property and that the work would be completed on 31 January 2023. It advised that it had specifically asked if there was any reason a meter could not be installed if a boiler had been condemned and had been told that there was not. The landlord said the boiler would be installed by a Gas Safe engineer and a full inspection of the heating system would be completed before and after installation. It stated this would “guarantee that the heating system [was] safe to use” and that documentation would be provided to confirm this.
It was reasonable that the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with the gas supplier to ascertain whether the resident’s concerns were founded. It was also correct that the landlord made proportionate efforts to reassure the resident that the works could safely go ahead and that they would be completed by properly qualified engineers who would provide the relevant certification.
On 31 January 2023 the gas supplier installed a gas meter at the property. The following day the supplier telephoned the landlord to advise that the resident had asked it to remove the meter and it had therefore attended the property. The records show that the landlord also attended the property and that the resident was stating that the meter needed to be removed as there was a gas leak. The supplier’s engineer confirmed that the gas was capped and the meter and property were safe. The landlord advised the resident it was trying to assist her in restoring the heating and hot water and that if she continued to behave in a “challenging manner” it would consider taking action for breach of tenancy. It is acknowledged that the resident considered this to be heavy-handed but it was appropriate for the landlord to advise of the potential action it could take.
The landlord telephoned the resident again on 2 February 2023 and arranged a meeting with the resident at her home on 10 February 2023 to discuss the issues regarding the heating and hot water. The resident said that she had been told by a gas supplier recently that the pipework in her property was unsafe. The landlord contacted the supplier who stated that “there [were] no records of any conversation with the [resident]…at anytime” and that the last time it had visited the property was in 2021.
The evidence shows that the landlord made proportionate efforts to investigate the resident’s concerns. This was reasonable.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 February 2023. She said:
1. She was living in a flat without heating with a “serious medical condition”.
2. The meter had been illegally installed but the supply was capped.
3. There was no EPC on the property and this was a legal requirement. The lack of an EPC therefore meant the property was let illegally.
4. There was black mould in the property “as a direct result of the lack of heat”.
On 2 March 2023 the Health and Safety Executive wrote to the resident following contact she had made. It said that the gas to the property had been capped and there was no current risk to her health or safety. It went on to state that there were “no breaches of the Gas Safe Installation and Use Regulations 1998 and [it was] therefore unable to take any further action”.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord carried out an annual gas safety check on the property. The gas safety certificate states that the meter was capped at the request of the resident.
It is noted that the resident has stated on several occasions that she has been without heating and hot water for 13 years. The evidence seen by this Service indicates that the property has been without heating and hot water since 2017, a period of 7 years.
It is of serious concern to this Service that the resident has been without heating or hot water for such an extended period.
During the period considered by this investigation there is no evidence that the landlord made enquiries about how the resident was managing without heating or hot water. We have not for example seen evidence that it asked the resident whether she had electric heaters or cookers or how she was heating water to bathe. This was unreasonable.
While we have not seen evidence that the resident is vulnerable, we consider that as she has been without heating and hot water for a long period it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider referring her for support or for a social care assessment. That there is no evidence that this was a consideration of this is a failing.
It is accepted that in this case the landlord has attempted over a prolonged period to engage with the resident and encourage her to allow it to complete works to heating and hot water to the property. It is also accepted that the resident has not allowed the landlord access to complete the works as she states all the pipework in the property also needs replacing.
This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the pipework in the property is unsafe or requires replacement. There is therefore no obligation on the landlord, under the tenancy agreement or otherwise, to carry out the pipe replacement work the resident has requested. While the resident has stated that various organisations have advised her that the pipework is unsafe, the evidence shows that the landlord has liaised with these organisations and has not been given this advice.
The landlord has a legal obligation to keep the heating installations in good working order and to ensure that the property meets the Decent Homes Standard. As the owner of the property the landlord also has an interest in maintaining its asset.
It is therefore of concern that we have not seen evidence that the landlord has considered taking legal action to allow it to carry out the works. The landlord should have taken reasonable and proportionate action to gain access to the property to carry out the required works to reinstate heating and hot water. In this case this may have required applying to court for an injunction allowing it to gain entry to the property.
It is noted that legal action should always be a last resort but in this case it is unclear why the landlord has not considered this. The evidence provided does not suggest that the landlord has consulted its legal team with regards to its options or sought advice. Given how long the issues have been ongoing, it would be reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to make enquiries about what enforcement action it can take to ensure the resident’s access to heating and hot water is restored, and that the condition of the property does not deteriorate.
Overall, it is accepted that the resident has prevented the landlord from replacing the boiler in the property. It is acknowledged that the landlord has taken steps to allay the resident’s concerns, including liaising with independent gas engineers. However, given that the issue has been longstanding, we consider that the landlord could reasonably have gone further to try to resolve the issue. For example, it could reasonably have sought legal advice about the options available to it to ensure that it was meeting its obligations under the tenancy agreement. That the landlord did not explore this further was a failing. As noted above, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord has considered the welfare of the resident during this period either. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about gas safety and the pipework at the property.
Given that the issue is longstanding and that complaints relating to the same matter have now been considered by the Service several times, it would be incumbent for the landlord to consider taking steps to ensure that the issues can be resolved satisfactorily and that the heating and hot water at the property is restored. The use of a mediator – as suggested by the landlord – is encouraged. The resident is also encouraged to work with the landlord to ensure that it can take the necessary actions at the property in relation to the boiler.

Response to the resident’s concerns that the property was let without a valid EPC certificate.

EPCs were introduced in 2007 and provide an assessment of a property’s energy efficiency. It is a legal requirement for all domestic and commercial buildings let after 2007 in the UK to have an EPC.
This Service is aware that there is no EPC for the property. The property was let to the resident in 2002. At the time, there was no legal obligation for the landlord to provide one. There was no obligation on the landlord to conduct an inspection and issue a certificate after 2007 either, as the requirement is not retrospective.
While the landlord is not obliged to provide an EPC for the property, we have seen no evidence that it responded to the resident’s concerns that the property did not have one. The resident raised the issue twice in March 2023 and explicitly asked the landlord for a copy of the certificate. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the request. This was a failing.
Overall, while there was no failure by the landlord to issue an EPC certificate, it should have responded to the resident’s queries about the matter and provided her with such an explanation accordingly. That it did not was service failure.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.

Throughout her communications with the landlord the resident has described “harassment”, “mental oppression”, “disrespect” and “aggressive” behaviour from its staff. She has also stated that she believed that staff were “deliberately falsifying statements”.
The resident’s statements are serious and this Service acknowledges that the resident feels that she has been treated poorly by the landlord and that this has caused her to feel distress. It may be helpful to explain that it is not the role of this Service to ascertain whether the landlord’s staff did behave in the manner described by the resident. Rather, in this case the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances including assessing its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it engaged with the resident’s allegations, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately. In doing so, the landlord reviewed records of telephone conversations and spoke to the staff member who had attended the resident’s property. This was reasonable and proportionate.
If the resident had further evidence that corroborated the behaviour of the landlord’s staff it would have been reasonable for her to provide this to the landlord to assist in its investigations. While it is noted that the resident stated she had a witness to the telephone call we have not seen evidence that she provided the witnesses details to the landlord. As a result the landlord could not investigate or consider the matter further.
Overall, the landlord made reasonable investigations into the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.

Response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of flies in the loft.

The tenancy agreement does not refer specifically to pest control, nor does the landlord’s repair policy, tenant handbook or website.
While the resident did not raise her concerns regarding an infestation of flies in her stage 1 complaint, she did raise this in her stage 2 and stage 3 complaints and the issue was addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses.
The landlord has not provided repair records for the property so it is not possible to determine whether she had reported the infestation to the landlord prior to her complaint.
It is noted that the resident did not specify within her complaint what sort of infestation she was concerned and she referred generally to “vermin”. She has however in subsequent communication with this Service clarified that the loft space above her flat had an infestation of flies which were entering the property.
The landlord in its stage 2 and stage 3 complaint responses advised the resident that pest control was the resident’s responsibility. While it may be reasonable for the resident to be responsible for pest control issues within the property there is no policy, guidance, or tenancy agreement term for the landlord to rely on in making this statement. We have therefore ordered that it review its policies and procedures repairs policy and guidance to include pest control.
The resident has stated to the landlord that the flies were in the loft space which was not her responsibility. If the flies were in part of the building which did not form part of the resident’s tenancy this Service considers that this would have been the responsibility of the landlord.
This Service would have reasonably expected that the landlord would have attended the property to ascertain whether the infestation was indeed within the resident’s property or within a communal area. That there is no evidence that it did so was a failing.
Overall, the evidence does not show that the landlord carried out reasonable and proportionate investigations following the resident’s report of a pest infestation to ascertain the location or cause. If there is an infestation originating from an area for which the landlord is responsible – or as a result of a repair for which the landlord is responsible – it would reasonably be expected to take action to work with the resident and resolve the infestation. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of flies in the loft.

Handling of the associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

It is noted that while the landlord’s complaints policy was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it was updated in January 2023. The new complaint procedure consists of 2 stages and is complaint with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timeframes outlined in its own policy and the Code.
The stage 1 complaint response addressed each of the issues raised by the resident in her complaint. The landlord’s response provided sufficient detail and reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord also acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timeframes in its own policy and the Code.
Its stage 2 response did not however address all of the issues raised by the resident. The resident in her stage 2 escalation raised concerns that the property did not have an EPC. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this concern. This was a failing.
The landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response within the timeframe outlined in its policy that was in place at the time.
Despite the resident clearly reiterating her concern in her stage 3 escalation he stage 3 response also failed to address the lack of an EPC. This was a further failing.
It was reasonable that within its stage 3 response the landlord made the resident aware of its policy in relation to unfounded allegations regarding its staff. The landlord has an obligation to support and protect the wellbeing of its employees and making the resident aware of the policy gave her the opportunity to consider the outcome of any future reports.
In its final complaint response the landlord stated it wanted to employ the services of an independent mediator to assist in the parties coming to an agreement which would allow it to restore heating and hot water to the property. This was a resolution focussed proposal.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and therefore did not offer her any compensation.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the boiler and gas pipework including its handling of the installation of a gas meter at the property. However, it is noted that the resident has not taken steps to cooperate and work with the landlord to ensure that the heating and hot water can be restored. We therefore have not ordered any compensation, but rather we have made a series of orders aimed at ensuring that matters at the property are progressed accordingly.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was timely and provided reasonable and proportionate responses to the resident’s concerns. Its stage 2 and stage 3 responses however failed to address one of the issues raised by the resident. Therefore there was service failure in the handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the boiler and gas pipework – including its handling of the installation of a gas meter at the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the property was let without a valid Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of flies in the loft.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its handling of this case and specifically to:
1. Consult with its legal team and explore the options that are available to it to resolve the lack of heating and hot water in the property.
2. Consider whether sufficient support is available to the resident or if she has been referred for further support.
3. Explore how the resident is currently heating the property and accessing warm water for bathing.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failure to respond to the resident’s query regarding the EPC for the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to attend the property and carry out inspections in relation to the resident’s reports of an infestation of flies in the loft and her property. The landlord should update the resident and this Service regarding the outcome of the inspections and any action it intends on taking within 2 weeks of the inspections.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord to review its policies, procedures and guidance to ensure that its approach to pest control is clear to staff and residents. In particular the landlord should:
1. Detail when it is and is not responsible for pest control issues e.g. communal areas and when an infestation is due to a failing or inaction by the landlord to address a repair issue.
2. The timeframes it will apply when responding to pest control issues within its own area of responsibility.
3. Who residents should approach for assistance if the issue is not the landlord’s responsibility.