From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Brighton and Hove City Council (202340117)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340117

Brighton and Hove City Council

22 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 response to the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat. She lives in the property with 2 children. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident reported having problems with hot water at the property on 18 January 2024. She said no hot water was coming from the bath taps.
  3. The landlord logged the report and sent a contractor to attend on the same day. It said there was an issue with the heat exchanger plate and that the intermittent hot water was a scalding risk. It logged the issue as an emergency repair with a target completion date of 19 January 2024.
  4. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2024. She said that a contractor had attended her property on 18 January 2024 but could not complete the repair. She said she had been chasing for a response but had not been given any updates. She said she was still without hot water.
  5. The landlord responded on 24 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair and scheduled the work for the same day as its response. It said it had to order parts for the boiler which resulted in the delay. It offered £50 compensation due to delays in fixing the issue.
  6. The landlord completed the repair on 24 January 2024. It confirmed that the issue had not been with the heat exchanger but the cold water pressure.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 January 2024. She said its response to the emergency repair was poor and its contractor had misdiagnosed the issue. She said it should have provided her with an alternative source of hot water. She said communication had been poor throughout. She refused the offer of compensation.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2024. It apologised that the issue was not dealt with within its emergency repair timescales. It said that the repair should have been completed on the first day it attended the property but the issue was misdiagnosed. It said it had recommended further training for its contractors as a result of the issue. It offered the resident £200 compensation due to the impact of the delay on the resident and her family.
  9. The resident escalated the issue to the Service on 8 February 2024. She said that the level of compensation offered was not fair given the impact of the situation on her family and health.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has told us that she and her family’s health was impacted by the landlord’s inaction and delays. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can review independent evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property

  1. In the landlord’s Repairs Policy, it says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says an example of an emergency repair would be no hot water coming from a boiler from November to April. It says it will provide an out of hours service for emergency repairs to make a situation safe. It says further works will be completed the next working day by appointment.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water coming from the bath on 18 January 2024. She said it was her family’s only method of washing. Hot water in the rest of the property was not affected.
  3. The landlord logged the report as an emergency repair issue on 18 January 2024. It sent an engineer to inspect the issue on the same day which was appropriate and showed that it understood the severity of the issue. The engineer identified the need for an additional part to complete a repair on the boiler and ordered the part the following day.
  4. The landlord advised the resident that there was a scalding risk from the hot water and that she should not use it at all until the issue had been repaired. In its job report, it highlighted the additional severity of risk due to there being children in the property. This was appropriate guidance and showed that the landlord understood the importance of making the resident and her family safe.
  5. Evidence provided shows that the contractor made 3 calls to the resident on 19 January 2024. It said it was sourcing the parts needed and tried to arrange the repair for 20 January 2024 but that this was not a suitable time for the resident. It also offered to repair on 22 January 2024 but this was also not suitable. It was appropriate for the landlord to try and find a convenient time to complete the repair while prioritising urgency. The contractor logged one out of hours call over the weekend.
  6. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2024. She said:
    1. that she had spent 6 days without hot water since the contractor’s visit on 18 January 2024
    2. that there had been no update from the landlord since the visit despite being told she would receive an update on 19 January 2024
    3. that contact from the landlord had been poor despite the resident chasing it for updates over the course of the 6 days
    4. that the landlord was failing in its legal duty to provide the resident with hot water
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024. It said:
    1. it apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of the delayed repair
    2. it had been unable to complete the repair on the day of the inspection as it found parts were required to repair the boiler
    3. it ordered these parts on 19 January 2024 but noted that these would not be delivered until the next working day, which would be after the weekend
    4. its out of hours service had logged her call over the weekend but that team was not able to handle this type of repair
    5. that it had scheduled the repair for later that day, 24 January 2024
    6. that it was offering £50 compensation for the delay in completing the repair
  8. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the repair to have been delayed as a result of parts being ordered. It had tried to provide updates and schedule an appointment on 19 January 2024 as its policy says it will. It had taken longer than expected as it had been unable to find a time that was convenient for the resident.
  9. It is acknowledged that it would have been inconvenient for the resident to not have use of washing facilities. While it may have been helpful for the landlord to consider if there was any additional support it could have offered, not doing so was not a failing. This is because the landlord provided advice around the risk of using the hot water. It also made reasonable attempts to return to complete a full repair within 48 hours of the report. It was unable to do so for reasons outside its control.
  10. The landlord completed the repair on 24 January 2024 as promised, which was appropriate and showed that it acknowledged the severity of the delay. The engineer noted that the issue had not been with the heat exchanger as previously stated, but with the cold water pressure. This meant that a replacement of parts was not required as it had previously thought.
  11. The resident asked for the complaint to be raised to stage 2 on 24 January 2024. She said:
    1. the landlord did not act urgently when it knew there was a scalding risk from the hot water
    2. she had to prompt the landlord to come out and complete the repair despite it telling her the part had been delivered
    3. the problem had been misdiagnosed on the first visit
    4. the landlord’s policy said it was obliged to provide an alternative source of hot water after 48 hours, which it failed to do
    5. contact from the landlord and its contractors had been poor throughout
    6. her children were ill and impacted by not being able to have a hot bath
    7. she was refusing the offer of £50 compensation
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. It said:
    1. it apologised that the issue was not fixed within emergency timelines as it should have been
    2. it acknowledged that repairs can be delayed when parts need to be ordered but that it was not appropriate that the repair was not completed as soon as the part became available
    3. the issue had been misdiagnosed and could have been addressed within 24 hours of the initial report, in line with its policies
    4. it had recommended that its contractor provided training to its staff in light of this error
    5. it was offering the resident £200 compensation as a result of the delay and this amount considered that she had 2 children
  13. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and showed that it understood the impact they had on the resident. It explained how it would have considered the delay reasonable while it waited for parts, despite the issue being misdiagnosed. This showed it wanted to explain its approach clearly.
  14. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider how it could learn from the error made by its contractor on the day it diagnosed the issue. It showed that it understood the impact of its failing and that it was taking steps to prevent repeats of this mistake. It provided us with evidence that its contractor reviewed its process so more jobs are completed on the first visit.
  15. The offer of £200 compensation was reasonable and considered that there had been a more severe impact on the resident because of her 2 children. We do not consider additional compensation is required as this amount appropriately reflects the failings. This has been considered in line with our remedies guidance.
  16. We have not seen evidence that the landlord’s policies say it will commit to the provision of alternative sources of hot water when there is a loss of it. However, the landlord did not explain why it did not provide any alternatives when the resident raised this. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged an increased impact on the resident but to not explain its approach in more detail. It missed an opportunity to offer her reassurance or show it was considering how it could learn from this.
  17. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about poor communication throughout the process. This was not appropriate. It could have taken the opportunity to reflect on the experience of the resident and learn from this. However, this investigation has not found that there were failings with its communication. Call logs provided by its contractor show efforts were made to organise the repair. Its response could have acknowledged the resident felt distressed by its level of contact and offered to discuss her experience.
  18. In summary, while there were some shortcomings in its approach, the landlord took appropriate steps to address its failings. It attempted to complete the repair within its timeframes but faced delays both within and outside its control. It acknowledged its failings in diagnosing and dealing with the repair and showed that it was learning from them. For the reasons outlined above, there has been a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord speaks to the resident to discuss its approach and identify ways in which it could have helped her feel more supported during the repair period.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers options for alternative provision of hot water for its residents when they experience a loss of hot water for a prolonged period. We recommend it commits its options to writing in the form of a procedure.