Clarion Housing Association Limited (202320209)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320209

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 October 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:
1. the resident’s concerns about the property condition at the start of the tenancy, the signup, and her request for the report of its inspection before she moved in.
2. the resident’s concerns about the floors.
3. the resident’s concerns about adapted units.
4. the resident’s concerns about the hot water not being of a sufficient temperature.
5. The complaint and its refusal to consider compensation.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block managed by a managing agent. The heating and hot water in the flat is controlled by valves and a thermal store in the flat. This is fed by a thermal store room managed by the landlord, which in turn is supplied by a plant room managed by the managing agent. The resident lives at the property with her young child, and she informed the landlord from May 2023 that she is a survivor of domestic abuse. She also says that she has medical issues including an autoimmune condition.
In April 2023, the resident complained about the condition of the flooring when she moved in, saying that there was underlay, glue and missing chunks of flooring from the previous carpet being ripped out. She said that as this affected her contractor’s ability to fit new flooring, she had tried to remove the underlay and glue herself, but progress with this was slow and exacerbated her asthma. She said that she had not moved into the property due to the issue.
Between April and May 2023, the resident raised additional issues. The property, which is adapted, was allocated to the resident (who is not disabled) in error, and she said that adapted units were unsafe for her child. She raised wider concern about the property condition and cleanliness of the kitchen and bathroom flooring. In late May 2023, she complained that she had tried to move in but there was an issue with the hot water. The landlord’s records confirm that on 29 May 2023, it raised repairs for a lack of heating and hot water due to an electric immersion boiler not working, after which the resident said a contractor attended and recommended for a plumber to attend.
The resident started to copy a solicitor into complaint correspondence, and in various correspondence, she and her solicitor requested the flooring issues to be resolved, disabled units to be removed, the boiler to be repaired, information about safety checks before she moved in, and for new safety checks to be done. The resident also made requests for a refund of rent for being unable to live at the property, reimbursement of costs incurred stripping the underlay and glue, and compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to her.
In June 2023, the landlord and/or its heating contractor attended on various occasions. On 6 June, the contractor opened a closed port on a communal riser, but were unable to confirm that this fixed the hot water issue due to the resident going out. On 19 June, the contractor attended with landlord staff and issues were identified with electrics, power and a programmer. It was noted that a reset was done, the programmer was reprogrammed and left on manual as requested by the landlord staff, and all was left working. On 22 June, landlord staff confirmed that there was no hot water. On 23 June, the contractor identified that a new ball valve was required.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord gave an interim complaint update. It noted that a solicitor was involved and said it would only be considered a legal matter if a notice of intention was given. It said the property met the void standard when let, but it updated about actions it had agreed to prepare the flooring for tiles to be laid, and said it would make queries about the kitchen and bathroom flooring. It said it was unable to investigate the hot water as this was not part of the original complaint. It noted that the resident requested a rent-free period and a safety report she was told was done before she moved in, and said it would contact her once it received responses from relevant departments.
In June and July 2023, the landlord internally discussed issues. It noted that floors met the void standard, but said the floors would be given a more even finish and complimentary carpet would be offered. It decided to decant the resident after its 22 June visit, due to her vulnerability and the hot water and flooring issues, and the evidence shows that between May and August 2023, the landlord levelled the flooring with latex, renewed kitchen and bathroom flooring, and installed laminate flooring rather than carpet due to her preferences. It noted that the property was not advertised correctly as adapted. It noted that it did not normally complete health and safety reports, only correspondence confirming properties were ready to let. It noted that units were in a safe condition and could not be changed. It noted that the only issue at sign up was that a heating and hot water switch could not be located, which was referred to the voids team. It noted that a rent-free period had not been agreed. It noted it would look into whether any further support could be offered, and records refer to the resident declining offers to refer her to support agencies.
In July 2023, the heating contractor fitted a new ball valve, but they noted that only cold water came out of taps after a 40 minute test and recommended for a blending valve to be replaced. The contractor later fitted a new blending valve, but noted that taps were 40 to 37 degrees, and the shower was cold. They noted that the temperature from the boiler room was only 64 degrees and that this may need increasing to 75 degrees, there may be too much flow, or a new thermal store may be needed. Following this, the boiler room temperature was investigated with the managing agent, and it was noted that temperatures from the pump room were 69 degrees and hot water including the shower was 40 degrees.
The landlord’s heating team discussed the issue and noted that hot water was currently working in the property at 37.5 degrees, but the resident said this was not hot enough. They noted that the main plant managed by the managing agent was set to a lower temperature for the summer, but it was supplying heat at a reasonable and safe temperature. They said that the heating system was confirmed not to be the cause of the issue, and that they suspected that thermostatic mixing valves on outlets were set low so as not to scald the previous disabled tenant. They said that this was a plumbing issue and noted that landlord staff were going to “change both units out.” The repairs records refer to a thermostatic shower being renewed around this time, and at the start of August 2023 the landlord noted that the hot water issue had been resolved.
In early August 2023, however, the resident reported that the shower was not remaining warm long enough for her and her child to both shower, and she was showering at a hotel. In mid August, landlord staff attended and then requested a joint inspection with the heating contractor. They said that the shower was previously ok after repairs staff adjusted the shower mixer valve, but the water was now lukewarm, and they were at a loss about why the water was not heating up. Soon after, the heating contractor attended with repairs staff, noted that the resident was manually turning off a hot water timer, and advised her to leave this on to ensure hot water was available. They noted that the shower mixer was still set quite low and still needed sorting.
In mid August 2023, the landlord’s solicitor responded to a letter sent by the resident’s solicitor in mid July 2023 under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England). They requested clarification on alleged claims including that the property was unfit for habitation. They said that the landlord would contact the resident to inspect the property and encouraged her to utilise its complaint procedure.
On 1 September 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted that the resident complained about flooring, disabled units, a safety check report completed before her tenancy, and hot water. It said that the resident’s legal disrepair claim superseded its complaints process and that all correspondence needed to go via the solicitors. It apologised for its delayed complaint response, due to volumes, and awarded £100 for this. The same day, the resident’s solicitor noted that the hot water had been working for the past week, but at the end of September they reported that the issue had returned and hot water only ran for a maximum of 10 minutes. The same month, the landlord escalated the complaint.
On 10 October 2023, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor inspected. Their report noted that hot water was supplied from an electric heater, that the resident said the “water gets hot but not for long enough,” and that works were required to “overhaul heating system.” The report said that the property was not considered unfit for human habitation. Following this, the disrepair team asked for the system to be checked, although they said they suspected nothing was wrong and that the resident did not know how to use it correctly.
In November 2023, the heating contractor attended without an appointment and did not gain access. That month, the resident said she obtained 5 minutes of hot water on a good day and was having to choose whether to wash herself, her child or the dishes. The landlord’s solicitor raised access issues and noted there was an immersion, prior to which the resident had said hers had not been repaired.
At the end of November, the heating contractor noted that taps improved after a blocked strainer was cleaned, and were 54 degrees, however the shower still had a problem and “dies off after about 20 seconds.” They noted that the boiler room flow being only 65 degrees was not helping, and that “all thermal stores that I’ve dealt with before does not require the clock to be on and then warm up to then give you hot water!” Following this, the landlord’s heating staff said the issue will be a mixing valve which was plumbing not heating. The disrepair staff subsequently said a new electric shower would be installed, which records say was done on 15 December 2023.
On 18 December 2023, a consultant arranged by the resident provided a report. They noted that the flat’s thermal store and heat exchanger unit was over 14 years old and had no evidence of annual maintenance. They noted that the hot water was not satisfactory even if there was thermostatic protection to reduce scalding. They noted that a drop in kitchen tap temperature after 2 minutes should not be as drastic, and that the shower and bathroom sink ran tepid. They believed there was an issue with the thermal store and heat exchanger unit. They noted that this could be due to a number of issues, such as a blockage in the heating coil or valves, or failures with temperature sensors or controls. They recommended for an engineer from the manufacturer to inspect and service the unit, and for it to be replaced if it could not be repaired.
On 20 December 2023, the heating contractor followed up the report and noted that the water was lukewarm then went cold. They noted that no issues could be identified with the flow and return from the communal boiler, the thermostat and the pump, and said an experienced heat interface unit engineer needed to investigate. On 21 December, information provided indicates the contractor attended and adjusted a blending valve. On 22 December, the contractor attended and confirmed that the hot water was staying hot, which the landlord’s solicitor highlighted on 2 January 2024. The following day, the resident’s solicitor reported that the water had been completely cold for the past 2 days.
On 8 January 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the complaint.
1. It noted the resident’s concerns and outcomes she sought including an apology, reimbursement of rent between March and June 2023, reimbursement for tools, disabled units to be removed, and reinstatement of hot water.
2. It noted she had a disrepair claim and said it was unable to investigate issues involved in this as this fell outside its complaints process. It explained that both parties’ legal representatives generally handled all correspondence relating to a case, and advised her to contact her legal representative for an update.
3. It noted that its surveyor carried out an inspection and identified repairs that included checking of the hot water and heating. It noted that since the surveyor’s visit it had agreed to fit a new thermostatic shower mixing valve.
4. It noted the resident had requested a report, and attached the October 2023 disrepair report.
5. It noted that she sought further compensation and said this would be reviewed, negotiated and agreed between the parties’ legal representatives within the legal disrepair claim.
6. It noted concerns she raised about the signup process and that she said that during a viewing, staff were unhelpful about queries she had about underlay, laminate flooring, how heating and hot water worked and why a access shower was in situ. It noted she felt her queries were dismissed as she was referred to a contact centre. It noted that a manager had initially investigated this and found staff had followed correct procedure, but it said that on further review it accepted staff should have obtained information about operation of the heating units and updated her. It said that it was currently carrying out a review of its moving in process to ensure customers were provided with information to make informed decisions about accepting properties.
7. It noted that it took decisions to temporarily relocate her and to authorise a discretionary management transfer, in view of the impact that the living arrangements were having on her and her child.
8. It apologised and awarded a further £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
On 22 January 2024, a consultant arranged by the landlord provided a report and documentation for the resident’s thermal store. They noted that sinks were 45 degrees and the shower was 30 degrees, which “dropped rapidly” after 2 mins. They said that there was insufficient heat from the centralised plant, noted to be 51 degrees, to meet demand for heating and hot water. They noted that the hot water was supplied through a heat store that needed to be heated to 70 degrees for correct operation, which required a primary flow of 80 degrees from the central plant. They also noted that the incoming primary flow and return pipework was 15mm while the flat’s plate heat exchanger (PHE) flow and return tappings were 22mm. They recommended to investigate why the centralised plant was not delivering the correct temperature to the PHE, why 15mm primaries were fitted to the PHE, and if thermostatic blending needed cleaning.
Following this, the landlord corresponded with the managing agent. It noted it had previously discussed the plant temperature of 70 degrees being low, and the managing agent had said this was the usual operating temperature. It noted that the consultant had confirmed that the flow temperature was lower than the systems require, and asked the building management company to review the temperatures at which the main plant operated. The managing agent responded with a screenshot of a graph showing the supply temperature to the heat exchangers in the plant room, for that day. This showed temperatures between 82 and 85 degrees up to 6am, and between 76 and 79 degrees after 6am up until 3pm.
The landlord internally discussed its consultant’s findings. It noted that the managing agent had provided information that there had been dips in service when the consultant had attended and that the current temperature was 80 degrees. It said it would struggle to establish why the flow was at 15mm, as it did not construct the building or design the installations, and it had not caused issues before. It noted that it had asked the heating contractor to recheck the temperature and replace or clean the thermostatic mixing valve on the thermal store. Following this, the heating contractor attended at the end of January 2024 but did not clean the thermostatic mixing valve as it was brand new. They noted that taps were around 49 degrees, but the shower was only lukewarm, and further investigation was required for the shower not distributing hot water. The resident’s solicitor noted that the contractor also said that pipes behind the shower needed to be checked to see why the water was not hot enough.
In early February 2024, the landlord’s solicitor said the heating contractor would not be doing this as the hot water was operating normally and this was a plumbing issue. However, they noted that the contractor had not cleaned the valve as instructed and said they had been asked to return and clean the thermostatic mixing valve, check it for faults, check the water remained warm for sufficient time for a shower to be run, and confirm the incoming temperatures from the plant room. In late February, the resident reported that she was still experiencing lukewarm to cold water from the shower, and lukewarm to cold water after 10 minutes running taps.
On 7 and 26 March 2024, the heating contractor attended to clean the thermostatic mixing valve, check for faults, and measure the incoming flow temperature from the plant room, but did not gain access. The reason for lack of access on 7 March 2024 is unclear, but for the 26 March 2024 visit, the resident reported that the contractor attended in the morning for an afternoon appointment.
In early April 2024, the heating contractor attended. They noted that the thermostatic mixing valve was fine, the shower was not that hot compared to the basin tap, the hot water on the basin tap only provided for 10 minutes then went cold, and they were unable to access the plant room. In late April, the resident reported that the hot water tap temperature was 30 degrees and noted that her shower was always considerably lower than the taps.
On 2 May 2024, a plumber and the heating contractor carried out a joint visit. The plumber noted that the bathroom and elsewhere was around 41.2 degrees. They noted that boxing was removed to check for a temperature valve and there was just pipework. They noted that the heating contractor found that the return pipe was barely getting warm and said a new cylinder was needed. The heating contractor noted that the resident said that the hot water got hot enough for a 3-minute shower, and that the hot water dropped as it was used throughout the day. They noted an issue with the cylinder return and that there must be a blockage within the coil. They recommended to replace the cylinder due to the blocked primary coil, and to flush flat pipework to prevent the issue from happening in future. The information provided advises that after the initial report, the contractor recommended replacing a pump before replacing the cylinder, and it was noted that the resident was left with hot water after a new pump was fitted.
In May 2024, the resident was called to check the status of the issue since the pump was fitted, and the heating contractor was subsequently scheduled to fit a new cylinder. The same month, the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim under the Pre-Action Protocol. They said that the hot water issue rendered the property unfit for habitation and that the landlord was failing its repairs obligations. They requested the landlord’s proposals for settlement including compensation for general and special damages.
In early June 2024, a joint visit was scheduled with the heating contractor and landlord staff, but this did not go ahead.
In mid June 2024, the landlord’s solicitor responded to the letter sent by the resident’s solicitor.
They encouraged use of the complaints procedure. They said that the findings in the December 2023 report was not accepted as the consultant was not qualified. They noted that its surveyor in October 2023 did not find the property unfit for human habitation, and it had instructed a consultant to identify if the recommended overhaul of the heating system was required. They said that the alleged issues were considered “de minimis” but to draw a conclusion to the matter, it would be instructing a suitably qualified surveyor with experience of communal heating systems, to investigate and provide recommendations on remedial works required, if any.
They said that suitable investigations had been ongoing since its commencement, the resident’s claim had been inconsistent, and she was not without hot water as the allegation was there was not enough hot water to last until evening. They said that they believed that they were acting in line with its repairs obligations in a reasonable period of time given the extensive investigations required. They said that they were unclear if it was a potential claim for personal injury and detailed the correspondence required if this was the case.
In late June 2024, the resident says that the heating contractor attended to replace the cylinder, but they were unable to and rearranged this.
In early July 2024, a new immersion was installed. This is understood to have included replacement of the flat’s thermal store and heat exchanger unit. The heating contractor attended again a few days later. They noted that the water was at a good temperature because of the immersion. They noted that they drained the water, waited an hour for the water to reach temperature, and it was 34 degrees when they opened a tap. They noted that this held for less than 3 minutes and then dropped lower and lower. They noted that the resident raised concern that because of this test she would not have enough hot water to wash her child or do the dishes, which reflects concerns she raised to the landlord the same day.
In early August 2024, the heating contractor attended. They noted that wiring was yet to be finished but the immersion was wired in so the hot water could be tested. They noted that hot water at taps was scalding hot, but the shower was “still bad” and an issue, and a heat meter needed fitting. In late August 2024, the heating contractor attended and noted that heating and hot water was available, but there was a possible issue with the shower.
On 23 October 2024, the independent survey that the landlord committed to in mid June 2024 was carried out. The landlord says that it expects to receive the report for this in early November 2024, and the resident informs the Ombudsman that the surveyor identified a number of problems.
The resident confirms that the landlord replaced her boiler in late July 2024, with some final wiring up completed in late August 2024. She confirms that she now has a working immersion that was on at the moment, as the heat interface unit recently stopped producing hot water. She says that the shower still runs lukewarm, generally at 35 to 38 degrees, but occasionally at 40 degrees before reverting back to 35 degrees after 5 minutes.
She has stated that the issue has had a detrimental impact on her and her child and affected her physical and mental health. She has reported that the issues have led her to clean with a flannel, wash her child in a bucket, pay for leisure centre membership to use showers, and buy a dishwasher. She has raised dissatisfaction that she was referred back to her solicitor in respect to compensation, and said this needed to be discussed with her as her legal aid solicitors could not discuss this.
She raises concern that there was an issue with the flat’s hot water before she moved in. She says there are heating and hot water issues at the block that other tenants experience, and the landlord recently told a residents meeting that a block wide issue would be resolved and residents would be updated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised dissatisfaction that she was allowed to move intoa wheelchair-accessible property, dissatisfaction with the heating temperature, and dissatisfaction with housing options for the management move that the landlord offered. These were not the main focus of the resident’s original complaints in April and May 2023, and so are not considered here. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to respond to complaints about these issues. She also has the option to complain to the local authority who it is understood she holds partially responsible for allowing her to move into the property.
The resident has referred to issues having a major impact on her health, wellbeing, and finances The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however it is not in our jurisdiction and expertise to make definitive decisions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, wellbeing and costs incurred. The resident has the option to take independent advice and make a liability claim if she wishes to pursue this. We can consider whether a landlord has acted reasonably, which our investigation goes on to do.

The resident’s concerns about the property condition at the start of the tenancy, the signup, and her request for the report of its inspection before she moved in

The resident raised concerns about the property condition and it being deemed safe. The landlord noted that no specific safety inspections were carried out, but it confirmed that the property was ready to let at a January 2023 inspection, following some works identified in November 2022. This shows that the landlord took steps to satisfy itself of the property condition before the resident moved in, and while we understand the resident’s concerns, it is not evident that the condition breached the landlord’s void standard. The landlord subsequently told the resident that the property met the void standard when let, which seems reasonable.
The resident raised concerns about the signup process, including that she raised issues such as the floor and that she was referred to a contact centre. The landlord investigated about the signup and obtained staff version of events. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s accounts, but on the evidence it is not possible to decide who is right or who is wrong. The landlord demonstrates that it responded reasonably to these concerns by investigating them in a way that we would expect, and acknowledging that some aspects could have been handled differently. The landlord was also positive to confirm that it was carrying out a wider review of signup processes to ensure that residents could make informed decisions.
The resident requested safety reports for inspections carried out before she moved in. The landlord provided a disrepair inspection report from October 2023. This was not entirely satisfactory. The landlord does not demonstrate that it provided the explanation it communicated internally, which could have been helpful, and the October 2023 disrepair inspection report was not the pre-tenancy report that the resident requested.
Overall, while the landlord responded reasonably about the signup, and took reasonable steps to satisfy itself of the property condition before the resident moved, it does not demonstrate that the communication and information about this was as effective or customer focused as it could have been to reassure the resident. This lacked sufficient regard for her vulnerable circumstances. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure for the landlord’s response about the property condition, the signup, and the request for the report of its inspection before she moved in.

The resident’s concerns about the floors

The resident complained about the floor having underlay, glue and missing chunks, and said she had reported concerns about this at the start of her tenancy. She also raised concern about the cleanliness of the kitchen and bathroom floor. She says that she was unable to fit tiles she wanted and move in due to the issue. She requested a refund of rent up until August 2023 when she moved into the property.
The landlord discussed and inspected the floors, and considered them to meet the void standard, which it told the resident. The landlord investigated a claim that the resident reported the floors before her complaint to staff, who said she had only mentioned she wanted to seek permission to install laminate flooring. The landlord’s records seem to confirm this. The landlord subsequently took steps to level the floors, and install new bathroom, kitchen and laminate flooring in recognition of the resident’s circumstances.
The evidence shows that multiple staff were satisfied that the floors met its void standard. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff, and the conclusions seem generally reasonable on the evidence and photos seen. The landlord’s void policy confirms that it removes floor coverings and inspects floors to ensure they are ready to receive floor coverings, which the landlord evidently did. The voids policy does not specifically say that underlay should be removed, or that new kitchen and bathroom flooring should always be installed (although there is an expectation these should be sanitary).
The landlord seems to have acted in line with its policy in respect to the floors, and it was positive, and customer focused to change its position due to the resident’s issues with preparing the floors for the type of flooring she wanted. The landlord’s actions to latex the floors for the resident to install the type of flooring she wanted, and then to install flooring itself at a cost of over £4,000, seem reasonable action to resolve matters. This and the landlord’s temporary relocation of the resident shows it was seeking to be mindful of her vulnerability and provide support.
The Ombudsman therefore sees no clear grounds for the landlord to refund rent between March and August 2023 for the floor issue. While we understand that events were very difficult for the resident, the evidence is not clear that the property was formally uninhabitable due to the floors or the landlord’s service failings. The landlord would also not be expected to refund rent between mid June and early August 2023, as it arranged alternative accommodation for this period.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there is limited evidence for service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the floors, and the remedies that the landlord provided through the actions it took are considered to be reasonable redress for any service issues that she experienced.

The resident’s concerns about adapted units

The resident complained that adapted units in the property were unsafe for her child, and asked for them to be removed. The evidence shows that in addition to inspections before the property was let, the landlord inspected the units, said they were in a safe condition and would not be changed, and told the resident of this outcome.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident was concerned about the safety of her child, however the landlord evidences that it took reasonable steps to consider her concerns and satisfy itself of the safety of the adapted units. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff in respect to this, and it is not evident that the landlord’s position has resulted in any detriment. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration about the adapted units.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the hot water not being of a sufficient temperature

The resident complained from late May 2023 that the hot water only remained hot for a short amount of time, and generally ran lukewarm from her shower. She said that this along with the flooring issue prevented her from moving into the property and led to her and her child staying at a relative’s. She subsequently moved into the property in August 2023, and says issues remain even though a new thermal store was installed in August 2024. The landlord’s position appears to be that it is satisfied that it is meeting its obligations, and that it has conducted reasonable investigations into the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said in July 2023 that the shower temperature was around 37.5 degrees but that the resident felt this was too cold. The resident confirms that the current temperature of the shower is 35 to 38 degrees and expresses dissatisfaction with this. The resident and her solicitor have said that the hot water issue renders the property uninhabitable. The Ombudsman notes that it is not in our expertise to make definitive decisions about whether a property is unhabitable. However, we can take a view on the current temperature being achieved based on the available law and guidance.
Local authorities can assess and enforce health and safety in rented housing using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk‑based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. These confirm that heating should achieve indoor temperatures between 18 and 21 degrees, but there are no stated minimum temperatures for hot water out of taps and showers. There are some health and safety requirements for water storage which the landlord considers are being met, and it is not evident this is inaccurate. The landlord’s disrepair surveyor did not find the property uninhabitable at their October 2023 visit.
The Code of Practice for Safe Water Temperatures also provides guidance about temperatures. This generally addresses maximum safe temperatures but indicates that acceptable shower temperatures can include 35, 38 and 41 degrees. It also comments on what is understood to be the type of system in place at the block, and says the aim of such a system is to store water above 60 degrees, distribute it at between 55 and 60 degrees, and discharge it at temperatures between 35 and 46 degrees. The NHS website has information that confirms 35 degrees can be an acceptable washing temperature.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, but we can see no clear evidence to show that the landlord is failing to meet its legal obligations in respect to the water temperature if this is around 35 degrees. We have also seen repairs logs for the property and issues with hot water were previously raised on 6 occasions in the past 11 years, showing it was not a regularly reported issue prior to her tenancy. While this is the case, the landlord should reasonably give regard to the resident’s concerns and her and her child’s temperature preferences, which it shows it has tried to do. However, there are aspects of its handling which were not satisfactory.
The landlord said that the shower temperature was around 37.5 degrees, which the resident felt was too cold. This temperature is supported by contractor visits in July 2023 and May 2024 that noted temperatures around 40 degrees. However, evidence for temperatures at other visits do not clearly confirm that this has been the typical temperature, and is not as clear as we would like. The temperature has been noted to be 30 degrees on some occasions, which does not seem a reasonable temperature, although this is only noted 1 or 2 times. The shower has been described as lukewarm or tepid, which definitions say applies to water between 16 and 38 degrees, which is a broad range and unclear.
It is not satisfactory that the landlord’s representatives such as staff, heating contractors and plumbers have attended multiple times, but their reports often lack sufficient detail about the specific temperature that different outlets such as the shower achieved and for how long. This has meant that evidence is often unclear about what is meant when the shower is described as cold, colder than other outlets, or when it is stated that there are issues with the shower. This is not appropriate given the nature of the complaint, and seems unhelpful for the landlord’s understanding of the issue as well as other parties’.
The resident’s previous thermal store was noted in January 2024 to require the supply from the main plant to be 80 degrees for optimal performance. The landlord took appropriate steps to discuss increasing this with the managing agent, however, the historical plant room temperature has been reported to be below 80 degrees for periods. The landlord has referred to 70 degrees being the temperature that the managing agent reduced the plant room to in the summer, and it was noted to have been 65 degrees in November 2023. It is unclear that the landlord considered the implications for the prior performance of the resident’s thermal store and impact on the prior hot water temperatures achieved.
The landlord would be expected to be aware of the requirements needed for the optimal performance of its installations, to ensure these are met. The evidence suggests that the resident’s thermal store was supplied below optimal temperatures for long periods before January 2024. It is also not clear that the plant room temperature was effectively monitored after January 2024, as after the landlord requested the plant room to be checked in February 2024, it is not evident this was done in visits between March and May 2024. This is not satisfactory, as to carry out robust investigations, it will have been beneficial for the landlord to ensure that the resident’s thermal store was being appropriately supplied.
The landlord and its solicitor suggested that the resident did not know how to use the system. This comes across as unnecessarily unsympathetic and blaming. We can only see one instance, in August 2023, where issues were stated to relate to use of the system, although evidence indicates this may have been due to prior advice from staff. There is more than one instance where the landlord or its contractors found the system challenging. In August 2023, staff said they were at a loss why water was not heating. In November 2023, an engineer noted “all thermal stores that I’ve dealt with before does not require the clock to be on and then warm up to then give you hot water!” In December 2023, an engineer said an experienced heat interface unit engineer needed to investigate. If the resident was believed to not know how to use the system, the appropriate action would have been for the landlord to ensure this was corrected, but this is not evident.
The landlord’s heating team said in July 2023 that the temperatures, particularly the shower, were being impacted by measures in place to prevent scalding, which was a plumbing issue. The evidence reports that elements of the plumbing have been changed, but it is not clear that a more in-depth investigation into the plumbing was carried out until May 2024. This is not satisfactory and indicates a lack of clear oversight and ownership.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s progress of the issue as a legal matter through her solicitor will have delayed matters to some extent. However, there are points where progress seems unreasonably slow, and where the handling is not satisfactory. The landlord took 2 months to carry out a disrepair inspection. The report for this was then vague, as it gave no detailed insight into hot water temperature, length of time it lasted, or a clear basis for a recommendation to overhaul the heating system. The landlord also took over 4 months to meet a commitment in its solicitor’s June 2024 letter to arrange an independent survey by a communal heating expert. This was done on 23 October 2024, after we queried the status of this on 18 October 2024.
The resident reported that her immersion was not working in May 2023, and mentioned this was not working when the landlord referred to her having this facility in November 2023 and early July 2024. The evidence does not show that the landlord took steps to confirm that the resident had a working immersion, and therefore a backup hot water supply, until mid July 2024 when it fitted a new one.
The resident first reported issues with hot water in late May 2023, and was temporarily relocated between June and August 2023. This reasonably fulfilled the landlord’s obligations and it would not be obligated to refund rent for a period where it has provided alternative accommodation. This and the lack of clear evidence that the property is considered uninhabitable means there does not seem basis for a rent refund between March and August 2023, or other periods.
However, from the frequency and ongoing nature of the hot water issue, the repeated references by contractors to issues with the shower and water going cold after short periods, and issues with the landlord’s handling, it is not possible to say that there will have been a reasonable and reliable hot water service until July 2024 when the heating system was replaced and there was access to an immersion heater. While the landlord took action for reports, and seems to have now achieved reasonable temperatures, this is not satisfactory.
In the Ombudsman’s view, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response about the hot water. The landlord should compensate the resident £1,288 for these issues. This comprises £600 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident, and £688 for the period between August 2023 and July 2024, based on amounts in the ‘Right to Repair’ legislation which are considered reasonable for full and partial loss of hot water.

The landlord’s complaint handling and its refusal to consider compensation

The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 and 2 responses were delayed and awarded £200 for this. This was appropriate, as the stage 1 response was delayed by around 5 months, and the stage 2 response was delayed by around 4 months. These appear to have contributed to the progression of issues via solicitors, as in June and July 2023, the resident’s solicitor sought to progress the complaint and speak to someone about it before sending a letter of claim.
The landlord did not fully investigate the complaints, which is not strictly in line with its complaints policy that it only declines to deal with complaints where details of a claim have been filed at court (which is not the case here). However, the landlord’s solicitor invited use of the complaints procedure, and when this was not taken up, it was subsequently clear about how it was handling correspondence, reflecting our guidance.
The resident raised dissatisfaction that she was being referred back to her solicitor about compensation, and said her legal aid solicitors could not discuss this. The correspondence from the resident’s solicitors for the legal claim refers to compensation for general and special damages, therefore it is not clear that her solicitors were unable to discuss compensation. It is also not uncommon for compensation to be discussed between solicitors via the pre-action protocol under which the resident and her solicitor were progressing matters. If seeking to progress matters solely under the complaint procedure, it may have been beneficial for the resident’s solicitor to clarify this when invited to do so.
However, it is noted that the landlord’s solicitors did not clearly respond about compensation, particularly for general damages, in correspondence including their June 2024 letter. This may be because the claim was disputed. However, it seems unhelpful that the landlord’s position about its current or future intentions for compensation was not clearly set out, when the landlord’s complaint responses gave the impression it would be.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition at the start of the tenancy, the signup and her request for the report of its inspection before she moved in.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the adapted units.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the hot water not being of a sufficient temperature.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint and its refusal to consider compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the floors.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £1,438 compensation. This comprises:
1. £50 for the response about the property condition, the signup and the request for the report of its inspection before she moved in.
2. £1,288 for the response about the hot water.
3. £100 for the response to the complaint and refusal to consider compensation.
The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. ensure that it or its solicitor set out its position about its current and future intentions for compensation, taking into account the current status of the issue and any further reports.
2. ensure that it or its solicitor write to the resident about the outcome to the October 2024 independent survey, with its position, any actions it is taking, and timeframes involved.
The landlord is ordered to consider the requirements of the new heating system in the resident’s flat in respect to the temperature of the supply from the main plant room, and monitor this over an 8 week period to ensure that the new heating system requirements are being met. If they are not, the landlord should discuss the supply with the managing agent with a view to ensuring that the main plant supply meets the needs of the resident’s heating system in the long term.
The landlord is recommended to, taking into account any findings in the October 2024 survey, consider commissioning an independent survey of the plumbing by an expert, to try to identify any elements in the plumbing which are contributing to lower than desired temperatures in the shower.
The landlord is recommended to, if not covered by discussions between it and the resident’s solicitor, liaise with the resident and consider reimbursing her for costs she says has incurred as a result of issues. This includes a dishwasher which she says was due to the hot water issues, and electricity costs using the immersion where this is due to shortfalls in the communal heating service.
The landlord is recommended to consider the resident’s request for the shower to be replaced with a bath, and discuss this with her, taking into account whether the current hot water supply would make this a viable resolution.
The landlord is recommended to review reports from other tenants at the block related to the communal heating system, and take steps to identify an effective and long lasting solution for any ongoing issues that are affecting multiple residents.
The landlord is recommended to review how it investigates similar reports, and to ensure that sufficient detail is recorded, such as specific temperatures.