Connexus Homes Limited (202208950)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208950

Connexus Homes Limited

20 June 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s subject access request and freedom of information request.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the solar panels at his property.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of his storage heaters not heating his home.
4. Response to the resident’s request for the installation of a log burner.
5. Response to the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.
6. Handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, it is determined that, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request and freedom of information request is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints about subject access requests and freedom of information requests are more appropriately considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident may wish to contact the ICO directly if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised to the landlord a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time; this would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
This report will therefore focus on events from February 2021 onwards, this being six months prior to the resident raising his dissatisfactions to the landlord. This is because, with the passage of time, it becomes increasingly difficult to reliably establish the facts of the case. Therefore, while some older events may be included, this is to provide context to the complaint.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident has made a declaration of sovereignty and changed his name. It is also noted that the resident considers that this voids the legal agreement between himself and the landlord. There is, however, no evidence of any legally binding change to the agreement and therefore it has been assumed that the terms of the tenancy agreement remain. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to determine the legality of the resident’s declaration and he may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this issue further.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord was aware that the resident had health vulnerabilities and was a wheelchair user. The resident’s property has its energy supplemented by solar panels on the roof.
The landlord corresponded with the resident between 16 March and 9 August 2021 about his concerns about the solar panels, which he was concerned about being linked to a dispute he had with his energy supplied. He also wanted it to install a log burner at his property and raised that his storage heating system was contributing to the formation of mould in the property.
On 21 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that mould had been forming on his furniture since Spring 2021 and that his storage heaters stopped working in November 2020. He relayed that he had since been using stand-alone electric heaters he had purchased himself for which he was awaiting reimbursement from the landlord. The resident added that, during a recent inspection of the property, the landlord’s staff had turned down the temperature of his hot water by reducing the energy supplement from the solar panels. The resident requested records of the solar panels since their installation, the results from a recent survey of the panels and the agreement made between the landlord and the previous tenant about the installation. The resident also questioned why he had been refused the installation of a log burner and pointed out that his storage heating system had not worked since November 2020, and he now had mould growth on his furniture.
The landlord considered the complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure and provided its final response to the resident on 3 March 2022. In this it explained how the resident benefitted from lower energy costs from the solar panels and provided advice to him on how to maximise this benefit. The landlord relayed that its damp survey and the local authority’s inspection had found no evidence of damp at the property and a minimal level of mould. It noted that the resident did not use his storage heating system and advised that use of this would prevent the spread of mould in the property. The landlord confirmed that the installation of a log burner was outside of its policy and asserted that the property already had a suitable heating system.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 March 2022 to dispute its statements and informed the Ombudsman on 29 July 2022 that he remained dissatisfied as:
1. He believed the solar panels were contributing to higher energy costs to him.
2. His heating system was not working properly.
3. He wanted a log burner installed as an adjustment for his disability.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of not benefiting from solar panels installed at his property.

The resident’s email to the landlord on 21 August 2021 raised specific concerns about the solar panels at his property. These were that:
1. During a recent damp survey at his property, the landlord’s staff turned down the energy supplement to his hot water from the solar panels without his consent.
2. He wanted to see all records of the solar panels since installation.
3. He wanted to see the results of the recent survey of the solar panel.
4. He wanted details of the original agreement between the landlord and the previous occupant when the solar panels were installed.
The landlord’s final response, on 3 March 2022, did not address all of these concerns directly. It reasonably provided an explanation of how the solar panels benefited the resident, specifically that he benefited from cheap or free use of his electrical appliances during the day while the panels were generating energy. However, the landlord could have gone further to explicitly confirm or deny if any action on its part could have resulted in a change in his hot water. Similarly, it could have clarified exactly what records or reports he wanted and, confirm if it could supply these to him. It could also have investigated further the nature of the agreement the resident believed was made with the previous tenant and clarified the details of this, if it existed. There was no evidence that the landlord provided the report from a solar panel survey completed on 25 February 2021 to the resident.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain the economic benefits to the resident, given its previous contact with him about his concerns over his energy bills, it failed to fully address the resident’s specific concerns. This failure to address all the points he raised was likely to have contributed to his dissatisfaction, uncertainty and distress. The substance of the resident’s complaint was his concern that the solar panels were connected to his dispute with his energy supplier and the landlord provided insufficient explanation of whether or not any link was likely.
This was evident from the resident’s email to the landlord after its final response where he requested further evidence to support its explanation in the final response. He also highlighted that the landlord had not been transparent about the benefit it gained from the solar panels. Had the landlord not truncated its complaints process (which is discussed further below), it may have been able to resolve these issues for him.
The landlord will therefore be ordered to contact the resident to address the specific points above and to pay compensation of £100 to him for its failure to respond to the specific points he raised. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord leading to detriment to the resident which may not be permanent. The landlord should also enter into correspondence with the resident to answer any remaining questions he has about the solar panels.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his storage heaters not heating his home.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for space and water heating. This confirms its responsibility to ensure that a suitable heating system is present in the property, which it should keep in good repair.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord relayed that his heating had not been working since November 2020. The landlord’s records showed that it had inspected the property’s storage heating on 23 December 2020 and found that the resident had turned off all the heaters and was “refusing to turn them on as he wants… an open fire”. This was corroborated during a third-party inspection of the property’s solar panels on 25 February 2021, where it was recorded that the resident had turned off the storage heaters and instead opted to use stand-alone heaters. The landlord visited the resident on 18 June 2021, during which he declined an inspection of the storage heating.
There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of no heating. The landlord cannot reasonably be expected to identify and remedy any fault with a heating system if the resident declines to use or permit an inspection of the system.
The landlord will be recommended to contact the resident to re-offer an inspection of the heating system and to clarify the role of the heaters in preventing the onset of damp and mould, which is discussed further below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a log burner.

The landlord’s gas and heating policy confirms that it aims to replace solid fuel heating with more economical heating systems to meet the Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014. Its heating systems webpage confirms that it will not give permission for the installation of a solid fuel heating system. In light of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to install a log burner in the resident’s property.
The decent homes standard states that a property must have a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. In accordance with this, when a landlord receives a report that an existing heating system is unsatisfactory, it should inspect the property and considered altering or replacing the system to ensure that a reasonable degree of thermal comfort is achieved.
As discussed above in this assessment, it offered, on 18 June 2021, to carry out an inspection of the heating system. As the resident declined an inspection and did not use the electric storage heating, the landlord could not reasonably assess the suitability of the heating system. In the absence of evidence that the existing heating system was unsuitable, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to replace this with an alternate system.
Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a log burner. If the resident commences to use the installations in the property for space heating and then reports these to be inadequate or defective, then the landlord should re-assess the suitability of the existing system.
It is noted that the landlord’s final response explained that it had previously agreed to install a log burner but, after reviewing its policy, it could agree to this. The Ombudsman has been unable to identify when it agreed this with the resident and therefore it cannot be determined that a communication failure occurred. However, the landlord will be recommended to ensure that it consults its policies carefully before making any such agreement with residents in future.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take a proactive approach to mitigating damp and mould within a property. Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and the landlord had an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard. It would be expected of the landlord to inspect the property, carry out any repairs that it was responsible for, and provide measures to prevent the development of damp and mould.
In response to the resident’s report on 19 May 2021 of damp and mould, the landlord visited him on 25 May 2021, when it agreed to assess his heating system. After the local authority relayed, on 13 July 2021, a report from the resident that mould was forming behind his heaters, it carried out a damp survey on 9 August 2021. As this survey did not find evidence of structural causes of damp and only signs of mould on the furniture on one room, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide advice to him to heat his property to combat the mould.
A landlord would be expected to take proactive steps to prevent the formation of damp and mould in a property. However, since the resident had not been using the heating in the property, it was reasonable for it to suggest this in the first instance to tackle the spread of mould. This was in accordance with the advice given on the landlord’s “Preventing damp, mould and condensation in your home” webpage.
In response to the resident’s complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the local authority’s environmental health team, which had carried out an inspection of the property on 14 January 2022. Given that the landlord and the local authority’s inspection had concurred that the formation of mould was the result of the resident not heating the property, and that there had been no further reports of the issue from him since his email on 21 August 2021, it was reasonable that the landlord’s final response to him recommended the use of the storage heating. There was no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it has a duty to ensure that “complaints are handled fairly and complainant has the chance to challenge our service and performance”. It’s compliments and complaints procedure provides for a two stage internal complaints process. At stage one of this, the landlord should provide a formal response within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these response timeframes, it should agree an extension with the resident which should not exceed ten working days without good reason. This procedure also states that if it decides not to accept a complaint it should provide a detailed explanation to the resident to explain why.
The landlord logged the resident’s email on 21 August 2021 as a complaint. This was reasonable as this email met the definition of a complaint, as stated in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service provided by the landlord. All member landlords are expected to adhere to the Code.
The landlord did not address the complaint at stage one of its process; instead, it escalated the complaint directly to the final stage. This was unreasonable as this was contrary to its policy, above, which was to provide the resident with the opportunity to challenge its service. Furthermore, there is no provision in the policy to only consider a complaint at the final stage in certain circumstances.
When a landlord deviates from its policy, the Ombudsman would expect it to have a good reason for doing so and to explain this clearly to the resident; there was evidence of neither in this case. The landlord’s consideration of the complaint at only one of its complaint stages denied the resident the opportunity to fully challenge its position on the issues he raised.
After escalating the complaint directly to the final stage of its process, the landlord should have issued its final response to the resident within 20 working days, in accordance with its procedure above. It provided its final response to the resident after 138 working days, on 3 March 2022; this was over six months after he raised his dissatisfactions. There was no evidence of it agreeing an extension with the resident or explaining why there was a significant delay. The landlord, therefore, delayed unreasonably and excessively in responding to the complaint.
This delay would have contributed to distress and inconvenience for the resident as he would have been left uncertain of the landlord’s position on the issues he had raised. Therefore, it should pay him compensation of £150 to recognise the potential detriment caused by its late response. This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of between £100 and £600 where a failure has caused detriment to the resident which it did not adequately put right, but which may not have impacted him permanently.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns over the solar panels at his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of his storage heaters not heating his home.
2. Its response to the resident’s request for the installation of a log burner.
3. Its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its failures in its response to his concerns over the solar panels.
2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failures in the handling of the complaint.
3. Contact the resident to clarify the nature of, and provide specific responses to, the concerns he raised.
4. Confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that future complaints will be handled promptly and in accordance with its policy.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to ensure that it consults all relevant policy before agreeing works with a resident, to avoid unnecessarily raising expectations.