Connexus Homes Limited (202428520)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house with a faulty hot water immersion heater. She owned and used a wood burning stove that provided heat and hot water. The landlord decommissioned the stove which meant she did not have a hot water supply.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Heating and hot water repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of heating and hot water repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The heating and hot water repairs

4. The landlord did not complete hot water repairs in keeping with its repairs policy. It considered solutions in keeping with the resident’s needs and preferences. It recognised its communication and repairs failings, apologised, and offered her proportionate compensation.

The landlords complaint handling

5. The landlord recognised its complaint handling delays and apologised but its compensation offer was not proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident took ownership of a stove that provided heating and hot water from the landlord before 2021. The landlord identified repairs with a faulty hot water immersion heater in August 2021. In October 2021, it recorded it should replace a hot water cylinder, but it did not do so. It said it was unclear where it stood as the resident owned the stove that connected to the hot water cylinder. It was responsible for providing hot water, despite the resident’s own hot water supply. It was unreasonable for it not to investigate its repair responsibilities further and reinstate the hot water in line with the tenancy agreement.
7. The landlord’s gas and heating policy says it will carry out checks of resident-owned appliances and disconnect these if they are faulty. It found ventilation issues in March 2024 and left a warning notice saying not to use the stove. The landlord was qualified to assess the property installations in keeping with gas safety regulations. Its action was appropriate under the circumstances.
8. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether its decision to condemn the stove caused a significant hazard in line with HHSRS legislation.
9. The landlord discussed installing a new central heating system with the resident in May and June 2024. It said it could not install solid fuel heating like her wood burner in line with its policy and government energy targets. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the reasons for its proposed repairs.
10. The landlord offered to install a heating system that would not emit fumes to respond to the resident’s health concerns. It also offered to consider any supporting information from her GP. This was reasonable as it was not qualified to assess the resident’s health.
11. In June 2024, the landlord met the resident to discuss the heating repair and it summarised the discussion in writing the next day. It said the heating system was beyond economical repair, and it had to install a more energy efficient system in line with its policy. It confirmed it could not let the resident complete repairs it was responsible for. It was responsible for deciding the best heating options for the property. Its decision to explain its heating repair plans in writing was reasonable given their complexity.
12. The landlord spoke to the resident about her request to keep the wood burner and stove while investigating her complaint. It said it had to condemn it as it was unsafe to allow her to use it and it would not reinstall it. However, it offered her a choice of repair options that would allow her to reinstall the wood burner if she bought the property. The landlord’s proposal attempted to balance its legal obligation to supply hot water and heating with the resident’s preferences and its gas and heating policy.
13. The landlord reviewed its handling of the heating and hot water repair in its complaint response. It apologised for not explaining its gas and heating policy sooner and for its earlier hot water repair failings. It offered the resident £1,650 compensation to put matters right in line with its compensation policy. This award was in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was maladministration. The landlord provided reasonable redress that was proportionate to the detriment its poor repair handling caused the resident.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until after she resent it. It also did not send its stage 2 response in line with its complaint policy timescales.
15. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling, recognised its delays and apologised. It showed it learnt from the complaint when it explained its policy to the resident in June 2024. This was appropriate.
16. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond to her concern about regular power cuts. This was not in keeping with our complaint handling code.
17. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation which was in line with its compensation policy. However, this was not proportionate to the detriment its complaint delays caused the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord did not retain records about the handover of ownership of the wood burner to the resident prior to 2021.
19. The landlord did not record why it did not repair a hot water immersion in 2021 when it identified the repair.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication was of a good standard. It emailed or spoke to the resident when there was new information about her heating and hot water repairs. Its complaint responses were clear, detailed, and offered solutions that balanced its tenancy responsibilities with the resident’s preferences. It also committed to review any further health information from the resident. The landlord proactively recognised its failure in relation to the immersion heater repair.