First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202334599)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terrace house, situated at the end of a row of houses (gable end) that he believes to be more exposed to the cold weather. He is disabled and wheelchair bound.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to

1. The installation of solar panels,
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found;

1. No maladministration with regards to the landlord not including the resident’s property in the first phase of its retrofit programme,
2. Maladministration in its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Programme of works

4. The resident’s property was not added to the first phase of the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (Wave 2 programme). However, as a gesture of goodwill, he was included in the second phase of the retrofit programme.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was not in line with its policy and procedures.

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. In its Stage 1 response of 13 December 2023, the landlord stated the resident’s property was one of 360 properties which had qualified for the programme of works and that the retrofit programme would be drafted in November 2023. However, there was no guarantee his property would be number one on the list of properties which were scheduled for works. The resident was advised that if his property was selected to be included in the first phase of properties for works to be completed by 31 March 2024, the Assets and Sustainability team would contact him. The evidence shows that the landlord explained to the resident that properties included in the first phase would be selected based on their Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings, known at the time of drafting, and not how long the tenant had lived in the property. This was reasonable of the landlord in assessing which properties needed to be completed as a priority.
7. The resident’s property was not included in the first phase, but he was told in March 2024 by the Sustainability team that his property would be included in the second phase, with the planning stage set to begin in April 2024. This was fair that although he was not included in the first phase, the resident’s property was to be included in the second phase of works.
8. In May 2024, the landlord informed the resident that a contractor had been instructed to carry out works at his property. Surveys were undertaken on 30 May 2024 for the windows, doors and loft insulation as well as a survey on 17 June 2024 to determine the suitability of installing solar panels at the property with dates for the planned works to be confirmed. This demonstrated that the landlord took a proactive approach in carrying out preparatory work before major works could begin on the property.
9. In July 2024, the resident chased the contractor wanting a start date for when the works would begin. The contractor advised him that it was awaiting authorisation from the landlord regarding installing the solar panels. From the evidence provided the landlord was still in the planning stage of the second phase of the retrofit programme as of July 2024.
10. A building regulations certificate of compliance was provided by the landlord suggesting that solar panels were installed at the resident’s property on 4 March 2025.
11. There is no evidence the resident was provided with any updates from the landlord between July 2024 and March 2025. We do not know when the resident was notified that works would begin and if he was, whether it included timescales or any anticipated delays in the delivery of works. The evidence does not show where the resident’s property was, on the list of properties to be completed, under the second phase. We do, however know that the landlord completed its wave 2 programme in March 2025.
12. The landlord did not provide information of when the planning stage for the second phase of the retrofit programme concluded and when the resident was told works would begin. Therefore, the resident waited for more than 8 months for works to begin at his property.
13. Although this may be considered as a failing, due to the extended timescales involved. We do not believe it to be a service failure due to the scale of the planned programme of works undertaken by the landlord and its contractor, and the sheer number of properties included in the second phase. The landlord initiated the planned works so that all of its social housing stock currently below EPC rating C would be brought up to that standard, helping residents save money on energy bills and improve the quality of their homes.
14. While we understand the resident was keen for the works to begin as soon as possible, the landlord considered properties with a low EPC rating to be a priority as it undertook its programme of new works under the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund. It is reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the planned works by EPC ratings below C rather than how long a resident has lived at a property.
15. We appreciate the resident’s disappointment with the landlord’s decision not to include his property in the first phase of the retrofit programme. However, we are satisfied that there was no maladministration and that work was carried out in March 2025. That said, the landlord should have been more proactive in its communication with the resident of when works were likely to begin in order to manage his expectations. We have recommended the landlord review how it communicates with its residents regarding the timeliness of the delivery of planned improvements works.

16. In an email to the landlord on 4 January 2024, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to Stage 2 of its complaint procedure. In an email reply on 5 January 2024, the landlord refused to progress the complaint stating that the resident should treat the Stage 1 written response as its final response.
17. In its complaints policy, in instances where it declines to escalates the resident’s complaint. It must clearly communicate in writing, the reasons for not escalating it to Stage 2 of the complaint procedure as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman Service about the decision. The actions of the landlord were not in line with its policy and procedures.
18. Our Complaint Handling Code, which was in effect at the time, stated that landlords must progress the complaint to Stage 2 of the procedure, if the resident is not satisfied with the Stage 1 response, and that the Stage 2 response will be the final response. In not escalating the complaint and not providing a Stage 2 response, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.
19. The landlord demonstrated poor complaint handling in not providing the resident with a Stage 2 formal response. In the email dated 4 January 2024, he asked the landlord for a final response letter so that he could forward his complaint to our Service. A resident is not required to explain their reasons for requesting a Stage 2 consideration. By treating the Stage 1 written response as its final response, the resident was prevented from accessing our Service at the earliest opportunity.
20. The Code also stated that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known. In the email dated 5 January 2024, the landlord stated the Stage 1 response highlighted all the points he had mentioned in his email of 4 January 2024 and there was nothing further to add. Even if it had given a full explanation as to why the resident’s property might not be included in the first phase of works, the landlord should have provided a Stage 2 response, again taking the opportunity to explain to the resident which properties would be prioritised and why, as well as signposting him to support organisations and also providing practical tips on how to keep warm during periods of adverse cold weather.
21. The Code also stated landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In its email of 5 January 2024, the landlord did not address why the resident was not satisfied with its Stage 1 response and why he was promised a November 2023 start date, only to be told this was not the case. This was not fair of the landlord.
22. We therefore make a determination of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failure. This amount recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by trying to obtain a Stage 2 written response to his complaint.

Learning

23. In drawing up its programme of work, the landlord should have considered the resident’s vulnerability. This would have enabled it to understand his needs. When it decided not to include his property within the first phase, it should have clearly communicated this to the resident, setting out when work would begin on his property.