We are aware of a third-party IT security incident that has impacted our case management system.

While we investigate this and get our systems back online, you will be unable to submit a new complaint, view an existing complaint, or use our web chat, webform, Learning Hub, or landlord portal.

If you need to raise a new complaint, please email info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk or call us on 0300 111 3000.

We’re working to restore our services as quickly as possible and will share updates when we can.

Thank you for your patience. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Golding Homes Limited (202335250)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202335250

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Golding Homes Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

18 June 2026

Background

  1. The resident and her husband reported no heating and hot water to the landlord on 3 December 2023. At the time, her husband had recently suffered a stroke and heart attack.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
    2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. Reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
    2. Reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. There were excessive delays in restoring hot water at the property and completing repairs to the resident’s heating. The landlord accepted its failings in its complaint responses. It offered a reasonable level of compensation for the additional costs of alternative heating and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her husband.
  2. The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint within its overall policy timescales. It awarded appropriate compensation for its calculation error at stage 2 and for the delay in making payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

18 December 2023

The resident complained to the landlord about the time it was taking to restore heating and hot water in the property.

9 January 2024

The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted delays in completing repairs. It offered £200 compensation for the loss of heating and hot water, and the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

23 January 2024

The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 as the property was still without heating. She asked to be compensated until services were fully restored, including for the increased energy usage of alternative heating.

29 February 2024

In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays in resolving matters. It offered compensation totalling £2,675.90 for the loss of heating and hot water, the costs of alternative heating, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

21 March 2024

The landlord apologised to the resident as it had mis-calculated the compensation in its stage 2 response. Therefore, its revised offer was £1,444.63.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us the time it took the landlord to restore heating and hot water was unacceptable, especially given her husband’s health condition at the time. She said this impacted their ability to wash and they were going to family’s and friends’ houses to bathe/shower. She wants the landlord to learn from this complaint and improve its services. She would also like us to consider if the level of compensation she has already received was fair and reasonable.

 

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.

Complaint

The handling of reports of no heating and hot water in the property

Finding

Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

  1. The resident told both the landlord and us that her husband’s blood pressure was “significantly higher” while there was no heating and hot water in the property. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to heating and hot water under the tenancy agreement. Its repairs handbook, dated September 2022, states it aims to attend to these repairs within 24 hours.
  2. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  3. In this case, there are gaps in the landlord’s repair records, such as the resident’s initial report and details of some contractor attendances. It has also not provided us with all of its communications with the resident. It is unclear if this is due to a failure to keep appropriate records and/or to provide these to us. In any event, we cannot assess the outcomes of its early actions and interventions.
  4. That said, it is agreed between the parties that, in response to the initial report, the landlord erroneously sent out a gas engineer instead of an air source heat pump (ASHP) specialist. However, the impact of this was short-lived as it promptly arranged for the correct contractor to attend.
  5. The available evidence indicates multiple contractors attended from 4 to 22 December 2023, but they could not fix the problem. Parts were ordered on 5 December 2023 and again on 13 December 2023. The resident advised the landlord on 18 December 2023 that “they did not have the correct parts”. This was unsatisfactory.
  6. There is insufficient evidence of the landlord’s communications with the resident during this time. We can see she regularly chased it for progress and updates. On 27 December 2023, it advised her husband that the contractor was waiting on parts and there was a delay due to Christmas closure. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s subsequent email of 2 January 2024. There is also limited evidence of its communications with the resident thereafter until it acknowledged her stage 2 escalation request.
  7. We do not have evidence to support the resident’s assertion, in her email of 10 January 2024, that the landlord had ignored the recommendations of several engineers who had advised that “the system at the property is outdated and ought to be replaced entirely”. In any case, we note the landlord appears to have addressed this by instructing a full heat survey of the property, which was a positive response. Then, in line with the surveyor’s recommendations, it replaced the ASHP system on or around 2 February 2024.
  8. As it happened, the new system failed almost immediately and this was raised to the manufacturer to address under the warranty, which was reasonable in the circumstances. Records suggest the manufacturer delayed in responding from 5 to 13 February 2024. The resident was unable to accommodate an appointment on 14 February 2024 and the manufacturer attended on 20 February 2024, but they were also unable to get the system working.
  9. We recognise that the landlord was proactive and maintained a reasonable level of oversight of repairs in February 2024. Its communications with the contractor from 12 to 21 February 2024 demonstrates it took the matter seriously and acted with an appropriate level of urgency to get matters resolved for the resident as quickly as possible.
  10. Ultimately, the contractor restored hot water to the property on 10 January 2024, 37 days later than the 24-hour emergency timescale in the landlord’s repairs policy. They completed repairs to the heating on 23 February 2024, 81 days outside its policy timescale. These delays were excessive and unreasonable.
  11. Although we understand there is a log burner in the resident’s living room, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord providing alternative temporary heating for other rooms, particularly given the resident’s husband’s vulnerability at the time. The evidence indicates the contractor provided fan heaters to the resident on 10 January 2024. As she expressed concern about the cost of running these, they subsequently provided oil-filled heaters on 17 January 2024.
  12. The landlord’s complaint responses accepted its shortcomings in the handling of heating and hot water repairs and demonstrated it had taken learning from the resident’s experience. Its revised compensation offer relating to the substantive issue totalled £1,244.63, comprising:
    1. £79.05 for loss of heating.
    2. £79.98 for loss of hot water.
    3. £685.60 for the use of alternative heating.
    4. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
  13. This included certain amounts (£200 for distress and inconvenience and £200 for the cost of coals and logs) requested in the resident’s email of 10 January 2024. The landlord clearly explained where it did not accept other amounts she requested and how it had reached the amounts it was awarding. Its compensation offer was in line with its policy, albeit we note the error in calculating this. We have dealt with its complaint handling separately below but suffice to say the offer of compensation was appropriate in all the circumstances. Therefore, we are satisfied it provided fair and reasonable redress for its failings in respect of this complaint. As the resident has confirmed she has received the compensation, we have not made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure, dated August 2023 and June 2023 respectively, are broadly consistent with the timescales prescribed in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) applicable at the time. These state it will:
    1. Acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of receipt.
    2. Provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If an extension is required, this will not exceed a further 10 working days.
    3. Provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If an extension is required, this will not exceed a further 20 working days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 8 working days. While the delay in acknowledging receipt was not ideal, it provided its stage 1 response within 5 working days thereafter. This was a total of 13 working days, which meant it responded within the total 15-working-day timescale expected at stage 1. In the circumstances, we take the view its failure to adhere to its policy timescales was of minimal impact to the resident.
  3. The resident’s email of 10 January 2024 clearly stated she did not accept its stage 1 response as a satisfactory resolution to her complaint. We note she requested a written response to her detailed reasons for disagreeing with its decision. While it would have been good practice for the landlord to treat this as a request for escalation to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, it was not obliged to do so under its policy or the Code applicable at the time.
  4. We can see the resident expressly requested escalation of her complaint on 23 January 2024. Within 15 working days thereafter, the landlord agreed an extension to respond by 29 February 2024, which it did. This meant it provided its final response within a total of 27 working days, which was in line with its policy and the Code.
  5. To the landlord’s credit, its complaint responses provided an accurate and fair assessment of its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property. It addressed the issues she raised at each stage and accepted its shortcomings. Its final response also sought to put things right by way of its compensation offer and demonstrated it had taken appropriate learning from the resident’s experience. This reflected our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
  6. We note the landlord’s subsequent communication with the resident regarding the error in calculating its offer of compensation. While not ideal, we consider it was entitled to correct this. As noted above, the revised compensation offer was in line with its policy and proportionate to its failings and the resulting impact. It also offered an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident of its calculation error and a further £50 for the delay in processing the payment. This was more than reasonable to reflect its complaint handling failure.

Learning

  1. The landlord should calculate payments for loss of heating and hot water in line with its compensation policy at both stages of its complaints procedure. Its offer of £100 at stage 1 was less than 10% of rent each day (which we have calculated at £133.92).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate, contemporaneous records of repair reports and the outcome of contractor attendances.

Communication

  1. There was insufficient evidence to show the landlord kept the resident reasonably updated.