GreenSquareAccord Limited (202222206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222206

GreenSquareAccord Limited

24 March 2025

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 handling of the resident’s request to:
1. Repair the heating system.
2. Replace the smoke detector.
3. Repair the fire sprinkler system.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a bungalow.
On 2 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the audible alarm in the fire sprinkler system in her kitchen, did not sound when triggered.
On 16 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had no heating in her property. She explained that her heating was provided by an electric heat pump system that supplied underfloor heating throughout her home. She told the landlord that she was relying on multiple layers of clothing to keep warm. On the same day, the landlord instructed a heating contractor to attend the resident’s property. When the contractor arrived, they informed the resident that they were a gas engineer and did not have the expertise to restore her heating.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 December 2022, stating that she was still without heating, and that a service of the heating system was due 18 months earlier. She also reported that she had been waiting over 6 months for the correct smoke detector to be fitted in one of the bedrooms. Additionally, she highlighted that the issue with the fire sprinkler system remained unresolved. She expressed frustration that the landlord continued to instruct engineers to attend her home without resolving the reported issues.
On 3 February 2023, the landlord issued its initial complaint response to the resident. It said that it had called her on several occasions to discuss her complaint before issuing its response but was unable to reach her. It explained that a specialist part was needed to restore her heating, but the part was not stocked locally. It stated that the issues with her heating would be resolved by 8 February 2023. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation. It also calculated that she had been without heating for 54 days and awarded her £5 per day, totalling £270.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 10 February 2023. She reported that she was still without heating and was relying on plug in heaters, which were expensive to run. She stated that the landlord’s staff were unclear about who was responsible for restoring her heating and that the ongoing situation was affecting her mental health.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to fit the correct smoke detector in the bedroom. The contractor also confirmed that all detectors in the property were working correctly.
On 19 July 2023, following intervention from our service, the landlord issued a stage 2 follow on complaint response to the resident. It apologised, explaining that its records incorrectly showed that her heating had been restored and stated that it would investigate the matter further. The landlord increased its goodwill gesture to £375 and awarded an additional £5 per day for 51 more days without heating, totalling £255. This brought the overall compensation for heating loss to £525 and goodwill gesture to £425, totalling £900.
On 20 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She highlighted that her heating had not been restored and that gas engineers continued to attend her property unannounced, unable to resolve the issue. While she acknowledged the smoke detectors had now been fitted correctly, she said the landlord had failed to recognise that they had been out of service since 2022, which was a breach of fire regulations.
She also reiterated that her reports about the fire sprinkler system had not been addressed. She stated that the landlord had failed to acknowledge that her complaint about the sprinkler system dated back to 2016, which meant the compensation offered was inadequate. She explained that, due to her property’s distance from the main road, the sprinkler system had been installed as a necessary safety measure in case of an emergency. The resident told the landlord that the lack of heating and her efforts to resolve the concerns raised, were causing her stress and anxiety, as well as financial hardship and ill health. She requested that the landlord increase the compensation to reflect the length of time the issues had been ongoing.
On 30 August 2023, the landlord completed repairs to restore the resident’s heating.
On 3 October 2023, following further intervention from our service, the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the length of time taken to restore the heating, stating that the delays were due to difficulties obtaining the required parts as part of a national and global shortage of supplies. It increased the total compensation offer to £950 to recognise the resident’s efforts in trying to get the matter resolved. The landlord stated that its records showed the fire sprinkler system was in full working order and that it did not investigate matters dating back more than 6 months. It also confirmed it would provide training for its customer service team to ensure repairs were logged correctly in the future.
On 4 October 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the fire sprinkler system was not in full working order, as the audible alarm still did not sound. She asked the landlord to provide records from the engineers who had attended over the years.
The resident informed us that the landlord repaired the audible alarm to the fire sprinkler system in February 2025. She also advised that following a service of the smoke detectors on 7 March 2025, the engineer identified a missing part, preventing the detectors around the house from working in tandem. Additionally, she told us the water pressure from the sprinkler system was faulty.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her formal complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she had been reporting issues with the fire sprinkler system since 2016. We acknowledge her comments and recognise that this has been a long-standing concern. However, in line with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (which is available on our website) we will not consider matters that were not formally raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable period – normally within 12 months of the issue arising. This ensures that both the landlord and the Ombudsman have a fair opportunity to consider concerns while they are live, and that sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed decision.
In the interest of fairness, this investigation is limited to events from 11 February 2022 onwards, as this is where records indicate the beginning of events leading to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. While we will not assess the landlord’s handling of reports made before 11 February 2022, we will consider whether its decision to exclude those historic reports from its complaint investigation was reasonable in the circumstances.
Additionally, the resident’s concerns arising from the inspection on 7 March 2025, must now be raised as a new complaint to the landlord, if she wishes to pursue them. Under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider matters made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord must first be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to these new concerns before our involvement.
Therefore, the resident may wish to raise a formal complaint with the landlord about the operation of the smoke detectors and water pressure of sprinkler system. If she is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then be able to refer the new complaint to us for consideration.
Throughout her communication with the landlord, the resident has referred to how her living conditions impacted her health and wellbeing. We acknowledge the resident’s comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for her. However, claims of personal injury, including damage to health, fall outside the complaints process. These can be pursued through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in court, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have affected her health. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, as well as how it responded to the resident’s concerns about her health and wellbeing.

Legal policy and framework

The landlord’s records confirm that, under a unique agreement, it is responsible for the servicing and maintenance of the resident’s boiler system and fire safety equipment, which includes the smoke detectors and sprinkler system.
As the resident is a shared ownership leaseholder, some statutory landlord obligations that apply to tenants may not extend to her. However, since the landlord has accepted responsibility for maintaining certain aspects of the property, including the heating system and fire safety equipment, it is expected to meet relevant legal and regulatory standards in these areas.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 reinforces the principle that homes must be free from hazards that could make them unfit to live in. Where a landlord has retained maintenance obligations, it is expected to act within a reasonable timeframe to prevent prolonged periods without essential services, such as heating.
The repairs and maintenance section of the landlord’s website categories repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – issues that pose an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be completed within 24 hours
2. Urgent repairs – situations that require attention to prevent future damage to the property. These should be completed within 7 days
3. Routine repairs – standard repairs that do not require urgent attention. These should be completed within 28 working days.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states that it aims to put a resident back into the position they were in before the failure occurred. Compensation may be awarded where a resident has suffered inconvenience and distress due to a service failure. The policy also provides £5 per day during the winter months for a loss of heating, or at other times of the year if the temperature falls below 10 degrees Celsius. Additionally, it allows for compensation of up to £9 per day for the increased use of a utility, such as a fan heater.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord followed a 4-step complaints process:
1. Step 1 – the landlord sought to resolve an issue within 2 working days
2. Step 2 – if the issue was not resolved, the landlord would provide a formal complaint response within 10 working days
3. Step 3 – the resident could request an executive review, where a director would assess whether the case was handled fairly and reasonably. The landlord would provide a response within 10 working days.
4. Step 4 – referred to the resident’s right to escalate the complaint to our service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the heating system

As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for detailed records and evidence of the actions taken in response to the resident’s reports about the heating system. The landlord stated that it no longer has access to the repair records from its former contractor, as it has since terminated the contract. This means key information about what steps were taken, when parts were ordered, and how the repair was managed is no longer available.
While the loss of records limits a full review of the situation now, the landlord had access to this information while handling the resident’s complaint. It should have used those records to provide accurate and informed responses. Instead, the evidence suggests a lack of oversight and coordination, as seen in one complaint response incorrectly stating that the heating had been restored when this was not the case. This failure likely caused further frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights that good record-keeping is essential for accountability and transparency. Without clear records, landlords risk failing to fully address concerns or overlook necessary follow-ups. The landlord told us it has made changes based on the report’s recommendations, including reviewing how contractors manage and share information before choosing to work with them. We welcome this as a positive step to improving record-keeping and coordination.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should review its procedures to ensure that repairs information is maintained when it changes contractors. It is essential that the landlord maintains oversight of repairs at its properties as this may have an impact on the way it should respond to future repairs. For example, it needs to know if it has already attempted a repair which was unsuccessful, so it does not attempt the same repair again and instead looks at alternative measures to resolve the problem.
There was a delay of 8 months in repairing the resident’s heating system. In its step 2 complaint response on 3 February 2023, the landlord stated that the initial delays were due to difficulties sourcing a specialist part and assured the resident that the issue would be resolved by 8 February 2023. However, the repair was not completed as promised. Instead, the resident had to repeatedly follow up with the landlord and escalate her concerns to our service before the issue was resolved. This highlights a significant failure in the landlord’s ability to manage and resolve repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
Even when delays are unavoidable, the landlord must ensure residents are regularly updated on progress. The evidence does not show that the landlord took these steps. There are no records of proactive updates, leaving the resident uncertain about when her heating would be restored. Given that heating is an essential service, the lack of clear and unprompted communication from the landlord was unreasonable and likely added unnecessary stress for the resident.
Furthermore, without evidence of when the specialist part was ordered, what challenges arose, or how the landlord monitored progress, we cannot determine whether the delay to repair the heating system was unavoidable or due to poor management. The lack of supporting evidence raises concerns about the landlord’s ability to track and coordinate complex repairs effectively.
Heating is an essential service, and under the landlord’s repairs policy, urgent repairs should be completed within 7 days. An 8-month delay was wholly unacceptable. While it may have relied on contractors to complete the works, the landlord was ultimately responsible for overseeing the repair process and ensuring timely completion. Without clear records demonstrating proactive action, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord took all practical steps to repair the resident’s heating system within a reasonable timeframe.
During the landlord’s investigation to repair the heating system, the evidence shows that its contractor sent gas engineers to the resident’s property on at least 4 separate occasions, despite the heating being provided by an electric heat pump system. Each failed visit not only delayed the repair but also raised the resident’s expectations, only for the issue to remain unresolved. Our Spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water, and energy, published in February 2021, highlights that landlords must ensure operatives have the necessary skills, tools, and parts to complete repairs effectively. The repeated misallocation of engineers suggests that staff responsible for scheduling appointments did not have clear or accessible information about the resident’s heating system. As a result, the resident experienced prolonged disruption and uncertainty, compounding the stress of living without heating for an extended period.
The landlord must update its records now, to ensure that accurate information about the resident’s heating system is readily available to staff scheduling repairs. This should include clearly recording the type of heating system in place and ensuring that operatives with the correct expertise are assigned. Doing so will help prevent similar delays and unnecessary inconvenience for the resident in the future.
The landlord’s complaint responses show that it primarily focused on resolving the repair of the heating system rather than addressing the resident’s immediate needs. While restoring the heating was the ultimate solution, this should have been accompanied by short-term measures to ensure the resident was not left in unsuitable living conditions. This was particularly important during the winter months. Despite knowing that the repair was not progressing as expected, the landlord’s records do not show that it offered temporary heating, financial assistance for extra energy costs, or other support to ease the resident’s hardship. This failure to consider her circumstances and offer meaningful support likely contributed to the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident reported that a service of the heating system was overdue by 18 months at the time of the failure. As the landlord is responsible for maintaining and servicing the resident’s heating system, it was required to take reasonable steps to ensure the system was kept in good working order. The landlord’s records confirm that it noted the service was overdue but did not complete it because it could not find a qualified contractor.
While we cannot determine whether the lack of servicing contributed to the breakdown of the heating system, regular maintenance is essential in preventing unexpected failures. The landlord’s failure to complete the required service, despite being aware that it was outstanding, raises concerns about whether it took reasonable steps to prevent avoidable issues. This also reinforces the importance of timely maintenance to ensure residents are not left without essential services. However, it is positive that the landlord has since brought its repairs service in-house, demonstrating a commitment to improving oversight and ensuring greater accountability for repairs moving forward.
The landlord acknowledged the significant delay in restoring the resident’s heating and awarded compensation to recognise the impact. Where a landlord accepts failings, our role is to assess whether the redress was fair and resolved the complaint appropriately. This includes considering whether the offer aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered £525 for heating loss, in line with its discretionary compensation policy and an additional £425 goodwill payment to recognise distress. While this was a reasonable attempt at redress, it did not fully reflect the 8-month delay and multiple service failures identified in this section of the report. Given the prolonged disruption and inadequate service, the landlord’s redress was not entirely fair, as it failed to sufficiently account for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also failed to consider increased utility costs, despite the resident raising concerns about her reliance on plug-in heaters. There is no evidence it assessed the financial impact of her additional energy use. By not fully addressing the financial consequences of the delay, the landlord did not put things right, as its redress did not restore the resident to the position she would have been in had the failure not occurred.
Still, it is positive that the landlord has demonstrated a commitment to learning from outcomes, by confirming staff training to improve repair handling.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repair to the heating system amounted to severe maladministration. It left the resident without heating for 8 months, failed to track the repair properly, and repeatedly sent engineers without the necessary expertise. Given that heating is an essential service, the landlord’s prolonged inaction and mismanagement represent a serious failure in its duty to maintain a habitable home.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined severe maladministration by a landlord which has had a significant long-term impact on the resident, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £1000 and over, to put things right. The landlord must pay the resident £1225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repair to the heating system. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £950, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
Additionally, the landlord must assess and compensate the resident for the additional energy costs incurred due to the prolonged heating failure. It must contact the resident to request copies of her energy bills from the corresponding period in the previous year. It must then compare the usage to determine a reasonable compensation amount in line with its discretionary compensation policy. If the resident is unable to provide previous energy bills, the landlord must work with her to determine a fair estimate based on available evidence.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the smoke detector

The landlord’s records show that, in November 2022, prior to the resident’s formal complaint, it identified that the wrong smoke detector had been installed in one of the resident’s bedrooms and needed to be replaced. Although a job was raised in December 2022, the replacement was not completed until 6 months later, with no explanation provided to the resident. As the landlord was responsible for maintaining the fire safety equipment, it was expected to complete the replacement within a reasonable timeframe. However, there is no evidence that it monitored progress, followed up on the repair, or provided updates to the resident. The lack of oversight meant the issue remained outstanding for an extended period, without any clear action to ensure it was resolved in a timely manner.
Fire safety repairs should be treated with urgency, as they are essential to protecting residents in the event of an emergency. Given that the landlord had already identified that the wrong smoke detector had been installed, it should have ensured the replacement was completed without unnecessary delay. Instead, the prolonged wait and lack of communication understandably left the resident concerned about her safety and uncertain about when the issue would be resolved.
Overall, the landlord’s failure to replace the smoke detector within a reasonable timeframe, along with its lack of follow-up and communication, amounts to maladministration. As it was responsible for maintaining the fire safety equipment, the 6-month delay was unacceptable and demonstrated poor repair management and oversight.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident but may not have had a permanent impact, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her request to replace the smoke detector.
We recommend that the landlord review its process for monitoring and following up on fire safety-related repairs to prevent similar delays in the future. It should assess whether its current measures are effective in tracking outstanding fire safety repairs and ensuring clear timeframes for completion and resident communication.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the fire sprinkler system

The resident first reported a fault with the audible alarm in the fire sprinkler system in February 2022, and the landlord took 8 months to address the issue. When it did respond, it incorrectly informed the resident that it records showed the issue had been resolved. This demonstrates poor record-keeping and a failure to verify repairs before closing them. Given the sprinkler system was a necessary safety measure due to the property’s distance from the main road, the landlord should have treated the issue as a priority. Instead, its delayed response and failure to confirm the system was functioning correctly created unnecessary uncertainty for the resident.
Additionally, the landlord’s handling of the repair was disjointed and inconsistent, with engineers providing contradictory reports over a 16-month period. In October 2023, an engineer stated that a sprinkler specialist was required, however, weeks later, another singed off the system as working fine. In January 2024, an engineer confirmed the audible alarm was still not functioning, but by March 2024, another report stated the system was fine.
Given the fire safety implications and the resident’s specific concerns about the property’s location, the landlord should have ensured that engineers with the correct expertise attended the property, documented their findings clearly, and communicated a definitive resolution to the resident. Its failure to do so resulted in a prolonged period of uncertainty, leaving the resident without confidence in the system’s reliability.
The resident informed us that the audible alarm was resolved in February 2025, and we have seen no evidence to the contrary. If correct, this means the issue remained unresolved for 3 years, which is deeply concerning given the fire safety risks involved. This also represents a serious failure to uphold the landlord’s agreement to maintain fire safety equipment in the property.
Considering these factors, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the fire sprinkler system.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this section of the report.
The resident told us that an engineer recently provided her with a logbook to record all fire safety repairs, but it is unclear whether this was introduced by the landlord or managed independently by a contractor. To ensure effective oversight and accountability the landlord must provide this service with:
1. Confirmation of whether the logbook system was introduced by the contractor or the landlord itself
2. A copy of its internal procedure for maintaining and updating the fire safety repairs logbook
3. Evidence that is has informed the resident in writing about how the logbook will be used
4. Confirmation that it has instructed relevant staff and contractors to record all fire safety repair visits, findings, and actions taken
If a logbook system is already in place, the landlord must provide evidence of its use, such as a recent entry showing a fire safety check, service, or repair visit has been recorded.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 December 2022, and the landlord issued its step 2 complaint response 29 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to explain this delay or confirm its claim that it attempted to contact the resident by phone. The failure to acknowledge the complaint or provide a timely response left the resident without clarity on how her concerns were being handled, potentially undermining her confidence in the landlord’s complaints process.
On 10 February 2023, 5 working days after receiving the landlord’s step 2 complaint response, the resident submitted a further complaint, as her concerns remained unresolved. Under the landlord’s complaints process, this should have triggered an executive review at step 3. Instead, the landlord treated it as a continuation of its previous response and took 110 working days to issue a follow-on response, without explanation for the delay. During this period, there is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident to address the outstanding concerns. The response was only issued after our service intervened twice, indicating that the landlord failed to take ownership of the complaint and only acted when externally prompted.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s escalation request on 20 July 2023, further demonstrated a pattern of poor complaint management. It took 54 working days to issue its step 3 complaint response, significantly exceeding its own timescales and only doing so after further intervention from our service. This delay, alongside its previous failures, demonstrated a lack of urgency in resolving the resident’s concerns and a failure to engage meaningfully with the complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), available on our website, states that a landlord’s complaints process should not exceed 2 stages, to ensure timely resolutions and prevent unnecessary barriers to escalation. The landlord’s 4-step process was not in line with the Code, and its failure to adhere to its own timescales caused avoidable delays, further prolonging the resolution of the resident’s concerns.
That said, it is positive that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to align with the requirements of the Code. This should help ensure that complaints are handled more efficiently, with clearer timeframes and a streamlined process.
The resident’s initial complaint in December 2022, highlighted that there was an unresolved issue with the fire sprinkler system. However, the landlord did not address this in its step 2 complaint response or follow- on response. It was only in its step 3 complaint response-20 months later–that the landlord acknowledged the issue, stating that it would not consider matters older than 6 months. The landlord’s failure to respond in a timely manner resulted in the issue falling outside the scope of its own complaints process, which was not a reasonable approach to complaint handling.
As its delay directly contributed to this outcome, the landlord should have exercised discretion and reviewed records from at least 6 months prior to the complaint being formally raised. This would have allowed it to fully consider the resident’s concerns and reach a fairer resolution. The landlord’s own records show that the resident raised the issue twice in the months before submitting a formal complaint, which it could have identified had it conducted a thorough investigation.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint due to delays, failure to escalate appropriately, and lack of proactive resolution. The landlord only acted after intervention from our service, causing avoidable inconvenience, time, and trouble for the resident.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to repair the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to replace the smoke detector.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to repair the fire sprinkler system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £1225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repair to the heating system.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her request to replace the smoke detector
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her request to repair the fire sprinkler system
  4. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint

These amounts replace the landlord’s previous offers of compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if they have already been paid.

Update its records to ensure that accurate information about the resident’s heating system is readily available to staff scheduling repairs. This should include clearly recording the type of heating system in place and ensuring that operatives with the correct expertise are assigned. Doing so will help prevent similar delays and unnecessary inconvenience for the resident in the future.
Assess and compensate the resident for the additional energy costs incurred due to the prolonged heating failure. It must contact the resident to request copies of her energy bills from the corresponding period in the previous year. It must then compare the usage to determine a reasonable compensation amount in line with its discretionary compensation policy. If the resident is unable to provide previous energy bills, the landlord must work with her to determine a fair estimate based on available evidence.

To ensure effective oversight and accountability the landlord must provide this service with:
1. Confirmation of whether the fire logbook system was introduced by the contractor or the landlord itself
2. A copy of its internal procedure for maintaining and updating the fire safety repairs logbook
3. Evidence that is has informed the resident in writing about how the fire logbook will be used
4. Confirmation that it has instructed relevant staff and contractors to record all fire safety repair visits, findings, and actions taken
5. If a logbook system is already in place, the landlord must provide evidence of its use, such as a recent entry showing a fire safety check, service, or repair visit has been recorded.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord review its process for monitoring and following up on fire safety-related repairs to prevent similar delays in the future. It should assess whether its current measures are effective in tracking outstanding fire safety repairs and ensuring clear timeframes for completion and resident communication.
We recommend that the landlord reviews its procedures to ensure that repairs information is maintained when it changes contractors. It is essential that the landlord maintains oversight of repairs at its properties as this may have an impact on the way it should respond to future repairs. For example, it needs to know if it has already attempted a repair which was unsuccessful, so it does not attempt the same repair again and instead looks at alternative measures to resolve the problem.