Hightown Housing Association Limited (202009452)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009452

Hightown Housing Association Limited

25 October 2021

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:
1. The local authority’s decision to allocate the property to the resident and the conduct of the Allocations Officer.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the electrical, water, drainage, and heating systems.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). 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, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, it explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
Within the evidence bundle, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident raised her dissatisfaction that she had been provided with a property which she considered to be non-compliant, and that the local authority’s Allocations Officer had allegedly continued to house applicant’s in properties which were unsuitable. A formal complaint was made against the Allocations Officer.
After carefully considering all the evidence, it has been determined, however, that point (a) of the complaint definition falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction. This is as this matter relates to the actions of the local authority and the conduct of one of its members of staff. As there was no landlord / tenant relationship with the local authority, and the landlord was not responsible for the local authority’s actions, this would fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). It also falls within the responsibility of the LGO to consider complaints which relate to the handling of an allocation by a local authority. The resident will therefore need to follow this matter up with the LGO if she wishes to pursue this element of the complaint. This investigation will only consider:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the electrical, water, drainage, and heating systems; and
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had been an Assured Shorthold tenant, in respect of the property, since 3 February 2020. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has now moved.
The property was a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat.
The resident explained that she suffers with cortical blindness. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of this at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
On 11 January 2020 during the property void period, the landlord’s contractors undertook testing and an inspection of all installations at the resident’s property. A domestic electrical installation condition report was produced which considered the installations to be satisfactory and the condition to be good. This included an inspection of the water heater / general heaters in the property.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the inappropriate installations and activity at her property (allegedly the transference of hot water and energy/heat to other properties via her own), she has experienced issues with her eyes, circulation, haemoglobin blood count, breathing and general health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s alleged actions (or installations) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter too, legal advice will need to be sought.
Moreover, the resident has suggested that the landlord had broken the law due to its failure to comply with the Building Regulations 2010. While this investigation will look at whether the landlord undertook a fair investigation to ensure for itself, and the resident, that the property was safe, it will not seek to establish whether the landlord was in breach of the suggested regulation or whether the landlord had broken the law. It was appropriate that the resident raised her allegations of non-compliance with the local authority’s Building Control (as the body responsible for overseeing this and taking any required enforcement action). Any dissatisfaction with Building Control’s response, however, would need to be pursued via the LGO or the courts.
Finally, in respect of the resident’s assertion that the landlord had used her energy supply to transfer heat and hot water to other properties, and subsequently caused high energy bills, the Ombudsman notes that the resident raised this matter with the Energy Ombudsman (EO). As a more appropriate body, the resident should continue to take this matter up with the EO (and her energy supplier in the first instance) if she wishes to pursue this concern. The Ombudsman has, nevertheless, commented on how the landlord managed this matter.

Summary of events

On 22 October 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the local authority. She expressed that she had lost movement in her toes, suffered significant circulation / breathing issues, and experienced other health ailments because of the landlord’s “electrical installations, which have no separate circuit breakers, and transportation of heating and hot water that the other flats… [had] to do through…[her] flat”
The local authority shared this with the landlord in order to establish whether the resident had already raised this issue, and to establish whether an electrical safety test had been undertaken prior to the resident moving in. The local authority advised that it would respond to the resident separately.
The landlord’s notes suggest that the resident called on 4 November 2020 to report an issue with the heating and water system. It noted that the repair team had confirmed a pending inspection.
It appears that the landlord visited the resident’s property on 13 November 2020. In further internal correspondence, the landlord noted the need to investigate:
1. The water stack within the lounge area following the resident’s reports of constant loud noises.
2. The electrics in the property for irregular polarity levels within the wiring.
The landlord wrote to the resident later, on the same day. It apologised for its delay in returning to her and explained:
1. It had consulted the contractor who had completed the repair of the resident’s immersion heater and the electrical safety test in January 2020 (during the voids period). The reports could find no correlation between the water stack and the electrical installations. The landlord shared the electrical certificate which showed that the property had passed its earlier testing.
2. Upon visiting, the resident was unable to demonstrate the noise she was experiencing, this made an investigation difficult.
3. It was suggested during the visit that if the concerns were taken to the Environmental Health agency, recording equipment could be supplied to capture the alleged loud noises.
4. It would arrange for an independent electrical inspection to take place of the circuit polarity in the property. A CCTV inspection of the water stack would also be arranged.
The resident replied to the landlord (still 13 November 2020). She asserted that the landlord had heard sounds during the visit to her property and that it had witnessed that the water was overheated, irrespective of whether the immersion heater was on or not. She reported that sounds also came from the fridge-freezer when water was being run by her neighbours. She requested evidence that her property was compliant under “building control legislation”.
On 14 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that upon returning from the shop, she found that the top of the immersion cylinder was overheated and there was no air movement in the property. She asserted that her washing machine had no separate connection to the drainage pipes which served other properties and that as a result, it continually operated while other flats ran water. There were also sounds from the electrical installations in her property throughout the day. She stated that the connection between the water and electrics in the property was visible. She therefore wished to know when an electrical inspection would take place.
According to the landlord’s records, the electrical inspection of the resident’s property took place on 17 November 2020. An inspection of the drainage (water stack) was also undertaken on 19 November 2020.
Later, on 19 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting the findings from both inspections. She added that during the drainage contractors’ visit, the water pressure had been lowered and lukewarm water now passed through her property to other flats. She expressed that she had limited water to have a bath and that her property was still overheating. She again requested that the landlord provide evidence of compliance under the “building control legislation”.
The Ombudsman can see that on 20 November 2020 the drainage contractor reported to the landlord that upon inspecting the resident’s property:
1. No blockages or leaks were found. There was an occasional unusual odour which resulted from the overflow for the hot water cylinder being connected to the bath waste trap.
2. Any overheating of the hot water cylinder was likely the result of a faulty thermostat.
3. It was not possible that the water supply could be affecting the resident’s appliances.
4. The resident had explained that she switched the fridge off every night. The noise that she was hearing was likely the sound of the thermostat cutting in and running the compressor.

The drainage contractor thus concluded that the only potential issue could be a faulty thermostat.

On 26 November 2020 the resident explained that she was contacted by the landlord’s plumber who had called her “mad and mental”. She asserted that the drainage expert had not undertaken a CCTV inspection of the drainage stack as the pipes were boxed off and asserted that the water and heating continued to pass through her flat to accommodate other residents. She asserted that this resulted in emissions which impacted her health and were unlawful.
On 27 November 2020 the resident submitted an official complaint via the landlord’s website. She expressed:
1. Her block was not safe and did not comply with building legislation.
2. Either the Estate Manager or the contractors had made untruthful statements.
3. The information provided by her energy provider had shown the amount of energy passing through the property and this was having an effect on her health. 900kWh had passed through the property in the day and 500kWh in the evening, which she suggested was going through the drainage pipes to heat other flats.
4. She was displeased that the contractor had been abusive and had called her mad and mental.
5. The landlord had been allowing other residents to heat up their water via her flat. This was illegal and also impacted her flow of water. Her hot water had now been limited.
In a further email on the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive. She explained:
1. Works undertaken had tripped the electrics and left the strip light in her kitchen not working. As she suffered with cortical blindness, she found it unacceptable that this had not been repaired.
2. The electrical installations in the property did not comply with building regulations. She had sought proof from the local authority, however it had been unable to demonstrate this too.
The landlord wrote to the resident later that day. It acknowledged her complaint and advised that it would offer the resident a response within 10 working days.
In response (still on the same day), the resident explained that she had been visited by a hot water and heating contractor. She reiterated that her kitchen light had also stopped working, which she attributed to the transportation of hot water to other flats. She requested that the landlord resolve this.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s repair records that an order was raised on 27 November 2020 to attend to inspect the strip light.
On 28 November 2020 the resident suggested to the landlord:
1. Following the water contractor’s arrival at her property, nothing was done. She still had limited water and the water pressure was excessive.
2. The landlord should not have been supplying her with water which was in part coming from the drainage pipes.
3. There was a significant emissions issue.

She asserted that the landlord had acted unlawfully.

On 4 December 2020 the resident questioned why she had not received a response to her complaint. She advised she would be taking matters further if the landlord had not intended to do anything.
In a second email, the resident provided the landlord with a summary bill of the energy she had used at her property on 22 May 2020, 11 August 2020, and 18 November 2020.
On 5 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. The washing machine was now overheating as a result of water being transported to other flats.
2. The flush of the toilet would change if water was being used by other flats. The kitchen sink was also impacted and would not drain when this occurred.
3. There was limited hot water and the top immersion was overheating.

She stated that works needed to be done to bring the property in line with the correct building legislation and that her facilities should not have been limited to accommodate other residents.

On 8 December 2020 the landlord offered the resident a complaint response. It explained that her complaint had been reviewed at its Early Resolution stage and it noted:
1. The electrics in the property had been tested by an approved contractor prior to the commencement of the resident’s tenancy and a certificate issued. This certified showed that the property complied with the existing government legislation.
2. There were no emissions as the property had no gas supply, the installations were fueled by electricity.
3. Following the resident’s concerns, the Property Services Inspector visited the property and despite hearing no noise, to alleviate the resident’s concerns, arranged a further electrical contractor to inspect the property in November 2020. No issues were found.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s electricity bill and it appeared that the costs were accurate.
5. A CCTV survey of the communal stack pipe was also arranged following the resident’s concerns and no issues were found.
6. A work order was raised to assess the heating and hot water, however when its contractor contacted the resident to make an appointment, she was found to be rude and aggressive. On arriving at the property, the contractor assessed the system and found it to be working and compliant. The contractor attempted to explain that the resident had up to 120litres of hot water but did not feel that the resident was listening.
7. In respect of the resident’s strip light, it noted that its contractor had attended in the previous week and found this to be in working order. The fuse board was also checked.

The landlord advised that it subsequently would not uphold the resident’s complaint.

On the same day (8 December 2020) the resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response. She stated:
1. The landlord’s contractor was recorded making malicious statements. This was harassment.
2. She had sent the information to the Energy Ombudsman, in which she highlighted that there was “no separate heating” and that this was illegal.
3. There was no air movement and significant emissions. The windows had to be left open but did not improve the circulation.
4. The consumption and subsequent billing of energy was illegal and was caused by works undertaken by the landlord’s contractors.
5. The drainage stack was boxed off and so there was never a CCTV survey done.

She stated that the complaint subsequently needed to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord advised the resident later that day that it would consider the resident’s complaint formally at stage one. The landlord requested a copy of the recording the resident stated she had and advised her that she would receive a response within 10 working days.
On 14 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained:
1. She had not been provided with a copy of the compliance and safety certificates for the building despite her requests, or any documents relating to the Defective Premises Act 1972.
2. The certificate, under part P (presumably of the Building Regulations 2010), was not shared with the local authority for works undertaken in January 2020.
3. She wished to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) and that the landlord submit all information held on the works it had undertaken to the local authority.
4. Following a recent blood test which she alleged showed a low blood count, she attributed her deteriorating health to the emissions at her property. She asserted thar poorly fitted heating /pipes had caused carbon monoxide emissions.
On 21 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord explained that it had again considered the electricity bill as well as the reports from previous inspections, and explained:
1. The kWh usage shown on the electricity statement was the amount of energy used within the property over a period of time. It demonstrated how much was used and paid for, but not how much was running through the property at any given point. The amount of energy used was dependent on the equipment used and the length of time it was in use. The landlord explained that following review of the resident’s usage, this did not appear to be excessive, particularly considering that the property had an electric heating system rather than a gas central heating system.
2. Three different electrical companies had attended the property and confirmed that there were no faults with the electrical installations. The certificate issued to the resident at the start of her tenancy confirmed that this was satisfactory, and the repair issues which were identified were quickly resolved.
3. The heating and hot water systems within the property were two separate systems and were not linked. The heating system was purely an electrical panel heating system which provided heat as required, and directly impacted the amount of energy used. Hot water was provided from the hot water cylinder which was heated by the immersion elements in the cylinder. While this was also powered by electricity, these were not linked.
4. The washing machine was an outstanding action and would be raised with the repair team to investigate.
5. In respect of the toilet flush, that if the sound changed while another flat was draining water, this was most likely due to there being water draining through the common wastewater pipes which served the flat above as well.
6. There was a section of the pipework that the resident’s sink should drain through, before entering the common waste pipe. It noted that its contractor had attended on 20 November 2020 and found no leaks or blockages but advised that if the issue with draining the sink remained, it would arrange for another contractor to check the drainage in the kitchen.
7. There was a 120litre capacity hot water cylinder in the property which had two immersion heaters to heat the hot water. This was checked by an independent plumbing contractor at the end of November 2020 upon receiving the resident’s report. Both immersion heaters were found to be working appropriately.
8. As the resident’s home had an electric heating system and the hot water was produced via separate immersion heaters within the hot water cylinder, there were no carbon-based appliances within the property which could produce carbon monoxide. A carbon monoxide detector therefore would not be installed within the property. The resident was advised that she could purchase her own, however this cost would not be covered by the landlord.
9. In relation to the property using energy while it was not occupied, this was the result of appliances, such as the fridge-freezer, not being turned off.
10. It had spoken with its contractors and there appeared to be a difference in opinion in respect of who had been rude to who. The resident was therefore asked to provide any evidence she had. The resident was provided with an apology in any case.
The Ombudsman can see that on 24 December 2020 the landlord’s appliances engineer noted, after inspecting the resident’s property, no faults with the washing machine or fridge-freezer. It also noted that the tenant had been rude and had advised that she would damage the fridge-freezer so that the landlord would replace it.
On 31 December 2021 the landlord contacted the resident. It is unclear whether this was a response to earlier contact by the resident, but it advised that the resident’s complaint would be investigated at stage two. A telephone call was arranged with the resident which took place on 4 January 2021.
On 13 January 2021 the landlord offered the resident its final response. It noted that the resident had employed her own plumber and requested a copy of this report. The landlord also noted that the resident had summarised the points she remained unhappy about in an email on 10 January 2021 (which the Ombudsman has not seen). It concluded:
1. Taking into account the age of the building and the number of checks undertaken by both its own staff and independent specialists for electrical, heating, and drainage systems both prior to the resident’s tenancy and during her occupancy, the building did comply with the relevant legislation and regulations.
2. As it had bought the resident’s building from a developer, it was not involved with the design or build. The adjoining block was not owned by the landlord, and it was not the freeholder of this block. It therefore did not hold the building control documents that the resident was seeking.
3. It noted that the resident was unhappy with her accommodation and explained that it had been in touch with the local authority to find out about suitable alternative permanent accommodation.

The landlord invited the resident to send any further information she had which she believed would result in a change in decision. The resident was also advised that if she agreed to the earlier offer of a further inspection by a trusted surveyor, this could still be arranged.

It is unclear when the resident instructed a solicitor, however the Ombudsman can see that on 1 February 2021 the landlord responded to the solicitor’s notice that the resident wished to raise a disrepair claim. It advised that the electrics, drainage, plumbing, and appliances had been inspected and all found to be satisfactory. It therefore advised that no compensation would be offered to the resident but invited the resident’s solicitor to organise its own inspection.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord undertook an inspection at the resident’s address along with a surveyor instructed by the resident’s solicitors. As the survey had intended to inspect the resident’s reports of significant wiring issues, faulty electrical appliances, and penetrating damp, these were addressed in turn. The landlord noted:

Significant wiring issues –

The resident suggested that the Residual Current Device (RCD) within other properties affected the electrics in her property. She stated that she could hear them clicking in the wall. She was asked to demonstrate where this was but was unable to do so and stated it was not happening at this time.
The resident stated that the room would heat up and cool down as a result of electricity being transported through the drainage system, although this was not happening at the time. It was explained that this was not possible and that the RCDs in other properties could not affect the water or electrics, however this was not accepted. The plugs were tested, and all showed the circuit to be correct.

Faulty electrical appliances –

The resident suggested that the fridge freezer was making noises and was affected by persons in other flats using their water. The resident was shown the compressor/motor and it was explained that this will go off and on depending on the thermostat to maintain the temperature. The resident refused to accept this. After advising that she turns the fridge-freezer off at night, the resident was also advised that these appliances were made to be left on and that this could also explain the noises she was hearing.
The resident stated that the cooker did not work if the RCD upstairs was clicked. This was tested and was found to be working fine.
The resident explained that the ventilation fan was not working. This was tested and found to be in working order.
The resident advised that the water cylinder was heating up when it was turned off and that it did not heat up a bath full of water. The immersion heater was subsequently put on for approximately 20 minutes and there appeared to be a good volume and flow of hot water. It was explained that the water system was individual to the flat and that it was not affected by other properties, however she did not accept this.
The resident explained that the lights on the washing machine changed when other neighbours used their electrics and water systems. She was unable to show this, however. Heaters and smoke alarm were tested and found to be fine.

Penetrating damp –

The resident expressed that there had been an issue with the damp under the carpet. The carpet and underlay were pulled back and no visible signs of damp were found. A protimeter was used and this showed the floor to be dry. The resident also stated that it was damp under the cylinder in the bathroom, however this was inspected, and no signs of damp found. The walls were checked from signs of water ingress or damp with the protimeter but found to be dry.

Upon asserting that an air quality test would demonstrate that there had been the release of emissions on 3 March 2021, and providing her own readings, the landlord arranged for an air test to be undertaken on 17 March 2021. It found no issue relating to the release of emissions. A further independent heating contractor visited the resident’s property on 4 May 2021 again finding no issues with the heating.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the electrical, water, drainage, and heating systems.

The Ombudsman appreciates that at the core of the resident’s complaint she believed that the property failed to comply with the Building Regulations 2010. In her later correspondence, the Ombudsman notes that she made several references to Part P in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 which offers guidance on electrical safety within dwellings and in particular, on the requirements for design and installation of electrical installations. The Ombudsman also notes that she made reference to the Defective Premises Act 1972.
As explained in the Scope section of this report, however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to seek to determine whether there was a breach in regulation. Any failure to act in accordance with building regulation would be a matter for the local authority’s Building Control to explore, manage, and enforce.
The Ombudsman has, nonetheless, assessed whether the landlord took reasonable steps to demonstrate to the resident, the local authority, and itself that the property was safe and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it did.
The resident expressed that there was no separation between the drainage, electrical system, and heating system which she asserted passed through her bedroom and supplied hot water / heating to other flats. She was concerned that a large amount of energy was passing through the property and that the wastepipes were being used to facilitate this transference of hot water / heating, causing her property to overheat, her appliances to malfunction, and significant emissions.
It was therefore reasonable, on noting the resident’s concerns, that the landlord visited the resident’s property (in November 2020) to witness the issues reported. While it was unable to identify any noises or faults, the landlord still arranged for the resident’s electrical installations and drainage to be inspected independently. This allowed the landlord to obtain an outside opinion on the electrical / drainage system, to corroborate its findings. This was fair.
The landlord also shared a copy of the electrical safety certificate issued in January 2020 by an approved contractor, to assure the resident that the installations had previously been found to be safe and in line with government guidelines. It advised that no correlation had been found between the water stack and the electrical installations. This was appropriate.
During the course of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord arranged several electrical inspections which were undertaken by independent contractors and no safety issues were found. This, coupled with the joint inspection undertaken by a surveyor instructed by the resident’s solicitor, was subsequently sufficient in satisfying that the electrics in the property were safe. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was provided with an explanation on each occasion, however refused to accept this.
Although the resident has contested that a CCTV survey of the water stack took place, the Ombudsman has seen the drainage contractors notes following the investigation. This identified no blockages or leaks and confirmed that the water supply could not possibly be impacting the resident’s appliances. The landlord was therefore able to confirm no issues with the drainage system. The Ombudsman notes that on or around the time of the landlord’s final response, the resident employed her own plumber to investigate the alleged issues. While the landlord requested that the resident obtain and share the findings of this, it does not appear that the resident did so and was therefore unable to evidence her assertions.
It is worth noting, however, that the contractor had reported that an issue with the hot water cylinder overheating would likely be caused by a potential issue with the thermostat. As the resident had reported overheating on numerous occasions, it subsequently would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed this up. The Ombudsman has seen no records, however, which suggest that the thermostat had been checked. This was unsatisfactory.
Still, following the resident’s allegation that her hot water had been limited to half a tub in order to supply other flats, the landlord did arrange for a heating / hot water contractor to investigate the issue. The Ombudsman notes that no issues were found and that the resident was advised, as noted in its complaint responses, that she had access to up to 120Litres of hot water. The landlord was therefore able to assure the resident that the water was not limited. The contractors findings were further supported by the findings in February 2021 in which the hot water was tested and found to be sufficient.
Moreover, as the resident was particularly concerned that the heating / hot water systems were not separate, it was reasonable that the landlord highlighted for the resident, within its stage one response, that each flat had its own heating and hot water system which was not linked. Following an inspection by an appointed heating and hot water contractor, the landlord was able to advise the resident on the workings of her heating / hot water system. While she did not accept the landlord’s explanation, the resident offered no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s assertion was untrue. The Ombudsman also notes that it is common that a heating system would be powered by an electrical panel system and the hot water by a separate hot water cylinder with immersion elements.
While it is beyond this Service’s expertise to establish whether the level of energy used at the resident’s property was abnormal or, as suggested by the resident, illegal, the Ombudsman has looked at the landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion and this was reasonable. The landlord assessed the resident’s energy bill on receipt of this and offered the resident a comprehensive explanation within its stage one response. Along with advising, on 8 December 2020, that the energy bill / costs appeared to be accurate, it also offered the resident an explanation on 21 December 2020 on how energy was used and billed in her property. It reminded her that three different electrical companies had confirmed no issue with her electrical installations and assured her that her usage did not appear to be excessive given that there was an electric central heating system. This was reasonable.
It was also reasonable, in respect of the resident’s appliances, that the landlord took steps to ensure that they were in working order. As the resident had alleged that her appliances had been impacted by the transportation of hot water and heat to other properties via her flat, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord arranged for the appliances to be inspected by an engineer on 24 December 2020. It was therefore able to confirm that there were no faults with the washing machine or fridge-freezer. This was further supported by the solicitor’s surveyor’s / landlord’s findings on 18 February 2021. The resident was unable to provide evidence that there were any issues with her appliances during any of the inspections.
As the resident had, on many occasions, raised concerns about emissions resulting from the alleged transference of heating / hot water to other residents, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken an air test at the earliest opportunity to confirm for the resident and itself that this was not the case. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord was able to explain and confirm for the resident that there would not have been carbon monoxide emissions, as she suggested, as the installations within her property were powered by electricity and not carbon-based appliances. It therefore did not agree with the assertion that the resident was suffering from the release of significant carbon monoxide emissions, and declined to install a carbon monoxide detector. This was not unreasonable. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord did later concede nonetheless, and undertook an air test in March 2021, finding no evidence of harmful emissions (although it did recommend a replacement of the extractor fan and carpet).
Given that the resident’s complaint centred around her assertion that the property was not compliant and therefore safe, it might have been resolved by providing her with records which evidenced compliance with “building control legislation” as she requested. The Ombudsman accepts, however, that the landlord explained within its final response that due to the age of the building and as it had bought the building from a developer (and therefore was not involved in the design or build), it did not hold the building control documents. The Ombudsman also notes that unlike planning applications, there is no general public right to inspect plans deposited under the Building Regulations. The landlord’s inability to share such documents has subsequently not been considered to be a service failure.
For completeness, the Ombudsman can see that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the landlord’s staff. While she reported having video evidence of this, it does not appear that this was provided to the landlord to assess. The landlord was therefore only able to rely on the resident’s word which conflicted with the reports given by its contractor. In any case, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident an apology on its contractors behalf. This was reasonable as while the landlord was unable to identify whether the operative had been rude, the Ombudsman would expect it to make every attempt to rebuild its relationship with the resident and to acknowledge how she felt.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

While the landlord’s complaints policy explains that it employs a two-stage complaints process, it also notes that this is preceded by a prior earlier resolution step in which it will seek to respond to a resident’s dissatisfaction within 10 working days. The landlord therefore acted in line with its process, in responding to the resident at its early resolution stage, before considering the resident’s complaint under stages one and two.
What’s more, at each stage, the landlord did provide the resident with a reasonable response, and this was done within the timeframes set out within its complaints policy. This too was appropriate.
The landlord will, however, need to review its complaints policy as although it has not explicitly considered its earlier resolution step as a formal stage, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it has employed a three-stage process which not only elongated the complaints process in this case, but is also contrary to the advice given under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Under the Code, it is explained that this Service does not believe that a complaints process with three stages is necessary. Landlords who subsequently employ a three-stage policy are therefore required to set out the reasons why they believe a three-stage process is required, should they wish to employ one, and it does not appear that the landlord has done this.
In this case, the landlord’s implementation of three steps resulted in delay in the resident exhausting its process as well as in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation. While the Ombudsman has not considered this to be a complaint handling failure, as the Ombudsman cannot see that the subsequent delay resulted in any adverse effect, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below for the landlord to bring this in line with the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the local authorities decision to allocate the property to the resident and the conduct of the Allocations Officer, the Ombudsman has considered this matter to be outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the electrical, water, drainage, and heating systems.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took sufficient steps to assure for itself, the local authority, and the resident that the property was safe. Following the resident’s reported concerns, the landlord arranged for several inspections to be undertaken by independent professionals and was unable to establish any faults with the heating, drainage / water, or electrical installations. It also ensured that the appliances were in working order. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was sufficient. While the resident refused to accept this, she was unable to demonstrate the issues she had reported during the numerous inspections and her own surveyors were unable to disprove the previous findings. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that there was any maladministration.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable and in accordance with its complaints policy. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint responses were fair, timely, and appropriately addressed the matters raised by the resident. The Ombudsman has commented on the landlord’s process, however, in order to bring this in line with best practice.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

As it is clear to the Ombudsman that a three-stage policy exists, the landlord should revisit its policy and either amend its process so that it reflects a two-stage process, as recommended by the Code, or re-submit its self-assessment to explain why it believes that an addition step is required.