Home Group Limited (202117203)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117203

Home Group Limited

14 June 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.
2. The related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives with her young child in a one-bedroom flat (the property) in a multi-story complex (the development). The tenancy started on 26 June 2020.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she has mental health issues.
Heating at the resident’s estate is provided via a communal heating system described in the home user guide for residents (The Guide) as a “gas fired combined heat and power condensing” boiler (heat network). The Guide states this is “linked to a pumped communal heating distribution pipework system which continually circulates low temperature hot water around the buildings to ensure heat is available at each heat interface unit (HIU) as required” and explains that each flat has a heat interface unit (HIU) and prepay meter.
The Guide stated the billing supplier for the HIU was “Switch 2” (the supplier), and stated residents should call them to set up their account on moving in. This also stated the electricity supplier was “SSE” and that residents should call them to set up their account on moving in.
In her formal complaint dated 25 October 2021, the resident said the lack of heating had caused “constant illness”. It is also note that throughout her communications with the landlord she referred to the situation with the heating as having an adverse effect on her physical and mental health and also caused her child to be ill.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and her family and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately assessed the needs and vulnerabilities of the resident and her child and also the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to her.

Summary of events

On 9 April 2021, the resident called to report no heating at the property. The landlord’s repair history shows a works order was raised to replace the broken thermostat that controlled the heating. The order was marked completed on 17 May 2021.
On 13 April 2021, the resident called to chase the repair to her heating. The landlord advised a work order to replace thermostat had been passed to its contractors on 9 April 2021.
On 28 June 2021, the resident called to advise the new room thermostat had broken when the delivery person came. She reported she had had no heating since December 2020. A work order was raised with a target date of 12 July 2021.
The landlord’s records show there was communication between different internal teams from 1 to 9 July 2021, regarding the resident’s reports of no heating and lack of any repair provided. A request for the broken heating thermostat to be urgently addressed was raised and an appointment with “maintenance” was confirmed for 22 July 2021.
On 26 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said someone had attended on 22 July 2021, but was unaware of the necessary repair so the job was not completed, and she and her 3-year-old child were still without heating. The resident advised she was withholding her rent and her electricity bills were “through the roof” from running her own blow heaters. To resolve her complaint the resident asked for the heating system to be fixed as soon as possible and for the landlord to compensate her for the extra cost of electricity.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 August 2021, advising that she still had no heating. The landlord raised a works order for an electrician to: “attend site, test thermostat and replace, if necessary, show tenant how it is operated” with a target date 19 August 2021. The landlord’s records show the order to replace the thermostat was marked as completed on 16 August 2021.
The landlord’s internal communications refer to an email from the resident dated 31 August 2021 in which she confirmed that the thermostat had been replaced. This Service has not been provided with the resident’s email dated 31 August 2021 referred to. The landlord also referred to the resident advising the engineer had told her she needed to pay her bill to restore the heating.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint concerned issues with her thermostat. It said that she explained that: she had to chase it for a fix a number of times and; because of the thermostat not being replaced she had to use temporary heaters and she incurred additional cost to operate the temporary heaters and would like to be compensated for this.
The landlord said following her complaint it arranged for the thermostat to be replaced and it apologised for any delay in actioning this. It understood from her email dated the 31 August 2021, that the thermostat had been replaced and she was satisfied with its actions. It offered £175 in compensation for the delays and loss of facility experienced. It asked her to confirm acceptance of its offer.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2021, apologising for only getting in touch on that date. She said she had tried to call the landlord on the contact number she had but the call disconnected. The landlord replied that day advising it would try to call her later that day. Its call notes indicate it tried to call the resident on 18,19 and 20 October 2021 but got no answer.
On 18 and 20 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident advising it had been trying to contact her and asking the resident to call “as soon as possible”. On 21 October 2021, the resident asked that the landlord call her as the phone number was not connecting.
The landlord’s repair records indicate three different reports were made by the resident on 25 October 2021, in relation to no heating or hot water. On the same date the landlord raised a work order to: “attend property, carry out a service to heater inclusion provision of minor parts as necessary, test and leave in working order”. The order was marked as completed on 25 October 2021.
On 25 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint. She stated she had been left without heating at her home since the end of December 2020. She had to spend £40 on numerous blow heaters which burnt out a month after purchase due to excessive use. This resulted in her using her oven to heat up the property. This has caused her electricity bills to increase however, now her oven had broken. She suffered from anxiety and depression and the situation and debt was impacting her mental health.
The resident advised she had stopped paying her rent in July 2021, because she was still without heating because of a lack of communication and support from the landlord. It had taken the landlord 9 months to send a contractor without knowledge of what the work was and therefore he left without completing the repair. It had only recently offered emergency heating.
The resident stated that on 18 August 2021 an engineer attended and “amended” her thermostat, however, told her heating would not turn on until her outstanding bill was paid on the meter. She then contacted her electricity supplier who advised that under no circumstances were they allowed to withhold heating legally from a young child. Therefore, they reassured her there was nothing wrong at their end and a direct debt payment plan was set up and paid.
She explained the impact on the issue on her and her child’s mental and physical health. She would resume paying rent once this matter was resolved. The resident advised said the compensation offered did not cover losses she had incurred, or the stress caused over the past 10 months.
On 26 October 2021, the resident called and emailed the landlord advising that she received a call from the engineer the day before who advised they would not attend as they were aware a heating engineer was required for the type of system she had. She contacted the landlord and was told someone would attend but no one had. The landlord raised another work order. Its records show this order was marked as completed on 27 October 2021.
On 27 October 2021, the resident called to advise the temporary heaters provided were not working. The landlord raised a further work order to provide more heaters and: “carry out a service to heater inclusion provision of minor parts as necessary, test and leave in working order”. It also raised a job to drop off more heaters and test prior to leaving.
Following further reports of no heating, the landlord raised further work orders on 28 and 29 October 2021, to repair the thermostat and leave in working order.
On 4 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email, advising her thermostat had still not been fixed and she requested an update on her complaint. She said was still without access to cooked food which was costing a lot of money that she was borrowing to get takeouts. She had made payment to the electricity supplier towards the outstanding bill of £200.
The landlord called the resident on 4 November 2021 to discuss her complaint. Its notes of the conversation refer to the resident being “very upset” as despite multiple work orders raised from 25 October 2021 to fix her heating, it had not been restored. The notes state the resident said whilst 2 operatives had attended, the rest had signed the jobs off as completed when they did not attend. She had a 3–year–old who was “constantly sick” due to her using blow heaters. The notes also state her oven “blew up” on 29 October 2021, now she had no oven and no heating. She reiterated she suffered from anxiety and depression.
On 11 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising that she had not yet received an update on her complaint and the no one had visited to fix the thermostat.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on the same date. Within its response it acknowledged that she reported no heating and issues with the room thermostat in April 2021 and again in June 2021 when she advised she had been without heating since December 2020.
It said her complaint was investigated and it was confirmed to her on 16 August 2021 that the room thermostat had been successfully replaced. The resident had confirmed this in her email date 31 August 2021 although she advised she was still without heating due to an outstanding electricity bill. It then offered her a £175 discretionary payment which was accepted.
The landlord stated after receiving her complaint dated 29 October 2021, it spoke to her to gain an understanding of the outstanding issues. It could see she had made contact a number of times on 25 October 2021, to advise that the heating was not working and also to report issues with the temporary heaters provided. She also advised that her oven had broken on 29 October 2021, leaving her without cooking facilities as a result of using it to heat the property.
The landlord acknowledged the “significant delays” by its contractor who said as it was a ‘nonstandard’ (heating) system, they had sent the jobs to sub-contractors to attend. However, this was not picked up by them within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for its contractors to visit the property to resolve the heating issues. It said that electrical compliance manager from its contractor would attend the property on 17 November 2021 with an engineer to fit a further replacement thermostat.
The landlord advised it would confirm a compensation offer after it had attended, and its contractor had reported back on the progress made following their attendance. It assured her of its intention to fully resolve her complaint before closing it.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord’s contactor reported to the landlord that they had repaired the heating/hot water at the resident’s property. The landlord’s internal communications refer to calling the resident to check the heating had been restored. This Service has not seen notes of the call however its subsequent email to the resident dated 8 December 2021 indicates she told the landlord her heating had not been restored.
In its email to the resident dated 8 December 2021, the landlord advised it had looked into the issue further and had called the supplier responsible for billing her for heating (from the communal heating system). It said they had advised that the resident had a debt of £269 on the meter which had not been paid and as a result, they had cut off the heating. It advised her to contact the supplier to clear the debt in order to restore her heating. The landlord’s internal notes refer to the resident’s total debt (including through non-payment of bills prior to the meter installation in April 2021) being higher.
On 8 December 2021, the resident replied advising she was aware of the outstanding debt with the electricity supplier and said this was due to the landlord’s “negligence”. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the additional cost and sent details of her payment made for last month’s bill. She expressed concern about the advised additional debt and the cost of heating a one-bedroom flat. She said now the thermostat was fixed, she intended to pay off the debt out of her benefits but requested the landlord compensate her for this.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 10 December 2021, refer to its maintenance surveyor inspecting the property on 7 December 2021 who confirmed all was ok. The landlord noted it was unsure what it could do as the resident needed to “clear her debt” before the supplier would restore her heating.
The landlord’s internal communications from 13 to 14 December 2021 show it made internal enquires to check if the resident was provided with the relevant details about the heating at the property and the supplier at sign up in June 2020. The outcome of which was that she had been. It also checked its records to see if the resident had reported loss of heating in December 2020 and found no reports were received.
On 30 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 ‘outcome letter’. It confirmed that following receipt of her complaint it arranged for its contractor to attend to her thermostat. This was booked in and attended on 17 November 2021, which fully restored the heating to her property.
It said its records indicate that the system was restored previously on 16 August 2021 and was functional until her recent reports of a breakdown in October 2021 where 10 emergency jobs between 25 and 29 October 2021 were raised and not attended by its contactor. The contractor looks to have attended on 27 October 2021; however, the incorrect trade was sent, and they were unable to restore her heating. This was reinstated on 17 November 2021. The landlord advised it had spoken to its contractor about the significant delays and they apologised “profusely” for these. As it was a nonstandard heating system, they explained that they sent the job requests to sub-contractors to attend, however, these were not picked by them with a reasonable timeframe. As a result, its contractor’s regional electrical compliance manager was instructed to visit and put this right on 17 November 2021.
The landlord acknowledged she had incurred significantly increased electrical costs during the period without heating and that her oven had broken down as a result of using it to heat her home. She also experienced issues with the use of the fan heaters provided. The landlord advised that to put this right, it had requested a copy of her electricity bills to assist with the costs of running electrical fan heaters.
The landlord said it was sincerely sorry for the service failure and delays encountered, and offered compensation of £750.00 comprising:
1. £175 from her previous complaint.
2. £75 for loss of facility.
3. £75 for its contractor failing to respond to emergency call outs in October 2021.
4. £100 for the length of time taken to provide a repair.
5. £75 for her time and effort pursuing the matter.
6. £75 for poor communication throughout her repairs.
7. £100 towards the increased costs of using fan heaters.
8. £75 towards the cost of any takeaway food whilst her oven was not operational.
It advised its housing manager (HM) would remain in contact with her regarding her outstanding bill with the supplier and would assist her with her outstanding bill. Its HM had tried to call the supplier to confirm when the debt was accrued and to see if it could be added to the account and payments made each month however, they were still waiting for this information.
On the same day the resident advised by email that she was unhappy with its response and said the replacement thermostat provided in August 2021 did not fix the heating, and she felt that her rent arrears should be reduced as they had accrued due to the circumstances of the complaint. The resident also said she was not informed of the supplier, so she never contacted them to set up an account and no payment had been made to them since the start of the tenancy in June 2020.
On 6 January 2022, the resident provided the landlord with a copy of her electricity bill.
On 7 January 2022, the landlord called the resident and its notes of the call refer to her advising she was unhappy with the compensation offer. She asked for the landlord to consider reducing the rent amount she owed. She complained the landlord had not taken her complaint seriously. The resident explained the impact of no heating on her and her young child who she explained had had to stay with her grandmother as no proper heating at the property was making her unwell. She asked the landlord to re-consider its offer taking into account these issues and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if not. The landlord logged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 10 January 2022.
On 25 January 2022, the resident emailed the company advising she had been in contact with the supplier about restoring her supply and that they had told her they were awaiting contact from Anthology for authorisation to visit her property. She offered to make a payment and plan moving forward in the hope of getting her heating restored but they advised they would not allow this until they had authorisation from Anthology. She asked if the landlord could chase them up.
The landlord called the resident on 26 January 2022, and its internal notes refer to her struggling financially and indicate that it had made a referral to an internal team. Its notes stated the resident was awaiting an outcome to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord commented they were unsure who Anthology were. The landlord told this Service in June 2023 that this was a reference to the name of the development, however highlighted there was a managing agent for the development.
On 31 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for a response to her stage 2 complaint and reported the lack of heating at the property was ongoing.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging she was unhappy with the stage one outcome of her complaint. It apologised for the delay in logging her stage two complaint and stated this was due to an increase in complaint volumes and resourcing issues taking it longer than normal to log escalations.
The landlord’s internal communications date 7 April 2022, referred to the lack of heating being due to an issue with debt on the resident’s account with the supplier. It mentioned the resident’s request on 25 January 2022 for the landlord to get contact with Anthology and reiterated it was unsure who this was.
The landlord called the resident on 8 April 2022 to discuss her complaint, the notes of the conversation show the resident advised she had no heating at all.
Its internal notes dated 12 April 2022, show the landlord called the supplier who confirmed that the resident’s debt totalled £828.24 of which £299.95 had been applied to her pre-paid meter which went live on 26 April 2021. The supplier wanted to add the full debt to the meter but needed the landlord’s authorisation.
The landlord contacted the managing agent of the development on 11 April 2022 regarding the resident’s supply who advised the resident would need to agree a payment plan directly with the supplier.
The landlord’s HM noted on 25 April 2022 that they tried to call the resident “a few times” to discuss her heating situation but left voicemails. The notes stated they would try knocking on her door.
The landlord’s internal communications 28 April 2022, refer to calling the supplier that day who confirmed the resident’s supply was showing as active and connected, therefore indicating a fault with the heating system that needed further investigation. It also said it had asked the resident to give her consent to the supplier adding the full debt to her meter, but she would not give her consent for the 2 amounts to be combined.
On 6 June 2022, the resident confirmed that her heating was fixed on 26 May 2022 when the new contractor attended and found that the connector tape from the thermostat had not been removed when it had been installed in November 2021. She said they removed it which activated her heating. She advised she felt let down by the landlord who had been telling her this was due to the supplier having cut off her heating.
The landlord’s internal communication dated 8 June 2022, advised it had spoken to its contractor who confirmed they had found during the visit on 26 May 2022, that the connector tape from the thermostat had not been removed when it had been installed. They removed this and checked the all the other controls and left the property with working heating and hot water. It noted that the resident had not reported any further issues since this visit with her heating or hot water.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 June 2022. Within its response it set out its understanding of events up to its outcome letter dated 30 December 2021 and acknowledged that the resident had advised she was unhappy with its stage 1 outcome letter. It reiterated that this was not responded to within its usual timescales due to increased volumes and a lack of resource.
It explained that her block operated on a communal boiler, which each flat having a HIU and a pre-payment meter. Its HM had confirmed that the resident had been provided with a booklet explaining that she needed to contact suppliers immediately on moving in.
If the meter was not topped up, the supply would be cut off and could only be reinstated once any debt was cleared.
It said, in her case because of debt on her account the supplier wanted it to authorise the full debt being applied to the meter so she topped up they would deduct 20% each time. It explained before it would authorise this, the resident needed to agree to this however she had informed the HM that she did not agree because she wasn’t told of the supplier’s details at sign up and due to the issues experienced, she did not want to pay for this.
The landlord explained that it spoke with her supplier again on 28 April 2021 when they advise that the supply at her property had not been cut off and was showing as active. As this contradicted previous information, a job was raised for its contractor to attend and carry out further checks to the heating as it had now established there may in fact be an issue as the connection had been confirmed as being live. They attended on 3 May 2022, however, were unable to gain access. It apologised if she was not notified of the visit.
The landlord explained this was re-raised with a new contractor, who removed the connector tape when they attended on 26 May 2022 and left the property with working heating and hot water. It said she had since confirmed that this had resolved the matter.
The landlord stated it “profusely apologised” for the time taken to rectify the matter. It explained it did have to rely on the information provided by its contractors and other involved parties, but in this instance, it seemed there had been errors in information which had complicated matters.
It advised that feedback would be provided to those who have been involved in her case to ensure learnings are made, and it would highlight that it is no longer working with original repairs contractor. In recognition of the failures identified it would like to increase its compensation offer to £1,650. This was made up of the £750 offered at stage 1 and additional compensation of £900.00 at stage 2 comprising:
1. £75.00 – for the delay in her complaint being logged and reviewed.
2. £75.00 – complaint handling failures.
3. £75.00 – additional loss of facility.
4. £75.00 – further poor communication.
5. £75.00 – failure to review further due to misinformation from various sources.
6. £525.00 – additional increased costs of using fan heaters.

Post final response.

The landlord’s repair records show that later in June 2022, the resident reported a further issue with heating and hot water and a further work order was raised.
In response to our information request, on 8 August 2022 the landlord confirmed the resident had reported a further issue with her heating and told us its contractors had been unsuccessful in arranging attendance as the resident had not responded to contact by phone or email.
On 3 February 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman she was still living with inadequate heating within her property.
On 11 May 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman an engineer visited on 5 May 2023 who was able to “once again” restore the heating temporarily however this switched off again the next day. She advised she had been without heating since her initial complaint and last update.
In response to our request for an update on any further issues with the resident’s heating, the landlord advised this Service on 9 June 2023, that she recently raised issues with heating in May 2023 and its contractor attended on 5 and 15 May 2023 and both times found that the unit was switched off by the resident. The landlord said they switched it on both times and found this to be working fine. As there is no evidence of the resident’s reports post final response, having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, this review has not considered the landlord’s handling of these reports.

Assessment and findings

The landlord did not provide its repair policy. However, information about its repair service on its website states it aims to have a contractor attend emergency repairs within six hours and to complete the repair within 24 hours. It further states if the repair is more complex than first thought, it may need to come back another time to fully fix it, however the contractor will explain everything to the resident when they get there. There is no timescale given for attendance of non-emergency repairs.
The information gives examples of emergency repairs including when heating has broken down in the winter or a member of the household is vulnerable, when hot water stops working and a member of the household’s health relies on regular bathing, or children under the age of five are living at the property.
During the 19-month timeframe investigated, it is clear there were significant periods when the resident was without heating and hot water at her property. The resident has a young child (who was under three years old at the time of her first complaint) and she made the landlord aware that this issue had resulted in her using her oven and blow heaters to heat her home which had resulted in additional costs.
She told the landlord that she suffered from anxiety and depression and that the issue was impacting her and her child’s mental and physical health. This review found that the landlord did not take adequate steps to support her needs or the circumstance of her household and on multiple occasions and it failed to respond to her reports of no heating with sufficient urgency. This is particularly concerning as the period reviewed spanned the colder winter months.
However, the landlord is not responsible for the full 19 months that the resident complained she was without heating as from December 2020 to 9 April 2021, the landlord’s records indicate it did not receive any reports or contact from the resident during this time. As such, the landlord could not reasonably have known she was without heating and therefore prior to her first report on 9 April 2021, it did not have a reasonable opportunity to fix the resident’s heating. Nonetheless, it took the landlord until 26 May 2022 to restore the heating and hot water at the property, which was more than 13 months after the resident’s first report in April 2021. It is acknowledged that during this timeframe, there were some instances where the landlord relied on information provided by its contractors and also the supplier which unfortunately, was inaccurate, so prolonged the timeframe taken to fix the issue. However, this review found that the landlord missed opportunities to properly investigate the circumstances around the lack of heating and hot water at the property. Therefore, in the main it is responsible for the unreasonable and prolonged delay in establishing the full facts of the resident’s case and ultimately restoring her heating and hot water.
In response to the resident’s first report on 9 April 2021, the landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair. However, its contractor did not install the replacement thermostat that had been identified as the cause of the loss of heating until more than four months later on 16 August 2021. The length of time taken to complete this work was unreasonable particularly as the resident had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions during this timeframe including on 13 April 2021, 28 June 202, 5 August 2021 and on 26 July 2021, when she raised a formal complaint.
On each occasion, she made clear to the landlord that any attempt to fix the issue had not resulted in restoration of her heating or hot water. The evidence shows that following her 28 June 2021 report, the landlord did raise the matter internally with various teams requesting for the matter to be “urgently” resolved however at no stage after 16 April 2021, did it check with the resident if she needed temporary heaters. Nor is there any evidence of it enquiring if or any member of her household had vulnerabilities. The resident herself pointed out to the landlord in her formal complaint on 26 July 2021, that she lived at the property with her 3-year-old child. Therefore, the landlord’s consistent failure to respond to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water effectively, or within the timescales stated in its policy, shows it did not act appropriately and failed to respond to her reports with sufficient urgency during a period of more than 4 months.
In its stage 1 response dated 7 September 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and offered £175 in compensation. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to demonstrate it carried out an investigation into why its work orders raised with its contractors were not being completed within the required timescales. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances in order for it to learn from its mistakes. Although the landlord checked with the resident that the heating had been fixed before confirming this in its stage 1 response, its internal note dated 31 August 2021 refers to the resident advising it that the engineer had told her on 16 August 2021 that she needed to pay her bill to restore the heating. This should have put the landlord on alert that the resident’s heating and hot water had not yet been restored. However, there is no evidence of it following up on this with the resident to check if the lack of heating was related to an issue with unpaid bills which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord took this step at later stage; however, it missed an opportunity to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Following a further complaint from the resident dated 25 October 2021, in which she informed the landlord that her electricity supplier had confirmed it had not cut off heating, the landlord raised a work order for its contractor to re-attend the property the same day. It also provided the resident with temporary heaters. Whilst this action was appropriate, over the next few days, the landlord continued to receive reports from the resident that engineers had either not attended or had not resolved the issue. Whilst it raised work orders on each occasion, at the time of the landlord’s (second) stage one response dated 11 November 2021, the heating had still not been fixed. This indicates an issue with its contractor being unable to deliver the service within expected timescales. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the “significant delays” by its contractor, advising they had explained this was because it involved a ‘nonstandard’ (heating) system and therefore they had sent the jobs to sub-contractors to attend. However, these had not been picked up by them within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord confirmed that a manager from its contractor would attend the property on 17 November 2021 with an engineer to fit another replacement thermostat.
Its response shows the landlord investigated the cause of the delays with its contractor and in getting one of their managers to attend the next visit, they acted appropriately in this regard. Nonetheless, its delay in addressing her report of no heating and hot water from 25 October 2021 until 17 November 2021, was unreasonable and is further evidence of the landlord failing to take her complaint sufficiently seriously. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect the landlord’s staff to have knowledge and understanding about the type of heating system at the property as well as the billing arrangements. It is clear from the resident’s complaint dated 25 October 2021, that there was confusion regarding which supplier billed her for heating at the property (from the communal heating system). The landlord did not provide any clarification to the resident on this issue until 8 December 2021 after it contacted the supplier following the resident advising the replacement thermostat had not restored her heating. Whilst it is accepted that the landlord provided information to the resident about this supplier at the start of the tenancy, its failure to highlight this to her promptly at this stage, is a communication failing by the landlord.
Its internal communication dated 8 December 2021 refers to the supplier advising they cut off the resident’s heating due to debt on her account as a result of no payments having been made since the start of her tenancy. The Ombudsman is mindful that most energy suppliers would not disconnect customers who are vulnerable and this includes households which include a child under six years old. The landlord was aware that the resident’s child living with her at the property was under 5-years-old and it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have known about the criteria for disconnection. Therefore, it ought to have challenged the information given by the provider. There is no evidence of it doing so and as such its reliance on the information in this circumstance, constitutes a failing. It missed an opportunity here to establish the true situation.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 7 January 2022, advising that her child was staying at her grandmother’s house due to the lack of proper heating at the property, which was making her unwell. She then confirmed to the landlord on 25 January 2022, that she been in communication with the supplier about setting up a payment plan in order to get her heating restored. She advised the landlord however that the supplier told her they could not do this until they had authorisation from the account holder for the development and she asked the landlord to chase them for this. Although it is clear from the landlord’s recent communication to us that the managing agents of the development were the account holder, the evidence indicates that some staff were unaware of this at the time of dealing with the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the landlord’s internal communications dated 26 January 2022 refer to calling the resident and notifying an internal team that she was “struggling financially”, there is no evidence of it contacting either the supplier or the managing agents to assist with restoring her heating, in accordance with the resident’s request. This is unreasonable and contrary to what it told the resident it would do in its stage 1 final outcome letter, that it would continue to assist her with resolving the heating issue. The landlord also failed to progress its stage 2 investigation of her complaint. Given the extremely serious situation with the ongoing lack of heating at the property, the landlord’s failure to act at this point is a serious failing.
Only after the resident contacted the landlord again on 31 March 2022, to reiterate her report of no heating and to chase it for the stage 2 response, did it contact the supplier and revisit the issue as part of its stage 2 investigation. This led to it discovering that the supplier had not cut off the resident’s heating and in fact the lack of heating from 17 November 2021 was because the operative who fitted the replacement thermostat had not removed the connector tape. This was rectified on 26 May 2022 when the landlord’s new contractor visited the property and diagnosed and resolved the issue.
Therefore, it is clear the lack of heating from 17 November 2021 was as result of its contractor failing to carry out the job to the expected standard and then this issue not being picked up when its surveyor attended in early December 2021. As mentioned above, the landlord’s failure to probe advice from the supplier that the resident’s heating had been cut off and a lack of any further steps taken to help the resolve the heating issue meant it only established what happened when it revisited the complaint at stage 2 which was delayed by more than 5 months. The unreasonable delays and missed opportunities to establish what had happened earlier show the landlord did not take into consideration that the resident had a small child and the impact no heating of hot water over the winter months would have had on them. These failings constitute severe maladministration by the landlord.
As previously mentioned, this investigation had not considered the landlord’s response to any reports from the resident concerning issues with her heating post the date of the final response. However, in the circumstances, it is reasonable to include an order below for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange inspection of heating system based upon recent concerns raised.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did identify some of its failures, apologised to the resident for these and offered total compensation of £1650; £750 at stage one which it increased to £1650 at stage two of which around £700 was to cover direct costs she incurred, mainly increased costs of running fan heaters. Whilst this was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle to try to ‘put things right’, due to the number of significant failures by the landlord whilst dealing with her reports over a period of more than a year, which had a detrimental impact on the resident and her child, the remedies offered were not sufficient to reflect the full extent of the time, trouble, distress inconvenience caused to the resident.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of the resident’s case, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £3,932.08 in total compensation. This is comprised of:
1. £2,382.08 for loss of amenity for thirteen and a half months. This is approximately based on a 20% of the monthly rental amount as at the start of the tenancy (£882.23).
2. £350.00 for time and trouble.
3. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £700 for direct losses incurred as already agreed by the landlord.

Complaint handling.

Information on the landlord’s website about its complaints process says a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days but also advises that sometimes, it is appropriate to issue a first and final response to a complaint at stage one. This information also states if the resident is unhappy with its decision letter, the landlord will escalate the complaint to its final review stage of its complaint’s process, if the resident lets them know within eight weeks of their stage one outcome. The landlord will then provide a response within 20 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days, it will contact the resident to tell them why.
The resident first raised a complaint on 26 July 2021, and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 September 2021. This indicates the landlord did not provide the response within its timescale. Furthermore, when the resident made another complaint on 25 October 3032, rather than escalating it to stage 2 as per its policy, it logged a new stage one complaint. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints process.
The landlord then provided a ‘first’ stage 1 response on 11 November 2021 and a ‘final’ stage 1 response on 30 December 2021. The landlord’s decision to issue two responses at stage 1, with the ‘final’ response provided more than seven weeks after the ‘first’ response, significantly prolonged the complaints procedure.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 7 January 2022, the landlord logged her complaint internally and contacted the resident shortly afterwards by phone but then failed to provide any stage 2 response. It was only after the resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2022 to chase the response, that it acknowledged her complaint on 4 April 2022, completed its stage 2 investigation and then provided a final response on 6 June 2022. The delay of more than 5 months in providing its stage 2 response constitutes a serious failing by the landlord and meant the complaints process was prolonged further. This delay together with the earlier delays meant the complaints process lasted more than 10 months, therefore preventing the resident from escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman during this period.
In its final response, the landlord apologised and acknowledged the delay in providing its stage 2 response and explained this was due to “current volumes”. It offered the resident total compensation of £150 in relation to complaint handling failures. In light of the number and seriousness of the failings identified, the Ombudsman finds that the redress offered does not recognise the extent of the time, trouble, stress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration when handling her complaint which resulted in the complaints process lasting an unreasonable length of time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

There were a series of significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water. These included significant delay in responding to her reports and restoring her heating and hot water. It did not take her needs into account, and it missed opportunities establish the full fact of what had happened. The consequences of its failings had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and her young child.
There were unreasonable delays by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints. This issue and its decision not to log the resident’s second complaint at stage two and provide 2 further responses under stage 1 resulted in a lengthy and protracted complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology from the landlord’s chief executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £2,582.08 (£4,232.08 including the £1650 offered during the complaints process) based on:
  1. £2,382.08 for loss of amenity.
  2. £850 for time, trouble, stress, and inconvenience.
  3. £700 for consequential losses incurred.
  4. £300 for complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident and arrange inspection of heating system based upon recent concerns raised. If further repairs are required, agree the work and timescale for this to be completed by.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Consider providing the resident compensation for any period she has been without heating and hot water since the date of its final response where this has been reported and not resolved.
2. Confirm its policy position in regards to vulnerable residents and disconnection of energy suppliers and ensure all colleagues are aware of when a supplier cannot disconnect a supply, so they can manage cases like this more effectively in the future.