Incommunities Limited (202012539)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012539

Incommunities 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:

a. The resident’s reports of heat loss, draughts and poor insulation.

b. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 19 March 2018. The resident’s property is a one bedroom bungalow. The resident has some health conditions such as chronic sciatica and arthritis.
The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs policy which says that it undertakes emergency repairs within 24 hours and responsive repairs at a time convenient for the resident.
The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy which states that stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. The resident has been reporting issues with draughts since she moved into the property; however, as those reports are historic, this report will focus on events which occurred 12 months before the resident raised a formal complaint.

Summary of Events

In February 2020, the resident reported that they were still experiencing draughts and the landlord suggested that an independent company undertake a thermal imaging survey to detect any cold spots in the resident’s home. The survey, which was completed in March 2020, revealed that the resident’s cavity insulation to the living room and bedroom needed to be checked, as they had more heat loss compared to the front elevation. The survey also said that the radiators in the bedroom and hallway needed to be checked by a qualified engineer as they appeared undersized.
On 17 April 2020, the landlord sought advice from its legal team as to whether it should disclose a copy of the thermal imaging report to the resident, as she had requested. The landlord rang the resident on 24 April 2020 to say that someone else was now dealing with the resident’s issue and they were still waiting to find out if they could provide the thermal imaging report.
On 14 May 2020, the landlord’s notes said that it would send a redacted version of the thermal imaging report to the resident. On 21 May 2020, the landlord spoke to the developers who said that some of their staff were returning on 25 May 2020 (from the national lockdown) and they agreed to visit the resident on 9 or 10 June 2020. The landlord contacted the resident on the same date and it was agreed that the developers could visit on 9 June 2020. The resident indicated that she wanted another thermal imaging survey carried out on an evening when it was colder, but the landlord said that this was not practical.
On 4 June 2020, the landlord liaised with the developers and said that they would discuss the report and inspect the property but would not carry out any works on that date. A risk assessment needed to be carried out due to covid-19 restrictions. It was stated that it did not want the resident present whilst any works were being carried out and this would be discussed during the meeting. On 5 June 2020, the resident called to say she was too ill for anyone to visit and that she would reschedule when it was convenient for her. The landlord’s notes showed that the conversation was short and it did not get a chance to discuss any safety elements or say that it could take some time for another appointment. The landlord said it would put the issue on hold until the resident contacted them again.
The landlord said that in September 2020 it undertook a site visit to discuss the results of the thermal imaging report. It said that the pandemic and lockdown had caused delays with this. The resident was asked to point out any issues and she said that there were cold spots within the living room, a faulty trickle vent on the window, draughts in the bathroom and kitchen and a faulty bedroom window.
Following on from the visit to the resident’s property, the landlord agreed that the lounge door showed evidence of faulty threshold seals and said that these would be replaced. It was also agreed that the front door would be assessed by the manufacturer as part of their review of the doors. It was confirmed that there had previously been the need to remedy insulation to the external wall, but this had been completed and no further action was required with the appropriate documentation signed and sent to the resident. It was agreed that the trickle vent was not fitted correctly and that this would be replaced. The kitchen and bathroom were inspected but no signs of draughts were found. The notes showed that the landlord also agreed to repair a bedroom window.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord attended with its contractors to complete any remedial works for the resident’s property, including replacing a trickle vent and replacing threshold seals to the doors and windows. The landlord said that whilst the works were completed, the resident indicated that there were still issues with draughts. The landlord suggested that the resident see if the changes made a difference, particularly in the evenings. It was noted that the heating was in operation and all radiators appeared to be working properly.
In January 2021, the resident viewed another property which the landlord offered after the resident asked to be considered for it, but decided not to move as the property was too small and she had spent a lot of money in her current home.
The Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2021, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days. The landlord responded on 8 April 2021 to this Service, confirming it would work with the resident to resolve her concerns.
On 26 April 2021, notes showed that the developers were satisfied that the matters raised by the resident in September 2020 had been completed and said that no further works would be actioned. On 28 April 2021, internal correspondence between the landlord and the developer showed that there had been a lack of clarification as to whether insulation had been added to the walls by the builder pre or post the thermal imaging report.
The landlord’s notes showed that further tests were carried out in May 2021, when a camera going underneath the property showed a lack of insulation throughout.
The resident contacted the landlord prior to raising a complaint regarding the lack of insulation at her property, but said she did not receive a response. The landlord received the resident’s complaint via her MP in August 2021 regarding heat loss and draughts in her home. The complaint said that the house was cold due to a lack of insulation.
An internal message from the landlord dated 27 August 2021 said that there had been a lot of complaints regarding the quality of insulation as well as the ventilation within the properties but said they only had a small amount of these properties.
In November 2021, the landlord said that it had inspected the rear cavity wall at the resident’s property with the site manager. The landlord said that it was their opinion that the builders/developers undertake urgent works and inspect the property to clarify their findings. The site manager said the following: the cavity appeared to be lacking insulation, and where there was insulation in the cavity above the airbrick, this did not look adequate enough. The telescopic air vents looked to just terminate in the cavity, which would allow air to flow around the cavities, hence why the occupant was getting air flowing through her house. It added that there looked to be no DPC (damp proof course) above the air bricks.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response and said that it had instructed for a thermal monitor to be installed at the resident’s property to provide evidence that was needed to show defects. It also said that it was trying to obtain feedback from the property developers to see if the construction build works were defective, or did not meet the thermal standards expected for achieving the building regulations approval. The landlord said that if it was found that deficiencies were identified, then it would utilise all endeavours to make good the situation and seek recovery from the builders.
On 20 January 2022, the developers visited the resident’s property to assess the outstanding works and confirmed that all works had been completed and that no draughts were found. It was suggested that a monitor was installed to measure airflow and the temperature.
An internal email dated 15 February 2022 said that the landlord needed to draw a line under the issue by either installing the data loggers to prove the temperature or state that there was no issue with building and that it complied with the building regulations.
Between February 2022 to April 2022, two humidistat data loggers were installed to check the temperature of the resident’s home. The sensors were removed on 21 April 2022 and the resident was not happy that they were left four weeks longer than they should have been.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with the results of the humidistat loggers placed at her property in her living room and bedroom. The letter said that the average temperature was 21 degrees and the average humidity was 49 degrees. These readings were within the recommended heating temperature that the Energy Saving Trust recommends which is 18 to 21 degrees during the winter. The letter also stated that the resident’s property met the World Health Organisation’s recommended temperature. The landlord said that, in relation to the humidity findings, the resident’s property was at the appropriate levels of between 30-50%. The landlord said that the property was at the correct ventilation and that no further action was necessary.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two on 1 June 2022 and said that it would provide the final response within 20 working days. The resident did not believe that a device that checked the temperature could detect draughts at a low level. The resident also felt that she had been given varying reasons for the cold areas such as north facing, building design and position of the furniture. The resident believed that the properties were poorly constructed.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 July 2022 which gave a history of what had happened up to the complaint and said that it was obtaining guidance from its legal team about pursuing the building warranty without evidence of a visible building fault. The landlord said that it would keep the resident updated on this. The landlord also accepted that it had not managed the complaint in line with its complaint standards and apologised for this. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered £150 compensation.
On 8 November 2022, the landlord responded to the resident about an administrative error (regarding a date) and confirmed that the complaint was now with the Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss, draughts and poor insulation

The resident had been reporting issues of draughts to her landlord for a period of time, and in March 2020 her landlord undertook a thermal imaging survey of her property. This was a reasonable action from the landlord, as it sought to identify potential cold spots from the survey. The landlord sought advice about whether it needed to disclose the report to the resident who had requested it. It was entitled to obtain advice before disclosing the report to the resident and it kept the resident updated by contacting her on 24 April 2020. It has been noted that during this period there was a national lockdown and some delay was therefore inevitable. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord organised for itself and the developers to attend the resident’s property on 9 June 2020, which was the earliest date it could achieve in the circumstances. The resident agreed to this date, but also asked for the thermal survey to be repeated on a cooler evening. Given the thermal survey had already been conducted in March 2020, it was reasonable for the landlord to reject a further survey, especially as it had not been able to discuss the March 2020 report with the resident at that point. The landlord’s actions of organising a joint appointment were reasonable, as it would not likely have been able to have organised this before given the Covid 19 restrictions.
The landlord conducted a covid risk assessment prior to attending the resident’s property which was a reasonable thing to have done. The resident was then forced to cancel the appointment due to ill health. The landlord’s notes said that the resident had said she would contact the landlord back when she was able to reschedule. The landlord acted appropriately by completing a risk assessment prior to visiting and cannot be faulted for the cancelled appointment. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the resident to contact it again to complete any repairs.
The landlord and the developer visited the resident’s property in September 2020, although it did not bring a copy of the thermal imaging report to discuss with the resident. It asked the resident to identify areas or issues where she felt the draughts and cold spots were a problem. The landlord checked the kitchen and bathroom but could not find any evidence of any draughts, replaced a faulty trickle vent, repaired the bedroom window, assessed the front door and agreed to replace faulty threshold seals in the patio doors and windows.
The landlord also confirmed that the insulation had been remedied to the external wall and certificates issued to the resident to show compliance. The landlord’s notes showed that the resident had confirmed that the insulation had been completed and she had received the necessary documents. By 19 November 2020, the landlord had confirmed that all the repairs were complete. As the repairs were not classed as an emergency, this was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timeframes and was a reasonable approach to follow up the thermal imaging survey.
In January 2021, the landlord offered the resident the chance to view another property which she had shown interest in. The resident decided not to move as that property was too small and she had spent a lot of money in her current home. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer another property to the resident as she was unhappy in her current property. These actions showed that the landlord was trying to resolve the resident’s concerns and offering alternative solutions.
On 26 April 2021, notes showed that the developers were satisfied that the matters raised by the resident in September 2020 had been completed and said that no further works would be actioned. However, correspondence showed that the landlord was not sure if the insulation had been added to the walls following the thermal imaging report, despite the landlord’s notes confirming that the repairs had been completed. There was a service failure as the landlord should have known what repairs had been completed and what were outstanding. The landlord’s record keeping was therefore inadequate.
The repair notes indicate that further tests were carried out in May 2021, which showed a lack of insulation, following a camera accessing beneath the property. The resident said that she also contacted the landlord regarding the lack of insulation at her property but did not hear back prior to her complaint. As mentioned above, given the landlord’s lack of clarity over what insulation repairs had been completed, there appears to have been a lack of communication from it. The resident had made a formal complaint by this point and the landlord informed this Service that it was working with the resident to resolve the matter, but there was no evidence that the landlord clarified the issue regarding insulation with the resident.
In November 2021, following the resident’s MP also complaining on her behalf in August 2021, the landlord inspected the resident’s back wall with its site manager. It was noted by the site manager that the cavity appeared to be lacking in insulation, and where there was insulation, this did not look to be adequate enough. Furthermore, it was discovered that the telescopic air vents looked to just terminate in the cavity, which could explain why the resident was getting air flowing through her property. The landlord asked the developers to investigate. Therefore, there would appear to have been a defect with the air vents and a lack of insulation and given that the resident had been reporting these issues for a lengthy period, this should have been picked up before. This would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience, particularly given her health conditions.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord said that a thermal monitor should be installed at the resident’s property to provide the evidence that was needed to show any defects. It also said that it was trying to obtain feedback from the property developers to see if the construction build works were defective, or did not meet the thermal standards expected for achieving the building regulations approval. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, as it needed to provide evidence of a defect for the developer to act.
On 20 January 2022, the developers visited the resident’s property to assess the outstanding works and confirmed that all works had been completed and that no draughts were found. This appears to have differed from the inspection completed by the landlord and site manager in November 2021.
Between February 2022 to April 2022, two humidistat data loggers were installed to check the temperature of the resident’s home. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate further and provide the humidistat data loggers as this could have provided evidence if there was a build defect. The landlord could have completed these tests much sooner however, as the resident had been complaining about the issue for a long time. The delay in suggesting these tests was unreasonable and would have caused the resident time and trouble as she had to keep reporting the same issue.
The landlord sent the resident a letter explaining that the results of the thermal monitor and the two humidistat data loggers were within the requirements set out by the Energy Saving Trust and the World Health Organisation’s recommended temperature. The landlord said that, as the property had the correct ventilation, no further action was necessary. This was a reasonable action, as the landlord needed to gather evidence to prove there was a building defect. The results were checked against the recommended levels and this was explained to the resident in a letter. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely upon the outcomes of these further inspections.
The resident said that the humidistat data loggers were removed over a month later than they should have been which she said would have altered the temperature. It is not clear whether the data loggers were removed later than they should have been or if this affected the readings. However, the landlord did not address this in its final response which it should have done. There was therefore a service failure here by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2021, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days. The resident’s MP also put in a complaint on the resident’s behalf in August 2021.
The stage one response was not provided until 8 December 2021, despite the landlord’s complaints policy advising that a stage one response would be provided within ten working days. Although there was communication between the landlord and resident during this period, it was inappropriate that the landlord failed to offer a formal complaint response for nine months after her expression of dissatisfaction.
The landlord offered £150 compensation in its stage two response for failings in its complaint communications, but given the delay of nine months, this level of compensation was not sufficient. This compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a short-term service failure. Given the significant complaint handling delay and the efforts the resident had to go to in order to obtain a complaint response, the landlord did not offer a proportionate level of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss, draughts and poor insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns by conducting a thermal imaging survey and then completed some follow on repairs; however, the landlord’s notes showed it was not clear whether the insulation had been rectified despite the resident chasing the landlord about this prior to her complaint. The landlord’s inspection in November 2021 suggested that there were building defects, but this was not confirmed by the developer who said all the works were completed. It appears that there was some confusion between the landlord and the developer which caused a lack of clarity, particularly as to whether any insulation improvements were required.
The landlord subsequently used a thermal monitor and humidistat data loggers to track the temperature around February 2022. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord, but given the resident’s consistent reports over a long period of time, it could have done this sooner. Furthermore, the resident was not satisfied with the results as she said the landlord collected the equipment four weeks late. The landlord failed to address this issue and confirm to the resident whether it agreed that this may have altered the results of the tests.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided approximately nine months after the complaint was raised in March 2021. This delay was unreasonable and the £150 compensation offered was not reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. confirm whether the period that the thermal monitor and the humidistat data loggers were installed had any impact on the results and explain to her whether it is willing to carry out a further monitoring period during the winter period.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £500 within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her reports of heat loss, draughts and poor insulation;
2. an additional £100 compensation on top of the £150 offered in the stage two response for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling service failure (the total compensation award should therefore be £250 for the complaint handling failure).
The landlord is ordered to complete a full independent survey of the resident’s property within four weeks of the date of this report to ensure there are no defects with the insulation and the air vents.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of the survey to confirm a schedule of any outstanding repairs, including estimated dates of completion.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.