Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202400569)

Decision
Case ID	202400569
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, disability adapted, new-build bungalow owned by the landlord, a local authority. The property is one of 8 all built to the same specification. The resident’s tenancy began in August 2023, and she was the first tenant of the property. The resident complained about defects in the property, delays in completing further adaptations to her kitchen and bathroom, problems with the heating system and her understanding of the use of solar panels at the property. She asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Adaptations to the property’s kitchen and bathroom.
   2. Reports of defects in the property.
   3. Reports of issues with the heating system and subsequent energy usage.
   4. Explaining the use of solar panels at the property.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property’s kitchen and bathroom is outside of our jurisdiction
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defects in the property.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the heating system and subsequent energy usage.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of explaining the use of solar panels at the property.
   5. The landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Adaptations

4. The resident’s concerns about adaptations to her kitchen and bathroom form part of the council’s responsibility as a local authority rather than as a landlord. As such, they are outside of our jurisdiction for investigation.

Defects

5. The landlord appropriately inspected and then referred the defects reported by the resident to the developer to resolve, who rectified issues with the door and window. It acted robustly when the developer failed to respond to issues with the extractor fan.

Heating system and energy usage

6. The landlord inspected the heating system and attempted to improve the system. When this was not sufficient, it obtained evidence and asked the developer to improve the system. It discussed energy costs outside of its complaint response but made informed decisions based on the evidence it obtained.

Explanation of the use of solar panels

7. The solar panel installer explained the use of the solar panels to the resident on 2 occasions. The landlord offered its own explanation and provided a video explanation to aid the resident’s understanding.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord was delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response. However, there was no evidence of impact on the resident, and it appropriately apologised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should inform the resident of the outcome of its reconsideration of her energy costs for the use of temporary heaters.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
August 2023 to 9 January 2024	The resident moved into the property in August 2023. Between September 2023 and 9 January 2024, she raised concerns about the effectiveness of the heating system. In this period, the landlord provided temporary heaters and promised to provide a report on the effectiveness of the heating system.
18 January 2024	The resident complained. She told the landlord about defects, including issues with her front door and extractor fan. She asked when it would make adaptations to her kitchen and bathroom. She said the heating system had not been able to sustain an optimal temperature in her home. She said this was impacting her health conditions.
7 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed on 29 January 2024 that the property developer rectified defects with the door and a bedroom window. It believed the bathroom extractor fan was working as it should. It said it was waiting for the developer to provide calculations that the heating system was designed to reach required temperatures for the property. It confirmed the council’s accessible homes team were looking at adaptations.
16 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the door frame was slippery outside, and the door was not sealed properly. She said the bathroom was not ventilating and needed to be replaced. She asked when the heating system would be fixed and said her energy costs were double her previous property. She asked for the timescale for completing the kitchen adaptations.
23 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated that the developer sealed the door on 29 January and said the accessible homes team could consider a non-slip covering. It confirmed it would inspect the bathroom extractor fan. It found heating in the hallway and lounge/kitchen was not adequate. It said it was working with the developer to solve this. It confirmed the kitchen adaptations were underway. It explained how the solar panels worked and confirmed the resident attended a meeting with the installer on 21 March.
7 May 2024	Adaptations to the kitchen and bathroom were completed by the accessible homes team for the council.
June to September 2024	In June 2024, the landlord asked the developer to confirm what action they would take regarding inspecting the extractor fan and rectifying the heating. In August 2024, the property developer and its parent company entered liquidation. The landlord assumed responsibility for defects at the property from September 2024.
August 2024 to January 2025	The landlord confirmed it would replace the heating system at the property with one approved by the resident. It said it found the bathroom extractor fan was not efficient and would change this and the ventilation when it changed the heating system.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 18 November 2025, the resident told us the landlord repaired the extractor fan and ventilation in late 2024. She said her heating issue was not resolved, and she had temporary heaters for over a year. She said this led to increased energy consumption and debt. The resident also talked about other issues, including fire safety of the property and sewage leaks.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision on whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property’s kitchen and bathroom.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. We cannot consider complaints that concerns matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. The adaptations works at the property were completed by the council’s adaptations team not by the housing department. As such the works form part of the council’s actions as a local authority rather than as a landlord. These issues are better dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property’s kitchen and bathroom.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of defects in the property.
Finding	No maladministration

Investigation scope

10. In August 2024, the developer of the property entered liquidation. From this point, the landlord became responsible for defects at the property. The resident complained to us about an issue with the property’s pumping station and sewage entering her home. These both took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. We will not assess these as part of this investigation, as the landlord needs an opportunity to provide a formal response. The resident can raise these issues as a further complaint to the landlord, and if dissatisfied with its response, she can return to us and ask us to consider a new complaint.

Handling of the defects

11. As the resident’s property was newly built, a defects liability period applied in which the developer was responsible for any defects at the property. The landlord confirmed this applied for 12 months from August 2023.
12. In its complaint responses, the landlord agreed to refer defects regarding the doors and windows to the developer to resolve. This was appropriate and in accordance with the defects liability period. The evidence shows the developer completed the repairs to the windows and door following this.
13. The other defect the resident complained about was the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord appropriately inspected it on 29 January 2024. It confirmed this in its stage 1 response, finding it was in working order. The resident said the extractor was “not fit for purpose” in her escalation. In its stage 2 response, it agreed to arrange for the developer to further inspect the bathroom extractor fan as it had received reports from other properties that were built to the same specification as the resident’s property, suggesting a potential systemic issue.
14. Evidence shows the landlord asked the developer to complete this inspection. The developer failed to complete this as arranged in June 2024, and so the landlord proactively completed its own specialist survey of the extractor fans in July 2024. This found the fan was inadequate. In August 2024, the developer entered liquidation, and the landlord took responsibility for the defects at the property. It updated the resident about repairs in August and October 2024 before completing them before the end of 2024.
15. In summary, the landlord directed the resident’s concerns about defects in the property to the developer to resolve under the defects liability period, which was appropriate in the circumstances.  The landlord acted robustly and proactively when the developer failed to complete further inspections before they went into liquidation. It then took on responsibility for the defects and completed the repairs to the extractor fans following this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the heating system and subsequent energy usage.
Finding	No maladministration

Investigation scope

16. As above, we cannot consider events that took place after the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 April 2024. This includes the events surrounding the developer entering liquidation and the residents’ concerns about fire safety relating to the heating system at the property. We will not investigate these issues in this report, but the resident has the option to raise a new complaint with the landlord and bring it to us if she is dissatisfied with its response.

What we have investigated

17. In her complaint on 18 January 2024, the resident said she had issues with the skirting heating system since moving in. She said not being able to sustain a suitable temperature in her property was impacting her health condition.
18. In its stage 1 response of 7 February 2024, the landlord confirmed it inspected the heating on 29 January and had altered its thermostat functions to improve its performance. It confirmed it had asked the developer for the heating calculations to ensure the heating system was designed to heat the whole property. This was a reasonable step to take, so it could use evidence to request that the developer make changes. The landlord had provided temporary heaters to the resident in December 2023. It should have mentioned this in its reply, for clarity about the steps it had taken.
19. When the landlord replied at stage 2 on 23 April 2024, it confirmed the calculations showed there was insufficient heating for the hallway and combined kitchen and lounge. It confirmed it was working with the developer to find a solution and would contact her once it found this. This was appropriate given that the developer was responsible for the installation of the heating system.
20. Evidence shows that following this, the landlord acted robustly with the developer in June 2024, asking it to respond to the issues of the inadequate heating. This applied to all properties built to the same specification. It told the developer that if it failed to respond in 7 days, it would press ahead with asking all residents if they wished for upgrades to their heating system. It went on to do this. The landlord took responsibility for the heating system in August 2024 when the developer entered liquidation.
21. In her complaint escalation, the resident said she was facing higher energy costs due to the skirting and temporary heaters. She said the landlord had referred her for budgeting advice, which she found unhelpful. The landlord’s redress policy does not provide information about increased energy consumption for temporary heating.
22. The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage 2 response, but it discussed the issue in a call about the complaint at the time and asked the resident to provide energy statements. It told the resident on 23 August 2024 that it had reviewed the statements and was unable to provide a financial contribution to the energy bill. Its explanation that there were higher energy costs but these did not account for above average use. It said using a washing machine or tumble dryer, or the heating being blocked by furniture was not accounted for. This was an appropriate explanation.
23. The landlord reconsidered this in January 2025 and offered £160 reimbursement for 12 weeks’ usage of the skirting heating. It provided appropriate reasoning of how it had calculated this, using Ofgem energy rates. It also promised to re-examine the energy costs for the temporary heaters, but the outcome of this is unclear.
24. In summary, the landlord inspected the heating system itself and attempted to improve the heating performance. When this did not work, it obtained data on the heating performance and used this to compel the developer to make changes. When they failed to respond, it took its own steps to start to rectify the issue. The resident had temporary heaters throughout this period, and the landlord offered appropriate energy reimbursement.

Complaint	Explaining the use of solar panels at the property.
Finding	No maladministration

25. In her complaint escalation, the resident told the landlord it had not explained the use of the solar panels at the property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated the resident attended a meeting with the solar panel installer on 21 March 2024. Evidence shows the solar panel installer also visited all residents on 13 October 2023.  It would have been useful to have clarified this in its stage 2 response to show that the solar panels were discussed shortly after she moved into the property.
26. The landlord also provided its own explanation about how the solar panels worked in its stage 2 response. Furthermore, on 23 May 2024, the landlord shared a video with the resident on how the solar panels worked. These were further appropriate steps in supporting the resident’s understanding of how the solar panels worked.
27. In summary, the solar panel installer provided information on how the solar panels worked to the resident on 13 October 2023 and 21 March 2024. When the resident said she was uncertain about how the solar panels worked, the landlord took steps to explain this and provide a video which further supported this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in accordance with its policies and procedures and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident complained on 18 January 2024. It acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 25 January and responded within 10 working days of this on 7 February.
29. The landlord acknowledged the 16 February 2024 escalation within 5 working days on 22 February. However, following this, its actions were not in accordance with its policy or the Code. Its policy states it must reply within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. It replied on 23 April 2024, taking 42 working days to do so. Its policy states it must agree on a new timescale for response when delayed in responding. There is no evidence that it did this.
30. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 2 response and promised to review its complaint handling. Its compensation policy allows discretionary payments for poor complaint handling. However, there is no evidence of impact on the resident, and as such, its apology was proportionate.

Learning

Communication

31. The overall communication throughout the complaint was appropriate, and there is evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated on all issues throughout.

Record keeping

32. The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation into the complaint, which helped us understand events that had taken place.