London Borough of Hackney (202503846)

Background

1. The resident, a foster parent, has lived in the property, a 3-storey, 4-bedroom town house, since 2011. As of November 2024, an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) system provided hot water and heating. A cylinder with an immersion heater, stored hot water provided by the ASHP. This could provide back up heating and hot water if the ASHP failed or struggled in cold weather.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Heating system repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of heating system repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not repair faults in line with its repair policy timescales. It has not recognised the full impact of its failures or put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
6. The landlord did not respond in line with its complaint policy timeframe as it sent complaint responses to the wrong email address.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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 of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident has complained of issues dating back to 2022. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, our investigation is focussed on events from November 2024, addressed at both stages of the complaint process. The landlord has provided enough records for us to assess the situation and reach a decision.
8. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to attend heating repairs reported between 1 November and 30 April within the emergency timeframe of 24 hours. The landlord failed to address the resident’s report of 8 November 2024 within this time limit. When it did, the operative could not gain access and appropriately closed the repair. This was because the landlord’s repair policy says residents need to get in touch and rearrange appointments, if operatives cannot gain access.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 response said an operative restored hot water on 20 November 2024. This was 48 hours after the resident’s second report and just outside the emergency time frame. However, the landlord could not restore heating nor did it provide temporary heaters as it should have, worsening the resident’s situation.
10. Although the landlord restored heating on 27 November 2024, this failed again the next day when the resident also reported being without hot water. An engineer attended on 3 December 2024, again outside the emergency timeframe. They found the ASHP was not working as well as it should and were unable to increase the temperature of the water leaving it. This meant the ASHP was not providing adequate heating. The resident could still get hot water from the immersion heater, although this would be more costly.
11. Landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are free from hazards, including excess cold. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says healthy indoor temperatures should be maintained between 18 and 21ºC. There is no evidence the landlord assessed if the temperature was a hazard. However, it did deliver 4 portable heaters on 6 December 2024.
12. The landlord sought specialist advice and an engineer attended on 16 January 2025.They found the ASHP was working correctly and adjusted the system settings. They believed the problem may have been elsewhere in the heating system. However, on 20 January 2025, the resident reported cold spots in the underfloor heating and issues with second-floor radiators.
13. Further investigations on 12 February 2025 found cold spots in the underfloor heating with hot water beginning to flow through the hallway circuit. On 14 February 2025 an engineer reset the system and repaired the faults. However, on 26 February 2025 the resident reported the underfloor heating was excessively hot and she could not turn it off. The landlord attended the following day (within its repair timeframe) but was also unable to turn it off.
14. The landlord acknowledged delays in meeting emergency repair timeframes in its stage 2 response. However, it did not acknowledge any failures outside the initial 24-hour response time. It said it had to instruct specialist contractors and repairs could take a long time.
15. We understand this position. It is not always possible to resolve issues during the emergency repair timeframes. We would usually expect landlords to carry out any follow up work within their normal repairs timeframe (21 working days in this case). However, the landlord was proactive in seeking specialist advice and carrying out any recommended work and investigations. Many of these resolved the issues and restored heating, albeit the repairs were short lived. During that time, the resident had emergency hot water and portable heaters for the most part.
16. The resident was unhappy with the interim solution as the lack of consistent adequate heating throughout winter months affected her household’s (including young children) enjoyment of the property. This caused distress and inconvenience, in addition to time and trouble progressing repairs.
17. Further, it is widely accepted that heating and hot water provided by the temporary solutions would cost more than that provided by an ASHP. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where there has been actual, evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of its fault or service. It is positive the landlord invited the resident to provide evidence of her increased financial costs. We understand why it would want to compare this with her usage over the same period the previous year. This was a fair way of calculating any additional financial cost.
18. The resident provided evidence of her electricity usage that covered the period when issues started (from November 2024 onwards). However, she did not provide evidence of usage for the same period the previous year. She told us that her son previously held the energy account and he had been too busy to obtain the information. This was not reasonable justification for the landlord to try another way of calculating loss, given the complexity of multiple variables. It is positive the landlord committed to reviewing the resident’s claim of increased electricity costs, should she go on to provide evidence of past usage. We encourage the resident to do so and the landlord to consider it in line with its compensation policy.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy also says it can make awards of between £100 and £600 for failures that have adversely affected the resident, albeit with no permanent impact. Its award of £500 was inline with this and appropriate for failures up to that point. However, while it went on to update the resident as agreed, she told us issues were unresolved and she was without heating (as of 6 October 2025).
20. The landlord has acknowledged an outstanding repair as of 10 October 2025. It said it was actively working to resolve this. This means there are still issues with the heating system, with no confirmed date for resolution.
21. Since the stage 2 response, the resident reported further issues, including no hot water on 21 March 2025. On 23 April 2025 a contractor confirmed the immersion heater had failed and recommended replacing the cylinder, and internal part. However, this did not happen until 3 months later. We understand this work was significant and cost more than £12,000, but the delay completing it was unreasonable and significantly outside the landlord’s normal repair timeframe. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction about the delay at the time, and the landlord reminded her she had been signposted to us.
22. The landlord has not recognised the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this 3-month period. She reported the household had to use rental or friend’s accommodations to take a shower. While contractors reported hot water was restored not long after the resident’s initial report, the resident disputed this and said she was without hot water for at least 4 weeks. Regardless, the landlord was aware the apparatus that stored the hot water needed replacing and it did not arrange this with sufficient urgency.
23. The landlord has also not considered that issues remain outstanding, almost a year after the resident first reported problems with the heating system. Therefore, we cannot find it provided reasonable redress and find there has been maladministration. The landlord has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
24. The resident said the landlord’s failures impacted her health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused.
25. We order the landlord to pay the resident £850 compensation (inclusive of the £500 already awarded) for the failures identified in this report. This is within the range of substantial redress for when there has been maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident. As the issue remains unresolved, we also order the landlord to provide a schedule of work and evidence it has started.

26. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It aims to deal with stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. This was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says landlord’s must then respond to a stage 1 complaint 10 working days after acknowledging it. The landlord was unable to respond within this timeframe. However, it updated the resident on 20 December 2024 and told her it would respond by 10 January 2025.
28. The Code says that landlords can extend the timeframe to respond to a stage 1 complaint by 10 working days. Overall, the landlord provided the stage 1 response in line with the Code. However, it sent the response to an incorrect email address. This means the resident did not receive it at that time or within the timeframe set out in the Code.
29. Internal records document the landlord entered the incorrect information when registering the complaint. We do not know how the resident found out the stage 1 response had been issued, but the landlord did not look into her reports of 17 and 27 January 2025 that she had not received it. This meant her details were not corrected and further communications, including the stage 2 acknowledgement and response were sent to the incorrect email address.
30. The resident did not receive the stage 2 response until 20 March 2025 (38 working days from when she escalated her complaint). Again, this was outside the time frame set out in the Code. The resident spent significant time and trouble progressing her complaints. An apology alone, does not recognise the detriment caused because of this error. Therefore, the landlord has missed another opportunity to put things right and there was service failure in the landlords handling of the complaint.
31. We order it to pay the resident £100 compensation for this. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been service failure that caused time and trouble and delays getting things resolved and the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged this or put it right.

Learning

Communication

32. The complaint officer took ownership of repair issues after the resident escalated her complaint. She recognised how the delays affected her and actively worked to find a solution, regularly following up with contractors and staff. However, there is no evidence the landlord arranged routine updates with the resident or gave her any indication of when it would complete repairs.
33. We understand it was difficult for the landlord to give a timeframe. It was good it acknowledged communication could have been better. Our Spotlight on Repairing Trust report details good practice to avoid communication failures. This includes having a clear work plan from the start, inspecting repairs afterwards, and asking for feedback to ensure work is satisfactory.