London Borough of Hounslow (202519087)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her son. She has multiple health conditions. The resident reported repeated loss of heating and hot water to the landlord. The resident holds a tenancy agreement with the local authority. The landlord’s subsidiary company who builds and manages affordable housing, owns the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of the loss of heating and hot water.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to repair and maintain the communal heating system within a reasonable timeframe. It did not respond to the initial loss of heating and hot water in line with its policy. Although it identified the root cause, it did not progress what it considered permanent works with sufficient urgency. There are inconsistencies in the records of the repair works completed. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s circumstances, or whether interim measures were appropriate. As a result, the resident experienced repeated and prolonged loss of essential services, and ongoing distress and uncertainty due to poor communication.
6. There were multiple delays in logging, acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its policy, or the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience as she was left unclear about the status of her complaint.

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. In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the property condition affected her physical and mental health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on her, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.
8. The resident has told us and the landlord that there have been recurring losses of heating and hot water over several years. We may not consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. Our investigation focuses on the reports made from 10 February 2025 when the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. This is because the resident did not include earlier issues in her formal complaint, and the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond to those matters.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order any installations it provided for space heating and water heating.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to reports of loss of water or space heating within 24 hours. It responds to complete loss of heating in the winter where no temporary heating is available and a resident is vulnerable to loss of heating within 4 hours.
11. The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on 10 February 2025. The landlord attended after 5 working days. Its records show the resident was without heating and hot water for 1 week. This response was not reasonable as the resident was without essential services for an extended period. The landlord did not act within the timescales of its policy.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had completed a survey of the communal heating system and identified recommended works. We asked for a copy of this survey but it was not provided. The absence of this evidence limits our ability to assess whether the landlord properly identified and planned necessary works. The landlord should keep clear records of survey findings, use these to inform an action plan, and monitor progress to ensure any repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe.
13. The resident reported repeated losses of heating and hot water between March 2025 and August 2025. The landlord carried out several repairs, but it is unclear how it identified what repairs were required. The work completed did not resolve the issue, as further outages were reported often shortly after each visit. For example, the landlord completed works to the communal heating system on 7 August 2025. However, the resident reported the following day that she had been without hot water for 7 days, indicating the repair had not been effective.
14. On 8 August 2025 the landlord identified that a leak in the boiler house was causing pressure loss and that the pressurisation unit was not working. On 21 August 2025 the landlord discussed replacing the pressurisation unit as several parts had already been replaced. This was an appropriate step, given that earlier repairs had not resolved the issue. However there is no evidence the landlord progressed this solution with sufficient urgency. The landlord did carry out some further repairs in the meantime, which shows it took steps to try to manage the issue.
15. The intermittent loss of heating and hot water had a significant impact on the resident. There is no evidence the landlord considered this or whether interim support, such as temporary heaters or access to washing facilities, could be provided during outages. While interim measures may not always be possible, the landlord should have considered all options and clearly explained any decisions to the resident. Examples of the landlord’s missed opportunities to consider the resident’s circumstances were
    1. On 11 February 2025 the resident said she was extremely cold and felt dirty due to no bathing facilities.
    2. On 9 June 2025 the resident told the landlord that she and her son had medical issues and needed heating and hot water.
    3. On 29 July 2025 the resident said she has serious health conditions and needed bathing facilities.
    4. On 8 August 2025 she told the landlord it was the seventh consecutive day without hot water. She said the situation was impacting her mental and physical health. She said she did not have family or friends nearby to use their facilities.
16. The resident told the landlord that she had to pay for a gym membership to use their washing facilities. She also said she had to stay in a hotel and asked for alternative accommodation. The landlord told her that it did not offer temporary accommodation in the resident’s circumstances. This is not fully in line with the landlord’s decant procedure which states its procedure is flexible to match the circumstances of each case. There is no evidence the landlord made any further considerations about the resident’s request. It also did not respond to the resident’s comments about her financial losses.
17. The resident was not updated regularly throughout the case. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it committed to updating the resident every 2 weeks until works were complete. It was positive the landlord provided the resident with a named contact to ensure consistent communication. However the landlord did not follow through with this. The landlord did not meet the resident’s expectations and she remained unclear about the actions the landlord was taking.
18. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, work to the pressurisation unit remained outstanding. The landlord chased its contractor between November 2025 and February 2026 about fitting parts. It is unclear why it did not proceed with its earlier plan to replace the unit. The delay was not reasonable. Although the landlord followed up with the contractor, it remained responsible for ensuring timely completion. When progress was not being made, it should have considered other ways to escalate the matter such as meeting with the contractor. This indicates ineffective contractor management and does not reflect the urgency required to restore reliable heating and hot water.
19. The landlord has told us that the pressurisation unit has been replaced and no works remain outstanding. However its repair records for 13 March 2026 record a repair rather than a replacement unit. This inconsistency shows that the landlord has not maintained clear oversight of the works or satisfied itself if the appropriate action was taken.
20. The landlord failed to repair and maintain the communal heating system within a reasonable timeframe. It did not respond to the initial loss of heating and hot water in line with its policy. Although it identified the root cause, it did not progress what it considered permanent works with sufficient urgency. There are inconsistencies in the records of the repair works completed. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s circumstances, or whether interim measures were appropriate. As a result, the resident experienced repeated and prolonged loss of essential services, and ongoing distress and uncertainty due to poor communication
21. The landlord offered £250 compensation. This did not adequately reflect the severity, duration, and ongoing impact of the failures. We therefore order the landlord to pay an additional £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This in line with our compensation guidance where there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
22. We have ordered for the landlord to calculate compensation to the resident for the loss of heating and hot water. It is clear there were repeated occurrences of loss of heating and hot water that affected the resident. The evidence does not clearly show the full duration the resident was without the services. It is therefore appropriate for the landlord to complete this calculation and apply our compensation guidance to ensure any redress reflects the actual loss experienced by the resident.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 days.
24. The landlord’s acknowledgment was provided 1 working day outside of timescale of its policy. Its stage 1 response was provided within 24 working days and was also delayed. It was positive the landlord provided an apology to the resident.
25. The resident told the landlord on 9 June 2025 that she wanted to continue with her complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated her complaint at that time or clarify her intentions if it was unclear. This lead to the resident chasing on 29 July 2025 as she had not heard from the landlord.
26. The landlord took 42 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. This was considerably outside the timescales of its policy.
27. The landlord extended its stage 2 response which its policy allows however it did so when the response was already overdue. It then provided its stage 2 response 2 working days outside of the revised timescale it gave the resident. The landlord failed to meet the resident’s expectations.
28. There were multiple delays in logging, acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its policy, or the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience as she was left unclear about the status of her complaint.
29. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise the impact its failings had on the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance where the resident was adversely affected by the landlord’s failings and the landlord has not put things right. 

Learning

30. The landlord should strengthen oversight of its contractors to ensure works are completed within a reasonable timeframe. This includes effective escalation where delays occur.
31. The landlord should consider reviewing its decant procedure, last published in 2018, to ensure it remains up to date and reflects current good practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. There is learning for the landlord to take from this case. The landlord should maintain clear and consistent repair records. Records should accurately detail the outcome of any inspections and decision making of required repairs. This will enable effective oversight and evidence that appropriate action has been taken.

Communication

33. The landlord should ensure clear and timely communication with residents during repairs. It should provide accurate updates on progress, explain delays, and confirm when works are completed. This will help manage expectations and reduce uncertainty.