London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015388)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015388

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

16 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues within his property and his concerns about increased energy costs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident is elderly and has advised that he is impacted by cold temperatures.
The resident initially raised concerns regarding a lack of heating in his property to the landlord via his local MP in February 2020. The landlord responded to the MP at the time and explained that it had completed a heat loss survey in 2018 and found that all radiators were suitable other than the radiator within his bathroom which it had offered to replace as it was undersized. It advised that the resident had declined the replacement at the time and that it had since tried to contact the resident with no response.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in March 2021 via this Service. He reported that the radiators in the property were faulty and resulting in increased energy bills. He advised that the property was cold despite keeping the heating on all day. He added that he had tried to use an additional electric heater but was concerned about high energy costs. The landlord initially responded and confirmed that it had inspected the property on 30 March 2021 to complete a heat assessment and replaced several radiators in the property on 20 April 2021.
In January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that the heating in the property was not sufficient and that he had needed to keep the heating on in the summer months. The records indicate that the landlord had attempted to source a fuel voucher for the resident. Following contact from this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaints process in February 2022. The resident raised concerns that the radiators had been placed below the windows which let in a draught and that the living room and bedroom were very cold meaning that he needed to use hot water bottles to stay warm. He was also concerned about the energy costs involved in heating the property.
In its final response to the resident, the landlord acknowledged that despite the radiators being replaced in April 2021, the resident continued to report issues with the property retaining heat. It explained that it had initially arranged an appointment to inspect the heating on 4 February 2022 but that the resident did not allow access as the operatives were running late. It confirmed that a further appointment for 11 February 2022 needed to be cancelled due to staff absence and that there was no access to an appointment on 12 February 2022. A further appointment was arranged for 25 February 2022. It explained that its engineer had confirmed on 30 March 2022 that the heating was working fine but the insufficient heat in the property related to a lack of wall insulation. It explained that the walls to the property were solid brick and that it did not have the facilities to install insulation. It had reviewed the energy performance certificate (EPC) and believed that the best way to improve the energy efficiency of the property would be to renew the windows and confirmed that it had added the windows to its planned renewal programme for the 2023/24 financial year. It acknowledged that the resident had received poor service and offered £230 compensation, comprised of £90 for inconvenience, £90 for the distress caused and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied that nothing had been done to improve his circumstances. He advised that the heating costs were causing financial concern and believed that the radiators were incorrectly placed below the windows. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident advised that he wanted underfloor heating to be installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact of the cold on his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues within his property and his concerns about increased energy costs.

In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord would be responsible for maintaining the structure of the property including walls and windows as well as maintaining the installations for the supply of space heating. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the expected timescales for repairs; emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, routine repairs should be completed at the earliest mutually convenient opportunity and, in line with best practice, should usually be completed within one calendar month. Where age and wear and tear affected key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these would be replaced through a planned programme of work carried out over a given financial year.
The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort at the property. Social landlords are exempt from the regulations governing minimum energy efficiency requirements and would not be obliged to make improvements to improve energy efficiency. The landlord would, however, be responsible for ensuring that there were no repair issues which meant that the standard was not being met. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
In this case, the resident had raised concerns regarding the heating within the property and increased energy bills in February 2020 via his local MP. The evidence shows that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident at the time and there are no records to suggest he had pursued this concern regarding insufficient heating and increased energy usage until his formal complaint in March 2021 via this Service. As such, there were limited steps the landlord could have taken to resolve the issues prior to this time as it had not been aware or provided with the opportunity to resolve the issues reported.
In response to the resident’s complaint detailing his concerns related to the temperature of the property and increased energy costs, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the radiators in the property to be assessed in line with its obligations. An operative established that the reason for the heat loss was likely due to the solid external walls and identified that the heat needed to be spread across the rooms. The evidence shows that work to upgrade the heating, install a radiator below the resident’s windows in the living room and an additional radiator in the bedroom were completed on 20 April 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe given the need to source the replacements following the inspection on 30 March 2021. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that the resident had raised any further concerns with the landlord until January 2022. As such, it was reasonable that no further action was taken by the landlord between April 2021 and January 2022 as it believed the previously reported issues had been resolved.
The resident next reported that the property was not retaining heat and expressed concern regarding the affordability of his energy bills on 12 January 2022. Given the resident’s reports that the property was cold, the landlord was responsible for checking whether the heating system was working effectively and determining if the thermal efficiency of the property was sufficient in line with its obligations under the decent homes standard. The landlord has somewhat acknowledged the inconvenience caused by a failed appointment due to contractors arriving late on 4 February 2022 and a further appointment that needed to be cancelled due to staff absence on 11 February 2022 within its complaint responses. There was a further appointment that was deemed no access by operatives on 12 February 2022 which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord advised this Service that a further appointment to check the heating system was arranged for 24 February 2022 and there is no further evidence to confirm whether this went ahead or whether any further actions to progress the investigation were taken until 22 March 2022 which was around a month later.
The resident needed to pursue updates from the landlord and on 30 March 2022 he was informed that the heating was working but that the likely reason for the heat loss was the solid brick walls of the property and a lack of insulation. Ultimately, this issue had already been identified by an operative in April 2021 and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken reasonable action to investigate any other causes of the heat loss at an earlier stage in order to provide a resolution to the resident without any further delay.
The landlord subsequently explained within its stage two complaint response that its operatives had established that the cause of heat loss within the property was likely due to the solid brick walls and a lack of insulation. It acted appropriately by explaining its position; that it did not have the facilities to install insulation for these types of walls. Whilst it is possible for insulation to be fitted to the internal or external faces of solid brick external walls, this can be costly. Due to limited budgets, it is reasonable for social landlords to consider financial restraints when assessing requests for repairs that are deemed as an improvement. The landlord would not strictly be obliged to improve the insulation within the property to improve its energy efficiency or carry out works to the walls unless there was evidence of disrepair for which it was responsible. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any other repair issues related to the walls which would have prompted the landlord to act at this stage.
The landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the EPC for the property and establishing that the current single-glazed windows may also be contributing to heat loss. It can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as windows, as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis – unless the item in question was beyond economical repair and posed an immediate danger to the resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any significant repair issues related to his windows which would warrant a full replacement outside of a planned programme of works and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to add the resident’s windows to its planned window renewal programme for the 2023/24 financial year.
It can be reasonable for the landlord to rely on the EPC rating for a property to determine the likely cause of heat loss from a property. However, the Ombudsman has determined that the EPC for the property had expired at the time of review (according to the government website) and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a heat loss survey from the outset following the resident’s congoing concerns to definitively establish the causes of the heat loss, act on any recommendations made and ensure it met its obligations to the resident in line with the Decent Homes Standard. Had an assessment been completed, the landlord could have confirmed for both the resident and itself that there were no contributing factors such as improper use of the heating system, furniture placed in front of radiators or other repair issues which may have also resulted in inadequate heat within the property.
The evidence shows that a heat loss survey of the property was not requested by the landlord until 4 May 2022, which was a significant time after the resident raised ongoing concerns in January 2022. Following a request for further evidence from the landlord in December 2022, it confirmed that no heat loss survey had been completed as it had not been able to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The onus would be on the landlord to provide sufficient evidence to show that it had attempted to contact the resident to book the appointment, however it has not done so. As such, the Ombudsman is, unable to conclude that the landlord took adequate steps to ensure that this went ahead.
In addition, given that the resident was elderly and had previously raised concerns about the impact of the cold on his health as well as the affordability of his energy bills, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had assessed whether the temperature / heating efficiency was suitable enough for the resident to wait until the planned window replacement in 2023/24, and / or whether some form of intervening action to increase the temperature / efficiency was required. This may have included remedial works to draught-proof the windows or providing and contributing to the costs of additional temporary heaters until the window replacement could be carried out. Whilst the landlord did take steps to ensure that the heating was working within the property around 30 March 2022, it remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the temperature of the property was checked to determine whether it was adequate and in line with its obligations. These failing were likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who was awaiting a resolution.
Moreover, it is best practice for landlord’s to offer advice on energy efficiency when a resident first reports issues regarding energy usage and costs, alongside carrying out investigative works if required. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any advice to the resident on ways to improve energy efficiency in an attempt to assist in resolving the issues reported or reducing costs alongside its investigations, which would have been appropriate in order to help assist in resolving his concerns.
In summary, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate or fully consider the resident’s concerns following his reports that the property was cold and not retaining heat in January 2022. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £180 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its “poor service” is not considered proportionate in this case given the additional failings identified and the impact on the resident. As such, the landlord is to offer the resident an additional £120 compensation, bringing the total to £300.
This is in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays in progressing its investigation following the resident’s reports of outstanding issues in January 2022, failure to assess whether there may have been any contributing factors outside those listed in the EPC, its failure to demonstrate that it had made reasonable efforts to fully assess the property to determine whether any remedial action was required prior to the window replacement, and failure to provide advice on energy efficiency in an attempt to support the resident. This amount is considered proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. if there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe which should not exceed a further ten working days.
In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint via this Service on 9 March 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 April 2021, which was outside of its timescales at stage one by 24 working days. The resident raised further concerns regarding the heating in the property directly with the landlord in January 2022. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman then contacted the landlord and asked it to contact the resident in order for him to raise a new complaint or escalate the previous complaint. The landlord confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage two on 23 February 2022. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 6 May 2022, which was outside of its policy timescales by 30 working days.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the reason for the delay or provide a new estimated response timescale at any stage which would have been appropriate in order to adequately manage his expectations. It did, however, act appropriately by acknowledging and apologising for the delay within each complaint response and offering £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused.
However, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord would be expected to acknowledge service failures and demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for “poor service” in its stage two complaint response, it did not specify any service failures, demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint or highlight any actions it could take to improve its service moving forward.
The landlord would also be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint. A key element of the resident’s concern was the affordability of his energy bills due to increased costs which he attributed to the heat loss within the property. Whilst the evidence shows that the landlord had discussed the possibility of obtaining a fuel voucher for the resident internally, there is a lack of evidence to confirm whether this was offered to the resident or that it had provided an explanation if his property did not qualify to receive this. There is no further evidence to suggest that the landlord had signposted or referred the resident to any support services for advice during this period alongside its investigation, which would have been appropriate given the residents vulnerabilities and financial concerns. As such, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to support the resident and resolve the complaint more fully.
It should be noted that the resident would be responsible for paying his energy costs and the landlord would not be obliged to consider reimbursing or contributing towards a residents energy costs unless the residents usage had increased as the result of disrepair, rather than due to an increase in cost per unit by his energy provider or a lack of energy efficiency. There is no clear evidence to confirm that the increased energy costs were a direct result of any repair issues within the property for which the landlord was responsible, and the landlord would not be expected to reimburse or offer compensation to the resident on this basis. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this aspect of the resident’s concerns to prevent any additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the issue further.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation is not considered proportionate given its additional failure to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint, set out any failings or demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint. As such, the landlord is to offer the resident an additional £100 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused. This brings the total to £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of heating issues within his property and his concerns about increased energy costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £450, comprised of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays and the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s ongoing concerns related to heat loss within the property.
  2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £230 if this has not yet been paid.

Arrange a heat loss survey of the resident’s property to establish whether any further remedial works to lessen the impact on the resident prior to the window replacement programme are required. The landlord should also take steps to offer advice to the resident regarding energy efficiency of the property and ensure that there are no other factors which may be contributing to heat loss within the property.
Contact the resident and provide details of support services he can approach regarding his concerns related to the affordability of his energy bills and any further information regarding the support available to him.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to confirm its position regarding his request for under-floor heating to be installed.
It is recommended that the landlord considered carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that each aspect of a complaint is addressed, failings are clearly identified and points of learning are established where appropriate.