Mansfield District Council (202400625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400625

Mansfield District Council

12 August 2024

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of concerns of coldness in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since January 2015. He lives in a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The resident lives with systemic sclerosis, Reynolds syndrome, diabetes, arthritis, and mental health concerns.
3. Between 2019 and 2022 the resident raised concerns around the temperature within his property. He raised a complaint in October 2022 around this issue. The landlord attended on numerous occasions to try to resolve the resident’s concerns. It provided its stage 1 and 2 responses in October 2022 which identified the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) had rated the energy efficiency of the property as D. It also identified works which needed to be completed within the property to reduce the coldness.
4. Between January 2023 and March 2023, the resident again raised concerns with the coldness in the property. The landlord attended in response to his reports and took action such as replacing radiators in the bathroom and kitchen in February 2023, removing a work top over the kitchen radiator in March 2023, and arranging for an upgrade of the loft insulation.
5. In December 2023, the resident raised his concerns again about an inability to heat his bathroom and kitchen. He said the heating was on, but the rooms were cold. He raised the same concern again on 8 January 2024, and he contacted the landlord on the morning of 11 January 2024. He queried why nobody had attended yet that morning as he was informed the previous day someone would be attending “first thing” that day. Following the resident’s request for an update, on 11 January 2024, the landlord arranged for an inspection to be completed as soon as possible.
6. The resident requested the outcome of the inspection on 29 January 2024. He said the inspectors were thinking of external insulation, but this would cause a trip hazard for him. He said he and his child had put insulation in the living room, but this had made the other two rooms even colder. The inspectors said they were going to return to the office to find the report another member of staff completed previously but he had not heard anything since. The landlord asked for this to be investigated.
7. The resident then raised a complaint on 30 January 2024 as he was unable to heat his bathroom and kitchen. He said his medical condition made it hard to complete everyday tasks when it was cold. The landlord responded to the resident’s query on the same day advising that its contractor would not be insulating the property as requested. It told him that in the event of a rolled out insulation programme it would insulate the property. The resident asked for this to be put in writing and said he would make a formal complaint.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 February 2024. It apologised the resident had cause to complain about the condition of his property and the effect it was having on his health. It said it had investigated and it understood it had arranged for the installation of loft insulation and a visit to the property with an inspector to ensure all steps had been taken to resolve the issue. It apologised for any inconvenience he had experienced. The landlord then reopened and combined the resident’s complaint of October 2022 with his current complaint, on 26 February 2024.
9. On 25 March 2024, the resident called the landlord and escalated his complaint to stage 2.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. It said:
    1. It had carefully reviewed the case history about the heat retention issue at the property. It was evidenced that considerable efforts had been made to address the concerns.
    2. It had worked on upgrading the radiators in his home the previous year and following a recent visit, measures were offered to improve heat circulation in his kitchen.
    3. This included reducing the size of the worktop which had been done, and it hoped this improved the heat circulation in the room.
    4. Its officers had noted that the property held an Energy Performance Certificate rating of C which was deemed adequate for the property. They had also observed the property felt warm during their visit.
    5. Considering the actions it had taken, it believed appropriate steps had been taken to assist with his concerns.
    6. It wanted to suggest some additional steps that could contribute to further improving the overall warmth of his home.
    7. It asked him to review his thermostat settings, adjusting it to a slightly higher temperature if suitable, as this could enhance the comfort level within the property.
    8. It said he may wish to explore the possibility of having his medical needs assessed under its home finder scheme. The assessment could determine the suitability for alternative properties within the district that may better accommodate his requirements.
11. The resident told the Ombudsman on 5 April 2024 that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. He explained his vulnerabilities and said the landlord’s conclusion was based on a fit young person, not on the needs of a person with his conditions and age. It had attended to inspect and advised that it felt warm in every room.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Concerns of coldness in the resident’s property.

12. The resident first raised concerns in 2019 about the issues of coldness in his property. He did not raise his concerns about the kitchen and bathroom until 2023. Following on from his reports between 2019 and 2023, the landlord acted appropriately and attended to try to assist with the situation and took action to help the resident. For example, it replaced the radiators in the property, permitted the resident to install his own radiators, and it also upgraded the insulation in the loft. It granted permission in 2022 for the resident’s relative to complete works to assist with the temperature in the property.
13. From the evidence it is unclear when, but in 2022, the landlord completed a “data logging survey” which recommended an EPC assessment. At the time, the property had an EPC test due to expire in 2025 with an efficiency rating of “D” for the property. Another EPC was then completed in September 2022 which identified the efficiency rating as “C” and noted the condition of the windows as “Average”. The assessment made no recommendation for them to be replaced. It also assumed that there was no cavity insulation in some of the walls. Despite the fact no recommendation was made around the windows, the landlord decided to change the windows following the complaint by the resident in October 2022 which was combined with the 2024 complaint by the landlord. It identified that the window replacement remained outstanding as at 26 April 2024. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that they were replaced between 2 July 2024 and 9 July 2024.
14. The Ombudsman acknowledges that as the replacement of the windows would have been treated as an improvement to the property, as they were said to be in “Average” condition. As such they were still in reasonable working condition, and the landlord had no obligation to repair or replace them. The landlord’s survey in June 2024 also found them to be in “satisfactory” condition, prior to the replacement. This demonstrates that the landlord went beyond its obligations to seek a solution for the resident, and this was positive. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations on when the works would be completed. Despite this, there is no evidence of any detriment to the resident, caused by the delays with the window replacements. The survey of June 2024 also found that the heat loss from the windows was of a normal level, demonstrating limited detriment to the resident.
15. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that an inspection was completed by the landlord which led to the consideration of external insulation on 11 January 2024. The evidence shows that the resident requested an update on 29 January 2024 around the landlord’s findings. It then discussed internally and advised him on 30 January 2024 that it would not be “insulating” the property as he had requested. It told him that in the event of a rolled out insulation programme it would do so. Whilst appropriate that it informed the resident of its decision, this was not until he asked it for a response, and this was unreasonable. Landlords should ensure they have robust systems in place to ensure timely and appropriate communications with their residents.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response of October 2022 had identified that the data logging test had recommended an “investigation of possible cavity fill failure/ feasibility of EWI”. It is unclear whether this recommendation was followed by the landlord. The resident also told the Ombudsman that when he had completed previous works on the vents, no insulation was seen. The EPC assessment completed in September 2022 also said it assumed that there was no cavity insulation in the walls. It is understood that the insulation would contribute to the temperature of the property. This was an opportunity for the landlord to investigate and identify whether there was any cavity wall insulation. This would have allowed it to either assure both itself and the resident that the property was appropriately insulated or informed its approach if it needed to take any additional action.
17. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord took several reasonable steps to try to assist the resident and ensure his comfort in the property. However, when it became aware that these approaches had not resolved the issue for the resident, and especially in combination with his medical conditions, it should have considered other options such as an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. It should have considered whether this was appropriate to help inform its approach at an earlier point. This would have demonstrated that it took appropriate consideration of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to provide any reasonable adjustments to its residents within a reasonable timeframe. This may have provided other options such as adaptations, rather than repairs, sooner which could have been of assistance. This is especially important due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its lack of prompt consideration of this option suggests it did not take his vulnerabilities into consideration during its decision making. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered this until March 2024 its delay in considering this earlier was unreasonable.
18. Completing an OT assessment would also have informed its decision making around the suitability of the property sooner and if it needed to provide information or advice around rehousing. The resident had been raising his concerns around the temperature in the property for a substantial amount of time. He was also living with medical conditions which made him vulnerable to the temperature. As such consideration around the suitability of the property should have been taken once the landlord became aware of the vulnerabilities. The delay to do so until its stage 2 response in March 2024 was unreasonable. It is acknowledged that there were periods in which the resident did not raise concerns, from the records provided, however, the full circumstances of the situation suggests that there was a significant issue for the resident.
19. The resident also raised concerns that the thermal imaging survey completed was done during a hot day. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord’s operative said they struggled to get any readings due to the temperature. This further demonstrates that the landlord was looking for an effective solution to resolve the concerns around the temperature in the property. However, due to the difficulties reported in getting readings, a recommendation has been made for a further test to be completed.
20. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it detailed that it inspected the property, and its inspectors found the property to be warm. Whilst appropriate that it checked the temperature of the property, it failed to show that it considered whether the temperature was appropriate for someone living with the resident’s vulnerabilities and this was unreasonable. This added to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord as demonstrates a lack of understanding by the landlord.
21. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately around its handling of the resident’s reports. It took the suggestions of its “data logging” into consideration and decided to make some improvements to the property. Although it delayed in replacing the window, there is no evidence of any detriment because of this. There were, however, shortcomings in its approach to the issue, as it failed to consider the need for an OT assessment at a much earlier point. It also did not consider whether the property remained appropriate for the resident in a timely manner. Although it completed inspections of the property and identified that the temperature was adequate, it failed to take consideration of whether it was suitable for the resident. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was a maladministration.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of concerns of coldness in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the identified failings.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 for its handling of the resident’s concerns of coldness in the property.
    3. If not already done, remains necessary, and agreed to by the resident, support him with any application for home finder as suggested in its stage 2 response.
    4. Support the resident/ make a referral for an OT assessment.
    5. If any repairs remain outstanding, provide the resident with a schedule of works and an estimated timeframe for the completion of any works.
    6. Confirm to the resident if it can and is willing to investigate if there is cavity wall insulation in the property. If it will complete an investigation, confirm to the resident and Ombudsman in writing when any such investigations will begin. Once the investigation is completed, it must explain the outcome and its findings to the resident. If it cannot do so, provide an explanation to both the resident and Ombudsman on why it is unable to do so. If any such investigation was previously completed, explain its findings to the resident, and provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has done so.
    7. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

24. The landlord is advised, if the resident remains in the property into the colder months, to complete another heat loss/ thermal imaging survey.
25. The landlord must confirm its intention around this recommendation to the Ombudsman.