Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Midland Heart Limited (202127586)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127586

Midland Heart Limited

17 October 2022

 

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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports regarding window repairs;
    2. request for compensation for increased heating costs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident first reported draughts from the windows in her kitchen, living room, and bedroom on 22 November 2021. The landlord’s contractors subsequently completed repairs to address the draughts on 22 December 2021. On 6 January 2022, the resident reported further draughts from her windows.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 21 January 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs to her windows. She also reported that the poor repairs were causing her property to be too cold and that her son was hospitalised on several occasions as a result.
  4. The landlord issued a stage one response on 3 February 2022. It apologised for the delay in repairing the windows and offered £30 compensation in recognition of the quality of the works, and for its lack of communication.
  5. On 10 February 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property who identified further works to repair the windows. The landlord’s contractors completed works on 11 February 2022.
  6. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 15 February 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the works undertaken and complained that the windows were still draughty. The resident further informed the landlord that due to the issue with her windows, her gas bill had increased and in light of this requested compensation of £400 to cover the increased bill.
  7. The landlord issued a stage two response on 11 March 2022. It apologised that the windows were not initially repaired to the required standard and offered £100 compensation for its service failure and the inconvenience caused.
  8. It is evident the landlord requested copies of the resident’s energy bills, and that it determined it did not find any evidence that the bills had increased because of the issues with her windows. It subsequently gave advice on how to reduce her bills.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she was dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs to her windows and with the landlord’s refusal to compensate her for the increased bills.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised concerns about the son’s health. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability about whether a landlord’s actions (or lack of action) have had a detrimental impact on an individual’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages on this basis. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice should be sought.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the kitchen. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman notes that these concerns were not made as a formal complaint to which the landlord has provided a stage one and stage two response. As such, these concerns will not be considered as part of this investigation. However, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide updates to the resident.

Window repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord should undertake routine repairs within 28 working days from the resident’s report.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord’s contractors attended within the above timeframe. However, it is noted that the repairs were not undertaken to a satisfactory standard, and there was a lack of communication by the landlord.
  3. The resident first reported that her windows were draughty on 22 November 2021 and the landlord’s contractors attended and completed the repairs on 22 December 2021. The contractors fitted draught excluders to the living room and the bedroom sashes and repaired the cracks in the kitchen window. On 6 January 2022, the resident further reported to the landlord that there were still draughts from her windows, causing her property to be too cold. After the issue was raised in January 2022, a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 10 February 2022; however, the surveyor inspection had been delayed and the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to communicate clearly to a resident when delays are likely to occur. In this case, however, the landlord failed to do so, and the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on or around 20 January 2022. Furthermore, the landlord promised a call back to the resident, which did not occur. This caused the resident to have to chase the landlord again to get updates on the repairs.
  5. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the delay to the surveyor’s inspection which it advised was due to availability. It also acknowledged that this delay was not clearly communicated to the resident. In this instance, the landlord appropriately apologised for the lack of communication and the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £30 compensation to the resident.
  6. When the surveyor attended the resident’s property on 10 February 2022, although no evidence had been found of a draught, it was noted that the window seal was loose. The landlord’s contractors attended the following day, on 11 February 2022, and repeated works ensuring the seals and draught excluders were adequate on all the resident’s windows.
  7. Having identified its previous work was inadequate, the landlord took appropriate measures by acknowledging its failures and promptly sending its contractors to complete the required works within its repairs policy timescales the day after the surveyor attended the resident’s property.
  8. Despite works being completed on 11 February 2022, the resident further complained that her windows were still draughty. The resident has expressed concern that on the surveyor’s visit, there had been little wind to demonstrate the draught. The Ombudsman cannot know if this materially affected the surveyor’ assessment, but the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted fairly by relying on its contractors’ opinion and by clearly communicating in its stage two response that the required repairs were satisfactorily completed, as reported by its contractors.
  9. The landlord, in its stage two response, also acted reasonably by apologising again that the repairs undertaken in December 2021 were not to a satisfactory standard and for the inconvenience caused. In recognition of its failures, the landlord increased its compensation to £100.
  10. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation awarded by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  11. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident for its identified service failures, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures the landlord took were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman finally notes that following further reports from the resident, the landlord carried out additional inspections in April 2022 and on this occasion discovered a noticeable draught. Having made such a discovery, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to repair the windows in line with its repair responsibilities. Should this not have occurred, a recommendation had been made that the landlord contact the resident and provide updates on the status of the repair.

Heating costs

  1. The resident formally complained that the draughty windows were causing her property to be too cold and requested the landlord to reimburse her bills for the increased heating costs which totalled £400.
  2. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to request the resident’s bills in order to conduct an appropriate investigation into the matter. The landlord, in this case, acted appropriately by requesting the resident’s bills.
  3. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that while the resident initially provided her bills to the landlord in February 2022, the resident subsequently decline to provide further bills, which limited the landlord’s ability to investigate the matter.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s attempts to investigate this concern were reasonable. Given that the landlord was unable to determine that there had been an increase in heating costs based on the evidence it had been provided, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to offer any compensation in relation to this.
  5. In recognition of the resident’s distress, on 29 March 2022 the landlord used its discretion and requested its energy reduction officers to visit the resident’s property to assess whether any intervention could be taken to support the resident’s energy efficiency.
  6. The landlord also gave further advice on how to deal with draught-proofing and how to save energy, and further informed the resident that she could be referred to the landlord’s money advice service to ascertain whether there were opportunities to help the resident to maximize her income in order to cover these costs. This was appropriate and in line with best practice.
  7. In summary, while the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration, it is the Ombudsman opinion that the landlord acted appropriately throughout the process by requesting the resident’s bills, by giving advice and guidance, and by conducting an energy efficient assessment to the resident’s property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to its handling of the resident’s window repairs that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for the increased heating costs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident in relation to the draught discovered in April 2022 and conduct a further inspection if still required.
  2. The landlord to contact the resident and provide her with an update regarding her reports of damp and mould in her kitchen.