North Star Housing Group (202110682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110682

North Star Housing Group

6 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 handling of the resident’s concerns regarding their heating and hot water system.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is heated by an air source heat pump (ASHP).
  2. On 22 November 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the newly installed ASHP in the property not functioning properly. There were also power cuts around this time though he explained that the heating had stopped working when there was a power cut. He said he had a health condition that meant he could end up in hospital if he got cold. He requested that the landlord install a secondary source of heating such as a wood burner or solar panels so that he would still have heat in at least one room when the system was not working. He also requested a carbon monoxide alarm. A heating engineer attended the following day and adjusted the pressure on the system to resolve the problem, but had to attend two further times in the following days as the problem kept reoccurring.
  3. In its stage one complaint response on 1 December 2021, the landlord explained that the heating engineer had said the issue with the heating may be caused by the resident not having all of the radiators on. However, it would request that the heating engineer carry out a full inspection of the system and provide a report that highlighted any issues that were found. With reference to the resident’s request for a wood burner or solar panels, it said that it did not install secondary heating sources, and while it was developing its environmental strategy, it was not at a stage where it would be installing solar panels. It sympathised with the disruption the recent power cuts had caused but said that they were beyond its control and responsibility lay with the energy supplier. It said it was happy to arrange installation of a carbon monoxide alarm.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 December 2021 as he had tried putting all the radiators on and the problem was still reoccurring. He requested that the landlord either install a wood burner or carry out work to open up the fireplace so that he could use coal. He repeated his request for a carbon monoxide alarm.
  5. On 14 December 2021 the landlord sent an interim response to say that after visits from the heating engineer and the manufacturer of the system, it was determined that the resident’s use of radiators was not the source of the issue and that a sensor was found to be faulty, which was replaced on 13 December 2021. The landlord said that the system was now working and reiterated that it would not install a secondary source of heating. It said it would check the system again in January 2022 to ensure it was still working before issuing its stage two response. Also, as the resident had raised new concerns that the new system had led to increased electricity costs, it requested that he provide evidence that his heating costs had increased, ideally as a year on year comparison comparing the usage in kwh for November 2021 and November 2020.
  6. In its stage two complaint response on 11 January 2022 the landlord confirmed that the fault had been fixed. It said it would not install a secondary source of heating but had installed a carbon monoxide detector. It said it had offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused before the issue had been resolved but that the resident had refused this. It said that as the resident had raised concerns about his electricity costs it had suggested various courses of action, including adjusting the settings back to how they were before the heating engineer had adjusted them to heat the water to 55 degrees instead of 50 degrees, inspecting the insulation at the property, and arranging a further visit from the manufacturer to identify if anything was causing excessive energy consumption (and that if it was found to be the case it would reimburse any excessive costs), but that the resident had not progressed with these actions. It also gave contact details for a team who could arrange free advice on welfare benefits.
  7. The resident contacted this Service in April 2022, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he believed it should pay for a secondary source of heating. He said he was experiencing problems with the system not working again and still paying high electricity charges that he believed were due to the new system.
  8. The landlord has advised this Service that it has continued to liaise with the resident after the end of the internal complaints process, to investigate his concerns about his high electricity costs, and had installed a meter to assess the electricity consumption of the ASHP in May 2022, taken a reading in July 2022 and analysed it and assessed it as being reasonable in August 2022. As the resident had noted that the reading was taken during summer and was not indicative of the consumption during winter, the landlord had agreed to take more readings in October and December 2022 and February and April 2023.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water. When the resident made a complaint on 22 November 2021 about the ASHP, and requested that the landlord install secondary source of heating source, the landlord responded appropriately by ensuring that a heating engineer inspected the following day, who made adjustments to the pressure in an attempt to resolve the issue.
  2. When the resident reported further problems, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the issue by sending heating engineers out to inspect the system each time. In its stage one complaint response on 1 December 2021 it  suggested that the issue may be to do with the resident not using all of the radiators, which was a reflection of the information provided by its qualified contractors. However, it also took reasonable steps to arrange a full inspection of the system to see if there were any other causes.
  3. In relation to the request to install a secondary heating system, a landlord has to work within a budget and prioritise what it spends its funds on. As the resident already had one source of heating, which the landlord was making appropriate efforts to restore to full working order permanently, it was reasonable that it refused to fund the cost of installing a secondary source of heating in the property. Its explanation that the power cuts were beyond its control was also reasonable, as the energy supplier were responsible for addressing the power cuts, which had been caused by extreme weather conditions.
  4. When the resident escalated his complaint on 7 December 2021, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for both the heating engineer and the manufacturer of the system to investigate what was wrong with it. Once they had identified that there was a faulty sensor and had taken appropriate steps to replace it, and to confirm that the system was working, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident with an interim response. This was reasonable as the landlord’s complaints policy says that it aims to respond to complaints at stage two within 10 working days, but if that is not possible it will contact the resident with a revised timeframe. 
  5. As the resident had raised additional concerns about the high electricity costs since the new system had been installed which the landlord was considering, and as the landlord also wanted to inspect the system again in the new year to ensure it was still working, it was reasonable that it extended the response timeframe till early January 2022. Further, as part of its consideration of the concerns about electricity costs, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of costs via energy bills (showing kwh used) from the same period the previous year. This was an appropriate first step in determining whether there had been an increase in energy usage since the installation of the new system. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was unable to obtain this information. While the Ombudsman does not question the resident’s reports that his electricity usage had increased since the new ASHP was installed, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek evidence of this before reimbursing any additional costs.
  6. In its stage two complaint response dated 11 January 2022, following a visit to the resident’s property, the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm that the system was still working and it had installed the carbon monoxide detector that the resident had requested, and to reiterate that it would not install a secondary source of heating. It also noted that it had offered the resident £100 compensation. This Service considers the amount of compensation for the inconvenience caused whilst it was trying to find the cause of the problems with the new system to be reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £100 for cases where there has been a failing, but no permanent impact on the resident. 
  7. The landlord also demonstrated that, in lieu of the provision of energy bills that demonstrated an increase in usage,  it had taken appropriate steps to try to address the resident’s concerns about his electricity costs: It had suggested readjusting the settings to the previous ones that provided water at 50 degrees, inspecting the insulation at the property, and another inspection by the manufacturer. Its offer to reimburse the resident for any additional energy costs if it was found that an issue with the system had led to higher energy costs was also reasonable. The evidence available indicates that the resident declined the landlord’s suggestions at that time. On the 18 January 2022 the landlord said that, in light of the resident being unable to provide evidence of the historic energy consumption, it would install a meter so that the kwh consumption could be measured. Again, this demonstrates that that landlord was taking reasonable action to try and obtain evidence of any increase in usage. The resident again indicated that he was unhappy with this plan as he felt that the current usage he had provided evidence of was sufficient.
  8. Although the Ombudsman recognises that it must be frustrating for the resident that the landlord has not, as yet, been able to confirm that the new system has led to higher electricity costs, this Service considers the efforts the landlord has gone to in order to investigate the resident’s concerns to be appropriate.
  9. During the complaints process the resident mentioned that he had a health condition that could be affected by the cold. However, the landlord has advised this Service that it has no record of any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. As the resident had specifically mentioned this health condition it would have been helpful if the landlord had addressed that, asked for more information about it and updated its records accordingly. This Service will be recommending that the landlord does so, and once the information is confirmed, considers if there is anything else it can do to ensure the resident has adequate back up heating if the system breaks down in future, such as providing portable heaters. The resident has also advised this Service that he has experienced additional issues with the system since and so  recommendation is made that the landlord inspect the system to see if any further repairs are needed if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ensure that it has full up to date details of his medical condition and any other vulnerabilities, and to consider if it can offer anything else it can do to ensure the resident has back up heating if the system breaks down again in future.
  2. The landlord is recommended to inspect the system to see if any further repairs are needed, if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord is recommended to pay the £!00 compensation previously offered if it has not done so already.