North Tyneside Council (202402980)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402980

North Tyneside Council

14 January 2025

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a positive air unit (PAU).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to being a full time wheelchair user, and having a hearing impairment.
The resident contacted the landlord in June 2023 to say he was unhappy that the landlord had decided to renew the PAU in his property. He said he was concerned about the costs of running the PAU, and asked it to send him information about running costs. It is unclear what response the landlord gave at the time.
The landlord completed a repair to the PAU in October 2023. The resident made a complaint in November 2023 about the costs of running the PAU. He said it was “unfair” that he was expected to cover the increased energy costs, which he estimated at £684 per year, which he could not afford. He said he was originally told the machine cost the same as a light bulb to run, but his bills had gone up. He asked the landlord to:
1. Connecting an energy monitoring plug to the PAU, so he could monitor costs.
2. Reimburse him for the cost of running the PAU.
3. Provide the ability to switch off the PAU in cold weather to stop it pumping cold air into the house, and hot air in periods of hot weather.
4. Make good the decorations following the installation of the new PAU, in October 2023.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 5 December 2023. It set out that it had enquired about running costs from the manufacturer and the annual running costs would be £50-75 per year. Due to the resident’s concerns about costs, it had referred him to its tenancy and financial support service, who would contact him. It wanted to inspect the PAU to ensure it was temperature controlled, if it found it was not it would replace it. It advised it was unable to install a “monitoring mechanism” on the PAU. It said it would also decide if making good works were needed at its upcoming inspection.
The resident asked his complaint to go to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure on 7 December 2023, as he was unhappy with its response. He said it had not given a clear calculation of estimated costs, or answered his query about having the ability to switch it off. He was also concerned that the PAU was drawing in humid air to the property.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It said the costs calculations the resident provided “varied greatly” from manufacturer. It had checked the resident’s figures with the company, which had created a delay in responding to the complaint. It said it was not prepared to install an isolation switch to enable the resident to turn off the PAU, it needed to be left on to help reduce moisture in the property. It gave a breakdown of estimated costs provided by the manufacturer. It asked the resident to provide evidence of increased utility bills, and it would consider a “one off” payment.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted this Service on 5 April 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy the landlord’s handling of the matter, and that it had not agreed to reimburse him for the costs of running the PAU.
The landlord inspected the PAU on 10 July 2024. The notes from the inspection state that the relative humidity around the PAU was higher than elsewhere in the property, and this indicted the unit was “faulty”. The landlord installed a new PAU on 19 August 2024.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 December 2024 and said he was concerned the PAU was not working properly as it pulled in cold air on colder days, and hot air on warm days.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about a positive air unit (PAU).

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it accepts responsibility for the maintenance and repair of extractor fans. The repairs policy states it aims to complete all repairs within 45 working days.
When the resident brought his complaint to this Service he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould in the property. While the serious nature of this concern is acknowledged, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues were not raised in the resident’s complaints to the landlord. The resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints were centered around his concerns about the cost of running the PAU, and whether it was working properly.
Our Scheme states that we cannot investigate a complaint that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concern as part of a formal complaint response, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. Considering the seriousness of the resident’s concerns, and the conditions he has reported, we have set out some recommendations below.
The resident first raised concerns about the cost of running the PAU in June 2023. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to the concerns, or set out its position in relation to the matter at the time. This was a failing that caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident was evidently concerned about costs, that he was left not knowing the landlord’s position on the matter was unreasonable
When the resident made his complaint, in November 2023, he raised a concern that the PAU was not working properly. He set out that it was pumping in cold air during the winter, and hot air during the summer. The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response, of December 2023, that it wanted to inspect the fan to ensure it was working. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detail in relation to the estimated costs of running the PAU. While it is noted that the landlord set out its position that it disagreed with the resident’s calculation of estimated costs, it did not provide its own calculation. It simply set out that the manufacturer said it estimated the fan would cost between £50 and £75 per year to run. While appropriate to seek guidance from the manufacturer, the response lacked detail and transparency. Considering the figures the landlord provided differed greatly from the resident’s own calculations, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide a greater level of detail. That it did not inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of February 2024, went some way to putting right the above failing. It have a more detailed breakdown of estimated costs. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations that costs were dependant on weather, and it was hard to predict costs accurately. While it is noted the resident was unhappy with its position, the landlord set out its position with clarity and gave an appropriate explanation.
That the landlord said it would consider a “one off” payment in relation to the increased costs was also appropriate. This is evidence it had the appropriate consideration of the resident’s circumstances, and the financial difficulty he said he was experiencing. The evidence also shows that the landlord referred the resident to its internal financial support services. This was reasonable and evidence it sought to provide the appropriate support to the resident. That the landlord did not set out what evidence it needed to consider in order to progress this matter was a shortcoming in its response. It should set out what evidence in needs in order to consider the resident’s request now.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also set out that it had completed all remedial works after it installed the new PAU. This lacked clarity and it did not give an appropriate assessment of its handling of the issue. The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response that it would inspect to see if remedial works were needed. From the evidence provided it does not appear that the inspection took place at that time. That the stage 2 response said it had completed all remedial works, without a further inspection was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord not doing something it said it would in its stage 1 response.
The resident raised concerns that the PAU was faulty when he made is complaint in November 2023. From the records provided, it does not appear the landlord inspected before July 2024. This was an unreasonable delay that caused an inconvenience. We note the landlord replaced the PAU in August 2024, which was appropriate considering the faults it identified. That the resident had to wait this long for it to replace the faulty PAU was unreasonable.
We note the resident’s ongoing concern, raised with this Service in December 2024, that the new PAU is also drawing damp air into the property and is contributing to mould issues within the property. Considering this matter was raised after the period covered by this investigation, we do not seek to make a determination on the landlord’s handling of this matter. We do however recommend the landlord completes and inspection of the PAU to ensure it is working properly.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position on the PAU in June 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint. The resident was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue, it would have been appropriate to open a complaint investigation at that time. That it did not do so caused an inconvenience. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise the issue again in November 2023 in order to get a response to his concerns.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response within its policy timeframes, following the resident’s complaint of November 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response was sent 46 working days after the complaint was made. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. It is noted it explained the reasons for the delay (the need to meet the resident with an interpreter and awaiting a response from the manufacturer of the PAU). To apologise and explain the reasons for the delay was appropriate and shows transparency. However, that it did not offer appropriate redress for the delay was unreasonable and evidence it failed to adopt our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
Considering the failings set out above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £100 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a PAU.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the concerns about the PAU.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident explaining what evidence it needs him to provide in order to consider giving him a one off payment to cover costs, such as annual energy bills covering the relevant period.

Recommendations

Considering the resident’s concerns about ongoing issues with damp and mould, it is recommended:
1. The landlord instructs an appropriately qualified surveyor to inspect his property to identify possible causes of damp and mould.
2. The landlord instructs an appropriately qualified surveyor to inspect the PAU installed in August 2024.
3. The landlord opens a complaint investigation into its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.