Norwich City Council (202234641)

Decision
Case ID	202234641
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Norwich City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. In November 2022, the resident moved into a new build property with an air source heat pumpsystem that provides heating and hot water.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system and increased electricity costs.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was a reasonable offer of redress prior to our investigation in response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system and increased electricity costs.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made any orders for the landlord to put things right, but we have made recommendations.

Summary of reasons

Heating system

4. There is no evidence that confirms whether the landlord was, or was not, responsible for the heating system settings that led to increased electricity use. In these circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation was a reasonable way to resolve the complaint.

Complaint handling

5. Although the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint with the expected timeframes, its overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews its record keeping practices so that it can evidence its actions and decision making.
If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that the heating and hot water system had been set up incorrectly before he moved into the property. He said he spoke to the landlord and the contractor who installed the system on several occasions, but the issue was not resolved until he contacted the system manufacturer. He said the manufacturer told him it had been set up incorrectly. The resident was unhappy the issue had taken 2 months to resolve and asked the landlord to pay him compensation.
13 March 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: the heating and hot water systems for all plots on the development were commissioned using the same settings no other residents had reported similar issues the contractor who installed the system confirmed that the manufacturer had not contacted it about any installation errors at any of the other plots. the system works differently to a combi boiler, and it had asked the contractor to provide one-off tutorials to all residents the contractor attended the property on 10 January 2023 and reduced the hot water cylinder temperature from 58ºc to 40ºc, in line with the manufacturer’s guidance it did not believe the system was incorrectly set up before the resident moved in and would not assist with the resident’s energy bill.
30 March 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said: he was unhappy that nobody was taking responsibility for the matter he had contacted the contractor to express his concerns he would provide the transcript of his telephone call with the manufacturer of the system during which the control panel was reset and it said the high bills were caused by incorrect settings Since the settings were changed, his bills had significantly reduced.
4 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it had listened to the recording of the resident’s call with the manufacturer during which the call handler helped adjust the settings and explained that high temperature settings would increase electricity consumption it had reviewed the commissioning record, but this did not record the temperature setting of the hot water cylinder there was no evidence the system was set up incorrectly it offered £100 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the difficulties the resident experienced after receiving an unexpectedly high bill.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He told us: he contacted the landlord about the unexpectedly high energy consumption soon after moving into the property, but the issue was only resolved after he contacted the manufacturer he does not recall the contractor attending on 10 January 2023 to adjust the settings he sent the landlord copies of his energy bill from before and after the setting was changed which showed reduced energy consumption he would like the landlord to pay him £360 compensation to resolve the matter.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system and increased electricity costs
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

6. The landlord was unable to provide full and accurate records of the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports and complaint. It said this was due to the amount of time that has passed. In line with our Complaint Handling Code the landlord should have kept records of the resident’s reports, contractor attendance, correspondence with the resident and contractor, and any investigative actions. This would have ensured it had an accurate audit trail of the actions it had taken.
7. We cannot assess whether the landlord took timely and appropriate steps when the resident first raised concerns because the landlord has not provided any evidence of its handling of the issue prior to the resident’s formal complaint. We have not seen evidence to confirm the contractor’s visit on 10 January 2023. The landlord also did not provide evidence to support information it relied on in its complaint responses, including its accounts of discussions with the contractor and the manufacturer. While we considered alternative evidence, gaps remain due to incomplete records.
8. A recording of the resident’s call with the manufacturer on 24 January 2023 confirms that the system settings required adjustment at that time. The manufacturer explained that the previous settings were likely to have caused increased electricity use. However, this does not show when, or by whom, those settings were applied.
9. The commissioning record does not specify the temperature setting of the hot water cylinder. However, it does confirm that the system was installed and commissioned on 10 October 2022 in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
10. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord was responsible for the system settings that led to increased energy costs. However, the landlord did not retain sufficient records to evidence how it responded to the resident’s concerns. The absence of these records limited our ability to fully assess its actions.
11. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation which was reasonable in the circumstances. We have therefore made recommendations regarding record keeping and payment of the compensation offered.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

 

12. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint says it will:
    1. acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days
    2. provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement
    3. provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
13. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or the escalation request within its stated timescales. However, it issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the overall complaint handling timescales of 15 and 25 working days respectively.Therefore, although there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it did not have a significant impact on the resident in its overall handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

14. This case highlights the importance of maintaining clear records of actions taken in response to residents’ reports. Where records are missing or incomplete, landlords may be unable to evidence that they have acted appropriately. This can undermine complaint handling and confidence in decision making, even where the underlying service provision is found to be reasonable.

Communication

15. There is insufficient evidence to assess the quality of the landlord’s communication. This reinforces the importance of retaining communication records, so that timeliness and clarity can be evidenced if concerns are later raised.