One Housing Group Limited (202203250)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203250

One Housing Group Limited

2 December 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of heating problems in the resident’s home.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her home has a communal heating system which provides for multiple properties. The communal heating is the responsibility of a managing agent. The landlord is responsible for heating issues within the resident’s home.
  2. In January 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of heating problems she said she had been reporting since October 2021. She explained that “I have had a few contractors come out to investigate…but the issue was still not resolved. I understand the main problem is with the communal plant room and that one housing were liaising with the management company to get the issue sorted out.”
  3. The landlord’s contractors subsequently identified that there were problems with radiators in the resident’s home, and recommended they be replaced. The landlord suspected there were also problems with the communal system (in line with the resident’s understanding). Its records state that it intended to liaise with the managing agent in relation to it.
  4. In the landlord’s response to the complaint it noted that the resident believed, based on what she had been told previously, that the ongoing heating problem was due to the communal system, rather than with the radiators. It explained that its contractors had also reported some issues with the communal system, and that it had liaised with the managing agents who had confirmed there had been some problems, which had now been resolved. The landlord said it had agreed a solution with the managing agents which would eliminate the issue causing problems with the resident’s radiators going forward. Nonetheless, it said that it would replace five radiators in the resident’s home.
  5. The landlord accepted that it had, and was, taking too long to resolve the ongoing heating problems. It apologised, explained how it would learn from the resident’s experiences, and offered £418 compensation for the impact on the resident and her family (later increased to £618).
  6. Following its final complaint response, the landlord subsequently replaced the radiators, and agreed further compensation to the resident, in the form of replacement carpets (which had been damaged during repair work).
  7. The resident has explained to this Service that, some months after the radiators were replaced, she continued to experience heating problems, which she reported to the landlord. She has said that she believes the problems lie with the communal system, rather than with any potential causes within her home, and that she has made a new complaint to the landlord about it.
  8. The resident has also explained that she accepted the compensation, and the carpet replacement, the landlord offered as remedies to the service failings it agreed it had been responsible for. However, she said there had recently been delays in the landlord completing its offer in relation to the carpets. This delay, and the further ongoing heating problems, were the basis of her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. In this case, the specific aspects of the resident’s concerns –the renewed heating problems, and the delays with the carpet—while clearly linked to her original complaint in January 2022, are essentially new developments which the landlord needs to either investigate further (with the heating), or put right (with the carpets). The resident has already made a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the heating. If the landlord is unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction, it is open to her to return to this Service, and ask us to consider her new complaint. If that occurs, the past history of the matter, including the events in 2021 and in early 2022, may also be taken into consideration.
  3. Likewise the resident’s concerns about the carpet. If it has not already done so, the landlord should take prompt steps to avoid the need for her to formally complain about the delays. However, if she does make a complaint about the delays completing the issue, she will also be entitled to bring that to the Ombudsman if the landlord is unable to resolve her concerns.
  4. In making the above decision, it is important to understand that the Ombudsman is not making a determination of the reasonableness (or otherwise) of the landlord’s handling of matters.