One Housing Group Limited (202320330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320330

One Housing Group Limited

25 November 2024

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 communication regarding obtaining an energy performance certificate and its process for installing solar panels.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident and her husband occupy a 4-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement.
The resident and her husband have chronic health conditions. She told this Service that in 2021 the landlord agreed to provide them with a single point of contact (SPOC) for repair issues at the property.
On 8 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. she had received no correspondence from the staff member that she understood was her SPOC for nearly a year.
2. she had not received any update from the landlord about the process for accessing grants from the local authority to install solar panels for 6 months.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. In this it:
1. said the staff member the resident referred to had left the business and it had not been able to speak to her before issuing the response.
2. agreed that there had been a failure in updating her about its current status regarding installing solar panelling to residents’ homes. It stated it had discussed solar panel schemes with potential providers in April 2023 but was still at the due diligence stage. It said it would provide updates to residents when it could but it could not provide a definite timescale for this.
3. said, in terms of lessons learned, it had asked relevant teams involved in the work to look at communication methods for providing ongoing updates.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2023. She stated that:
1. she was unhappy the landlord did not inform her that the staff member she believed was her SPOC had left the organisation until she formally complained
2. there had been a lack of communication with her about the process for installing solar panels over the last year. Also that there had been a lack of communication with her about the energy performance certificate (EPC) she was told the property needed
3. that needing to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates had caused her health to deteriorate.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. In this it:
1. told the resident that the staff member referred to had left the business at the end of May 2023. The landlord said, as the resident complained on 8 June 2023, this was an appropriate time to have informed her.
2. referred the resident back to its explanation about the process for installing solar panels from it stage 1 response. It told the resident it had not made a decision on this since its previous response.
3. said in relation to the resident’s concern about the EPC that this information had been sent to the resident on 10 July 2023.
4. said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and offered no remedy.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated it to the Ombudsman to investigate. She told this Service that as an outcome she wanted the landlord to improve its processes around communicating with her and other residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that she has fibromyalgia and her husband has a cardiac condition. She told us the stress and frustration from the landlord’s lack of communication had aggravated their health conditions.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on their health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s communication regarding the installation of solar panels and the EPC

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident states:
1. under clause 9.17 the resident is obliged to allow the landlord’s employees and contractors access at all reasonable hours to inspect the property or carry out repairs. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice except where this is required for an emergency.
2. under clause 10.5 that the resident may make improvements, alternations and additions to the property provided they first obtain the written permission of the landlord and all other necessary approvals (e.g. planning permission). The tenancy agreement states the landlord will not unreasonably withhold consent but may make this conditional on the work being carried out to a certain standard.
The landlord’s customer service standard states that when a resident raises a query it will:
1. acknowledge the query within 2 working days.
2. update the resident’s information including their communication preferences and any needs they have.
3. refer the query to the most appropriate team if it requires specialist help.
4. aim to provide a full response within 10 working days and, if it cannot, let the resident know when they can expect a full reply.
As set out above the resident told this Service that the landlord had provided her with a SPOC in 2021. Though this service asked both parties for further information about this we have seen no evidence of this agreement and the landlord stated it did not have a record of this.
From the available evidence the staff member the resident stated was her SPOC sent her an email on 9 August 2022 about several repair issues, which are not part of the complaint, before the resident asked the landlord about the installation of solar panels and the EPC. In this email the staff member stated they would follow up the works described until these are completed and the resident could contact them directly about these. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would not constitute an agreement by the landlord to provide the resident with a SPOC for issues beyond the repairs outlined in its email of 9 August 2022.
On 9 August 2022 the resident responded to the landlord to state that she had been in contact with a fuel poverty charity for advice about reducing her energy bills. She stated she understood the charity would be in contact with the landlord but said that some of the issues she wanted to raise were:
1. the property does not have an EPC.
2. she understood that there was local authority development funding the landlord could apply for.
3. due to the solid wall insulation in the property, she believed it would likely be eligible for funding.
The landlord told the resident on 13 August 2022 it would provide a response on the points above by 22 August 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response, as it said it would. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not act in line with its customer service standard.
On 5 December 2022 the resident raised another query with the landlord about whether it could obtain local authority funding to install solar panels to the property. The landlord told this Service it could not locate a copy of the resident’s email from 9 August 2022 and attempted to call the resident to discuss the query but she was unavailable. The resident sent a further email later that day to inform the landlord she was available to speak, there is no evidence the landlord responded to this.
On 20 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. She stated that though it had originally told her it would respond by 22 August 2022, to her queries about the EPC and if it can get local authority funding for installing solar panels, she had not heard anything further.
The landlord responded to the resident on 28 December 2022. It stated that:
1. It was planning to look at funding options and was currently looking at the ECO4 scheme. Under this scheme:
  1. the property must not already have solar panels.
  2. the property must be below certain EPC ratings.
  3. the property must have an appropriate roof type and facing.
  4. the resident(s) must be earning below a particular income.
2. It needed to carry out further due diligence on funding options and it will consider this in the new year before it would issue a response to the resident. It informed her it would revisit the query in the new year.
Though the landlord’s response was reasonable its communication with her about this was not appropriate compared to its customer service standard. The landlord did not acknowledge the query within 2 days or call the resident back to discuss this. It also took the landlord 15 working days to issue a response and did not let the resident know there would be a delay.
On 18 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She stated that it told her she could expect to receive an update about the solar panels and EPC earlier that day but it had not happened. She reiterated that she had been waiting for an answer to this since 22 August 2022 and she was unhappy with the landlord’s customer service. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident about this email or the points she raised.
From the available records the landlord sent an email internally on 25 January 2023 following up on the resident’s earlier email of 20 December 2022. It asked for further information about:
1. who had been dealing with the resident’s request prior to December 2022 as she had indicated in her email.
2. the reason the resident wanted an EPC for the property. It specified that it would ordinarily only create an EPC whilst a property was in the void period.
3. whether the resident was asking specifically about her carrying out energy improvements to the property. Its position was that it would not be against this provided the resident obtained its permission first and made sure the work was carried out professionally.
Due to a lack of adequate records, which is mentioned earlier in the report, there is no evidence that the landlord resolved these questions or contacted the resident for further information. This is a consequence of poor record keeping by the landlord and has impacted on our assessment of the case.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and told her that its contractor would attend the property “between January 2023 and March 2023” to carry out the survey for the EPC. It advised the resident that a confirmatory letter would be sent before the planned survey.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord noted receiving an email from the resident on 20 February 2023. Its internal email noted that her query raised issues outside of the remit of the team that received it and asked a number of other teams to respond so these issues were not overlooked. Again, a lack of adequate records means that this Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s email or any information to show whether the landlord took any action to address this in the 20 working days since it was received.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 22 March 2023. In this it:
1. clarified that its contractor would be attending to complete the survey for the EPC before the end of March 2023, not necessarily on 31 March 2023.
2. stated that its contractor had attempted to attend on 14 February 2023 and 17 February 2023 when it was ‘in [the resident’s] area’ and left calling cards. It said it had not heard back from the resident following this to rearrange an appointment.
3. said it had provided the contractor with the resident’s contact details and it would let her know when it was next available.
Though, as above, the landlord requested that several other teams provide a response to the resident’s query from 20 February 2023 there is no evidence that it issued any other response to the resident around this time. This was inappropriate. It was consistent with the landlord’s customer service standard for it to refer the resident’s other queries to a more appropriate team if it required specialist help. However, there is no evidence it then provided a full response, or informed the resident when she could expect to receive this, as it should have under this standard.
The resident replied to the landlord on 22 March 2023 and told it she had been given no notice of the contractor’s planned attendances on 14 February 2023 and 17 February 2023. She stated that she or someone else in her family would have been at the property on these dates and no-one remembered the contractor attending or leaving a calling card. She asked that the landlord arrange another attendance for an EPC survey as she had been asking for this over the past 6 months. She also told the landlord on 3 April 2023 that she had been advised by the local authority that she would not be eligible for benefits such as the Warm Home Discount Scheme without an EPC for the property so she was looking for this to be resolved as soon as possible.
From the available records we have seen no evidence that a letter was sent to the resident prior to 14 February 2023 or 17 February 2023 to inform her the landlord’s contractor would be attending for the EPC survey. We have also seen no evidence to show that a calling card was delivered on these dates to inform the resident so she could arrange another appointment. This was inappropriate, the landlord’s actions were not consistent with what it told her would happen in its email of 27 January 2023 and it also did not give her 24 hours’ notice of the planned inspections as it was expected to do in line with the tenancy agreement.
Following the resident’s email on 22 March 2023 the landlord rearranged for the EPC survey to take place on 14 April 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records, we have not seen a copy of this survey. Notwithstanding this, both the landlord and resident agree the survey took place on this date.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 13 April 2023. She stated as part of this that she still had not had an update regarding solar panel installation and had been waiting for months. She stated that her understanding was that either the landlord applies for a grant or gives her permission to have solar panelling installed with funding available from the local authority.
The landlord replied on 17 April 2023 that the resident’s query about solar panelling had to “go through the appropriate channels so [it] can be recorded on the system”. The landlord stated that another team should have updated the resident about the current status of solar panels and gave her the contact details for a staff member on that team. It asked the resident to confirm if she had received anything from this team.
On 3 May 2023 the resident responded to the landlord, copying in the staff member referred to in the landlord’s email of 17 April 2023 and the staff member she believed was her SPOC. She told the landlord that:
1. she had not heard anything further from the team referred to in its email from 17 April 2023.
2. she does not know staff members’ roles regarding who can respond to certain queries or is best placed to address them. She has found the landlord’s communication to be poor and in the past she had tended to remain in direct contact with staff members who had previously responded to her queries.
3. due to her and her husband’s health conditions and the impact the stress in chasing work orders was having on them the landlord had previously agreed to provide her with a SPOC for repair issues. This system had been working well but her SPOC had not been in communication with her for months.
The landlord responded to the resident on 15 May 2023. This response stated that it was not able to assist her further with the current status of the solar panels and she should contact its customer services number if she had further questions. Though this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord had agreed to provide the resident with a SPOC this was a missed opportunity to address this misunderstanding.
From the available information there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident following its email of 28 December 2022 about its position on seeking local authority funding for solar panelling as it told her it would do. There is also no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s query after her further email of 3 May 2023 until she made a formal complaint a month later on 3 June 2023. This was unacceptable, it took the landlord over 6 months to provide an update to the resident significantly exceeding its timescales in its customer service standard and how it told the resident it would address this query. It should not have been necessary for the resident to have had to make a formal complaint to receive a response.
The landlord explained in its stage 1 response of 15 June 2023 that though it had discussed this issue further with potential providers it was still at the due diligence stage and could not provide a definite timescale. The landlord told this Service that, as of 26 July 2024, it did not have a specific policy about responding to residents’ requests to install solar panels or whether it would seek grants or local authority funding to help a resident do this. In line with the tenancy agreement the landlord does not have an obligation to assist residents in making improvements to their homes, only to reasonably consider a resident’s request for permission to carry out improvements.
From this the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s failings did not prevent the resident from installing solar panels to her property sooner. Notwithstanding this, it is understandable that its lack of communication with the resident would have reasonably caused her frustration and a degree of stress. Considering the amount of time that the resident was waiting for a response, and the number of opportunities the landlord had to address this before the formal complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not a minor failure with minimal impact. As such, that this would go beyond a service failure in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
In terms of putting things right the resident told this Service she wanted the landlord to make improvements to its procedures about how it communicates with her and other residents. The landlord told this Service on 26 July 2024, it considered that it would have been useful to create a list of customers who had expressed an interest in installing solar panels to keep them updated and that it would add the resident to this if she agreed that this would be helpful. In the Ombudsman’s view, though this is a relevant improvement, this occurred outside of a satisfactory timescale to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right for the resident and by itself is not a suitable remedy to address the failings we have seen.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident in that:
1. it did not keep adequate records of the resident’s queries or its responses to these.
2. it did not provide a response to the resident’s initial query from 9 August 2022 about installation of solar panelling.
3. after the resident’s repeated her query on 5 December 2022 the landlord did not acknowledge and respond to this in line with the timescales of its customer service standard.
4. it did not provide the resident with notice of the attempted attendances to carry out the EPC survey on 14 February 2023 and 17 February 2023.
5. it did not fully address the resident’s query from 20 February 2023 and the response it gave was not provided in line with the timescales of its customer service standard.
6. following its email of 28 December 2022 it did not update the resident for over 6 months about its position regarding funding for solar panels, despite the resident seeking clarification on several occasions.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it aims to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will aim to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 3 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 June 2023 and set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023, 8 working days after the complaint was logged. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy and the Code.
As set out previously, the landlord accepted its failings, apologised for these and outlined some general measures it intended to take to improve communication with residents. However, it did not provide an account of events or an explanation for the delays in responding to the resident’s enquiries since August 2022. In line with the Code we would expect landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for their decisions. It would have been better if the landlord had provided an explanation for why the failure in its communication had occurred so it could clearly address how it would prevent a repeat of the same.
Prior to the resident escalating her complaint on 10 July 2023 the landlord sent her a stage 1 response for a different complaint about the EPC. The landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the resident’s original complaint for this but described in the stage 1 response that the complaint was about the delay in the EPC becoming available following the survey on 14 April 2023.The resident did not ask the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint and the concern she brought to us was around the landlord’s communication with her in arranging the EPC survey from August 2022 onwards.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 July 2023. In terms of its definition of the complaint the landlord solely quoted sections of her escalation, rather than setting out its understanding of the complaint. In addition, though the landlord’s acknowledgement stated that it would call the resident to discuss the complaint there is no evidence that this happened. This was inappropriate.
In line with the Code we would expect landlords to set out their understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcomes the resident was seeking. Where any part of the complaint was unclear, we would have expected the landlord to have clarified this with the resident and agree a complaint definition.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023, 21 working days after the escalation request was received. This was inappropriate as it was outside of the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code, however we recognise the short nature of the delay would limit the impact this had on the resident.
As set out previously the landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the resident’s complaint and stated there were no failures in its service. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s stage 2 response fell short of the expectations from the Code for the following reasons:
1. it did not address the reasons why the resident was unhappy that she had not been informed that the staff member named in her original complaint had left the organisation. Namely that she understood the staff member was her SPOC at the landlord but had had no response from her following August 2022. As set out previously though, this service has not seen evidence that the landlord agreed to provide the resident with a SPOC the landlord could have addressed this misunderstanding at the time.
2. as it did not discuss the resident’s complaint with her following the escalation request it did not establish whether her concern relating to the EPC was the same as the complaint it responded to on 10 July 2023. As such the landlord did not identify the resident’s concern about the landlord’s lack of communication with her about the attempted EPC surveys in February 2023 or address this point as part of its complaint process.
3. it did not give clear reasons for its decision that there were no failures in its service and to not uphold the complaint, considering that the landlord had accepted that there was a failure in its communication at stage 1. This would have understandably caused confusion to the resident.
The landlord did not recognise any failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and did not offer any remedy for the issues identified above.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
1. did not explain the reason for the communication failures it accepted in its stage 1 response.
2. did not adequately set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint following her escalation request or discuss the complaint with her as it said it would.
3. did not issue its stage 2 response in line with the timescales of its complaints policy or the Code.
4. did not address all the points of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response, as a result of not having adequately defined the resident’s complaint. It also did not explain why it was not upholding the resident’s complaint when its stage 1 response had accepted there were failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. provide the resident a total of £150 in compensation consisting of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience from the landlord’s failings in communication between 22 August 2022 to 15 June 2023 and the time taken for the resident to chase for updates.
  2. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. carry out a review of its communication and complaint handling to identify what went wrong. The landlord must communicate the outcome of this review to the resident and this Service and outline what improvements it will make to its service to prevent a similar incident happening again.
4. update the resident about its current position on her requests to install solar panels (including any further consideration it has made about third party or grant-funded installation of solar panels since her complaint). The landlord must also outline the process that the resident should follow if she wants to request permission to arrange improvements to the property herself.
5. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her and her husband’s difficulties in communicating with the landlord. The landlord should consider from this whether it would be a reasonable adjustment to provide the resident with a SPOC and communicate the outcome of this to the resident.
The landlord should consider if its existing policies provide sufficient guidance to its staff about responding to resident’s requests to carry out improvements to a property and the timescales it should follow when providing a response.