Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

One Vision Housing Limited (202310840)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310840

One Vision Housing Limited

22 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns with the heating system in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware that she has health issues.
  2. Between January and May of 2023, the resident raised several repair jobs due to faults with the heating system in her property. The heating system operates from communal boilers that serve 52 flats within the scheme the resident resides in. She pays for heating via a service charge.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 July 2023. She said that her flat was cold, which she was more susceptible to due to health conditions. She was unhappy with the way the heating system operated.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. It explained the operation of the communal heating system. It said it was unable to adjust the system’s current settings due to the increase in costs for residents that would ensue.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 September 2023. She was unhappy at its stage 1 response and said that the heating system was unsuitable for those experiencing health issues.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 29 September 2023. It said it had inspected the heating system and confirmed it was running correctly. It offered to provide an additional electric heater for the resident to use should she require it.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted it to resolve the cold in her flat.
  8. On 19 July 2024 the landlord told us it had offered the resident £200 in compensation after a review of its stage 2 response. It said that this was in respect of inconvenience caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said her health conditions were affected by the adequacy of the heating in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Reports of concerns regarding the heating system

  1. The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and planned works policy states that it will keep in repair and working order the installations for space heating and heating water within a property.
  2. It also states it will:
    1. Respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours to complete works or ‘make safe’.
    2. Complete urgent repairs within 5 working days.
    3. Complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The Government’s ‘rent a safe home’ guide says living in cold conditions can cause serious health problems, a cold home is one that cannot be maintained at a temperature between 18°C to 21°C at a reasonable cost to the occupier.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023 to report the living room radiator as faulty. The landlord attended on 30 January 2023 but was unable to gain access to the property. It left a card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange attendance. This was in line with its ‘no access’ procedure. This response was appropriate, and it attended in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
  5. Between 11 May 2023 and 29 June 2023, the landlord conducted 8 visits to carry out repairs to the communal heating system. Reports made by the resident and others, along with communal issues, included loss of heating, loss of hot water and leaks.
  6. The records show that the landlord dealt with these repairs in line with its policy timescales on each occasion. Those categorised as emergency repairs were attended to on the same day, and it is evident that the landlord’s response to individual repair requests was timely and appropriate.
  7. When raising her complaint, the resident told the landlord hot water was intermittent and that her radiators had not been on for the past 8 weeks. She was unhappy that she was unable to have more control over the heating and wanted the ability to switch this on when required. She asked for further information on the energy costs paid by the landlord and if it had used grants towards payment.
  8. It was positive that the landlord arranged to visit the resident at home to discuss her complaint as part of its stage 1 investigation. This showed its commitment to listening to her concerns and ensuring it was clear on the issues she was facing.
  9. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained how the communal heating system operated. It said that it was controlled via temperature sensors with the internal sensor set at 23°C. Radiators would be in operation if the temperature was below this until it was reached. It said it set the system in accordance with appropriate health and safety guidance and energy efficiency considerations.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to describe the operation of the heating system to provide clarity for the resident. Its explanation that it was unable to adjust the heating settings due to cost implications was reasonable, given the rising cost of energy at the time and the impact this would have on residents’ service charge. The internal temperature setting was appropriate to allow for a comfortable level of warmth in accordance with government guidelines. Its consideration of adjustments to the system settings demonstrated its commitment to tackling the issue faced by the resident.
  11. The landlord also appropriately responded to the resident’s query regarding the energy costs at the scheme. Although it is not obligated to provide a copy of the scheme’s bill, it said it would make enquiries around the issues the resident had raised. It was reasonable of it to state that should it obtain further information around this it would provide it to the resident.
  12. The evidence shows that in its stage 2 investigation, the landlord took a number of steps to ensure it fully understood the issues raised. Actions such as conducting a home visit, offering to provide an electric heater and arranging for the performance of the radiators to be tested, were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
  13. On 27 September 2023 the landlord tested the adequacy of the radiators within the property. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns over the temperature. It found that the flow temperature was adequate, and the radiators were providing a sufficient level of heat. It noted the thermostat in the room recorded a temperature of 21°C. It recommended the resident remove radiator covers in place that may be blocking heat emission and noted the only solution to increasing the temperature of the property further would be via an electric heater.
  14. The resident has provided evidence of readings to us that indicate lower temperatures within the property than recorded by the landlord on its inspection of the heating system. We have not seen records however, to indicate that this information has been presented to the landlord. To provide it with a fair opportunity to address this we have made a relevant recommendation below.
  15. The landlord’s stage 2 response was comprehensive and addressed the points brought to it by the resident. It apologised for not providing further information on her earlier queries regarding the landlord’s energy costs. It was reasonable that it sought information from its finance team to explain how the resident’s service charge for heating was set and provided this in its response.
  16. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response it made an offer of £200 in compensation to the resident. It said this was due to inconvenience caused to her by its delay in responding to queries about energy costs for the scheme. Although we have not found failings in this aspect of the response, we recognise the offer of compensation demonstrates the landlord’s willingness to ensure a good relationship with the resident.
  17. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the resident was more susceptible to the cold based on her health concerns and provided an additional source of heating to address this. Whilst we are aware the resident was unhappy at the further cost to her that this created, it is our opinion that the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. Its signposting to its website for advice on rising energy costs was appropriate given these concerns.
  18. In summary the landlord took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the resident’s concerns. It acted in line with its policy and procedures in conducting repairs to the heating system. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident, take relevant action and explain the reason for its decisions in its complaint responses. Due to this we have found no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns with the heating system in the property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord meets with the resident to discuss any likely means of monitoring the adequacy of the heating within the property, particularly during the winter period.