Platform Housing Group Limited (202100964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100964

Platform Housing Group Limited

29 April 2022

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 reports about:
1. The front gate.
2. The heating system.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident is recorded to have vulnerabilities that include health and mobility issues.
The property is a semi-detached bungalow, which is approximately 70 years old according to information provided.
This investigation understands that the property’s space heating was provided via a ground source heat pump between 2012 and 2021, and has been provided by an air source heat pump from June 2021. The property’s water heating is provided via solar panels.
The landlord’s repairs policies confirms its responsibilities for repairs in relation to space and water heating as well as gates. There is no specific timeframe for gate repairs, however the landlord aims to carry out more day to day repairs which do not cause serious inconvenience within 21 working days; non-urgent repairs within 90 days; and other ‘planned’ works to an unspecified timeframe.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including “excess cold”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint procedure after an initial informal stage. It responds at stage one within ten working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. The landlord considers compensation for actual loss arising from service failures, but advises that insurance claims for financial loss are dealt with via a separate procedure.

Summary of events

The resident moved into the property in Summer 2017. In late 2017 to early 2018, he raised concern about electricity bills being high and the property not being heated adequately. In 2018, the landlord reviewed energy readings and the cost estimates, and these were found to be within expected costs and not excessive. The landlord inspected multiple times and checked the ground source heat pump, solar panels and radiators. The landlord also arranged a survey by engineers to review the system efficiency and identify possible solutions for reported high costs and system underperformance. The report noted that a pump setting was adjusted after which the resident was happy with radiator temperature. The report concluded that the heat pump was running as it should and temperatures were as expected, but that some improvements could be made to the system such as making it more controllable, which would have benefits such as cost savings. The landlord carried out some works which included replacement of pipes and replacement of the pump to make the solar panels more efficient.
In March 2019, the resident reported a breakdown of the ground source heat pump, and the landlord attended to carry out a repair.
In November 2019, the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s front gate hinge which was noted to be broken and corroded, and this was inspected in December 2019. In February 2020, the resident contacted to query when gate repairs would be done, as he was told works would be done in early January 2020 and was struggling to use the gate. The landlord raised a repair for the gate to be replaced, with a completion target date of 20 March 2020, and its records advise that the resident was informed he would be contacted by workmen the week commencing 9 March 2020 if there were no adverse weather conditions.
In January 2021, the landlord’s records advise that the resident contacted about the heating system at the property. The resident said that the property was old, lacked insulation and was “basically a concrete block.” He said heat was not circulating around it and he was having to use a gas heater to keep warm which was costing a lot.
In February 2021, an inspection was carried out and it was noted that the resident said there was nothing wrong with the functionality of the system but he was unhappy about the insulation, underfloor heating and property lacking heat. The landlord’s maintenance team noted that no fault was found and that he was informed that he would need to speak to management about a different heating system, as the issue was that the resident could not afford to run the heating system in the property.
In April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and the Ombudsman to raise dissatisfaction that he had not been contacted about energy inefficiency or a gate repair that had been outstanding for two years, following which the landlord logged a formal complaint.
On 6 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response.
1. It noted that it had been unable to contact the resident and so had responded based on existing information.
2. It noted that issues with the gate were reported in November 2019, parts were ordered and the resident chased the repair in February 2020. It explained that the repair had been cancelled in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and it apologised that the repair was not re-raised. It said it had requested an inspection so that correct parts could be ordered and the gate fixed as soon as possible, and said contractors would be in contact to arrange an appointment.
3. It advised that it understood bills had been high due to use of an extra gas heater, and that the resident had queried if the system was heating the property properly or if there was an issue with insulation. It noted that the resident’s heating system had been serviced in 2019 and 2020 and an inspection had been done in February 2021, and no faults were identified. It apologised the resident did not receive a response to concerns in February 2021, and said that an inspection arranged for 22 April 2021 had identified the property was partially insulated, but further inspections had been requested to see how much insulation there was and if any improvements were required.
4. It concluded that it hoped the appointment for the gate repair and inspections for the heating and insulation reassured the resident that his concerns were being investigated. It apologised that the gate repair had been outstanding for so long and awarded £100 compensation.
The same day, an independent survey of the property was carried out. This noted that the resident was regulating the thermostat at between 18 and 21 degrees, and photos showed a temperature in rooms of 20 to 20.8 degrees with an outside temperature of 13.4 degrees. The report advised that the temperatures seen during a one hour test period meant that the lounge would be expected to ‘really struggle’ in the winter months. The report noted that loft insulation was good and there was evidence of cavity wall insulation to external brick walls, but there was no insulation to a bedroom front elevation. The report noted that the specification for the heat pump only just met the heat demands of the property and it was recommended to change the system to an air heat pump system. It was also noted that radiators were undersized for the heat demands of the property and it was recommended to also change them. It was noted that the resident had no issues with the hot water provided by solar panels.
On 24 May 2021, this investigation understands that the resident emailed dissatisfaction to the landlord about its response. He said even after engineers attended it would still be cold inside the bungalow. He said bills had been extortionate and amounted to £1,500 a year. He complained about him and his wife being placed in a cold bungalow when it had been known he had health issues.
This investigation understands that on 4 June 2021 an air source heat pump system was then installed to replace the old ground source heat pump system.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint after informing the resident about a delay on 25 June 2021.
1. It apologised for service the resident had received and acknowledged the impact of the issue.
2. It acknowledged the resident had been concerned whether the heating system was adequate since moving into the property four years prior, and had been left cold during the winter as the system could not heat the property to the level of thermal comfort required. It acknowledged that he requested compensation for the four years’ additional heating costs that were incurred and for the delay in resolving the issues.
3. It noted that it had looked to see how it could resolve the issue with the heating and had installed a new heating system, which it noted the resident was satisfied with and allowed the property to be heated to required temperatures.
4. It noted that it could see throughout the tenancy that the resident had raised concern about heating costs and thermal comfort. It said that it agreed the system specified for the property would never have provided thermal comfort, as the property had not been insulated to a level to enable the heating system to heat the property effectively. It said it did address the resident’s concerns when raised, but noted that the minor amendments which were completed did not resolve the issue, as the system was fundamentally flawed.
5. It noted that the resident requested compensation for the additional system running costs, to the amount of £1,500 for each of the past four years. It said it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about extra costs but that it would not fully cover the electrical usage for this period. It said that after looking at the resident’s bills, and noting £540 was now currently paid, it considered that £1,000 for each of the past four years would go some way to recompense additional costs incurred. It also offered £1,000 for delays in resolving the heating issue and the undue stress caused the resident and his family, making a total of £5,000.
6. It advised that it felt the issue was an isolated case related to the property construction and the heating system, however it would review similar installations to ensure that no other residents had been negatively impacted in the same way.
On 17 August 2021, the landlord issued a follow up response to the resident. It noted that it had called him on 12 August 2021 and while he was happy to accept the £4,000 for reimbursement of costs, he was unhappy about the £1,000 for the stress the situation had caused. It said that it had discussed this internally and was willing to increase the offer for distress and inconvenience to £2,000. It noted the resident said he wished to consider this and it supplied two payment forms to allow the resident to be paid the £4,000 compensation separately.
In September 2021, the landlord advises that it sent the resident an information letter about delays to its repairs service. It explained its focus during the pandemic had been emergency repairs, which meant that non urgent repairs were taking three times as long due to staffing and supply issues. It requested patience but advised to contact if the repair worsened, in case the priority needed to be adjusted. In October 2021, the gates were replaced.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service due to continued dissatisfaction with the response. He explains the gates were a problem as they had to be lifted to be opened and closed. He feels the landlord’s compensation offer should amount to £6,000 as the £2,000 does not adequately reflect four years of excessive heating bills, being without heating, delays, distress, inconvenience and impact on health. He restates dissatisfaction that the landlord placed him in the property knowing he has health issues, and raises concern about poor information at the start of the tenancy about the heating system and use of it. He feels that since moving into the property the landlord ignored his concerns which led to him and his wife suffering for four years in a cold property. He also raises dissatisfaction that a repair to roof solar panels took two years, which meant the immersion heater had to be used for hot water. In more recent correspondence, the resident reports that the property does not stay warm unless it is on all the time, and even then is ‘just warm.’ He reports this has a cost impact and recent six months’ electricity usage was approximately £1,200.
The landlord advises that the heating at the property was not inadequate, it just did not get to the temperature the resident would have liked. The heating system did not heat to the same level as other types of heating and kept a lower continuous temperature. The landlord confirms it is reviewing alternative heating systems as part of its strategy for retrofitting the resident’s estate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate formal complaints which were not brought to the landlord in a reasonably timely manner. This is because the longer the time goes on, the more the landlord and this Service’s ability to conduct an effective investigation is impacted. Therefore while this investigation understands issues were raised from 2017, which provides important background and context, this investigation focuses on events from around April 2020, twelve months before the resident made a formal complaint in April 2021, until the landlord’s final response in July 2021.
This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which have impacted living in the property and his health; and we recognise the concerns he reports have affected and caused distress to him. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a definitive determination on the impact on health; if a property is warm or energy efficient enough; if energy costs are too high; or if any works should be carried out to improve heating or insulation or reduce bills – as these are not within our role, expertise or jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can assess whether, when considering issues, the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the front gate.

In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged, apologised and compensated £100 for the delay between November 2019 and May 2021 carrying out the repair to the gate. It also provided assurances that the issue was now being progressed. This was an appropriate response to the complaint at that time, as the landlord offered acknowledgment and remedy for its failings, and set out what it was doing to rectify the issue.
However, while the landlord’s September 2021 repairs mailing provided information about repairs delays and invited the resident the say if the repair was worsening, the landlord should have reviewed the gate issue in its July 2021 final response and provided a proactive update about the status, to help manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s lack of further addressing of the issue was not entirely reasonable, as each stage of the complaints process provides an opportunity for a landlord to review all the issues raised, to ensure it is satisfied with the handling of these and to communicate effectively to residents about outcomes.
The lack of communication combined with the ongoing delay will have caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident, who has noted his vulnerabilities and difficulty lifting the gate to open and close it.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating system.

This Service’s spotlight report on heating confirms that living in a warm and decent home is critical, and that landlords’ responses to vulnerable households in respect to heating issues is of particular concern to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s role, in the situation, is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about heating at the property, in the timeframe of the complaint. As explained at Paragraph 23, this investigation mainly considers events going back a year from when the formal complaint was made, which is April 2020 onwards. This means that this investigation does not focus on the resident’s placement in the property in 2017 or on events in 2018 or 2019.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to maintain the space heating at the property and to maintain the structure of the building. This does not appear to specifically extend to the carrying out of works that would improve the structure, such as the addition of insulation. Nor does this appear to specifically extend to the carrying out of works to upgrade operational space heating. However, it is necessary for the landlord to investigate reports about issues with the heating system to ensure that it is meeting its obligations.
The resident raised concerns prior to the timeframe of the complaint, after which the landlord investigated and carried out works in 2018. While this timeframe is not the main focus of this investigation, the landlord appeared to respond appropriately here, as it considered and investigated some concerns and took action based on what was identified at the time. The landlord also attended a breakdown to the system in March 2019, after which no reports or concerns were raised about the system for almost two years based on the evidence available.
The resident raised concerns in February 2021 about heating at the property, after which the landlord established that the heating system at the property was operational and advised the resident to discuss matters further with management. This demonstrates that the landlord reasonably fulfilled its obligations to ensure that space heating was provided to the property, however it did not address the property’s temperature and heat retention and the resident being requested to raise the issues again was not entirely reasonable. The handling of the issue should have been more joined-up and his concerns should have been referred internally. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised in its complaint response that a response to the concerns was not provided in February 2021.
The landlord took steps following the complaint to inspect the property and it completed some identified works to replace the heating system in June 2021. The completion timeframe of these, four months after the enquiry in February 2021, and two months after the complaint in April 2021, appears overall reasonable. This demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate action following the complaint and completed recommended works in a timely manner. Whilst this is the case, this investigation notes that it is unclear if radiators were changed as the independent report suggested, and so a recommendation is made in respect to this.
The landlord went on to acknowledge issues with the suitability of the original system and offered £4,000 toward the resident’s energy usage over four years. The £4,000 appears a reasonable amount as it followed comparison between the resident’s previous and more recent energy bills, which is in line with the approach the Ombudsman would expect. The landlord appeared reasonable to offer £4,000 rather than the £6,000 the resident said his expenditure had been, as it would not be reasonable for it to pay for all the resident’s electricity usage during the four year period.
The landlord also offered £2,000 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the issue, which the resident feels does not reflect the impact on him and his wife and impact on health. As noted at Paragraph 24 of this report, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about the impact on physical or mental health in the way an insurance claims procedure or a court might. It is also not in the scope of this investigation to assess distress and inconvenience over a timeframe of four years. The Ombudsman also does not seek to be punitive if a landlord demonstrates that it has considered issues raised and sought to remedy matters in a reasonable way.
This investigation understands the issues raised by the resident and that living in a warm home is important to him in light of his health issues; however the landlord’s offer of £2,000 in recognition of issues with the suitability of the original system appears reasonable. Despite the landlord’s acknowledgement about the suitability of the original system, there is no evidence to show that the landlord failed to meet its specific obligation to provide a sufficiently energy efficient or warm home, according to relevant housing standards.
The energy efficiency of properties are recorded in Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), in which properties are rated from A to G. Properties rated F and G are not allowed to be let. The average EPC rating in England is D. This investigation notes that two EPCs carried out to the resident’s property have given it a D rating, which shows that the overall energy efficiency of the property meets this lettable standard and meets the England average. The EPC of a property gives an indication of the cost to heat a property, and a property rated D will likely cost more to heat than properties given an A to C rating, however there is no specific obligation for a landlord to offset energy costs if the cost to heat a property is higher. This investigation understands there is no current obligation for a landlord to improve an EPC rating, although the government did consult last year about making it a requirement for social housing to meet a C rating by 2028.
The EPC of a property does not however confirm a property gets sufficiently warm. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used by local authorities to assess homes for hazards, such as excess cold, which landlords have a responsibility to keep their properties free from. The HHSRS advises that a healthy indoor temperature is around 21 degrees and indicates more excess cold is 16 degrees and below. While the resident clearly has concerns about the temperature the property reaches, there is no evidence the property does not constitute a sufficiently warm home under the HHSRS. This investigation notes that previous inspections indicate the property has been able to reach temperatures of around 21 degrees, which indicates the property may be considered to be sufficiently warm under the HHSRS. The landlord has also had the opportunity to determine if the property meets its obligations, and it has advised that the heating is adequate and just does not reach temperatures the resident would like. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its professional staff, and this demonstrates that the landlord considered the property’s temperature in a reasonable way.
In its own Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £2,000 (excluding the £4,000 energy reimbursement) provided by the landlord falls in the highest range, where there has been maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a severe, significant and serious long-term impact, including physical and/or emotional. This appears applicable to the level of detriment that the resident states he experienced, and indicates that the landlord’s offer is reasonable based on the evidence seen in this investigation. As noted previously, this Service does not make definitive decisions about the impact on physical or mental health in the way an insurance claims procedure or a court might, and the resident has the option to take legal action if he remains dissatisfied with the amount, as he has indicated he may.
Overall, while there was a delay in responding to the resident’s concerns in February 2021, the landlord took appropriate steps following the complaint to investigate the issue; complete works; and acknowledge and compensate for issues it identified. This demonstrates that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in the timeframe of the complaint was positive and customer and resolution focused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the front gate.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating system.

Reasons

The landlord did not review and update about the status of the gate repair in its final response, and the gate repair took a further five and a half months. The ongoing delay combined with the lack of timely communication will have caused some further uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While there was a delay in responding to the resident’s concerns in February 2021, the landlord took appropriate and timely steps following the complaint to investigate the issue; complete works; and acknowledge and compensate for issues it identified.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to take steps to pay the resident £50 for the issues identified with its handling of the gate repair. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure it reviews and addresses all issues at each stage of its complaints procedure.
The landlord to ensure that it provides appropriate information at the start of tenancies about the heating and hot water systems and the best use of these.
The landlord to review the service in February 2021 and ensure processes are in place for concerns to be addressed in a more timely and more joined-up way.
The landlord to review and inform the resident about the current available options to improve his situation, optimise the warmth of the property, and minimise the electricity costs. These could include:
1. The landlord reviewing the resident’s options to move to a more energy efficient and warm property, if this is something he wishes to explore.
2. The landlord reviewing whether it changed undersized radiators in the property, as recommended in the May 2021 report, and considering this if it has not.
3. The landlord reviewing if any insulation improvements can be made to the property.
4. The landlord ensuring the resident knows how to use the heating and hot water systems at the property as efficiently as possible, to minimise unnecessary costs.