Platform Housing Group Limited (202226057)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226057

Platform Housing Group Limited

8 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the rent account.
2. The installation of solar panels and provision of certification.
3. The landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the efficiency and cost of the heating system.
4. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
Although the resident referred to issues he had with his rent account and the lack of support offered by the landlord, he only contacted the landlord upon receipt of a rent letter which was after the complaint had been made. While there is evidence of contact with the resident regarding the rent account, this was not included in the initial complaint or escalation of the complaint. As a result, the landlord was not given the opportunity to address this matter through the complaint process.
As per paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the rent account is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to health conditions which have been impacted by the ongoing issues. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
The Ombudsman is aware of a previous investigation relating to the heating system (Ref 202100964). Our determination report included the history of the heating issues prior to it being changed to an air source heat pump (ASHP) in June 2021. As part of the landlord’s final complaint response in July 2021, the resident was offered £5,000 for the additional energy costs incurred and for the distress, inconvenience, and delay in service. This was increased to £6,000 in August 2021, when an additional £1,000 was offered for the distress caused.
Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided on. For the avoidance of doubt, this complaint will not consider any issues relating to those assessed in case 202100964 and will only include events from January 2022, which is a year before the most recent complaint was submitted.
Within his correspondence, the resident refers to the service provided by his energy suppliers. In accordance with paragraph 41(b), the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omission of a member of the Scheme. For clarity, this report will not assess the service from, or actions of, the energy suppliers.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the 2-bedroomed semi-detached bungalow with his wife since 9 June 2017.
The landlord has confirmed its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities which include health and mobility issues.

Summary of events

On 24 January 2023, the resident provided the landlord with his energy bills which he said had increased since the installation of solar panels. He told the landlord he could not continue to pay such high bills.
On 26 January 2023, the resident contacted this Service. It was established that a formal complaint had not been made and the resident was advised to make a formal complaint to his landlord. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord the same day. He said the heating was not working efficiently and it was causing financial hardship. Although the machine was running fast, there was no heat. He also complained about the time he was having to wait in the call queue to speak to the landlord.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its receipt of the complaint regarding the efficiency of the new heating system and installation. It advised that an official acknowledgement would follow, but it asked when a contractor could visit to download the data from the equipment. The resident said he needed a visit as soon as possible. He had turned all the heating off and was using Calor gas heaters.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 February 2023. It confirmed the complaint was about the efficiency of the heating system and financial hardship, and the problems getting through on the phone lines. It confirmed it would respond by 16 February 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 February 2023 to confirm it had liaised with the system manufacturer regarding the usage data. The manufacturer was arranging for an engineer to inspect the system further, but the resident asked the landlord to send an independent company to check the system.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 10 February 2023. It said that the data could be downloaded remotely so a visit was not needed. It confirmed the complaint investigation was ongoing and it would contact further if access was required for the independent company to review the system. The resident told the landlord the usage and delivery data had been deleted.
The resident continued to ask the landlord who benefitted from the panels as he was not getting any heating. The landlord asked him to provide bills from his supplier and to include meter readings. On 16 February 2023, the resident confirmed a new smart meter had been fitted that day. He said following the fitting, the panels worked, and he wanted to know who had switched them off.
On 23 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update. He said the panels were working but the radiators were only lukewarm and there was no difference to the heating.
On 17 April 2023, the resident sent some bills to the landlord. He said they continued to be high, but he did not see any difference in the heating. The landlord raised a repair ticket for the solar panels not feeding power to the meter.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 April 2023. He said the heating system was ineffective. He said the landlord had not replaced the windows and doors and was not responding to his calls and emails. The resident said the whole situation had caused stress and had impacted his mental health and finances. He said he had not received a response to his complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 May 2023 to apologise for the lack of communication and for the poor service it had provided. It confirmed it had faced delays in sourcing a contractor to complete the independent survey. It said the complaint response would be sent that week. The resident said the system would not work due to the concrete walls. He confirmed he was getting hot water but had turned the heating off and was using gas heaters. The landlord said it was discussing the fabric of the building later that afternoon to determine if this impacted on the efficiency of the heating system.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 May 2023. It said the complaint was in connection with the installation and efficiency of the heating system, and the excessive bills received since the install. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the failures and partially upheld the complaint. It thanked the resident for his patience during the complaint extension period.
2. Confirmed the makeup of the inner walls did not affect the thermal insulation. Previous thermal imaging had identified sagging in the cavity wall insulation which had been rectified, along with a top up of loft insulation.
3. Confirmed it was difficult to comment on the bills received as no meter readings were included, as requested. It acknowledged the resident had changed supplier and confirmed the usage would be analysed as part of the independent survey.
4. Apologised for the delay in the independent survey. The original contractor was unable to do it so the landlord had to source a different one and was waiting for a quote. It advised it would contact him with a date once confirmed. The landlord committed to act on any recommendations received and provide compensation if any errors were found with the installation of the heating system or solar panels.
5. Confirmed the resident had decided not to use the heating system and was using a gas heater. Although it did not recommend this, it appreciated it was his choice. It agreed to install a carbon monoxide alarm in the lounge, but suggested the resident installed one in any room where the heater may be used. It provided safety advice regarding the use of such heaters.
6. Apologised for the delay in the complaint response. It explained it had difficulty in obtaining all the information to provide a conclusive response.
7. Acknowledged it had still not determined if there was an error with the installation of the heating system. It agreed it had taken longer than expected to resolve the resident’s concerns – £250 was credited to the resident’s rent account for the delay in providing a complaint response.
The resident was unhappy with the complaint response and emailed the landlord upon receipt. He said he did not think there was anything wrong with the system, but it did not suit the property type. He stated the windows and doors had not been replaced and disagreed with the compensation offered.
On 15 June 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was still chasing an inspection date and would continue to do so. It confirmed its commitment to assess any issues with the heating system and charges.
On 18 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm an operative had looked at the heating system. The resident said he agreed it did work, but not well enough for the property. The resident said he needed to be moved due to the ongoing situation.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on 25 August 2023, and on 6 September 2023. The landlord confirmed it had been chasing the survey report and asked when it could call the resident to discuss further. A call was arranged for the following day when the window and door replacement was also discussed. The resident repeated his concerns about the heating system and how he could not live there during the winter. A move to another property was requested.
On 14 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to state he had been talking to his energy supplier who had told him the solar panels were not connected to its system. He also said he had been told the property should not have received the heating system due to the lack of insulation. The resident had been told he needed an ASHP certificate to set the panels up and these had been sent to the landlord when the job was completed.
The landlord provided the ASHP certificate on 21 September 2023. The resident told the landlord he had found out the electricity from the solar panels had been stolen by the installer or the landlord, and that he had not had any electricity from them since the panels were fitted 2 years previously. The resident alleged the landlord had deliberately held back the certificate.
The resident emailed again on 25 September 2023. He said he was still waiting for the report, he was still sitting in a cold home and the solar panels had not been connected. He said the landlord had deliberately held back the certificates so the panels could not be registered and alleged this was a criminal act.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 September 2023. It said that due to personal circumstances, there had been a delay in receiving the report from the independent engineer. It advised that the ASHP certificate had been provided on 21 September 2023. The landlord explained that any excess electricity went back to the grid and that it did not generate any income from the panels. It provided guidance on the iBoost that had been fitted to heat the hot water and confirmed it should be on continuously because if the water temperature drops, the ASHP must work harder.
On 5 October 2023, the resident informed the landlord he had bought a dehumidifier and in less than a day it was already a quarter full. He asked why the ASHP certificate was registered by someone who did not live in the property. He advised the property was damp and he had a chest infection as a result. The resident said a contractor had attended and found a problem with the heating and had told him not to put it on until it was connected.
The landlord called the resident on 9 October 2023, but left a voicemail confirming it would call the following morning. The resident confirmed the landlord had sent the ASHP certificate, but not the certificate for the panels. He said he could not use the panels without this and asked the landlord for a copy.
The resident escalated the complaint on 10 October 2023. It was based on the following:
1. The landlord not providing the correct information, guidance and certification following the installation of heating system/solar panels. The resident was not told he needed to send the certificate to his supplier to start benefitting from the system. He could not afford the heating and had switched it off.
2. The resident’s belief that the landlord had benefitted from the resident’s loss, and the resident claiming the landlord’s act was malicious.
3. The property had damp and mould due the cold and this was affecting his and his wife’s health.
4. The windows and doors had not been replaced, despite the landlord stating this would be done by March 2023.
5. As a resolution, the resident asked to be moved or for a change in the heating system. He also asked for compensation for not benefitting from the solar panels and the cost of the bills, and the outcome of the independent report.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange a home visit to discuss the moving options. It confirmed the complaint had been escalated and an acknowledgement would be sent later that day.
The complaint escalation was acknowledged on 16 October 2023.
The landlord visited the resident on 18 October 2023. It confirmed the resident needed a 2-bed bungalow in a semi-rural area with a level access shower and grabrails. He needed a garden for his dogs, and a driveway for his car. The landlord explained there may be local lettings policies in place which could restrict availability. It also advised that it would not be able to put a timescale on when a move would happen as it depended on what properties became empty.
While the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on the independent report, it is evident that it continued to chase this. Due to the continued delay, the landlord confirmed it would need to progress with another party. The resident highlighted his dissatisfaction in the time taken to complete this, stating he had waited over 12 months.
Following a call to the resident on 1 November 2023, the landlord confirmed via email that it would work to get as close as possible to the compensation figure requested. It advised however that it would be based on actual loss of energy and in line with the policy relating to distress and inconvenience.
On 7 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He asked why someone else’s name was on the certificate for the panels and why he was not given the starter pack and certificates at the time.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 13 November 2023. It confirmed:
1. It had reviewed the complaint handling as part of the review and found the initial response did not take the full circumstances into consideration. It did not address concerns regarding the solar panels and the failure to replace the windows and doors by March 2023. It did not fully explain the reasons for the delays regarding the independent survey and the impact this delay had on the resident.
2. The complaint was upheld, and the landlord apologised for its repeated failure to address all the concerns raised.
3. It had not provided adequate information to be able to connect the solar panels. A starter pack and certificate needed to register the panels was not provided for over a year. As a result, the resident did not benefit from them, and £4,085 compensation was awarded.
4. Although the certificate was registered in the name of an employee, it would not have caused problems with the registration of the panels if they had been provided at the appropriate time.
5. The damp and mould experienced in the property was likely due to only parts of it being heated which would lead to condensation. It confirmed the radiators in the property would not be as hot following the install of the ASHP as this worked differently to a gas boiler. This did not mean the heating system was not working correctly.
6. The independent survey had taken place but due to personal issues of the contractor, the report had not been completed. As such, the landlord had contacted another specialist to undertake the review and the outcomes would be shared by 30 March 2024. It acknowledged the delay in completing this exercise and the impact it had on the resident who had repeatedly questioned the suitability of the heating – £,1000 was awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused.
7. The construction of the property was not necessarily impacting on heat loss, but the windows and doors could be contributing. Due to problems with external contractors, the landlord had failed to follow up on its commitment to replace these by March 2023. It apologised for not communicating this to the resident.
8. The windows were to be installed no later than 30 January 2024 – £1,000 was awarded for the delay in the window replacement.
9. It reviewed the service of a contractor who had serviced the ASHP and had claimed there was something wrong with the system. A routine repair had been recommended but this did not affect the safety of the system and it could be used without concern.
10. The landlord had visited the resident to discuss housing needs. The resident had been added to the housing register and when a property became available that matched his needs, the landlord would contact him. It confirmed it could not put a timescale on when a property may become available.
11. The landlord had not taken the resident’s personal circumstances into consideration and tailored the response to his needs – £1,000 was awarded in recognition of this.
12. A total of £7,085 was awarded in compensation.

Post completion of the complaint process

The evidence provided by the landlord shows the issues continued with the resident challenging the compensation amount. The landlord apologised, but confirmed its belief that it was fair and reasonable and more than covered the losses from not being able to register the panels. It confirmed its commitment to review the offer if the independent review found any faults. The survey took place on 11 December 2023.
The landlord’s internal records from 20 December 2023 confirmed it was continuing to look for properties but due to the resident’s needs, nothing had become available.
On 4 January 2024, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the windows had made a big difference.
The resident reported damp and mould on 18 January 2024. The landlord raised an inspection and a contractor attended on 27 January 2024 to top up and redistribute the loft insulation.
On 2 February 2024, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It confirmed the independent consultant did not find any issues with the system; however, questions were asked which the landlord was to follow up. It confirmed the resident had turned down a property offered and advised it would be very difficult to find a property to match his requirements. It suggested he thought about the flexibility so a move could potentially happen sooner.
A contractor attended the property on 6 February 2024 and found mould present, but no damp. A mould clean was completed alongside mould treatment, bonding, and stain block.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord confirmed the door replacement was still outstanding but had been put through as an emergency order. In terms of a move, it confirmed an offer had been rejected, and while there was limited availability, a monthly call would be made to discuss any availability. It confirmed the independent review had not highlighted any faults in the system, but the landlord had provided the information requested and was waiting for further feedback.
It confirmed the damp was likely caused by the gas heater being used and recommended the resident turned back on the heating, but to turn off the hot water to allow the radiators to heat up quicker. The landlord confirmed it was unable to find a conclusive reason why the certificates had not been provided and the compensation offer reflected this. The landlord had provided the resident with a letter to ensure he was able to register the panels which appeared to be working and just needed connecting to his supply.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the tenancy agreement, state that the landlord is obliged 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 landlord’s repair policy confirms it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, appointed repairs within 28 days, and major repairs will be assessed within 28 days and completed within 90 days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It acknowledges both stages within 5 working days of receipt and responds at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. If at either stage more time is required, this would be agreed with the resident and regularly contact would be made.
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.

Installation of solar panels

When the resident told the landlord he had not received the certificates for the ASHP and solar panels following the install, he asked why. Although the landlord provided the ASHP certificate, it did not offer any additional explanation and the resident had to send a further chaser. Considering the time that had passed since the install, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s lack of explanation unreasonable. This was likely to have increased the resident’s frustration and caused him to spend more time and effort repeatedly contacting the landlord.
The outstanding certificate was provided, but it prompted more questions from the resident which were not responded to until the final complaint response. This further delay likely contributed to the resident’s uncertainty, and he said that he felt the landlord had deliberately withheld the certificates and claimed it was a criminal act.
It was not until the final complaint response that the landlord acknowledged and apologised that it had not fully addressed the concerns regarding the solar panels. It confirmed it had not provided the correct information and certification needed to register the panels. It noted the resident had not benefited from the panels and, considering the usage data, offered £4,085 compensation as a result.
It addressed the matter of the employee’s name on the solar panel certificate and confirmed this would not have affected the registration, yet it acknowledged again the delay in this being provided. When pressed by the resident as to why it had not provided this information following the install, it confirmed it was not able to find any conclusive reason to explain the service failure and this was factored into the compensation award.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, and in line with our remedies guidance, this compensation offer is at the higher end of what would be expected for a severe maladministration determination. This offer is therefore reasonable based on the calculation, the data known to the landlord and the service failure identified.
The landlord has provided evidence of the learning taken from this case. It would have been appropriate to include this in the complaint response to show the resident that it had taken this matter seriously and how it was to improve its services, so this did not happen again.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the installation of the solar panels and provision of certification. While the landlord did not provide this at the time of installation, it acknowledged this service failure and offered an appropriate level of compensation because of the impact on the resident. It accepted it failed in the service provided and has provided evidence to show how it will learn from the mistakes made.

Efficiency and cost of heating system

The resident told the landlord he was concerned about the efficiency of the new heating system and solar panels and the high bills he was receiving. The landlord made reasonable steps in contacting the manufacturer to obtain data from the system. It agreed to send an engineer to inspect the system further; however, the resident asked for a review by an independent company. Due to the system being installed recently and the increase in bills received, this was a reasonable request from the resident to which the landlord agreed.
Although the landlord confirmed it was meeting to discuss the concerns raised and continued to work internally, it failed to provide regular updates to the resident who spent time and effort in contacting it. As the landlord was aware of the impact the situation was having on the resident, the Ombudsman finds the lack of communication unreasonable. 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.
The resident confirmed a smart meter had been installed and the system was working but he continued to receive high bills. Although the landlord raised a repair for the solar panels not feeding power to the meter, it is not clear from the evidence what the findings were, if any further action was needed and if any contact was made with the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and that it was likely to have increased the resident’s frustration.
The resident waited from January to May 2023 to receive a detailed update and response to his complaint. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and the poor service provided. It confirmed it had been let down by the company lined up to complete the survey. While this was not something it could control, it would have been appropriate to communicate this to the resident sooner, so he knew progress was still being made.
The landlord apologised and acknowledged the delay in determining if there was an error in the heating system. It committed to contacting the resident when a new appointment had been arranged, and to assessing the need for any additional compensation should a fault be identified, which the Ombudsman finds appropriate. The inspection took place in July 2023 which was 6 months after the resident raised his concerns. It is noted that the landlord must follow a process before engaging and commissioning such a request, but in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to complete the survey was excessive and the communication with the resident around this was lacking.
The resident continued to contact the landlord with his concerns regarding the system and high bills. When he raised concerns regarding the electricity being stolen, the landlord responded appropriately by confirming the position. While it tried to offer guidance on how to use system, this failed to satisfy the resident.
The landlord experienced further delays in receiving the report from the independent company. This in turn impacted the resident who continued to contact the landlord for updates. While the circumstances around the delay are noted, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have taken decisive action to engage with another party sooner. This would have allowed the landlord the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns earlier than it did.
In the final complaint response, the landlord apologised for not fully explaining the delay regarding the independent review and for not addressing the impact it had on the resident. It awarded £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused which the Ombudsman finds a reasonable offer. The landlord also confirmed the construction of the property did not affect the thermal insulation and the work previously completed. It advised that the new system worked differently to the old one which would mean the radiators would not get as hot as they previously did.
The independent review did not identify any issues with the system, and this was communicated to the resident. The landlord confirmed it had provided some further information to the contractor and was waiting for feedback before acting on any recommendations made.
The landlord demonstrated its awareness that the resident was not happy in his home and agreed to move him to another property. This however was based on availability and a match to his needs. The landlord responded reasonably to the move request. It visited the resident and provided clear expectations that his requirements would restrict the availability of properties and it was clear that it could not put a timeframe on when the move may happen. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms it is to contact the resident monthly to discuss the move and any available properties. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has demonstrated fairness and clear guidance in relation to the move request.
The landlord has provided evidence of its learning from this case in relation to the independent review. While not a service failure, it would have been appropriate to include this in the complaint response. This would have shown the resident that it had completed a thorough review of the complaint and that it had been open and honest in its findings and lessons learned.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the efficiency and cost of the heating system. It responded appropriately to the request of an independent survey, and while its communication with the resident was lacking, and there was a delay in the survey report, this was acknowledged in the complaint response and the resident received appropriate compensation.
The landlord tried to reassure the resident that the system was suitable for the property and considered his concerns about the insulation, explaining that the system was not set up to work in the same way as a gas boiler. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the level of compensation offered is at the higher end of what is expected for events that have had a serious impact on a resident (physical and/or emotional) and is deemed a suitable offer.

Reports of damp and mould

While this issue was not raised at stage 1 of the complaint, the landlord used its discretion and included it within the escalation of the complaint. The Ombudsman finds the approach taken by the landlord reasonable.
The resident told the landlord that the property was affected by damp in September 2023. He continued to advise of this throughout October 2023 when he told the landlord he was ill with chest infections and was breathing in black mould. In the final complaint response in November 2023, the landlord said this was likely due to the fact that only parts of the property were being heated, which could be causing condensation.
While this may have been the correct stance, knowing the health conditions and vulnerability of the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the property at the time these concerns were raised. This would have provided confirmation of the damp and mould diagnosis and allowed the landlord the opportunity to check for any underlying issues which could have been acted on quickly. It would also have provided reassurance to the resident that his concerns had been heard.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acted on the resident’s report of damp and mould until 11 January 2024, when he raised it again. An inspection was completed on 2 February 2024, and mould treatment was completed on 6 February 2024. While this response time was reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have carried out these steps when the matter was first raised in September 2023.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. The landlord was informed the property had damp and mould but told the resident this was likely due to the lack of heating in the property. This explanation was given without evidence of any inspection of the property. While treatment was completed 4 months later, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this should have been done sooner. As a result of this service failure, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.
It is noted that the landlord provided a copy of its self-assessment following the damp and mould spotlight report in October 2021, however this was undated and showed action was in progress. There is a recommendation regarding the provision of an updated version as part of this report.

Handling of the complaint

The resident first complained on 26 January 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 2 February 2023. The acknowledgement, which was sent within the policy timeframe, confirmed the points of the complaint, the case handler, and the response date.
The stage 1 complaint response was late, and although the policy states extensions will be discussed and agreed with the resident, there is no evidence of this communication, or a new expected completion date being offered. This led to the resident investing time and effort into chasing the landlord for a response. It is expected that the landlord communicates delays with the resident when necessary. The Ombudsman does not expect a resident to have to chase the landlord.
The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and the poor service provided. However, this communication was delayed and was some time after the expected complaint response timeframe. The Ombudsman finds this a failure in terms of communication and complaint management.
The stage 1 response was provided 78 working days after the complaint was received. The landlord offered a sincere apology for the delay and provided an explanation as to why this occurred. While the landlord provided a response to the issues raised at stage 1, it failed to address the issue regarding the contact with the call centre which the resident had raised several times. The landlord offered £250 compensation for the delay in the complaint response, which is an offer the Ombudsman would conclude as reasonable given the relatively short time frames involved.
The complaint was escalated on 10 October 2023, and was acknowledged on 16 October 2023, which was within timescale. While the complaint policy states a review request should be submitted within 15 working days of the receipt of the stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately used its discretion in accepting the request.
Although the landlord contacted the resident throughout the complaint review period, the response was sent 24 working days after the complaint was received. Although this was slightly over the policy timescale, it is unlikely to have caused the resident any serious detriment.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord demonstrated it had conducted a thorough review of the complaint and the previous response provided. The response addressed all the points raised and gave an up-to-date position for each. It addressed the failures identified in the previous response and apologised for its failure in not delivering work, acknowledging, and responding to concerns, and for not taking the resident’s circumstances into consideration.
The landlord offered £1,000 for failing to tailor its service to meet the resident’s needs. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this offer of compensation is at the higher end of what is expected for this level of service failure and appropriately addresses the impact (physical and emotional) on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its own failing in respect of the window and door replacement which it agreed to do following a previous determination from this Service. While the landlord informed the resident of the date for the window replacement, it failed to specifically address the door. As a consequence, the door was left outstanding and was only raised as an emergency some time after the final complaint response. While it is not known if the door has been replaced, it is evident that 1 year after the landlord agreed to replace the door, it was still outstanding.
The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While the initial response was delayed, a sincere apology was given, and an appropriate compensation offer made for the delay and lack of communication. Although the final response was delayed slightly, it was unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident given ongoing communications. The landlord provided a thorough response which covered all the points raised, while recognising some service failures from the initial response. The landlord offered compensation which the Ombudsman finds reasonable considering the failures identified. The landlord has also provided evidence of the lessons learned from this case.
However, the landlord failed to provide clarity in relation to the door replacement. Although the compensation offered for the delay in the window works was sufficient, despite the general service improvement feedback provided in the final complaint response, it is apparent the door works remained outstanding at least until very recently. This indicates that the landlord did not put things right in the way promised in the final complaint response and it did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer does not reflect the additional delay in the door replacement and the landlord’s failure to follow up on complaint outcomes. It is therefore suggested that a further payment of compensation is made. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the installation of solar panels and provision of certification.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the efficiency and cost of the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failure in providing the certification and guidance at the time of the solar panel install. It recognised the impact this had on the resident in terms of loss of electricity and calculated an appropriate level of compensation as a result. The landlord has provided evidence to show the lessons learned from the case.
The landlord offered for the manufacturer to inspect the heating system and agreed with the resident’s request for an independent review. The landlord experienced issues with the contractor completing the review, which although not communicated sufficiently to the resident, was addressed in the complaint response. The resident received an apology and appropriate level of compensation for the delay and likely impact this had on him. The landlord confirmed no issues had been found with the system, but it was waiting for further feedback and committed to act on the recommendations received.
The landlord was told by the resident that the property had damp and mould, but suggested this was due to the property not being fully heated. While this may have been the case, this assumption was made without any evidence of the property being inspected. Although the landlord did inspect and complete mould treatment, this was 4 months after the resident made it aware of his concerns. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s health and vulnerability, this inspection should have been completed sooner.
The landlord acknowledged and offered appropriate compensation for the delays in the first complaint response and lack of communication. The final response was thorough and addressed all the points raised by the resident while identifying its own service failures from the initial response and offering an appropriate level of compensation. The landlord committed to replacing the windows and door by March 2023, but failed to do so. It acknowledged poor communication and the delay in the window replacement and confirmed a replacement date, but it did not sufficiently address the action linked to the door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
2. Provide confirmation that it has paid the £7,085 compensation awarded within the final complaint response dated 13 November 2023.
3. Pay the resident an additional £100 for the delay in inspecting the property for damp and mould.
4. Pay the resident an additional £500 for the failure to replace the door in the given timescale and follow up on the promise made in its final complaint response, causing additional delays.
5. The additional payment of £600 should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
The landlord should confirm to the resident and this Service the date that the door will be replaced.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should confirm its position in relation to any recommendations made following the independent heating system review. This should include timeframes for any work to be completed and should be shared with the resident and this Service.
The landlord should provide a copy of its most up to date self-assessment following the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp, published in October 2021.