Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202530359)

Decision
Case ID	202530359
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 March 2026

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since December 2014. The property is a 3-bedroom, fourth floor flat. The landlord is aware the resident’s household has additional needs due to their health. Since January 2024 the resident has been reporting issues with the temperature in the property and asking to be rehoused. He raised a complaint about these issues around 22 May 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. Evidence has not been seen to show the resident escalated this complaint. However, the resident’s property continued to suffer from excess heat and he raised a new complaint in November 2024 about these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports that the property was too hot.
   2. Request to be rehoused.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
6. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. In May 2024 the resident raised a complaint about the excess heat in the property and in response the landlord said it would investigate the issue. However, the landlord did not have the property inspected by a suitably qualified surveyor until over a year later. It also did not adequately communicate with the resident about its visits to the property or keep adequate records. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would inspect the property in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to identify the failings identified in this report and missed the opportunity to put things right. As such, we have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the property was too hot.
8. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his requests to be rehoused due to the impact the conditions in the property have had on his family. The landlord assessed his requests in line with its allocations policy and explained why it was unable to rehouse the resident at that time. It also provided information on alternative methods of rehousing that the resident could consider registering for. Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
9. The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales in its complaint handling policy. However, it acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and offered a reasonable amount of redress in recognition of its failing.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the landlord’s management team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 14 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the impact caused by its failure to investigate the temperature within the property within a reasonable timescale. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 April 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 November 2024	The resident raised his complaint. He said he had been having issues with the hot water in the property for 9 years but the landlord had failed to provide a lasting solution.
19 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident had complained to it about the temperature in the property and a lack of hot water. The landlord acknowledged it had taken too long to restore hot water to the resident’s property. However, it said the building was owned by another housing association and it was their responsibility to investigate and fix the communal boiler. That said, the landlord mentioned it had spoken to the resident that day and he had confirmed the hot water had been restored. It also said that during that call the resident confirmed its contractor had contacted him to arrange an investigation into the temperature in the property. The landlord said its decision on the amount of compensation would be sent to the resident by 18 January 2025.
14 February 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He said despite reporting issues with his hot water and the temperature in the property multiple times the landlord had failed to resolve the issues. He said these issues were impacting his family’s health and he felt the property was uninhabitable. He asked that the landlord move them to another property as soon as possible.
29 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: –       It was aware of the hot water issues the resident had been experiencing but the freeholder was responsible for fixing the communal boiler. It said it was continuing to work with the freeholder to have the communal boiler issues resolved. It also confirmed it had installed a new heat interface unit and controls in the property on 21 March 2025. –       It would instruct a third party to investigate the excessive heat in the property reported by the resident. It said it would contact him with further details by 9 May 2025. –       The resident’s application for housing priority based on health had been unsuccessful and he was unlikely to be rehoused anytime soon. It offered alternatives that he may wish to consider. –       It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its complaints handling. In recognition of its failings the landlord offered a total of £750 compensation. This included: –       £100 for its communication failures regarding issues with the hot water. –       £500 for the lack of hot water for 3 months. –       £150 for its complaint handling failure.
11 November 2025	The resident confirmed that he wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. He said the landlord had still not resolved the ongoing issues, in particular the temperature in the property, or agreed to rehouse his family.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Temperature of the property
Finding	Maladministration

10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for keeping the outside of the property, the structure, fixtures and fittings that it is responsible for in a reasonable state of repair. It says it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 10 working days.
11. In the resident’s correspondence he has said the property has suffered from high temperatures for over 9 years. We are aware that around 22 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint about the temperature of the property. The landlord responded to this complaint on 29 May 2024. We have not seen evidence to show the resident escalated that complaint further until he raised a new complaint on 25 November 2024. Therefore, the scope of this investigation includes events from 29 May 2024 up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (29 April 2025). Anything that happened before this or after the landlord issued its stage 2 response is considered for context purposes only.
12. Similarly, the resident’s correspondence refer to how the landlord’s handling of the temperature in the property has impacted his family’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s May 2024 complaint said it had booked a surveyor to inspect the property on 6 June 2024 under job reference 1074699. No evidence has been seen to show this inspection took place or what its findings were. As such, we can only conclude that the inspection did not happen or it did but records were not retained. In either case, the resident continued to report that the property was too hot and the impact this was having on his family.
14. Additionally, we have noted that the records provided by the landlord only show 1 job with reference 1074699 and the information in these records is contradictory. The list of works provided by the landlord says that on 29 May 2024 it inspected the property in response to the resident’s reports about the temperature of the property. However, the landlord’s repairs spreadsheet says this appointment was cancelled. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
15. The resident’s complaint email of 25 November 2024 made no mention of any issues with the temperature in the property. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates it discussed this issue with him during a block visit on 9 December 2024 and added it to the complaint. The stage 1 response said that during a call the resident confirmed its contractor had contacted him to arrange an inspection of the property regarding the temperature. However, evidence seen shows the landlord did not attend the property until 3 March 2025. The landlord has not explained why it took nearly 3 months for it to inspect the property. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the landlord potentially identifying and resolving the issue.
16. We have also noted that the landlord did not carry out a proper inspection on 3 March 2025. Its notes say the landlord was unable to accurately assess the internal temperature of the property due to the cold weather outside. It also mentioned the resident was cooking at the time and there was no ventilation in the kitchen area except an extractor fan. Its notes say it agreed to carry out a follow-up inspection during warmer weather for a better assessment.
17. We appreciate the cold weather outside would have impacted how the landlord’s contractors experienced the temperature inside the property. However, it has not explained why the cold weather would have prevented them from using equipment to assess the temperature in the property. Furthermore, the landlord has provided data from its ‘HomeLink’ portal which shows the average daily temperature in the property. This data shows that between April 2024 and March 2025 the average daily temperature in the property fluctuated between 25 to 29.6 degrees celsius. The Health and Safety and Rating System guidance says that indoor temperatures over 25 degrees celsius can be a hazard due to an increased mortality risk. The data from the landlord’s ‘HomeLink’ portal shows it was already monitoring the temperature in the property during the period considered in this report. Given the temperature’s shown on the ‘HomeLink’ portal and the resident’s reports of excess heat, we would reasonably have expected the landlord to have acted sooner than it did. Additionally, the landlord has not explained why it instructed its contractors to assess the temperature rather than the cause of the excess heat. This was unreasonable and caused a further delay in the landlord investigating and resolving the cause of the issue.
18. Based on the evidence seen, it took the landlord over a year after its May 2024 complaint response to have the property investigated by a suitably qualified surveyor. As a result the resident and his family were left in a property that was too hot for an extended period of time. This had an increased impact, in terms of distress and inconvenience, on them due to their health and affected their enjoyment of the property.
19. We have noted the property has an open plan living/dining room with only an extractor fan in the kitchen area. As such, it was natural for property’s temperature to have increased due to the resident cooking at the time of the visit in March 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident in advance how to prepare for the visit so it could take accurate readings. However, no evidence has been seen to show what, if anything, the landlord told the resident about the visit or how to prepare. This indicates poor communication on the part of the landlord.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would instruct a surveyor to investigate the resident’s reports of excess heat in the property. The evidence seen shows the inspection took place on 6 June 2025 and the surveyor made recommendations on how to resolve the excess heat. In itself this was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint and the landlord carried out the inspection as it said it would. However, it failed to identify the failings mentioned in this report through its complaints process and missed to opportunity to put these right sooner.
21. Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, amount to maladministration and can be summarised as failing to:
    1. Instruct a suitably qualified person to investigate the cause of the excess heat within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. Adequately communicate with the resident about the visits to the property.
    3. Keep adequate records.
22. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the compensation to £400. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failing.

Complaint	Rehousing
Finding	No maladministration

23. The landlord is a partner landlord associated with the local authority and assists with its allocations scheme and housing registry. Under the scheme residents are allocated housing based on a resident’s banding and any priority needs. It explains that residents in bands 1 and 2 will be given reasonable preference based on their circumstance. It says that residents in band 3 have been assessed as having no housing need. The allocations scheme and the landlord’s allocations policy also say it can exercise discretion and make direct offers of available accommodation not advertised through ‘Homeseekers’. This discretionary housing process is commonly called ‘direct let’. It says this discretionary power can be used when the resident has an exceptional need or there are a combination of factors which can not be assessed under the normal rules of the scheme.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained the resident was in band 3 and his assessed housing need was a 3-bedroom house. We have not seen evidence to show when the resident submitted an application for priority based on health grounds. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed the application had not met the threshold for prioritisation based on health.
25. We appreciate the resident has said he wants to be rehoused because of the impact the temperature in the property has had on his family. However, we are unable to order a landlord to move a resident to a new property. Any such move would be dependent on it having suitable vacant properties available, any other applications it has received and the priority attached to those applications.
26. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained the housing registry had nearly 7,000 applicants on its waiting list for a 3-bedroom house. It also said that between April 2023 and March 2024no applicants in band 3 for the same sized home were rehoused. It said it was therefore unlikely the resident would be rehoused anytime soon. However, the landlord also informed the resident about other available rehousing options. It said he could register for a mutual exchangeon its website or a home swap via a third party’s website.
27. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about rehousing by explaining why it was unlikely to be able to do so at that time. It was also appropriate for it to provide information on alternative ways the resident could register for a new property. Although, based on the evidence seen, it is unclear whether the landlord considered rehousing under ‘direct let’ or if it has a specific policy for this process. That said, even if it did not, evidence has not been seen to show this would have impacted the resident’s request for rehousing. This is because he requested to be rehoused for health reasons, which can be assessed under the allocation schemes normal rules.
28. Furthermore, we have noted that in its response to the resident’s original complaint the landlord addressed his concerns about rehousing. It said it had spoken to him on 22 May 2024 and gave advice about registering for mutual exchange. It also confirmed it sent him a health assessment form to complete and return in order for it to consider his request for priority based on health grounds.
29. Overall, based on all the information provided, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
31. Through its complaints process the landlord adequately addressed all the concerns raised by the resident.
32. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there had been delays with its complaint handling. In recognition of this failing it apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
33. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, we find the total amount of £150 offered for the delayed responses to the resident’s complaint is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s failures did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Record keeping

34. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.

Complaint handling

35. The landlord must ensure its complaint responses are issued within its complaints policy timescales. It must also ensure that it communicates with the resident if it needs more time to issue its response.