Portsmouth City Council (202008105)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008105

Portsmouth City Council

6 January 2021

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 complaints are about:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns about:
  1. the heating system within the property.
  2. the ventilation system within the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the heating system charges.
3. The landlord’s assessment of the resident’s request to be transferred to another property on medical grounds.
4. The heating system charges.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaints c, d and e fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has requested a transfer to a new property on medical grounds. Supporting evidence was provided to the landlord, and it awarded the resident ‘medium band of priority’. In correspondence to this Service, the resident has advised that she does not consider that the landlord has properly assessed evidence that has been provided by her GP. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
While the resident’s concerns about her banding are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot investigate this element of the complaint, or decide whether the resident has been awarded the correct banding priority, as these are matters which fall outside of our remit. The Housing Ombudsman can investigate complaints about local authorities in their capacity as landlord – this includes matters such as repairs, occupancy rights and some transfer applications. However, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can consider complaints about applications for re-housing, which include the assessment of such applications, and the award of points or banding. As such, if the landlord’s decision regarding the resident’s banding remains a matter which she wishes to complain about, the resident should raise a complaint with the LGSCO accordingly.
In her complaint to the landlord, and the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the heating charge which is payable under her tenancy agreement. While it is acknowledged that the resident is concerned about the amount that is payable, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. The resident may wish to refer her concerns about the charge, and whether it is reasonable, to the First Tier Tribunal for further consideration. While this investigation has not assessed the amount of the charge, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and queries about the charge and how it was calculated.
Lastly, in correspondence to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that the conditions within the property are negatively impacting her health and have resulted in a number of conditions including asthma, rhinitis, depression and anxiety. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, whether the conditions within the property have resulted in the resident’s ailments is not a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The process of establishing whether particular conditions within a building have resulted in, or caused an exacerbation of, a medical condition requires consideration by a medical expert. This is not something which the Ombudsman is qualified to decide. A court may seek expert opinion about such matters – and is also best placed to decide what action would need to be taken to put things right. Given the above, the resident’s concerns about how her health has been impacted by conditions within the building have not been investigated. However, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is one-bedroom flat within a block. The tenancy began in July 2017.
On 19 September 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Within her correspondence, the resident advised that she had “had enough” of her living conditions, and that the building was causing her health issues. The resident raised the following specific concerns:
1. She was paying £400 per month in rent, and £39 extra a month as a heating charge. The heating charge was paid for 12 months; however, the heating was only on for six months of the year.
2. There was no insulation, and the property was cold, there was poor ventilation, a lack of natural light, the storage heaters were inefficient, there was a high level of airborne pollution and noise levels, and condensation and mould.
3. She had been unable to sleep in the bedroom as it was too cold; and her health had been suffering as a result.
4. She wished to be moved as the building was causing her health issues. However, in the meantime, she wanted:
  1. Thermal proofing of the internal walls.
  2. Either an update or servicing of the storage heaters. An additional heater in the bedroom – at no additional cost as some properties within the block had three storage heaters in the bedroom.
  3. Extraction in the bathroom/kitchen.
  4. An air quality test in the property.
5. She had a number of questions in relation to the heating including, why residents were not provided with a bill, why some properties had underfloor heating yet paid the same charge, who supplied the energy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 September to acknowledge the complaint. It also advised that it wished to manage the resident’s expectations about the formal complaints procedure given that she expressed one of her desired outcomes was to be moved to another property. The landlord explained that it could investigate a complaint about a failure to complete any repairs or maintenance issues which had been reported, and not resolved. However, any outcome of the complaint would not necessarily affect the resident’s place on a waiting list, or speed up the allocation of a property. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she was happy to proceed with her complaint on that basis.
The resident replied on 26 September and said that she also wished to enquire about the heating tariff that she was on, and why she had not been given the option to change it. The resident also raised concerns that information about how the heating worked and the associated charges was not made available when she signed her tenancy agreement.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 9 October. It said:
1. The Area Housing Area manager would arrange for the resident’s Housing Officer to discuss her request for re-banding in further detail. However, in the meantime, the resident could refer to the Housing Allocations Policy which was available on its website.
2. The cost of running the heating (which on average runs for eight months of the year), was charged over a twelve-month period to avoid a higher monthly cost.
3. The kitchen and bathroom were ventilated via an air extraction system which ran the height of the building – and this removed the stale air from within the building. The system was due to be serviced in the next six months.
4. The property was a one-bedroom flat which had large opening windows to the kitchen, bedroom and lounge. However, owing to the construction of the building, the toilets/bathrooms were position in the core of the building – so did not have natural light.
5. As the storage heaters had no moving parts, they did not require servicing. It understood that an electrician had visited the property recently to clean the heaters; however, the resident asked him to leave. If the resident wished to rebook this appointment, she should contact the help desk.
6. It was not aware of any pollution issues within the property; however, the servicing of the extraction system would hopefully help to remove any airborne particles which the resident had mentioned.
7. It was sorry to learn that the resident was experiencing noise issues. It advised that the resident could report any instances to her housing officer for further investigation.
8. The resident’s housing officer would be speaking with her to arrange an appointment for the windows to be serviced.
9. The resident could also speak with her housing officer about arranging for a surveyor to call around regarding the condensation.
10. It was discussing the option of installing a new “wet heating system”; however, in the meantime, its contractor would be making some adjustments to the storage heaters which it hoped would result in an improvement to the heating.
11. A copy of the EPC had been included.
12. If the resident was unhappy with the response, she could ask for her complaint to be escalated.
The resident replied on 12 October, and advised that she wished for her complaint to be escalated. She advised that while she was thankful to have been re-banded as “high priority” and hoped that this would help with being moved to a suitable home quickly, she disagreed with many of the landlord’s comments. The resident also raised concerns that she had not been provided with a response to some of her questions. The resident said:
1. They only received six months of heating, and not either. The landlord had also failed to explain the charge, or provide a bill or the tariff. The resident said that no explanation had been given as to why residents were not provided with a supply agreement at the start of their tenancy.
2. There was no air extraction system within the kitchen. There was extraction within the bathroom, but it was necessary for her to clean this every week – which the resident said was indicative of high airborne pollution. The resident asked if the landlord could arrange for someone to come and test the air.
3. Regardless of the size of the windows, there was still a lack of natural light. She had bought an artificial light to try to help with her health and mood.
4. She did not ask the heating contractor to leave, and asked the landlord to provide further explanation in relation to this.
5. The noise from the traffic and people on the street was constant. She wanted to know why this was the case given that the property was on the 16th floor.
6. A surveyor had already attended for the mould in the bathroom, and he blamed her for a lack of ventilation and heat.
7. The landlord had not answered her questions in relation to the insulation.
8. The EPC showed that money could be saved, and it was not fair that residents were having to pay high energy prices.
9. While the landlord had advised that a new wet system was going to be installed, she wished to know whether this definite, and when the residents would be updated.
The landlord replied to the resident on 13 October to confirm the issues which the resident wanted to have escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. On 19 October, the resident advised that she felt her concerns about the noise had been brushed aside. The resident added:
1. There were no extraction fans fitted around the property, and she wished for air quality test to be carried out.
2. She had been advised by others that the storage heaters did need to be serviced and therefore wished for a service to be undertaken.
3. She wished for insulation to be installed.
4. She wanted to be provided with a full breakdown of the heating costs.
The landlord responded on the same day and advised that the resident should speak with her housing officer in relation to her concerns about the noise levels. It reiterated that it could not arrange for a service of the storage heaters as they did not have moving parts. In addition, it said that it could not deal with noise nuisance complaints or the resident’s request for insulation to be installed under the corporate complaints policy. However, the landlord advised that it would be escalating the following complaints – the request for an air quality test, clarification regarding the extractor fans, and a breakdown in charges for heating.
The resident on 21 October that she remained dissatisfied with the “no moving parts” response that had been provided in relation to the heaters. She added that her housing officer had not been in touch with her, and she wished to know who she could complain to about an “overcharge” of £201. The resident also requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
During November 2020, the landlord informed the resident that its response to her complaint would be delayed until the end of the month. The resident advised that she was unhappy with the time that it was taking for the landlord to investigate and respond to her concerns, and that her health was suffering in the meantime. The resident’s sister subsequently wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about how the complaint was being handled and the conditions within the property. The landlord responded to the resident’s sister and advised:
1. That the heating system within the block was a communal system, and the time of operation were controlled centrally. It added that all of the blocks in the flat had the heating on for the same period of the day; however, some flats had underfloor heating, and some had night storage heaters which retain heat and release it during a longer period.
2. The resident had two night storage heaters in her flat. One in the lounge, and one in the hall. As winter approached, the operative times for the communal heater would be increased.
3. Night storage heaters provide an “ambient heating source” and were not intended as a primary heating solution. Residents were expected to provide their own additional heating arrangements if night storage heaters were not adequate for their needs.
4. It did have a small supply of electric oil filled radiators which it could provide to residents in emergency situations. If the resident did wish to use one, it could arrange for it to be delivered to her flat. However, this would run off her own electric supply and would increase the cost to her.
5. The resident had been assessed as medium band priority for rehousing. This was following an assessment in January 2020. If the resident’s situation had changed, they could provide further evidence for consideration. They could also ask the resident’s GP to provide evidence together with any recommendations for future accommodation.
On 22 November, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she would be withholding the heating charge element of her rent for several reasons. These included – the heaters being inefficient, the lack of explanation around the heating charges, that the temporary heaters which had been supplied were emitting dry heat and making her ill, her sister had had to remove her from the property as it was affecting her health, her GP had already provided evidence about how the property was impacting her health and that she needed to be moved. The resident added that she would be seeking legal advice in relation to a claim for misrepresentation and a breach of her human rights. She said that she would also be seeking compensation for ill health she had been caused.
The landlord responded on the same day and advised the resident that it was a term of the tenancy agreement to pay the heating charge. It asked the resident to contact her local housing office to arrange for a repair contractor to visit given her comments that the storage heaters were not working correctly or efficiently. With regards to the resident’s banding, the landlord said that its records showed that the decision was made following a letter which was received from her GP at the end of January 2020. It had not received anything from the GP since then. As such, if the resident’s condition had become worse, she would need to provide further evidence for her banding to be reassessed.
It was subsequently agreed that a member of staff would meet the resident at the property to discuss her concerns further. On 24 November, the landlord confirmed that the meeting would take place on 26 November, and that the stage two response to the complaint would be issued thereafter.
On 27 November, the resident responded to the landlord’s email of 24 November to confirm the reasons that she was withholding the heating charge from her rent payment. The resident added that she did not consider that the landlord was complying with its obligations under the tenancy agreement in relation to the heating. In addition, the resident said that her GP had contacted the landlord the previous week, and it had advised that it could not do anything in relation to the resident’s banding.
The landlord subsequently visited the property on 2 December, and issued the stage two response to the complaint on 4 December. Within this, the landlord said:
1. It wished to apologise for any misunderstandings from its previous complaint response, and that the service the resident received should have been better than that which was experienced.
2. To investigate the complaint, it had liaised with various teams, and the building repairs manager (the manager) following his visit to the property on 2 December.

Ventilation

With regards to ventilation, during his visit the manager confirmed where the ventilation grill and duct were located in both the bathroom and kitchen. It was agreed that further ventilation grills were required to the kitchen cupboard door to make ventilation more effective. A repair had been raised to carry this out.
Its contractor had also visited the property and arranged for the duct and grill to be cleaned. It noted that the ventilation had been “significantly reduced”, and hoped that the cleaning and planned works to the kitchen would enable ventilation to operate more effectively.
In addition, it had asked its surveyor to investigate the options for undertaking air quality monitoring within the property so that it could assess the quality of the air over a period of time and evaluate whether any other actions are necessary. The landlord advised that the surveyor would liaise directly with the resident about any monitoring.

Heating

The resident had a storage heater within the lounge and hallway. At the time of the visit on 2 December, the temperature within the lounge was 21 degrees, and it was approximately one degree lower in the bedroom.
In conjunction with the air quality monitoring, the surveyor would be arranging for a temperature monitoring device to be located in the property so that it could collect temperature data over a period of time to better assess how the heating is operating.
It was not able to add to the landlord’s heating system as the electric supply to the heating system was at full capacity. However, it could replace the exiting two night storage heaters with two newer models. These would connect to the existing landlord’s electric supply but would also require an additional connection to the resident’s own supply which would use a minimal amount of electric.
In recognition of the fact that the resident would be contributing to the cost of the landlord heating provided by the new heaters, it would reduce her landlord heating charge as appropriate. It would confirm the amount of the reduction if the resident wished to proceed with the option. However, it anticipated that the reduction would be minimal as it would be based on a calculation of the anticipated usage.
The alternative was to provide an additional oil filled heater within the bedroom. However, if the resident chose this option, the running cost of the heater would be her responsibility – as this would an additional heating provision to the landlord’s heating supply.
Lastly, it could arrange for its contractor to undertake an “intrusive inspection of the existing night storage heaters, clean them thoroughly and check that internally they are operating correctly”. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the basis on which she wished to proceed.

Heating cost

Its records demonstrated that the heating within the resident’s block is on for “at least” eight months of the year. The landlord provided a table for the dates on which the heating was on and off from September 2014 to September 2020. It advised that this also showed that the heating had been on for at least nine months in the (then) last two years.
The landlord also provided details of the tariff, and advised that residents were charged £9.55 per week for the landlords heating at the property. This equated to a total charge of £496.60 per year.
In relation to the charges, the landlord advised that the service charge was approved each year at Housing Cabinet, and calculated based on the average historical total annual kWh consumption over previous years at the block. The total was then multiplied by the various tariff rates, and divided between the number of flats. The landlord added that it did not charge a management fee – rather, its aim was to recover the heating costs in full.

Windows

The resident had requested new windows to be installed to minimise the noise pollution and heat loss. The windows had been inspected by the manager during the visit. He had concluded that they were “operating satisfactorily” and did not require replacement.
The manager was also of the opinion that the noise levels within the flat at the time of the visit were acceptable and not excessive. As such, the landlord did not propose any further action regarding the windows.

Waiting list

The Area Housing Manger had confirmed that the resident’s GP had been in contact with the Housing Needs and Advice team (the team); however, no new information had been provided which resulted in the need to revisit the assessment decision.
The team were experiencing a high volume of demand which may lead to a delay in providing a response to housing need enquiries. However, it had confirmed that it had responded to all of the resident’s enquiries to date.
It wished to advise the resident that any further enquiries regarding the progress of her housing application should be discussed directly with her housing officer or the team.

In closing, the landlord s
aid that it hoped that it had covered all of the points that the resident had raised. However, if the resident remained dissatisfied with the response, the complaint could be escalated to stage three. The resident responded to the landlord on 12 January 2021, and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three of the landlord’s process. She said:
1. Her GP had provided new evidence; however, the landlord had failed to do anything with it.
2. She had asked for information in relation to the heating, and had yet to be provided with it. She was expected to make a decision based on receiving half of the requested information, and she would not do so. She wished to be provided with information relating to the costs of the new heaters, their efficiency and how they would be of benefit when she needed more heat.
3. She wished for an independent survey for the windows as she was “unconvinced” by the outcome of the landlord’s assessment.
4. Since the vents had been cleaned by the landlord, she had had to clean them herself on a number of occasions as “black stuff” was building back up again. She wished for the substance to be tested. The resident added that the vent in the bathroom audibly draws air out of the bathroom until 10pm, which the kitchen vent remained silent. She wished to know if they were the same system, and how this was considered efficient.
5. The landlord had failed to tell her how much it was billed by the supplier, and had also failed to provide the supplier’s name.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and meanwhile a survey and air quality test were undertaken at the property in January 2021. The information provided to the Ombudsman also shows that the landlord had continued to correspond with the resident in relation to some of her queries about the heating charge. In particular, more information was provided about the functioning of storage heaters in general, the tariff and the associated charges. The landlord also advised that it would ask its accounts team to provide a further breakdown of the charges for that year. The landlord was also in discussion with the resident about temperature monitoring towards the beginning of February 2021.
The landlord issued a stage three response to the complaint on 22 February 2021. Within this, it said:
1. Its investigations into the resident’s concerns about heating and air quality within the property was now complete, and it wished to provide the resident with a response to her concerns.
2. It noted the resident’s comments that there had been a “lack of transparency” and “reluctance to help” on its behalf. It was disappointed to learn that this was the resident’s impression of how matters had been handled; however, it noted that a named Housing Officer had been overseeing her case most recently and was pleased to note that “significant progress” had been made as a result.
3. The independent Air Quality Test that had been commissioned found that the air within the property was “satisfactory”, and that no remedial action needed to be taken. A copy had been enclosed with the letter. The landlord acknowledged that the resident may not agree with the findings; however, it was appropriate for them to be guided by the investigators given their expertise.
4. Temperature monitoring within the property did not raise any concerns. A three-day temperature profile indicated that at no time did the temperature within the property fall below the recommended minimum temperature of 18 degrees. The outdoor temperatures at this time ranged between 0 and 3 degrees. The landlord also referred to guidance from the World Health Organisation in relation to indoor temperatures.
5. It had already been established through the course of the complaint that the resident’s storage heaters were not heating the property adequately. In the stage 2 response, it provided two options – to replace the heaters with newer storage heaters, or to supply an additional oil filled radiator for the property. It understood that the resident was reluctant to make a decision at the time as she had queries about the potential cost implications. It had since provided a full cost breakdown. The landlord said that both options remained open to the resident and it encouraged her to make a decision about having the existing heaters replaced.
6. If the resident did replace the existing heaters, it would be able to reduce the charge for ‘landlord’s heating’ from £496.60 to £464.60 per annum. In addition, the resident may be eligible for an energy voucher, which would help towards the costs of heating. The landlord said that the assigned member of staff would follow up with this.
7. It understood that the resident was currently registered to be moved from the property on a medium priority banding based on medical grounds. While it was aware that the resident’s GP had been in touch, it had not received any information that would result in her being placed in a higher band.
8. If the resident had any remaining concerns about the findings of the Air Quality Test and temperature reading, and any potential impact on her health, it recommended that she discuss the findings with her GP.
9. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the response, she could refer the matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
Communication between landlord staff and the resident continued after the stage three response was issued. In March 2021, the landlord provided further responses to the resident about the heating charge – including sharing details of the energy supplier. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with the responses she received, and towards the end of March 2021 asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s obligations in respect of the property are set out in the tenancy agreement. This states – “we are responsible for maintaining the installations in our property and carrying out repairs. The installations of your home includes for example: water pipes and tanks, electrical installations including wiring, sockets and light fittings, gas installations including all pipework, heating installations including appliances, boilers and radiator’.
In relation to rent and the heating charge, the tenancy agreement states – “The rent and other charges will be calculated up to and including the day your tenancy ends. Your rent is to be paid fortnightly as chosen by you and agreed by Portsmouth City Council. This property has charges which are for heating and is to be paid fortnightly as chosen by you and agreed by Portsmouth City Counil.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to concerns about the heating system

As detailed above, the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to ensure that the appliances and installations for heating are kept in good repair. There is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement to provide a certain type of heating system, or a minimum number of heaters or radiators. In addition, there is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement – or otherwise – to ensure that the air within the property can be heated to a set temperature. Within correspondence to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has quoted guidance issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the National Health Service (NHS). While the guidance has been considered, it is advisory and not a legal requirement.
The Decent Homes standard, was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2006 to ensure that local authority properties were improved and sustained. The definition of “a decent home” was updated to reflect the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and it was determined that a property should meet four criteria – 1) that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing; 2) it is in a reasonable state of repair; 3) it has reasonably modern facilities and services; 4) it provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.”
The Decent Homes standard does not set out what a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort” is with reference to a particular temperature. However, it provides that a dwelling should have both efficient heating and insulation. Efficient heating is defined as any gas or oil programmable central heating; or electric storage heaters – amongst other types of heating systems.
The HHSRS states that a “healthy indoor temperature is around 21 degrees. There is a small risk of health effects below 19 degrees. Below 16 degrees there are serious health risks for the elderly”.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately sought to ascertain whether there was a repair issue with the storage heaters within the property. If the heaters were in need of repair, the landlord would be obliged to carry out repairs or replace any heaters that were beyond repair, as necessary. Given there was not a repair issue, the focus turned to the resident’s concerns that the storage heaters were not providing sufficient heat.
When the landlord visited the property on 2 December 2020, it found that the temperature within the lounge was 21 degrees, but approximately one degree lower in the bedroom. When the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 4 December, it advised that it would be arranging for a temperature monitoring device to be installed so that it could collect data over a period of time to assess how the heating was operating. This was appropriate and a reasonable way of trying to investigate the resident’s concerns further.
However, the landlord also advised in the stage two response that it would not be able to add to its heating system. As such, the resident’s options were to have the storage heaters replaced with newer models – this would involve an additional connection to the resident’s own electric supply; or for it provide an oil filled within the bedroom. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the option of installing new storage heaters would result in the resident contributing to the cost of the landlord heating, and therefore confirmed that it would reduce the heating charge that was payable. A third option was provided to the resident which involved and “intrusive inspection” of the existing heaters to ensure that they were working correctly.
These were reasonable options proposed by the landlord to ensure that the resident’s concerns had been addressed. It is acknowledged that the resident did not feel able to accept any of the options; however, the landlord’s suggestions and proposals were proportionate in the circumstances. Furthermore, the landlord’s commitment to monitoring temperatures within the property was also appropriate. It is also noted that the landlord subsequently confirmed the exact amount by which the heating charge would also be reduced.
During the course of the complaint, the resident had requested the installation of further insulation. The landlord advised that this was not something which could be considered through its complaints process. While the reasons for the resident’s request are acknowledged, there is no obligation on the landlord- under the tenancy agreement or otherwise – to install insulation at the request of a resident. The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. There is no obligation to install something new, as this would be considered an improvement.
Therefore, from the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about temperatures within the property and the functioning of the storage heaters. There is no evidence that the landlord has failed to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement or otherwise; and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided the resident with options aimed at improving the temperatures within the property.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the ventilation system

In response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation, the landlord appropriately inspected the property. It concluded that adjustments could be made to improve the ventilation within the property and arranged for an air quality test to be undertaken. The air quality survey found that the levels within the property were satisfactory, and the company that carried out the survey did not recommend any remedial works following the inspection.
There was no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, or otherwise, to take such steps. However, the landlord’s actions demonstrate a willingness to try to understand the resident’s concerns and how she considers the conditions within the property are affecting her health. While it is acknowledged that the resident remains dissatisfied following the air quality test, the survey did not highlight that any remedial works were required. The landlord was entitled to rely on the specialist’s conclusions; and as such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it responded appropriately and proportionately to the resident’s concerns.

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

During the course of the complaint, the resident raised a number of queries in relation to the heating charge – including information about the energy supplier and the tariff. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord provided very detailed responses to the resident’s specific queries. While it is noted that the resident remained unhappy with the information that the landlord had provided her with, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately overall.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns about:
  1. the heating system within the property.
  2. the ventilation system within the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the heating system charges.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the temperatures within the property. While the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and proposals, the evidence shows that these were proportionate in the circumstances and offered with the aim of trying to improve the temperatures within the property.
After visiting the property, the landlord acknowledged that the ventilation could be improved and took appropriate steps to remedy the situation. The landlord also commissioned an air quality survey given the resident’s concerns. The survey did not recommend any remedial works within the property and the landlord’s decision not to take any further action was therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord provided the resident with detailed information about the functionality of the storage heaters, the heating charge, and the process it utilised when deciding on the charge.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should re-offer the resident the option of replacing the storage heaters within the property with newer models, or providing an oil heater to be used within the bedroom as was outlined in the stage two response to the complaint.