Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202219702)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219702

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

15 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s request for external wall insulation (EWI).
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. She is disabled and occupies the property with her 2 young children. The tenancy commenced in 2013.The resident had a representative act on her behalf during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. On 5 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the property had no EWI and she had continuously requested this since moving in. She explained that the lack of EWI had previously caused damp and mould and added that it affected her utility bills as she kept the heating on longer and used a dehumidifier throughout the day. She was unhappy that, despite her circumstances, the landlord still refused to insulate the walls. She said the landlord had previously considered insulating the property under a pilot scheme but instead chose to insulate some of its newer properties. She added that it had refused previous requests due to cost and the property’s energy performance certificate (EPC) rating. Yet, she highlighted that the EPC stated that the energy efficiency of the walls was ‘very poor’.
  3. On 28 November 2022 the landlord booked an inspection for 23 January 2023. Towards the end of November 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. On 30 November 2022 it responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, it said:
    1. It had written to her MP in 2015 advising them that it was an older-style property constructed of a solid wall.
    2. An EPC was carried out in 2009 and achieved a rating of 61 (out of 100). The average rating for a property at the time was 46.
    3. The property had previously benefitted from energy efficiency measures including double glazing and loft insulation.
    4. It had previously undertaken work to fix damaged waterproofing and reduce the path to the rear which had bridged the damp proof course (DPC).
    5. The property was not selected as part of the pilot scheme primarily because it has a ‘brick finish’. This meant any EWI would need a similar type of finish which was prohibitively expensive.
    6. Properties were selected for the scheme based on their thermal efficiency.
    7. Based on the information provided to it at the time her home did not meet the criteria of the pilot scheme. However, due to the time that had passed, it would inspect the property.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 4 December 2022. She felt that the landlord’s reasoning for not providing insulation had differed and showed it had no desire to change its decision. In addition, she queried why the landlord had constantly referred to the property’s energy efficiency rating and felt it was negating its responsibility to resolve the issue. She also questioned why the landlord had mentioned a previous repair to the DPC which she said had no relevance to the matter raised. She said that the only reason the walls were not affected by mould was due to having the heating on high which was costly. She said there had been failures from the landlord to resolve this issue since 2015 and felt that it had not considered her 2 young children or her disability.
  5. On 13 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to the complaint. On 23 January 2023 the landlord inspected the property. It found that the radiators were located in the correct positions, there was no damage or damp and mould in the property and concluded that no work was required. On 11 May 2023, following contact from this Service the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, it said:
    1. It had mentioned the property’s energy efficiency rating as this was one of the reasons it was not selected as part of the pilot scheme.
    2. It mentioned the DPC to provide an explanation and clarity as to why it did not intend to carry out any external repairs.
    3. There were no plans to install EWI and the pilot scheme was no longer running.
    4. It inspected the property to determine whether any alternative measures were needed. Following this, it would take no further action.
    5. The increase in energy costs was not something it had any influence on.
    6. It apologised for the delays in responding at both stages of its complaints process and would offer £125 compensation in recognition of this.
  6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said that its responses did not sufficiently answer the points raised in her complaint. She felt it was unacceptable for the landlord to deny EWI based on a previous energy rating and explained that she musthave the heating on high. She added that the staff member who inspected the property did not check the coldness of the walls. Further, she questioned why the landlord was spending its money on newer properties and felt it should bring its older properties, like hers, up to a sufficient standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that she had requested EWI as far back as 2015. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The historical requests provide contextual background to the current complaint, but this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s November 2022 complaint.

The resident’s request for external wall insulation

  1. The landlord’s repair guide sets out its repairing responsibilities. It states that by law it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the home in good repair. In this case, the resident’s request for EWI does not fall under the landlord’s repair obligations. Instead, this would be considered an energy efficiency improvement. While the landlord is not obligated to provide EWI, the government’s decent home standard states that a property should provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. It adds that the criterion requires properties to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect that when a resident raises a concern the landlord should consider this, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position. As such, this Service will assess whether the landlord’s responses to the resident’s request were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. Following the resident’s November 2022 complaint the landlord’s stage 1 response set out its position and responded to all the key points in the complaint with a proportionate level of detail and explained clearly why it had declined the resident’s request for EWI. Furthermore, given the resident had raised concerns about having previously experienced damp and mould in the property it was reasonable for the landlord to explain what work it had taken to rectify this issue. It was also appropriate, given her concerns and the time that had passed for the landlord to inspect the property, which it arranged promptly with the resident. Further, this demonstrated that it had due regard for the makeup of the household and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  4. However, its inspection appeared to focus on assessing whether any repairs may be required rather than an assessment of the property’s energy efficiency. This would have likely confused the resident who would have expected the landlord to assess the property’s energy efficiency and for it to consider whether EWI would be appropriate. While this was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part it would have been unlikely to have changed the overall outcome for the resident.
  5. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she questioned why the landlord had denied EWI based on a previous 2009 EPC rating. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain why it had relied on this rating, the EPC was over 12 years old. Although, it is recognised that there may not have been any material change in the property following the 2009 EPC, the Office for National Statistics stated that in 2021 the median energy efficiency score for England was 66, 5 points higher than the property’s 2009 score. Further, this Service notes that the certificate stated that the walls had ‘very poor’ energy efficiency.
  6. Given the landlord was almost certainly aware of this and the time that had elapsed since the last EPC, it should have considered carrying out a new EPC test and assessed whether the property had effective insulation in line with the decent home standard. Indeed, government guidance states that EPCs are only valid for 10 years. This Service acknowledges that this was one of the few reasons why the landlord had declined EWI, and it had set out in its stage 1 response other energy efficiency measures it had previously undertaken. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that a further EPC and/or assessment of the property may identify other measures the landlord can consider to improve the overall energy efficiency of the property. In light of this, a recommendation is made below.
  7. Nevertheless, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s request for EWI were reasonable and sufficiently answered the points in the complaint. Moreover, its responses were transparent. It openly acknowledged that the cost of carrying out EWI to the resident’s property would be ‘prohibitively’ expensive. While this Service understands that the resident is unhappy that the landlord is not spending its money on older-style properties like hers, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to tell landlords how it should prioritise its financial resources. Further, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that ‘there were no plans to install EWI’. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
  8. The resident recently informed this Service that she can smell mould behind the kitchen cupboards. While the Ombudsman is not assessing this matter as it has not been through the landlord’s complaint process, this Service understands that the resident is concerned that should she turn her heating down mould will reappear throughout the property. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to investigate this issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of receipt and stage 2 within 20 working days. It adds that where a response cannot be provided within the target timescale, it will contact the resident to inform them of the delay and give a revised timescale, including, where possible, the reason for the delay.
  2. In this case the landlord failed to respond at both stages of its complaint process within its policy timescales and it did not inform the resident of any delays. This led to the resident contacting this Service on at least 2 occasions for assistance. The landlord finally issued its stage 2 final response on 11 May 2023, over 5 months after the resident’s escalation request. This was a considerable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
  3. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it acknowledged this, identified learning and made an offer of £125 compensation in recognition. Overall, its offer of compensation was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to requests for external wall insulation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out a new EPC and fully assess the property’s energy efficiency. The landlord should then consider whether any further insulation measures are needed.
  2. The landlord should investigate the smell of mould behind the kitchen cupboard. It should ascertain the root cause and carry out any remedial works within a reasonable timescale.