Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202220104)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220104

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

30 October 2023

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 response to the resident’s concerns with the proposed heating system replacement.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property has a solid fuel heating system that was installed before the landlord acquired it in 2004.
3. On 15 July 2022, the landlord completed the annual safety checks on the resident’s heating system, and it was condemned. The contractor noted that the metal flue plate connector was not sealed, which allowed vermiculate to enter the fire box.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 29 September 2022 as he did not want the heating system to be upgraded and wanted the landlord to make the parts for the existing system. He said he could not afford the new heating system and his doctor told him he should not have “dry heat” in the property.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 3 October 2022, it said the solid fuel appliance had been condemned following the annual safety inspection, as a defect had been identified that caused the risk of carbon monoxide. It had tried to source the required part to repair the system, but it was no longer available, and it would be unsafe to use non-standard parts. In response to the resident’s concerns that the new system would have on his health, it stated that the proposed air source heat pump would provide a wet heating system radiator, in the same way as the current system. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused but said that it had a legal obligation to ensure the heating system was safe to use. It asked the resident to book an appointment for the heating upgrade.
6. The resident escalated his complaint as he wanted the system to be repaired, rather than replaced. An independent company had assessed the heating system and provided him with fire cement to complete the repair. He stated he could not afford to run the air source heating.
7. In the landlord’s final response on 14 November 2022, it reiterated the safety concerns regarding the current solid fuel heating system. It said that further investigation would be required to determine the exact reason for the fault, but the required part may be obsolete. It said it had offered fan heaters, which the resident had declined, and signposted him to cost of living crisis support. It gave the resident the following options:
   1. The resident could provide a quote supplied by an independent suitably qualified contractor to repair the system.
   2. The resident could allow the landlord to investigate to identify the issue.
   3. The resident could allow the landlord to complete a heating survey, with no pressure to accept the upgrade.
   4. The resident could proceed with the new heating system installation.
8. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as he had not had heating since July 2022. He said several companies had told him remedial work could be completed without replacing the system. He could not afford to run the proposed heating system and he had 2 years’ worth of wood to burn. He was currently reliant on a single bar fire, wearing coats, and using hand warmers to remain warm in the property, as he could not afford to run fan heaters.

Assessment and findings

9. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to equipment provided for heating and hot water. Its repairs and maintenance policy also states it will complete regular service checks of solid fuel heating appliances.
10. It was appropriate that the landlord inspected the heating system on 15 July 2022, in line with its obligations. The heating system was condemned as the metal flue plate connector was not sealed, allowing vermiculite to enter the fire box. The landlord explained to the resident that the defect meant there was a risk of carbon monoxide, which presented a significant health and safety risk. The contractor informed the landlord that either the flue had failed, or the top cast plate had cracked. It would cost over £3000 to reline the chimney and other parts from the heating system were obsolete.
11. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. As a result, landlords will typically assess whether repairs are economically viable prior to considering replacements. In this case, although it may have been possible to repair the heating system, it would have been expensive, and the landlord would not be able to complete further repairs, if any further issues arose, due to the unavailability of parts. Based on the information provided by the contractor, it was reasonable that the landlord told the resident it was unable to repair the heating system.
12. The landlord said it would install an air space heat pump, rather than another solid fuel heating system, due to its net carbon policy. This Service has not seen a copy of this policy; however, it is reasonable for the landlord to take steps to be more environmentally sustainable.
13. When proposing the new heating system, the landlord should consider any concerns raised by the resident and address them accordingly. The resident stated that his doctor had advised against “dry heat”. The landlord reasonably responded as it confirmed the new system would provide heat through a wet heating system radiator, in the same way the current system did. The resident also raised concerns about the cost of the new system, as he had been informed it would be expensive. The landlord explained that as air source heat pumps are designed for individual properties, other properties’ experiences would not be comparable. It also signposted him to cost of living crisis support. It would have been helpful for it to provide tangible advice on the expected cost of the new system to ensure that the resident could afford to heat the property. However, it may not have had such information available prior to the heating survey.
14. It was appropriate that the landlord considered interim measures while the repairs to the heating system remained outstanding. The landlord confirmed the resident had hot water through use of an immersion heater and it offered temporary heaters, which the resident declined. It also completed a welfare check visit.
15. The resident stated that he had instructed several independent contractors to assess the heating system, and they had confirmed it could be repaired. He also said he would complete the repairs himself, with materials left by the contractor. It was important that the landlord explained the repairs would have to be completed by a qualified professional with the correct parts to ensure the system was safe to use.
16. The landlord asked the resident to provide contact details of the contractors that had attended, but he declined to do so. The Service recognises the reasons provided by the resident for his decision not to send the requested information. Without the contact details, however, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take regarding the reported findings of the independent contractors. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have arranged a different contractor to attend, to obtain a second opinion on whether the repairs could be completed. However, ultimately it was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors and the resident had not provided sufficient information to warrant further investigation.
17. It is positive to note that the landlord considered the resident’s feedback and proposed several options to proceed in its final response, including assessing whether repairs could be completed, or replacing the heating system. The resident has informed this Service that no further action has been taken since the final response in November 2022, and he remained without heating. He raised concerns regarding the low temperatures over winter, particularly due to his health conditions. 
18. In view of the evidence, it is understandable why the resident was reluctant to agree to the new heating installation. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps in attempt to reach a suitable resolution. It has relied on its appropriately qualified contractors to determine how to manage the heating repair issues and posed numerous options to the resident to proceed with the required works. Nonetheless, it is of concern that the resident remains without heating. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident, discuss the options available, answer any of the resident’s outstanding queries, and attempt to reach a suitable solution to reinstate the heating.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns with the proposed heating system replacement.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to attempt to reach a suitable solution to reinstate his heating. It should discuss the available options and address any of the resident’s outstanding concerns.