Shropshire Council (202423252)

Decision
Case ID	202423252
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Shropshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

The resident was concerned that a recently installed positive input ventilation (PIV) unit was not installed correctly. He felt the electrical circuits attached to the PIV unit were unsafe and did not meet regulatory requirements. He also raised concerns that the landlord’s staff member had been hostile and aggressive with him during discussions about his concerns. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to concerns about staff conduct.
2. Handling of electrical concerns about the installation of a PIV unit.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical concerns about the installation of a PIV unit.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about staff conduct

The landlord did not evidence it had completed a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns, but its offer of compensation was proportionate to put things right.

Electrical concerns about the installation of a PIV unit

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner and accordance with its repairs policy.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the Code and its policy.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of electrical concerns about the installation of the PIV unit. 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 23 March 2026
3	Take specific action order The landlord must reoffer an electrical inspection to the resident. It will be up to the resident to decide if he wants to accept this offer.	No later than 23 March 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 pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered for its failures for handling the complaint about staff conduct. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 February 2024	The landlord completed a damp and mould survey which recommended installing a new ventilation unit in the hallway supplying air pressure directly into the other rooms via ducting. It also recommended assessing and upgrading the fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
16 April 2024	The landlord installed a new PIV unit. The same day the resident raised concerns that the unit was too small, and it was only being installed in the hallway. He also felt the new units were “weaker”.
28 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord following a call with a staff member on 21 June 2024. He did not want them to attend his home again and said they had: Started the conversation abruptly, accusing his wife of ignoring their earlier call. He said he found their behaviour “confrontational and intimidating”. He said they were defensive and disagreed with him about his concerns relating to the fan. Accused him of getting the landlord to do unnecessary work, which he disputed.
23 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay and said: It spoke to the staff member to get their version of events and said it would be managed internally in line with its code of conduct. It would attend on 21 August 2024 to check the PIV unit as it was blowing cold air, remove the old PIV unit parts and make good the area. It had spoken to the electrical supervisor who advised the new fans in the kitchen and bathroom were the recommended models. It had considered the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) and confirmed the home met the appropriate protection on all circuits and regulations. The consumer unit was plastic and met the regulations at the time of installation.
6 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: The staff member was trying to intimidate him, was “toxic and hostile”. He said he heard another member of staff had taken sick leave due to disagreements with this staff member. He did not know the landlord’s code of conduct and would like to know more details about it. The fan in the bathroom was not set up correctly. The new PIV unit was installed on a locked spur off another circuit and had no separate means of isolation. He spoke with National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC) who confirmed that this was not recommended. There was a small circuit breaker connected to the 100‑amp main switch, but it was not protected by any safety devices, which did not meet regulations.
2 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It had interviewed the staff member and confirmed they did not intend to come across hostile and toxic and were sorry. It had found no formal complaints against this staff member. It could not disclose what action it had taken but it was in line with its policies. It confirmed the staff member would not contact the resident. It had certification from a NICEIC approved electrician, but it would arrange an external contractor to undertake a periodical electrical inspection to identify anything not up to current standards and arrange for follow on remedial works. It offered £100 compensation in relation to his complaint about staff conduct.
8 September 2024	The landlord responded to further points raised by the resident, particularly that he felt the contractor would not be independent having worked for the landlord for a number of years. It said a NICEIC approved contractor had to work to NICEIC rules and guidelines and were regularly audited. Therefore, it was confident any new EICR test would meet the requirements.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us in February 2025 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt he had not been given any reassurances that the staff member would be retrained or disciplined. He was still concerned that the electrical circuits attached to the PIV unit were unsafe as he had some electrical knowledge himself.

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	Concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Reasonable redress

We will not assess whether the staff member’s actions were appropriate; instead, our role is to determine whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint. And if it took proportionate action based on the information available. When a resident reports inappropriate behaviour by a staff member, the landlord is expected to verify the report through a suitable investigation, including gathering evidence and interviewing all relevant parties, and then make an informed decision based on its findings.
The contact which triggered the complaint was a call between resident and the staff member on 21 June 2024. There is no contemporaneous call note or record of this conversation, so we cannot establish what happened. However, once the landlord was aware of the concerns from the resident, we cannot see that it spoke to him to obtain further details about the incident. This was a missed opportunity for it to further ensure its investigation was fair, balanced and impartial. It would have also provided reassurance that the resident’s concerns were important and would be listened to.
The landlord confirmed it appropriately spoke to the staff member to get their recollection of events. We have not been provided with any notes of that meeting, however the landlord has explained it did not document the meeting and accepted it should have done. It says it now ensures all conversations with regard to alleged misconduct are recorded appropriately, demonstrating it has learned from this record keeping failure.
We understand the resident’s frustration as he was provided with limited information about what action the landlord would take. However, the landlord has an obligation under General Data Protections Regulation (GDPR) to not disclose any personal information about its employees. Therefore, under the circumstances it responded reasonably. The resident in his escalation request asked for information about its code of conduct. This was a reasonable request, however we cannot see that it responded to this, which was a further failing. The resident explained he had been left feeling intimidated by the incident. Therefore, this was a missed opportunity for it to evidence it had taken his concerns seriously and was conducting a fair assessment of the incident.
The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of its failings. In our view, its offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings identified above. It is broadly in line which our remedies guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings. For the reasons stated above, the landlord’s offer of redress to the resident, is proportionate and satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Complaint	Electrical concerns about the installation of a PIV unit
Finding	Maladministration

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states landlords are responsible for keeping installations for electricity in good repair and proper working order. The tenancy agreement and repairs policy further reflects this. Its repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord replaced the PIV unit and extractor fans following recommendations made during a damp and mould survey. The resident raised concerns the same day this was installed. He was concerned the contractor had only replaced the vent and had not “done” the whole house as described. He also felt the new fans were weaker. The landlord said it would call him back, however there is no evidence it did, which was a failing. The resident continued to raise concerns on 8 May 2024 where he said the PIV unit had no means of isolation and the unit was making the house colder. He chased this again on 20 May 2024. The landlord missed a number of opportunities to call the resident back in a timely manner to respond to his concerns. This resulted in him being inconvenienced by having to chase it.
The landlord’s records indicate it would attend on 20 May 2024. However, there are no corresponding notes, so it is not clear if this visit took place or what action was agreed. This resulted in the resident continuing to chase for a response to his concerns on 13 and 14 June 2024. Although there are no records the resident stated in his complaint the landlord called him on 21 June 2024. There is no evidence to suggest the delay of 2 months to respond was unavoidable. This undoubtedly caused the resident worry about the PIV unit being installed correctly.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had reviewed the EICR certificate and it had spoken to the electrical supervisor about the fans. It also said it would attend on 21 August 2024 to check the issue with the cold air. While it was positive for it to do this, the resident reported this in May 2024, and its scheduled response was outside of its prescribed timescales for routine repairs. During which time the resident was understandably concerned about the installation of the PIV unit.
The landlord at stage 2 offered to arrange for an external contractor to carry out an electrical inspection. This was reasonable under the circumstances. It demonstrated that while it was satisfied that the electrical work with the PIV unit was compliant with the relevant regulations, it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and trying to allay his safety concerns. We understand that the resident was concerned the external contractor would not be impartial. However, the landlord’s final response of 8 September 2024, appropriately explained that a contractor would be obligated to meet NICEIC rules.
The landlord’s final position was reasonable. However, its overall communication was not appropriate which resulted in unnecessary time and trouble for the resident having to chase it. It also delayed in scheduling in the repairs in line with its repairs policy. Our remedies guidance sets out a payment range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £200 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint, escalation request and responded at stage 2 in the prescribed timescales. It took 16 working days to provide its stage 1 response; this was outside of the 10 working day timescales within its policy and the Code. However, it appropriately requested an extension on 11 July 2024 and responded in line with the deadline in that extension. This was in accordance with the Code and its policy. As a result, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

It was a positive approach for the landlord to offer another electrical inspection using an external contractor to allay the resident’s concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was lacking in places, indicating that relevant staff may not be recording data accurately or with enough details. However, it is positive that it has made changes to the way it records data relating to investigations into its staff.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident prior to the complaint was poor. It should consider how it can make improvements to better support its resident’s when concerns are first raised.