Soho Housing Association Limited (202309829)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309829

Soho Housing Association Limited

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Boiler repairs.
2. Leaks and flooding within the property.
3. Reports of carbon monoxide warnings.
4. Repairs to the communal lift.
5. Communal cleaning and maintenance.
6. Reports about the conduct of housing officers.
7. Damage to the resident’s belongings.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a sixth floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 29 June 2023. They said that they had been facing a series of ongoing issues that had lasted several years. These had caused significant distress and inconvenience. They said:
1. Their boiler had constantly overheated for the past 3.5 years and failed to switch off. This had caused significant discomfort and posed a serious health hazard. It had broken down entirely 4 months earlier and had left the resident with no heating or hot water. They wanted the landlord to pay their gas bill due to its failure to repair the boiler.
2. They had suffered years of flooding from leaks within their property. The leaks had caused damage to their personal belongings, as well as causing health risks and disrupting their daily life.
3. On multiple occasions their carbon monoxide alarm had gone off. On at least one occasion they had needed to request an emergency repair as the alarm would not shut off.
4. The communal lift consistently malfunctioned and was out of service. On one occasion they had been trapped in the lift for over 90 minutes. There had been a lasting impact on their well-being from this incident.
5. There had been a consistent lack of responsiveness from housing officers. Attempts to communicate and seek assistance had been met with neglect. This had led to the removal of resident meetings and the loss of communication and support between residents.
6. The overall state of repair and maintenance in the property had resulted in an unsafe and unsatisfactory living environment. The landlord had consistently overlooked basic services such as cleaning. Residents had been cleaning the lift walls as the cleaner had not been doing it.
7. When they had moved into their property the toilet did not flush for 6 months. The landlord had not offered an adequate solution. It was only by chance they had discovered the issue was a faulty ballcock.
8. The landlord’s contractors had been rude and disrespectful towards the resident in their home and had refused to leave when asked. The contractor had attempted to cover this up by placing a mental health warning about the resident on its records.
9. The landlord had consistently ignored them when they were seeking guidance and directions about making a formal complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 October 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It had missed the resident’s complaint and not formally responded to it. It offered £30 in compensation to acknowledge the delay.
2. It was aware of the breakdown history of the lift. It had asked a specialist to inspect the lift and make recommendations to improve the reliability. It had carried out works in July 2023 and had not had any further reports of breakdowns. It acknowledged the time the lift had been out of service and offered a refund of the relevant service charge (It calculated this as £18.82).
3. It apologised for the resident becoming trapped in the lift and the impact it had on them. It offered £100 to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.
4. Leaks had been reported in March 2021, November 2021, and September 2022. A neighbour had reported a leak from the resident’s flat in June 2023. It had resolved all the leaks. The March 2021 leak had damaged the resident’s kitchen floor which it had replaced. It had no evidence of any other reported leaks or damage to the resident’s belongings.
5. It asked the resident to send any evidence of damage that had been caused by the leaks to allow it to review and agree appropriate action.
6. There had been 3 boiler related repairs over the last 3 years. The boiler had passed all the required annual gas service and safety checks. The most recent repair had taken approximately 3 to 4 months to complete. This had been due to multiple factors, including difficulties in arranging appointments, an engineer not being able to access the relevant area of the resident’s flat, and an engineer having ordered an incorrect part. It apologised for this delay.
7. Its records showed the boiler was in good working order with no outstanding repairs. It asked the resident to let it know the dates of any appointments they felt had been missed so it could investigate further.
8. It had no record of any reports or queries regarding the carbon monoxide alarm being triggered.
9. It was working to improve communications and the resident’s feedback would be raised with relevant staff members to ensure their concerns did not go unheard in the future. It would also be addressing this as part of ongoing staff performance monitoring.
10. Residents of a block or estate could have meetings at any time and it encouraged residents to get to know, and support, each other. Where residents wanted to meet with a housing officer as a group, it would do its best to attend.
11. Housing officers carry out quarterly estate inspections. It was aware residents were unhappy with the condition of the internal communal areas. Re-decorating and replacing the fire doors was due to take place next year.
12. Its surveyor had contacted residents in September 2023 to arrange inspections of their kitchen and bathrooms to determine if they required replacement. There had been no response from the resident and they had not been available when the surveyor had attended the building. It asked the resident to let it know a suitable date and time for the surveyor to attend.
13. It asked the resident to report any outstanding repairs in their property to their housing officer as soon as possible.
14. Its cleaning contractor had provided reassurance that all cleaning staff were careful to ensure they cleaned all elements of the communal areas, including the lift walls. The contractor had provided photos of recent cleans and would continue to send photos to evidence cleaning was taking place.
15. The issues with the resident’s toilet had occurred when they started their tenancy in 2011. It could not comment on a repair issue that had been resolved over 10 years ago.
16. It asked the resident to provide further details about the incident with its contractor so it could ensure it was escalated appropriately. It advised that if the incident had occurred some years ago it would not be able to take any action. It wished to acknowledge and apologise for the impact the incident had on the resident.
On 29 November 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported issues and disagreed with the findings from the stage 1 response.
On 23 April 2024 the Ombudsman issued a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) to the landlord. This was due to the landlord’s failure to issue a final response to the resident. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to issue its final response by no later than 30 April 2024.
On 8 May 2024, as the landlord had not complied with the CHFO, the Ombudsman decided the resident’s complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation.
On 22 July 2024 the Ombudsman issued a second CHFO to the landlord. This was due to the landlord’s failure to provide any response to this service’s requests for evidence.
On 3 October 2024 this service spoke to the resident. They confirmed their kitchen been refurbished and their boiler had been replaced. This had resolved the issues with the faulty boiler and the leaks.
On 4 October 2024 this service wrote to the landlord to advise this case was now under investigation and that it had 5 working days to provide any relevant evidence. The landlord did not provide a response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider what is fair in all circumstances of the case. We investigate complaints using an inquisitorial approach. This means we examine all the available evidence to identify the issues in dispute and reach a finding on each issue.
When investigating a complaint we make a specific evidence request to the landlord. We expect the landlord to provide all the requested evidence. Residents can send any evidence they think is relevant but they are not required to prove their case.
In this case, the investigation has been impeded by the fact the landlord has not provided any evidence beyond a copy of its stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The Ombudsman generally expects residents to raise a complaint within 12 months of the relevant matter arising. This is in line with the timescales set out in paragraph 42 of the Scheme and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’)
The resident has provided evidence that they attempted to make a formal complaint in October 2022. The Ombudsman therefore considers the landlord knew, or ought to have known, that the resident wished to raise a stage 1 complaint at that time. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported matters from October 2021 (12 months prior to the resident attempting to raise a complaint) to 8 May 2024 (the date the Ombudsman decided the resident’s complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure).
The resident has stated that the landlord’s actions (or inactions) caused a significant impact to their mental health. It is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reported matters and an impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent expert reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, they should seek independent legal advice.

Boiler repairs

The landlord’s repair policy (available from its website) confirms it is responsible for repairs to the heating and hot water within its tenanted properties.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, it appears their heating and hot water system comprised a system boiler and hot water tank.
The resident has provided evidence of reporting issues to their landlord about their heating and/or hot water on at least 14 occasions during the period this investigation is considering. They also reported a complete lack of heating and hot water on:
1. 27 October 2021 – they stated they had been without heating and hot water since their boiler had been shut off 3 months earlier.
2. 26 June 2023 – they stated their boiler had failed 4 months earlier, leaving them without heating and hot water.
3. 30 April 2024 – they stated the landlord’s contractor had advised the boiler should be turned off until it could be repaired. This had left them without heating and hot water.
The resident’s evidence indicates that, over the years, the landlord had attended to inspect the heating and hot water several times. The resident has not suggested that they repaired the boiler themselves (either directly or by finding their own contractor) and it would therefore appear the landlord did complete some repairs to remedy the lack of heating and hot water. It also appears the landlord had identified possible solutions to the boiler not turning off, although it is unclear whether they were all implemented. In any event, the evidence suggests the solutions it did try did not address the root cause and were not a full, effective, or lasting repair.
Lack of heating and hot water is likely to have a significant adverse impact on a resident. Not being able to turn off the heating and/or regulate a high temperature in the property could also cause significant adverse impact to a resident. Where this happens repeatedly over an extended period, especially if each individual instance lasts for a substantial time, it is likely to cause significant distress and inconvenience. It is important that landlords can demonstrate they acted promptly and took all reasonable and appropriate steps to repair the issue and support the resident. This could include providing other means to control the temperature in the property and/or access to facilities for washing.
Given the lack of evidence from the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the actions the landlord took or its reasons for any actions (or inaction). There is no basis on which the Ombudsman can conclude that the landlord acted promptly or in a reasonable or appropriate manner. The Ombudsman therefore considers there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of boiler repairs.
The Ombudsman understands that, in or around August 2024, the landlord replaced the resident’s heating and hot water system with a combi boiler. While this resolved the ongoing issues, it does not address the impact on the resident. The landlord did not make any offer of compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This was not reasonable or appropriate.
The resident has indicated that they were without heating or hot water for at least 7 months (out of the approximately 3.5-year period being considered by this investigation). This is substantial period to be without heating or hot water. For those periods where they did have heating, the resident has not indicated there was any point where the boiler was working as expected. The evidence they have provided suggests the boiler was instead continually heating their property. The Ombudsman considers this was likely to have had a significant adverse impact on the resident and their ability to enjoy their property. It also appears they had needed to take significant time to repeatedly report these matters to the landlord. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Leaks and flooding within the property

The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for repairs to leaking pipes.
The resident has stated in their complaint that there were leaks in their kitchen and bathroom for several years. They have provided evidence that they gave the landlord a photograph showing a long-standing leak from their flat on 23 June 2023. They have also provided details of several discussions they had with the landlord (and its contractors) between June 2023 and November 2023 about the leaks originating in their flat and affecting the below properties. They have stated the landlord refused to properly investigate in their flat or listen to what they were telling it.
The landlord attended the resident’s flat in December 2023 to refurbish the kitchen. The resident has reported that, when the landlord removed the existing kitchen, they found a long-term leak from the sink and a pipe connected to the washing machine. It also appears that the resident’s hot water tank was venting water due to overheating and this was causing a leak.
While the landlord has stated it attended and resolved leaks in 2021, 2022, and 2023, it has not provided any evidence on which the Ombudsman can assess the actions it took or its reasons for any actions (or inaction). There is no basis on which the Ombudsman can conclude that the landlord acted promptly or in a reasonable or appropriate manner. The Ombudsman therefore considers there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks and flooding.
The Ombudsman understand that the refurbishment of the resident’s kitchen and the replacement of the boiler have resolved the leaks. The landlord has not offered any compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused. This was not reasonable or appropriate.
The resident has said that the leaks and flooding had a significant adverse impact on their wellbeing, their ability to have an undisrupted daily life, and their relationships with their neighbours (who had been affected by the leaks from the resident’s property). The landlord has not provided any evidence which disputes this or indicates that any impact on the resident was out of its control.
Even if the landlord had been unaware of the leaks prior to June 2023, it still took approximately 6 months for the landlord to resolve the leaks from the kitchen (December 2023) and approximately 13 months for it to resolve the leak from the hot water tank (August 2024). This is a substantial period for the resident to have been dealing with leaks.
Taking the above into account, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £800 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of carbon monoxide warnings

There is a clear dispute between the resident and the landlord about whether the resident had reported that their carbon monoxide alarm had been triggered. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to explain what it considered when investigating the stage 1 complaint. It has also not provided any evidence that it had robust processes in place to ensure proper record keeping and that it followed those processes. There is therefore no basis on which the Ombudsman can conclude that the stage 1 finding was reasonable.
Even if the resident had not previously reported any issues with carbon monoxide, the stage 1 complaint should have been a trigger to the landlord to carry out further investigations.
Since March 2020 landlords have been required, under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation during a tenancy. This obligation applies to most types of tenancy. The presence of carbon monoxide means a property is unlikely to be fit for human habitation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have satisfied itself that the property was, and remained, fit for human habitation. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it had either done this or that it considers the obligation under section 9A does not apply. This is a failure by the landlord.
An unresolved carbon monoxide leak has the potential to cause serious harm or death. It would be reasonable for a landlord to treat any report of potential carbon monoxide within a property as an urgent or emergency matter. This would remain the case even where there is an operational carbon monoxide alarm in the property (as appears to have been the situation in the resident’s complaint). There is no evidence that the landlord took any urgent action after becoming aware that the resident’s boiler may have been emitting carbon monoxide.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of carbon monoxide warnings.
While there is no evidence of significant adverse impact, the Ombudsman does acknowledge the possible presence of carbon monoxide is likely to be unsettling to a resident. The disruption of the alarm going off (and the need to have the landlord attend to shut it off on at least one occasion) would have been frustrating and inconvenient to the resident. For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £500 in recognition of any distress or inconvenience caused.

Repairs to the communal lift

The landlord’s stage 1 response indicates that it accepts it is responsible for repairs to the communal lift. The resident’s service charge includes costs related to the lift.
The resident has provided evidence of reporting issues with the lift on at least 3 occasions, including their report of being trapped in the lift. The evidence they have provided indicates that the landlord had taken steps over the years to repair the lift, but had not provided a full, effective, and lasting repair.
While the landlord stated they had carried out repairs in June 2023, the resident has provided evidence that the lift had continued to break down after that date. This includes 3 emails from the landlord to residents notifying them the lift is out of action.
Without any evidence from the landlord the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the lift breakdowns were isolated incidents or were indicative of a larger issue with the lift. The lack of evidence also means the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted promptly or in a reasonable or appropriate manner.
The Ombudsman accepts that being trapped in a lift is likely to have an adverse impact on a resident. Specifically, the Ombudsman acknowledges it is likely to have been frustrating. As this issue still appears to be unresolved and that there is the lack of evidence that the landlord has acted reasonably or appropriately, the Ombudsman considers there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal lift.
The landlord did offer compensation in respect of this matter. This comprised a refund of 2 months service charge for lift maintenance, as well as £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of being trapped in the lift. The Ombudsman does not consider this offer is reasonable or appropriate to the circumstances.
Given the landlord appears to have accepted that it should refund the relevant service charge for periods where the lift has been out of action, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to identify all periods where the lift has been out of action since October 2021 and consider whether a further refund would be appropriate.
The Ombudsman also considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay £200 in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident in reporting repeated issues with the lift, as well as to recognise the distress and inconvenience of being trapped in the lift.

Communal cleaning and maintenance

The landlord’s stage 1 response indicates that it accepts it is responsible for cleaning and maintaining the communal areas. The resident’s service charge includes related costs.
The resident has stated in their complaint that the issues with cleaning have been ongoing for many years.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that housing officers carry out quarterly inspections of estates, it has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that these checks did take place in the resident’s building. It has also not provided any evidence of any periodic maintenance plans and/or agreements for the resident’s building, or evidence it has carried out planned maintenance (such as re-decoration or replacing equipment) as and when necessary.
Landlords are entitled to contract a third party to provide services, such as cleaning, on its behalf. However, the landlord remains responsible for any actions taken (or not taken). Landlords should have clear service level agreements and/or processes to monitor the level of service that the third party has provided.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the agreement it has in place with the cleaning contractor, or how it monitors the level of service the contractor has provided. While it states its contractor had provided it with reassurance and photographs of recent cleans, it has not provided any evidence of what it asked the contractor or their response. The photographs (which it sent to the resident) do appear to be date and time stamped, but are not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, of sufficient quality to allow any meaningful view to be reached about whether any cleaning has taken place. The photographs also only show the lift buttons, as well as a small part of the surrounding wall. There is no evidence of any cleaning in any other areas.
Given the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in a reasonable or appropriate manner to ensure it had cleaned the communal areas and completed any required maintenance. The Ombudsman therefore considers there was maladministration by the landlord.
The resident has stated that state of repair and maintenance has been humiliating and embarrassing to them. They have also stated they have needed to take time to clean the lift themselves, as well as buying necessary products to do this. The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of this.
In addition, on the basis of the landlord’s apparent position on refunding the relevant service charge when the lift was not operational, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to also consider whether it would be appropriate to provide a refund for service charges related to communal cleaning and maintenance.

Reports about the conduct of housing officers

The resident has stated that housing officers consistently failed to respond to their communications. They also stated that when housing officers did respond they provided false information or attempted to gaslight them.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers the actions of the landlord as a whole. Where a resident has alleged misconduct by a member of the landlord’s staff it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether that is the case. It is instead to consider whether the landlord’s handling of any reports was reasonable and in line with its policies.
As the landlord has not provided this service with any relevant policies, such as how it deals with complaints about staff members or its disciplinary policy, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude that the actions the landlord said it would take in its stage 1 response were appropriate.
Given the nature of the allegations made by the resident, the Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed whether there was a need to take formal action. It should have provided the resident with a clear explanation of what factors it had considered as part of this assessment, as well as details of what it had decided.
There is no evidence that the landlord gave this matter any further consideration following the resident’s stage 2 escalation. This was not appropriate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about the conduct of housing officers.
Failure to appropriately address reports of staff conduct, especially where those reports relate to failures with communications, is likely to cause distress or frustration. Therefore the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress, frustration, and inconvenience caused.

Damage to the resident’s belongings

The resident has not provided any evidence that, prior to their stage 1 complaint, they had reported any damage to their belongings to the landlord or asked for it to cover the costs of any replacements. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide information about any damaged items to allow it to assess what action, if any, would be reasonable for it to take.
There is no evidence that the resident provided this information to the landlord after the stage 1 response.
On this basis, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of damage to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord took 76 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It was also necessary for this service to contact the landlord twice to request it issued its stage 1 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code (which requires a stage 1 response be issued within 20 working days) and was not appropriate.
The landlord did not issue a final response following the resident escalating their complaint. It also did not issue a final response after this service issued a CHFO. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to issue responses in line with its policy and the Code significantly delayed the resident’s right to bring their complaint to this service. Even where the resident contacted this service for assistance the landlord failed to provide us with timely responses or comply with the CHFO. This was not appropriate.
The landlord failed to provide this service with the evidence we had requested. This resulted in a further CHFO being issued, which the landlord also did not comply with. This was not appropriate.
It was reasonable for the landlord to state it could not consider the resident’s complaint about their toilet flush due to the amount of time that had passed. This is in line with section 2.2 of the Code 2022 which states it could be acceptable for an landlord to not accept a complaint where the issue giving rise to it occurred over 12 months ago.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of carbon monoxide warnings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning and maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of housing officers.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3,600 which is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle the boiler repairs.
  2. £800 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of leaks and flooding.
  3. £500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of carbon monoxide warnings.
  4. £200 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of repairs to the communal lift.
  5. £200 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle the communal cleaning and maintenance.
  6. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports about the conduct of housing officers.
  7. £250 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
4. Request copies of the resident’s gas bills since October 2021, as well as any other information the resident considers relevant to demonstrate the impact the faulty boiler had on their fuel costs.
5. Instruct an independent surveyor to inspect and report on the lift. This should assess whether there are any underlying causes to the breakdowns as well as identifying any required repairs. This survey should take place even if the landlord considers it has now repaired the lift. This is to provide reassurance any repair will be full, effective, and lasting. Both the survey and the report must be completed within the above timescale and must be provided to the resident and this service.
6. Inspect the property to ensure there are no outstanding issues in respect of the communal areas. It must provide confirmation of this inspection to both the resident and this service.
7. Review the complaints and evidence supplied by the resident in respect of the conduct of housing officers. It should consider whether any thresholds to take formal action under its relevant policies have been met. It must provide the resident and this service with an explanation of what evidence it has considered, what policies it has reviewed, and the decisions it has reached.
The landlord must within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. Review the evidence provided by the resident about their fuel costs and decide an appropriate level of contribution to make towards the resident’s costs. It must provide the resident and this service with confirmation of its decision and an explanation of what factors it has considered when reaching that decision.
2. Identify all periods since October 2021 where:
  1. The lift was not operational.
  2. It is unable to reasonably satisfy itself, from the records it holds, that it carried out the communal cleaning and maintenance in line with any relevant policies or agreements.
3. For those periods it should review the service charges paid by the resident in relation to the provision of a lift and the communal cleaning and maintenance. It should then consider whether it would be appropriate to provide the resident with a refund. It must provide the resident and this service with confirmation of its decision and an explanation of what factors it has considered when reaching that decision.
4. Pay the resident the amount of any decided contribution and/or refund.
The landlord must within 84 days of the date of this determination:
1. Use its best endeavours to complete any repairs identified by the inspection of the lift. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
2. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must provide the resident and this service with a time-specific action plan for any outstanding works.