Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southampton City Council (202220421)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220421

Southampton City Council

16 January 2025

 

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 resident’s report of repairs to the heating system and the associated charge.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom first floor flat, on a secure tenancy since 2017. She has learning difficulties and has a support worker’s help dealing with post.
  2. The main source of heating within the property is under-floor heating. There is a flat rate charge applied to the tenancy for the provision of the under-floor heating and hot water in addition to the normal rent (Landlord Heating Charge). The under-floor heating and hot water electrical feed is attached to the property separately to the normal electricity supply.
  3. The landlord is billed directly for the electricity supplied for powering the under-floor heating and hot water systems in properties where under-floor heating is present and recoups this cost via the Landlord Heating Charge. A second electricity feed (normal electricity supply) is attached to the property for all other electrical usage and tenants are required to pay their normal electrical bills to the relevant supplier.
  4. The resident has told this Service that around 18 months after moving in to the property, she noticed a switch and found that it operated the under floor heating in the kitchen and hallway. However, when she tried to turn it on, it was not working. She said the lounge under floor heating was also not working fully.
  5. On 25 January 2023 the Ombudsman made the landlord aware of the resident’s complaint that the under-floor heating had not worked properly since she moved in.
  6. A contractor attended on 31 January 2023 to assess the under-floor heating and see whether the bedroom heaters could be moved from behind the doors. It reported that the kitchen and hallway heating was not working; but to replace this with a storage heater was not possible due to space. The only way to compensate the heat in the kitchen area was to fit a storage heater in the hallway. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the bedroom heaters, so it decided to upgrade them in all areas.
  7. The landlord sent an initial response to the complaint on 1 February 2023 and explained its plans to address the heating issues. It noted the resident wanted the charge for under-floor heating to be waived and compensation paid. It said there had been no earlier reports of the heating not working, and it was impossible to establish when parts of the under-floor heating had failed. It said other parts of the under-floor heating would have ‘worked harder’ if there was a partial failure only. It explained that a separate heating charge was applied to all tenants. It did not believe the resident had suffered from any loss of heating, so it would not waive any charges or offer compensation.
  8. The landlord went on to acknowledge that, at the time of the new heating installation, the resident had sensitive personal circumstances and said she was not thinking clearly. She said she had been told by the landlord the heating charge would be scrapped but it then denied this and she was not sure whether the storage heaters ran off the landlord’s electric supply or not. The resident reported that the new radiator in the living room was not working as it should be and was not big enough. In addition, she did not agree that there was no room for a heater in the kitchen.
  9. The landlord issued its formal stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. It thought a contributing factor affecting the property temperature was due to being directly located above the shed areas, and would be considered when recalculating the required heat and optimum temperature for the property. The contractor recommended a full upgrade of the heating, to which the resident had agreed. It explained that the resident could ask for a review of the decision, either from the Tenant’s Panel or the Complaints Resolution Team, if she remained unhappy.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 and 13 February 2023 and said that, as the under-floor heating was getting disconnected on 14 February 2023, she would not be paying the Landlord Heating Charge. The landlord explained that it was installing new storage heaters as a new heating resource, so the heating charge still stood. Its position was that it would not issue a refund if only 1 or 2 units were not working, and the hallway and kitchen were not prime living spaces anyway. It explained this to the resident and her local councillor, and the resident responded by saying she was not happy and would be taking it further.
  11. On 22 February 2023, the landlord spoke with the resident, who said she had ripped up a letter she had been sent by the landlord which had explained why she would not be getting a refund. The landlord reiterated that it was because a refund would only be given if she had no heat at all. In this case, 2 heaters were not working and half of an under-floor heating pad was also not working, but she still had heating.
  12. The landlord spoke with the resident again on 3 March 2023 as she said she could not afford to pay the Landlord Heating Charge and was worried about being evicted for being in rent arrears. The landlord offered assistance with that, but also noted that the resident reported that the new heater in the lounge was not working. A job was created on 9 March 2023 and someone attended the following day and explained how the heaters worked. However, the lounge heater continued to have an issue and a contractor attended on 24 April 2023 to repair it.
  13. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 9 June 2023. It said, although there was a partial failure, the remaining working units “work harder” to maintain temperature within the property, in line with the thermostat setting. When it realised the heating had failed, storage heaters were installed in the areas where the underfloor heating pad had failed. Regardless of whether heating was supplied by under-floor heating or storage heaters, the property was subject to the flat rate Landlord Heating Charge.
  14. The response went on to say that had the heating failed completely, and it then failed to supply appropriate repair/replacement within a reasonable time frame, then it could assess the time she was without heating and consider waving the Landlord Heating Charge for that period. However, that was not the case here, so it agreed with the stage 1 response, that the resident should not be compensated for her Landlord Heating Charge from 2018, either fully or partially.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of repairs to the heating system and the associated charge

  1. Once the landlord was made aware of the heating issues in January 2023, it ensured they were dealt with promptly as a priority repair. This is in accordance with its Repair Timescales & Categories Good Practice Guide, which requires attendance within 10 days of an issue being reported. The Practice Guide does say that, where a resident is vulnerable, a partial or total loss of heating would be treated as an urgent 2 day repair. It is not clear whether the resident was deemed vulnerable by the landlord; however, it does say staff would consider whether a vulnerability was relevant to the emergency. In this case, although the resident has learning difficulties, there is no evidence of this causing her to be more aggravated by the lack of heating as a result; therefore, scheduling it as a priority repair was appropriate.
  2. The landlord established that the under-floor heating was not working in the kitchen and hallway and only partially working in the lounge. As a repair could not be completed that day, an arrangement was made to return based on the advice of the contractor in order for the under-floor heating to be disconnected and new storage heaters to be fitted 14 days later.
  3. Within 3 weeks, the resident’s entire heating system had been investigated and replaced. The Ombudsman notes the resident later reported one of the storage heaters was not working properly, but a contractor attended the following day to repair it.
  4. The resident clearly feels strongly that, because some of the under-floor heating was not working, she should be refunded some or all of the Landlord Heating Charge paid since she moved in to the property. The landlord’s position has been that it would only issue a refund if there was no heating, which was not the case here. The resident has also said that, despite the landlord saying the cost of running the storage heaters falls within the Landlord Heating Charge, she is paying an additional £10 a day for electric and believes this is due to the storage heaters.
  5. The resident was asked to send in evidence that she was being charged for the running of the storage heaters as she claimed, but nothing has been provided. The landlord has submitted evidence of it making payments to the energy company, which indicates it is using the Landlord Heating Charge to cover residents’ heating costs. The resident has a separate meter and is responsible for paying directly to the supplier of her choice for all other electricity she uses, which is not connected to heating, such as the cooker, sockets and lights. It is important to acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in utility costs in general over the last couple of years. This may explain why she is now paying more for electricity, rather than because of the new storage heaters.
  6. It is not possible to say when some of the resident’s under-floor heating failed. Although she said it was 18 months after moving in, it was not reported as an issue at that time. She lived in the property for several years before raising a complaint about it not working properly. While some of the living room heating did not work, it was the heating in the hall and kitchen that was found to be faulty (so, not the main living areas). This may explain why the problem went unnoticed for a prolonged period. What is clear is that as soon as the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention, it took a proactive approach to investigate and fix the problem by replacing the heating system.
  7. It is clear the resident disagreed with the landlord over whether a heater could be fitted in the kitchen, and the Ombudsman is not qualified to offer an opinion on such matters. However, the landlord did seek advice from a professional contractor and arranged for heaters to be fitted based upon their expertise, which was reasonable. The storage heaters are a direct replacement for the under-floor heating (which has now been disconnected) and are attached to the Landlord Heating Charge electrical supply.
  8. The resident is unhappy about paying the Landlord Heating Charge and evidence has been provided which shows she actually asked the landlord to disconnect the heating several times over the years. It is not clear if this was due to affordability, but if the heating had not been working efficiently for a long time, as is claimed, the Ombudsman would expect to see requests for the heating to be turned up, rather than off. This suggests that, irrespective of when the issue with the under-floor heating started, it did not negatively affect the resident’s day to day living.
  9. While the resident’s feelings and the circumstances of this complaint are noted, it is important to highlight that the Tenancy Agreement makes it clear that she has an obligation to pay the Landlord Heating Charge. This Service is unable to vary the terms of the tenancy. Although parts of the under-floor heating were found to not be fully working, it did not appear to affect the overall temperature of the property. Further, the heating was fixed promptly once reported. Therefore, taking all that in to account, there is no evidence of the resident suffering any significant detriment. It follows that the landlord’s decision to not refund any part of the Landlord Heating Charge, was therefore reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s report of repairs to the heating system and associated charge.