Tandridge District Council (202334587)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom property. She told the landlord that the temperature in her property was between 9 and 12 degrees Celsius even with the heating on. The resident is of pension age.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The temperature in the resident’s property.
   2. A damp bathroom floor.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration with:
   1. The temperature in the resident’s property.
   2. A damp bathroom floor.
4. There was service failure with the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The temperature in the resident’s property

5. The landlord had a responsibility to consider if the temperatures were appropriate in the property. While it did take some action to try to remedy the situation, these were not effective. The landlord did not assure itself that its contractor’s findings that the resident having the boiler off was the sole reason for the temperature concerns within the property.
6. The landlord also did not abide by the promises it made within its responses to resolve the issues with the resident’s windows by the end of 2024, nor did it install the monitoring devices as it said she was too late for its initial pilot. It has not shown that it explained this was a pilot to the resident, raising concerns with its communication.
7. The landlord did not show that it took proper consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities around the temperature, and the impact on her due to her age as she reported.

A damp bathroom floor

8. The landlord has provided no evidence that it conducted tests to assure itself that the pooling water on the bathroom floor was a result of condensation. It did not abide by its policy timeframes to resolve the issue as it stayed outstanding for at least 4 months. It then did not post inspect the works it had found in August 2023 until July 2024. It is also unclear from its records when it completed the works.

Complaint handling

9. There were minimal delays at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process, and the landlord did not address all the resident’s complaint.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

10. The resident said that the situation had an adverse effect on both her physical and mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of claim as they would have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury. We’ve not investigated this matter further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its actions.
11. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated they were aware of the issue from around 2008 when they moved into the property. They raised a formal complaint on 6 December 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint from 2008, but instead from 2023 to 2024.
12. The resident repeatedly raised concerns with excess cold in the property. She raised concerns about the level of insulation, and the landlord confirmed to us in September 2025, that it completed a cavity wall survey in May 2023 which found insulation in the cavity wall. While the resident may dispute whether the level of insulation was appropriate, improving the level or type of insulation is not an obligation for the landlord.
13. The landlord’s responsibility according to the Decent Homes Standard and the HHSRS was to ensure that the property provided a reasonable level of thermal comfort. Guidance from Public Health England and the HHSRS suggests that temperatures between 18 and 21 degrees are acceptable temperatures for indoor areas. The resident reported that the temperature was between 7 and 12 degrees even with the heating on. This falls far below the suggested level of thermal comfort.
14. We understand that it took several approaches between 2018 and 2024 to try to resolve the issue such as changing radiators, replacing the boiler as part of a planned project, and installing external wall insulation to the front elevation, however the issue remained. The landlord told us in September 2025 that whenever its contractors attended the resident’s property, they said that the resident had her boiler switched off. Its contractors confirmed that there were no issues with the heating system or sizing of the radiators. Despite this however, we would expect the landlord to assure itself that this was the reason for the temperatures in the resident’s property.
15. Doing so may also have allowed the landlord to identify if there were other reasons for the low temperatures reported. For example, it could have completed a heat loss survey to determine if the heat escaped from any of the points found by the resident (such as the back wall). It told us in September 2025 that it had not completed any heat loss surveys or checked to ensure the temperature in the property met the decent homes standard at any point during the resident’s concerns. This was because it would form part of the stock condition survey and energy performance certificate data it was currently collecting. This was unreasonable and it should have taken prompt action to ensure it resolved the situation as best as it could at the earliest opportunity.
16. Further, it has not shown anywhere in the evidence where it discussed the fact she had the boiler off with her and the impact of this on the temperature within the property. Its inspection report in May 2023 also contradicts this, as it says that the heating source was on.
17. The landlord also made assurances in its stage 2 complaint response around resolving concerns with the resident’s window that year (2024). It explained to us in September 2025 that it had replaced the windows in April 2025. The delay was due to the discovery of asbestos in the soffits, and it was aware of this as early as 11 December 2023 as it discussed this delaying installation of the windows internally. It had explained in its stage 1 response that there were complications but still made an assurance that it would complete the works that year in its stage 2 response. Based on this Between 31 December 2023 and April 2025, there was a delay of over 3 months in the landlord replacing the windows, in line with its stage 2 assurance and this was unreasonable.
18. The landlord also said that it would install meters to monitor the humidity and air temperature. The monitor would also allow it to understand why the boiler was not raising the temperature in the property. It told us in September 2025 that it did not do so. This was because, it said she was too late for its initial pilot of monitoring devices in 5 properties and the inclusion within the “Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund 2.2 properties.” The resident also raised concerns about the time of year it wished to complete the monitoring as it was approaching the warmer seasons, and its findings would not be a true reflection of the concerns she faced in the winter.
19. While we appreciate that the landlord has explained that the monitoring devices it suggested was a pilot approach, it did not explain this to the resident. Doing so may have allowed her to decide with more urgency. When asked if it considered the resident’s concerns about the time of year it wanted to complete the monitoring, it said it looked to insulate and improve the thermal efficiency of the property as soon as it could.
20. Throughout this matter, the landlord’s approach has not shown that it took appropriate consideration around the vulnerabilities expressed by the resident. This was in relation to the temperature of the property and the impact on her health due to her age. We would have expected to see the landlord consider if it needed to take more prompt action due to this, especially as she repeatedly raised this as part of her concerns.
21. It may also have been appropriate for it to revisit whether the property remained appropriate for her based on her concerns. It has not shown that it did. Doing so would have been a customer focused approach, especially as the temperatures described fall below the recommended levels, and a potential health and safety risk. The landlord told us that it had not heard from the resident since her neighbour’s property became tenanted. It is unclear whether this led to a resolution to her concerns. She however explained to us on 23 September 2025 that there was no difference in the temperature of her property.

22. The landlord completed a mould inspection on 8 August 2023 and said it assumed that as the resident raised concerns with heating and energy, the property was not well ventilated. It believed the pooling water on the bathroom floor was condensation, and it also found concerns with the mechanical extraction in the property. It discussed the issue internally on 11 December 2023 and explained its findings to the resident in its complaint response in January 2024.
23. While we understand that it is a reasonable conclusion to reach that heating concerns may contribute to condensation within a property, we would expect that a landlord reached such a conclusion by completing appropriate tests. This allows it to assure itself that it had actual found the root cause of the issue.
24. Further, the repairs handbook and the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment make it clear that such issues are its responsibility to resolve in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord has explained that it does not have a damp and mould policy, as such we have used the timeframes within its repairs policy as an indication of a reasonable timeframe in which it should resolve such issues. As it found the issues on 8 August 2023, in line with its routine repair timeframe of 30 working days, it should have resolved the issue by 19 September 2023. The evidence suggests that the matter remained outstanding until at least 27 January 2024, a period of over 4 months. This was inappropriate, and not in line with its repairs policy.
25. The landlord’s records then show that it post inspected the works recommended by the inspection of 8 August 2023, on 29 July 2024 and found it did not need to take any further action. This was however in relation to the extraction fans, and mould works. It makes no mention around the works to the flooring, and as such, it is unclear whether the landlord resolved the issue.
26. The landlord provided us with repair records, however, these related to works to the entire block, rather than the resident’s specific property. The landlord’s poor record keeping around this aspect of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.

27. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 3 working days outside of its complaints policy and this was inappropriate. However, there is no evidence of a significant detriment to the resident due to this. It provided its stage 2 response within the necessary timescales which was appropriate.
28. The landlord however did not address all the resident’s complaint. While it explained its findings around the bathroom floor at stage 1, it did not explain how it planned to resolve the issue to the resident. This saw her raise her concerns around this following its stage 2 response.

Learning

29. The landlord should ensure that it considers whether a resident’s vulnerabilities are material to the issue and could lead to a worsening of their conditions and concerns. If so, it should use this to inform whether it needs to act quicker to resolve their concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord provided us with repair records for the entire block, rather than the specific records for the resident’s property and concerns. It provided evidence that it inspected in August 2023 but provided no information on when it completed the identified works from the repairs. It only explained that it post inspected the works in July 2024. Better record keeping allows for accurate information to draw conclusions on the appropriateness of the landlord’s actions and response times.

Communication

31. There were a few concerns with the landlord’s communication with the resident across all aspects of her concerns. The landlord in future should ensure it takes appropriate steps to ensure it communicates its findings and keeps the resident updated about her concerns.