The Community Housing Group Limited (202346833)

Background

1. The resident has mental health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. She reported to the landlord that the air source heat pump did not adequately heat the property or provided sufficient hot water to have a bath or a shower. The landlord raised jobs to inspect the problem but did not resolve the issues. In her stage 2 complaint she also informed the landlord that she did not have working smoke alarms in her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about smoke alarms.
   2. The repairs to the heating and hot water.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms is outside our jurisdiction.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the heating and hot water.
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about smoke alarms

6. The resident has raised a complaint issue which has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

The repairs to the heating and hot water

7. The landlord failed to maintain accurate and complete repair records, which undermined its ability to monitor progress, reschedule appointments, and confirm that it had resolved the issues. It did not demonstrate that it followed up with contractors after raising jobs or considered whether the resident had access to alternative heating and hot water when she reported having none. Furthermore, the landlord did not act on commitments made in its complaint responses, nor did it show evidence of learning from previous failings. While it explained the operational differences of air source heat pumps, it did not verify that the system was adequately heating the property or providing sufficient hot water.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and procedures.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

9. Following the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2024, the resident raised additional issues with the landlord, including having no working smoke alarms in the property. On 22 January 2024 in line with its complaint policy, the landlord offered to raise a new stage 1 complaint about those matters.
10. The resident informed us in November 2025, that she had not raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the smoke alarms. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about smoke alarms is outside our jurisdiction. This is because, in line with our Scheme we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

11. The resident said that she had reported issues with her heating system since moving in February 2020. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a job for a boiler leak on 17 May 2021. There were no further reports about the heating system until March 2023. Given the length of time between these reports, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had resolved the leak in 2021. Therefore, our investigation will focus on events from 7 March 2023, when the resident made new reports regarding the heating system.
12. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s report that she was unable to raise heat from the heating system on 7 March 2023. It resolved the matter on the same day, which was within its timeframe of 24 hours for emergency repairs.
13. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records of repairs reported by the resident in March and May 2023. This raises concerns about its record keeping and oversight of the repairs. For example, the resident reported an issue with the heating on 17 March 2023, and the landlord said that its contractor would attend the same day. However, in the absence of records we cannot verify this occurred or the outcome of the visit. While landlords may use contractors, they remain responsible for managing repairs, keeping records, and monitoring completion. The landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of oversight were unreasonable.
14. The landlord failed to respond within its 24 hours timeframe on 12 April 2023, when the resident reported having no adequate heating or hot water. It said it would ask its contractor to arrange an appointment with her, but there is no evidence this occurred. Instead, the evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for the repairs. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it had not acted within its repair policy timeframe for a report of this nature. Furthermore, while it booked a repair 23 days later, there is no indication that it had considered whether the resident had alternative heating or access to hot water, which would have been appropriate in these circumstances.
15. The evidence did not show that the landlord had followed up with its contractor, after it investigated the heating system’s efficiency on 5 May 2023. In January 2024, while investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord followed up with its contractor about the outcome of its earlier investigation. It was only then that it found out that the resident had cancelled that appointment because she was going out. This was unreasonable, it should have known about this sooner and reschedule the inspection, in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. Due to its failings, it did not thoroughly investigate the issues with the heating.
16.  It is unclear also whether any job was completed in May 2023 or whether the issue persisted, as the resident made no further reports of issues with the heating or hot water until raising a complaint in December 2023.
17. We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. In December 2023, the resident informed the landlord that an engineer had said that parts were required to repair her heating system. The landlord showed that it investigated her claim but found no evidence of the event she described. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord. While we are not disbelieving the resident, we are satisfied the landlord investigated the matter and responded to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response.
18. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord failed to reschedule a cancelled appointment (on 27 December 2023) within 7 days, in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. We did not see that it attempted to reschedule or discussed the cancelled appointment with her until 23 days later, when it confirmed its contractor would contact her. This was unreasonable, especially as the resident had repeatedly reported the heating system did not adequately heat her property.
19. Furthermore, although the landlord visited the resident on 8 February 2024, we did not see evidence that its contractor inspected the issue as promised in its stage 1 complaint response, or that the landlord explained why this did not happen. This was unreasonable and left the resident without a resolution to the problems.
20. The landlord completed the installation of the shower in the resident’s property within the timeframes of 365 days for planned repairs, as described in its repairs and maintenance policy. On 8 February 2024 it informed the resident that it would install a new shower. It then raised the repair and completed the installation on 5 April 2024, the date it had agreed with the resident, which was reasonable.
21. A key aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords to follow up on commitments made during the complaint process. While the landlord provided an explanation of the different type of heating system, it did not show that it carried out further investigations as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response. Its failing to act on agreed steps was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise the issues with us. This was also a missed opportunity to resolve the issues sooner, rebuild trust with the resident and show that it had learned from its failings.
22. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that although it visited the property several times, it had failed to find a resolution or communicate effectively with the resident on the matters. Therefore, the question is whether it provided appropriate remedy that put right the detriment caused to the resident.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it would offer £100 to £600 in cases where the resident had to chase repairs, it had failed to thoroughly investigate the problems, had not resolved the issue within a reasonable timeframe and had caused distress and inconvenience to a resident. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance awards for such cases. However, the landlord’s offer of £50 is not within this range and does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing a resolution since March 2023. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in the finding of maladministration.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation in recognition of the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer to pay the resident £50 compensation. This award reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings to adequately investigate the heating system’s performance and either confirm it is working as it should or provide a resolution if it is not.
25. The resident informed us in April 2024, that she had purchased electric heaters, and she sought for the landlord to reimburse her for her additional energy costs. It is unclear when she purchased the heaters and whether she informed the landlord during the complaint process. We cannot order the landlord to compensate her for these without the evidence that it was necessary for her to take those steps. However, we have recommended the landlord to discuss this with her after investigating whether her heating system provided adequate heating and hot water.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It elaborates that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will agree an extension with the resident.
27. In this case, we have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, but it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on the day she confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint. On 12 January 2024, the landlord appropriately agreed an extension with the resident to issue its stage 1 complaint response. It provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

28. A key aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords to follow up on commitments made during the complaint process. The landlord did not show that it carried out further investigations as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issues sooner, rebuild trust with the resident and show that it had learned from its failings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords keep clear and accurate records of the repairs. In this case, the landlord did not keep accurate and complete records of the repairs. This contributed to its lack of oversight of the repairs and monitoring it had resolved the heating system issues.

Communication

30. Landlords must effectively communicate with residents about the repairs. In this case, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had kept the resident updated on the status of her repairs and discussed or rescheduled the cancelled appointments with her.