The Extracare Charitable Trust (202319027)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319027

The Extracare Charitable Trust

13 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive heat in the property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The tenancy began in December 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor apartment, within an older person’s retirement housing scheme. The property is located above the boiler room, which houses a community heating system. The resident is an older person.
It is understood that the resident had reported concerns about excessive heat in the property soon after she moved in, which she attributed to heat transference from the boiler room. It is understood that the landlord investigated this at the time and committed to a course of action to provide a resolution.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 14 July 2022. The resident accepted that the landlord had done its best in the past, to address the level of heat in the property. But said the problem had not been fully resolved. She asked the landlord if it would consider arranging more insulation or install some fans to draw the heat, which had been suggested previously. She explained that the conditions in the property were having a detrimental impact on her physical and mental health and appealed to the landlord to find a solution.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 16 September 2022. The landlord explained the action that it had taken to resolve the substantive issue in the past. It said that it had found no evidence of service failure. But apologised for the length of time it had taken to evaluate its position, to introduce insulation, and to review what else it could have done to allay her concerns.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 September 2022, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. The resident explained that she had been suffering with excessive heat in the property for the last 5 years. She noted that the landlord had been monitoring the temperature in the property over the last 4 years. But suggested, this alone, would not resolve the situation. The resident said that she was confident that the landlord had the expertise to resolve the matter, as well as the willingness to do so.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint on 15 May 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint. The landlord:
1. Concluded that the actions it had taken to resolve the substantive matter of complaint had not been sufficient and remained unresolved.
2. Recognised that the heat in the property had caused, and was continuing to cause, the resident a great deal of distress.
3. Accepted there had been failings in its handling of the substantive issue and its handling of the complaint, for which it apologised.
4. Committed to a course of action to find a resolution and offered £500 compensation for the inconvenience that had been caused.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 27 September 2023, that the landlord should resolve the overheating in the property or move her to another apartment on the same development at its own cost.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation will consider the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in its final stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions between 8 July 2021 and 15 May 2023. This being approximately 12 months prior to the Ombudsman asking the landlord to issue the stage 1 complaint response, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine the cause of the overheating in the property or any defect liability. But the Ombudsman will consider if the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about overheating and in line with its obligations.
The resident mentioned at stage 1, that she would never have bought the property, had the landlord made her aware that it was above a boiler room. In property transactions the seller is legally obliged not to mislead the buyer, but other than that, the onus is on the buyer to satisfy themselves that the property is appropriate for their needs before they purchase it. If the resident feels that the landlord misled or mis-sold the property to her, this would be a matter best suited for the courts.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Again, this is a matter best suited for the courts. But this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation.

Guidance, the lease, and the landlord’s responsibilities

The Ombudsman understands that overheating is the accumulation of warmth within a building to an extent where it causes discomfort to the occupants. There is no clear definition of the term overheating or the specific conditions under which this can be said to occur. Nor is there any statutory maximum internal temperature in UK Building Regulations or current health and safety guidance.
However, work carried out by the Chartered Institute of Building Services (CIBS) and Arup, suggests that most people begin to feel warm at 25ºC and hot at 28ºC. According to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a healthy indoor temperature is around 21ºC.
According to the HHSRS, as temperatures rises, thermal stress increases, initially triggering the body’s defence mechanisms such as sweating. High temperatures can increase cardiovascular strain and trauma, and where temperatures exceed 25°C, the risk of stroke and mortality can increase.
Overheating is not just a function of high temperature, other factors such as lack of air movement and sustained exposure to high temperatures will also affect the comfort level of occupants.
Factors which may contribute to overheating might include, inadequate provision or control of ventilation, the amount and position of thermal insulation, the extent and orientation of glazing, the condition and control of any heating system. In the case of community heating systems, customer interface units and distribution pipework may also radiate heat, as these are permanently charged with hot water all year around to meet hot water demands. If these systems are not well insulated, heat can be transferred to other parts of the building.
The Ombudsman cannot make a definitive interpretation of the resident’s lease agreement. Nonetheless, having reviewed the lease agreement, the resident appears to have been responsible for any conduits within the apartment. The landlord was responsible for any conduits lying below the floor and floorboards, or any conduits laid in any part of the building which did not serve the apartment exclusively. The landlord was responsible for the boiler room and the community heating system.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive heat in the property

For context, according to the landlord’s records, there were no reports of overheating in the property prior to the resident’s occupation. The resident began reporting excessive heat in the property in 2018. It is not in dispute that the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns several times prior to the stage 1 complaint and had taken measures to try to resolve the issue. The exact nature of any historical investigations and measures taken are unclear from the evidence seen. The resident suggested in the stage 1 complaint, that the landlord’s past efforts had been successful in stopping heat transference through the walls, but it had not resolved the heat transference through the floors.
The resident reported ongoing issues with overheating in the property on 8 July 2021. The landlord took steps to resolve the matter for the resident between 8 July 2021 and 13 October 2021. This involved installing some extra insulation on the boiler room ceiling and venting an adjacent storeroom where the flue was situated. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved.
The landlord proactively monitored the temperature in the property between 14 October 2021 and 19 November 2021, to check that the measures it had taken had been effective. This was good practice. According to the results, temperatures fluctuated in the property between 18.4°C and 26.4°C. But the average temperature recorded was 21.4°C, which was in line with HHSRS recommendations. The landlord might have committed to a period of intermittent monitoring over an appropriate timeframe, to satisfy both itself and the resident, that the matter had been fully resolved.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint in July 2022, after continuing to experience issues with overheating in the property. She appealed to the landlord to find a solution, given the conditions in the property were detrimental to her physical and mental health. The resident asked if it was possible for the landlord to install more insulation, to prevent heat transferring to the property, through the floor. She mentioned that it might consider installing some fans to draw the heat, which its contractors had suggested in the past.
The landlord considered the resident’s representations, noting that earlier monitoring carried out in the property had found temperatures to be within expected limits. It remarked that external temperatures had been high that summer, which had caused the ambient temperature to increase across all of its retirement villages. While it suspected that any increase in temperature reported by the resident was due to the hot weather, it committed to investigating if there were any other steps that it might take. This was positive and shows that the landlord was being supportive.
According to the stage 1 complaint response on 16 September 2022, the landlord inspected the boiler room and found the insulation previously installed, to be intact and showing no signs of deterioration. It is unclear when the landlord carried out this inspection. It is also unclear why the landlord apologised for its delay to introduce the insulation, as there is no evidence that it arranged or carried out any further insulation works around this time. Ultimately, the landlord concluded that the temperature in the property was within acceptable limits, despite increased ambient temperatures experienced during the summer, across all of its retirement villages.
The landlord’s Scheme Manager raised internal concerns on 22 September 2022, about the stage 1 complaint outcome. The Scheme Manager said:
1. That no one had actually spoken to the resident about her concerns and suggested that its response was based on historical investigations.
2. Explained that the resident had been recording the temperature in the property, which often exceeded 28°C, all year long.
3. Noted that the resident had bought an air conditioning unit, which had little effect on the temperature in the property.
4. Explained that due to the overheating, the resident did not sleep well, was having to sleep with the windows and the balcony door open which was a security concern, was having to lay blankets on the floor to absorb some of the heat, and was having to spend the majority of her time in communal areas because she could not stand the heat.
5. Suggested that the landlord ought to satisfy itself that there was not an issue with excessive heat in the property and consider if there was anything else that it could do to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord considered this information over the course of the next few days, which led to it commit to review its position, once a key member of its staff returned from annual leave on 27 September 2022. It is evident that the landlord’s staff felt empowered to challenge its own decision, if there was any suggestion that it had not taken into account all of the circumstances of the case. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2022, unaware of the landlord’s intentions.
The landlord met with the resident on 3 October 2022. The purpose of the meeting was unclear from the evidence seen. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any contemporaneous notes from the meeting, confirming what the parties discussed. But according to the landlord’s internal communications, the landlord told the resident that it had sent instructions to its contractors to lag pipework and install temperature sensors in the property. The landlord committed to reviewing the temperature readings, following completion of the agreed works. This suggests that the landlord had accepted there was an issue with overheating and was taking decisive action to resolve the matter for the resident.
The landlord installed the temperature sensors on 10 October 2022. It completed the lagging was sometime on or around 19 November 2022. It would have been reasonable to have expected the lagging work to have been completed in a timelier manner, given the circumstances.
Temperature monitoring began on 28 November 2022, as it committed. The landlord also began investigating the cost of providing air conditioning to the property and the costs involved if the resident were to move to another property on the development. This was positive and shows that the landlord was exploring a range of options for resolution.
The Ombudsman was unable to verify that the temperature readings collected by the landlord between 28 November 2022 and 16 May 2023, which was when the stage 2 complaint response was issued. But the landlord did not dispute that the heat in the property was “excessive” and remained so.
The landlord accepted at stage 2, that there had been failures in its handling of the substantive issue and in its complaint handling, for which it apologised and offered compensation. It committed to buying 2 portable air-cooling machines, to help cool the ambient temperature in the property. It recognised that this would not resolve the underlying issue, but said it was confident that this would provide the resident some relief. It committed to working with the resident to install specialist heat monitoring equipment in the property to assess heat “hot spots” and to carry out further investigation. It said it would offer the resident support from its Wellbeing Advisor, to see if there was anything further it could do in relation to her health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s stage 2 response shows that it was taking responsibility for the failings it itself had identified, that it was being supportive, and that it was endeavouring to put things right for the resident. The level of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 was proportionate to the failings that the landlord did itself identify.

Following issue of the stage 2 response

The landlord sought to keep the commitments it made in the stage 2 complaint response.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 4 March 2025, that the landlord had been unable to resolve the substantive issue. But had offered her the lease on a different apartment, which she accepted in July 2024. The Ombudsman was encouraged by the landlord’s decision, and its commitment to finding a long-term solution for the resident, given the circumstances. The resident explained that she had signed the lease for the new apartment in November 2024 and was due to receive the keys shortly. The resident said she was satisfied with this outcome.

Overall

The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about overheating and committed to a course of action to put things right for the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings identified by it up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s commitment to provide the resident with fans and welfare support as part of the stage 2 resolution, showed that it was trying to provide interim support while continuing its investigations.
Ultimately, the landlord was unable to resolve the overheating in the property, following the stage 2 response, after exhausting all viable options available to it. It was positive that the landlord later offered the resident the lease on another apartment, which she accepted. In the Ombudsman’s view, this satisfactory resolved the substantive matter of complaint for the resident.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive heat in the property.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive heat in the property.