Together Housing Association Limited (202307129)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202307129
Together Housing Association Limited
31 July 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 the resident’s reports of high temperatures in the property.
- The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a new build eco-property. She lives with her daughter.
- The resident reported temperature issues in the property on 3 March 2021. She said the downstairs of the property had reached 30°C and it was very cold upstairs, reaching a maximum of 14°C. The landlord spoke to the developer regarding the issue and the developer said it would contact the resident. The resident raised a complaint on 13 July 2021 as she said the developer had not resolved the heating issues and the property reached 30°C.
- It is evident that the issues with high temperatures persisted throughout 2022 and the resident reported she had to leave the property as the heat was making her daughter unwell. The resident subsequently raised a further complaint on 22 May 2023. She said the issues with high temperatures in the property were ongoing, and her dog had passed away due to heat exhaustion. She said in line with the tenancy agreement she should have a safe home.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023. It said 3 contractors had inspected the heating system several times and all found it to be working correctly. It had arranged surveys to assess whether the fabric of the property caused the issues, rather than the equipment, and would update the resident when it received the findings.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2023 as she had not received any updates in 2 months and the landlord had not responded to her emails.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 September 2023. It acknowledged that the temperature was making the resident uncomfortable and the time taken to resolve the issue. It said it would further pursue the matter with the developer and look at alternative solutions if they did not engage. It would update her fortnightly and provide any new information immediately. It had discussed a possible transfer with her if it did not reach a resolution in a reasonable timeframe and it would deliver a temporary air conditioning unit.
- The resident referred her complaint to the Service as the landlord had not resolved the issue. She said the property was uncomfortable due to the high temperatures, that had reached up to 38°C, so she often slept on her mum’s sofa. She said that the heat made everyday tasks such as cooking and cleaning uncomfortable to do. She also said the air conditioning unit provided by the landlord was not compatible with the property. She said the landlord’s communication was poor.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the 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 are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. 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 and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high temperatures in the property
- In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for heating in good repair and proper working order. The landlord’s website states it will complete priority 1 repairs, which are an immediate risk to life or the property, within 24 hours, priority 2 repairs, which do not pose an immediate risk, within 28 days, and priority 3 repairs, which often take longer than a day and require multiple trades, within 63 days.
- The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify and protect against potential hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. The HHSRS identifies excessive heat, described as “threats from excessively high indoor air temperatures”, as a hazard. It notes that when temperatures exceed 25°C, strokes and deaths are more likely. Given the potential risks posed by such temperatures, it is reasonable to consider internal temperatures of 25°C and above as excessive. As the resident reported temperatures exceeding 25°C, the landlord should have taken actions to resolve the issue and ensure the property was safe.
- In its submission to the Service, the landlord said that the property was still in the defect period when the resident initially reported the issues so it was limited in the actions it could take to prevent impacting the contract agreement and warranty. It is acknowledged that as the repair fell within the developer’s remit of responsibility, it was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. Nonetheless, it was still responsible for pursuing the matter with the developer to ensure the issue was resolved in full within a reasonable timeframe.
- The resident initially reported hot temperatures in the property on 4 March 2021 and the landlord referred the matter to the developer. The resident further pursued the matter on 20 May 2021 and 13 July 2021, when she raised a complaint. The landlord told the Service that it worked with the contractor and heating provider to facilitate a resolution under the terms of the warranty. It said the staff member that handled the matter has since left the organisation, so it was unable to access or provide the communication records. As a result, the Service is unable to assess the actions taken during this time or how often the resident had chased the matter. Nonetheless, it is evident a full and lasting resolution was not put in place. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to assess its record handling practices to prevent a recurrence of a similar issue.
- Although the issue was more prominent during summer, the resident reported that the ground floor was hot during winter and the upstairs was freezing cold. As the heating source was underfloor heating in the downstairs of the property, she was unable to heat the upstairs without further raising temperatures downstairs. Between 27 December 2021 and 14 March 2022, sensors found the average temperature in the downstairs of the property was 23°C, so it is understandable the resident would not want to use the heating system.
- At the end of the defect period on 18 January 2022, the landlord reported several outstanding issues with the property including faulty heating on the 1st floor and that it was warm on the ground floor. There is no evidence to confirm whether the developer attended or that the landlord pursued the matter.
- The resident reported further issues with high temperatures on 5 April 2022. The developer said it could not carry out repairs as the landlord had not serviced the Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery system (MVHR), which should resolve the issue. The landlord completed the service on 23 May 2022 and found that it was operating correctly. It therefore took 48 days to complete the work, which exceeded the landlord’s repairs response timeframe by 20 days. This appears to be due to a delay in raising the relevant work order. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding the expected time to complete the service or apologised for the delay.
- The landlord internally stated on 26 July 2022 that it had attended several times, and the MVHR system was working within the required tolerances and to building regulations. The resident said the property was never below 27°C and she thought the issue may be caused by the insulation, rather than the heating system. Given that the issues with high temperatures were ongoing despite multiple inspections, the landlord should have considered possible alternative causes. It was therefore reasonable that it told the resident it would complete a priority 1 inspection.
- It completed inspections on 2 August 2022 and 11 August 2022. It said the property has a system that tracks room temperatures which showed the average temperature only exceeded 25°C between June-August. However, it did not provide temperatures for the other months, so it is unclear whether they fell within appropriate ranges. It also noted the resident was using heating. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend the property and explain how the heating worked, in case misuse of the system was contributing to high temperatures, but there is no evidence it did. It said the property passed building regulations for ventilation and solar gains. The report outlined guidance for managing the property with high temperatures, but there is no evidence to suggest this was shared with the resident. As such, it does not appear it acted on the findings to support the resident.
- There is no evidence to confirm whether the resident pursued the matter between November 2022 and May 2023. Due to the nature of the issue, she is more likely to report the issue during periods of warmer weather. However, the landlord should not rely on the resident chasing the matter for it to take further actions to resolve the issue.
- On 22 May 2023 the resident reported that her dog had passed away due to heat exhaustion in the property. Although the Service is sorry to hear this, as referenced above, we are unable to determine causal links for health issues. Nonetheless, in light of the resident’s report the landlord should have taken steps to ensure the property was a safe environment, particularly as she had also reported health impacts on her young daughter. The landlord took no imminent action to assess whether the property was habitable. It said in its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023 that it would complete further surveys, but the resident escalated the complaint on 21 August 2023 as the landlord had not provided any updates, which was unreasonable.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would speak to the developer again and would assess alternative solutions if they would not engage. This was reasonable given the extensive delays in reaching a full resolution.
- The landlord internally noted on 22 November 2023 that the developer said they would not take further action. It then commissioned an independent MVHR specialist inspection on 6 December 2023 that recommended several works including replacing the MVHR unit. On 16 January 2024 the landlord said it sent the report to the developer and would submit a warranty claim for the whole scheme if they did not respond. The landlord advised on 19 February 2024 that the warranty provider required all properties in the scheme to be inspected and it had experienced delays due to access issues. It said as the resident’s property was not the only affected property, it had to follow the legal proceeding of the contractual responsibilities with the developer. Although it is recognised that such delays were somewhat unavoidable, the landlord failed to update the resident fortnightly as it committed to in its stage 2 response, which caused her additional time and effort as she chased the issue several times.
- The landlord told the Service that due to lack of progress from the developer it replaced the MVHR unit on 1 June 2024 at its own cost, despite not falling within its remit of responsibility. It has since confirmed that the works did not resolve the high temperatures, so it arranged a third-party heating renewal specialist to attend. While this was an appropriate action to take, it would have been reasonable to have taken such steps at an earlier stage, due to the prolonged impact on the resident. The matter currently remains unresolved. It is recognised that an appointment on 17 July 2024 was cancelled as the resident’s daughter was unwell, so it should be rearranged as soon as possible.
- Given the significant impact on the resident, the landlord should have considered interim solutions to improve the resident’s living conditions. This is particularly vital in the summer months as the resident reported due to the high temperatures, she was unable to sleep at the property. The resident initially asked for an air conditioning unit on 10 August 2022, but the landlord did not acknowledge her request. The local council also suggested this to the landlord as a solution. The resident further chased the request in June 2023.
- It is noted the landlord internally discussed the resident’s request on 18 July 2023, and appeared to be against providing an air conditioning unit as it would have to contribute towards the running costs and her neighbour would expect the same treatment. Financial considerations are important, as social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. However, this should not prevent the landlord from taking necessary action to mitigate the impact on the resident.
- The landlord provided an air conditioning unit on 23 September 2023, over a year after the resident’s initial request and over 2 years after she initially reported the temperature issues, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident told the Service that the landlord did not install the air conditioning unit, and it was not compatible with the windows in the property. It therefore did not effectively reduce the temperatures. In its complaint response the landlord said it would pursue a possible transfer if it could not find a solution soon. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord further considered this option. The landlord should therefore put in place a temporary solution until it permanently resolves the matter.
- In view of the evidence, the landlord has failed to put in place a full and lasting resolution to resolve the high temperatures in the resident’s property. The landlord initially took reasonable steps to engage with the developer and has completed several surveys in attempt to establish the cause of the problem. However, it has since failed to progress the repairs, keep the resident updated, or put in place an effective interim solution to mitigate the impact of the high temperatures. There is also no evidence to confirm whether the landlord assessed whether the fabric of the property contributed to the issues, as it said it would in its complaint response.
- To resolve the issue, an order has been made for the landlord to rearrange the appointment for a third-party heating renewal specialist to attend. It should also arrange a surveyor to inspect the property to assess whether there are any other alternative causes for the high temperatures in the property. As it is currently summer the property conditions will be hotter, more uncomfortable, and more likely to reach hazardous temperatures. The landlord should therefore put in place an interim solution, which could consist of an effective air conditioning system or temporarily moving the resident while works to resolve the issue are ongoing.
- The landlord has not offered any compensation to redress the complaint. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £600-£1000 is warranted in cases where the landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident. As a result of the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue, the resident has been unable to enjoy the property for a period of over 3 years and has alleged she had to move out several times due to high temperatures without support from the landlord. The resident also reported increased energy costs from running the air conditioning unit, that was not fit for purpose. As a result, the landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation.
- It is recognised that several other residents in the scheme have possibly experienced similar issues. The Ombudsman has therefore issued a wider order under paragraph 54g of the Scheme for the landlord to establish whether further action is required to ensure that redress is reached for any other impacted residents. The scope of the review is set out below.
Complaint handling
- In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states a service request should be raised in the first instance, which it will seek to resolve first time.
- The resident initially requested to raise a complaint on 13 July 2021. The landlord told the Service that it handled it as a “get it sorted”, which is an informal way to quickly resolve issues within 5 working days. It is evident that the issue had been ongoing since March 2021, indicating it was unlikely that it could fully resolve the matter in 5 working days, so handling it as a formal complaint would have been more suitable.
- As the resident explicitly stated she wanted to raise a complaint, the landlord should have done so or clearly outlined its reasons for its decision not to, and there is no evidence that it did. There is also no evidence to suggest that it informed the resident that it handled the complaint under its “get it sorted” process, rather than as a formal complaint as the resident had requested. This was unreasonable as it meant the complaint process lacked transparency and the resident may not have been aware that the landlord considered the matter as resolved or how she could further escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
- The landlord told the Service that since 1 October 2022 it no longer has an informal “get it sorted” stage. This is appropriate to ensure its complaints process is in line with the Service’s complaint handling code by only having 2 stages and no informal stage, to prevent the complaint process from being unduly long.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 May 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 August 2023 and the stage 2 response was issued on 18 September 2023. Although the landlord handled the complaint appropriately once it acknowledged it, it took over 2 years to exhaust the complaint process, which delayed the resident’s referral rights to the Service for independent review.
- The landlord did not recognise its failure to properly handle and progress the complaint when the resident initially raised it on 13 July 2021. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £200 compensation is warranted as the landlord has not acknowledged its failing or attempted to put things right.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of high temperatures in the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord must pay the resident:
- £800 for the failure to put in place a full and lasting resolution to the high temperatures in the property or put in place an interim solution to reduce the impact on the resident.
- £200 as it did not appropriately handle the resident’s initial complaint.
- It should provide evidence of the total payment of £1000 to the Service within 4 weeks of this report.
- Within 4 weeks the landlord must write to the resident and the Service to confirm how it will put an interim solution in place while the issue remains outstanding.
- Within 8 weeks the landlord must:
- Rearrange the appointment for a third-party heating renewal specialist to attend.
- Arrange a surveyor to inspect the property to assess whether there are any other alternative causes for the high temperatures in the property.
- Provide the Service with a copy of both reports.
- Provide the resident and the Service with a clear schedule of work outlining how it will resolve the issue with high temperatures in the property.
- Commit to provide the resident with weekly updates on the progress.
- In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, within 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of how it handles repairs that fall within the developer’s remit of responsibility, that have a significant impact on its residents. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
- What it has learned from this case and any changes it will make to prevent a recurrence of similar issues.
- Identification of all other residents in the resident’s scheme who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for the period from January 2021 to present.
- The steps it proposes to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation appropriate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
- The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.
Recommendations
- The landlord is recommended to assess its record handling practices to ensure it has a centralised system to avoid losing records in the event of a staff member leaving the organisation.