Together Housing Association Limited (202427347)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terraced house. She is recorded by the landlord as having multiple health conditions, including difficulty breathing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about her air source heat pump (ASHP).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about her ASHP.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her ASHP

4. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its repairs and maintenance policy timescales. Also, its commentsto the resident about her increased energy costswereunreasonable. It acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation. It offered further compensation to the resident since its stage 2 response, which was proportionate, but it only offered this after 19 months, which was unreasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was poor and did not address all the points raised by the resident. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and offered appropriate compensation.

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.

6. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord forced her to have the ASHP installed in August 2022, that it did not scope the work or install this correctly, and that this has increased her energy costs. It would have been reasonable for the resident to raise a complaint about this sooner to the landlord, but we have not seen evidence that she did so before her complaint in May 2024.
7. The landlord said the resident reported an issue with her ASHP in January 2024. It said this was the first report from her after the installation. Its repair records confirm this. There was contact from the resident and repair visits in 2023, but its records show these were for unrelated matters. As such it was reasonable, when the landlord was assessing her complaint, for it to consider events from January 2024.
8. The landlord’s records show the resident reported her ASHP was not working correctly on 16 January 2024. She said a fault code had been flashing since 2022, and it was taking a significant amount of time to warm her house. The landlord visited on 14 February 2024 and arranged follow on work, which it completed on 19 February 2024. This was inappropriately delayed and not in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy, which says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days and not the 34 days it took.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it left the ASHP working correctly following its visit on 19 February 2024 and told her to contact it if things were not right. It said it did not hear back from her and so assumed this was working correctly, which was reasonable.
10. The resident contacted the landlord again about problems with her ASHP on 26 May 2024. She raised thisas a complaint on 28 May 2024 and said this had not worked correctly since installation, there was a constant flashing fault, and her energy bills had increased. She was also unhappy with the previous repair visits and advice given and said its engineers were not adequately trained. Following hercomplaint, the landlord visited the resident on 14 June 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its policy timescale. It said it made minor adjustments to the ASHP but left this working. In its stage 1 complaint response, it said the resident told it she was happy with the work following its visit.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 June 2024 and said the previous visit did not fix the problems with her ASHP. She said her heating was not working correctly and it was affecting her health. As part of the landlord’s investigation, it visited again on 9 July 2024. It found some issues with the booster and how it was functioning and said it seemed the radiators on the heating circuit were imbalanced. It made a follow on appointment for 16 July 2024 and completed the work, which was a day outside of its policy timescale. Its internal records show it contacted the resident on 29 August 2024, who said her heat pump was working “okay”.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted the issues with the ASHP would have caused extra energy use but said its repair records only showed visits from February and June 2024. It said this suggested the faults happened more recently. It also said the resident’s current monthly energy cost was not high considering factors such as her property size and source of energy. The resident was unhappy with this comment, and it was unreasonable for it to reach this conclusion without showing it had considered her personal circumstances, or without reviewing her energy bills for comparison. It did acknowledge a fault with the flashing fault light, which it said may have caused extra energy use and said it could have resolved earlier. In view of this, it offered £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this may have caused her.
13. The landlord told us it had resolved the issues with the ASHP which were the subject of this complaint. However, since its final complaint response, it found a new problem with the immersion heater. The resident has told us it has recently resolved all issues with her ASHP. In view of the ongoing issues with the ASHP since its stage 2 complaint response, it reviewed the compensation it offered at stage 2 and increased its offer to £1,410 in August 2025. It broke this down as £560 for distress and inconvenience since her initial complaint, £50 for a home swapper scheme, and £800 for increased energy costs which it said included the £200 offered at stage 2. However, £50 of the £200 it offered at stage 2 was for its complaint handling. Also, the £50 it offered for the home swapper scheme did not form part of this complaint. Therefore, in assessing the redress offered for its handling of her concerns about the ASHP, we have considered its offer as £1,310.
14. When we identify a failure, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
15. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it gave the resident details of the work it did before it installed the ASHP, including details of its induction with her in 2021 where she did not refuse the installation. It also gave her its post completion certificates, which was reasonable. It gave her information about the ASHP, the training it had introduced, and feedback it had taken to learn from its mistakes. Since its stage 2 complaint response, it also apologised for comments made by its staff member about her energy bill which she was unhappy about. Its actions were proportionate to the effect its failures may have had on her. Its £1,310 increased compensation award is in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings that negatively affected the resident over a significant period of time. In view of this, we find the landlord does not need to offer the resident more redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about her ASHP.
16. However, the fact that it took the landlord from the resident’s ASHP report in January 2024 until August 2025 to offer her proportionate compensation for its failings and her increased energy costs from the ASHP was unreasonable. Therefore, even though it does not need to offer her more redress for this, it was responsible for service failure in its handling of her concerns about the ASHP due to the length of its delay in putting things right.

17. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 May 2024. It responded to her at stage 1 on 17 June 2024. This was in line with its complaints policy timescale of within 10 working days of its 3 June 2024 acknowledgement and that of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, its complaint response was poor. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about her increased energy costs. It would have been reasonable for it to ask her for evidence to investigate this further, but we cannot see that it did. It also would have been good practice to signpost her to organisations for help if she was struggling to pay her bills, but it did not do this until its stage 2 response.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024, which was one working day over its 20-working-day complaints policy timescale and that of the Code. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was proportionate to the failings identified and its offer is in line with our remedies guidance for minor service failures. In view of this, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The resident has said she reported issues with the flashing fault light on her ASHP and was told it would go off by itself. This is not in the landlord’s repairs records. The resident has said she raised this directly with its contractor. The landlord should review its records with its contractors to make sure all repair reports are located on its system.

Communication

20. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable. When the resident raised concerns about not having any annual leave for repair appointments, it attempted to accommodate appointments around her work commitments by considering evening and weekend appointments, which was good practice.