Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

WATMOS Community Homes (202342321)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342321

WATMOS Community Homes

15 January 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

  1. The complaint it about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house owned by the landlord, where she resides with her son.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 12 January 2024. She said that her home was cold, and she was unable to heat it effectively without excessive bills. She said that there were no issues with the loft insulation and her new boiler but queried whether the property had cavity wall insulation.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2024, the landlord said that it found no signs of draughts in the resident’s home during its inspection. It said that the house appeared warm, given that the outside temperature was very cold on the day of its visit. It inspected the external walls and confirmed that the property had cavity wall insulation.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 February 2024, stating that its response did not answer her questions. She had asked for proof of the installation of insulation which it failed to provide. She believed this confirmed that there was no insulation within the exterior walls, making it cold in the winter.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 3 April 2024, it said that it had tried to obtain the relevant paperwork regarding the insulation works. It would arrange to drill a hole within the cemented areas of the exterior brickwork and have a borescope placed in the cavity. This would either prove or disprove the presence of insulation. It provided a copy of the energy performance certificate (EPC) which stated that there was cavity wall insulation.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted it to provide written information detailing the installation date and type of insulation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord and this Service that her son had been in and out of hospital due to the cold temperatures in her home which affected his asthma. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Concerns about cavity wall insulation

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident made enquiries in December 2023 and January 2024 about whether her home had exterior wall insulation. Following her complaint, it visited her home to carry out an inspection on 25 January 2024. Thus, it listened to her concerns and made an appointment to attend within a reasonable timescale.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that the resident had expressed concerns that her home was cold even when heated, that she could see her own breath, especially when icy outside. It said that the doors and windows did not appear draughty, and the house appeared warm given the outside temperature was cold on the day of its visit. It looked at the brickwork on the front and rear elevations and had taken photographs. The brickwork pattern showed that cavities were present, and it could see some drill holes from where retrospective cavity insulation had been installed.
  3. The landlord said it had checked the last EPC for the property, which was undertaken in 2011, and the property was assessed as band C. It made enquiries with the company who undertook the assessment to clarify the survey as it showed the presence of cavity insulation. The company referred to their site notes and photographs and stated there was clear evidence of retro-fill cavity drill holes. Having looked at the photographs it had sent them, they said that it appeared that the property had been repointed at some stage which concealed the drillholes. It had also noticed this and pointed it out during its visit. It confirmed that the property did have cavity insulation.
  4. The landlord demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns, inspected her home, and investigated the presence of insulation.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request she said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as it had not answered her questions. It had not provided proof of when it was installed, by whom, or the type of insulation, which she believed meant that the work had not been done.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that there had been many reiterations of cavity wall insulation guarantee agency over the years which were commonly known as CIGA. In a bid to try and find further information it had emailed CIGA to request certification of any installation, however, not all schemes over the past 20 to 30 years had been registered.
  7. The landlord said it would arrange to drill a hole within the cemented areas of the exterior brickwork and have a borescope placed inside the cavity. This would clarify the queries on the existence of insulation. It would make arrangements to undertake the survey directly with the resident at a convenient date and time. It also referred to the information contained in the EPC which recorded the property as having the benefit of cavity wall insulation.
  8. It would have been challenging for the landlord to have provided written documentation about the insulation where it did not have this available. However, it demonstrated that it had investigated further through writing to CIGA to try to obtain this. This was a reasonable step to take in response to the resident’s request for information. As it was unable to obtain the information, its offer to drill holes to check for insulation was reasonable and shows its continued effort to address the matter.
  9. The resident expressed concerns to this Service that the EPC was out of date. While an EPC is valid for 10 years, landlords do not have to obtain a new EPC during an ongoing tenancy. It would only have to obtain a new certificate if it was reletting the property to a new resident.
  10. Following the landlord’s final response the resident said that it had failed to arrange the work with her directly and 2 men had turned up unexpectedly and proceeded to drill holes. The men said they had called and left a voicemail notifying her of the visit, but she had not received a voice message or had any missed calls. She asked them to check the number they had left the message on, which turned out to be the incorrect number. She found them to be rude and said it was inappropriate to turn up unannounced and carry out the work without her knowledge or permission. They proceeded to drill holes and confirmed the presence of insulation. She asked if they were going to drill holes in the top of the house near the upstairs windows, but they said there was no need as it would be the same as the rest of the house.
  11. The landlord responded and apologised for its employees attending site on 16 April 2024 and commencing drilling works. It acknowledged that it should not have commenced work prior to speaking with the resident. It said it had completed the physical checks and there was conclusive evidence that the cavity insulation was present, which also reinforced the evidence of the EPC certificate.
  12. The landlord’s apology was appropriate given that its stage 2 response had confirmed it would arrange a date and time directly with the resident.
  13. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that as part of its asset management strategy, the property had a stock condition survey undertaken by external surveyors in July 2024. This showed that the loft insulation was 300mm which was more than the 270mm required depth. The heating system had a new boiler in 2022, and the property had cavity wall insulation. It said it had also returned in November 2024 and carried out further investigations, drilling holes at a higher level, which also confirmed the presence of insulation.
  14. While unable to provide written documentation, as requested by the resident, the landlord demonstrated that it investigated her concerns. It was able to confirm the presence of cavity wall insulation and showed that it had inspected the resident’s home for draughts. We therefore find that it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns in the circumstances of this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.