Yorkshire Housing Limited (202418167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418167

Yorkshire Housing Limited

16 July 2025

Amended 5 August 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the air source heat pump (ASHP) in her property.
2. Requests to install an alternative heating system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She moved into the property in July 2023 under an assured shorthold ‘starter tenancy’, which converted to an assured tenancy as of July 2024. She lives in the 2-bedroom bungalow with her husband.
The resident and her husband shared details of their health issues during tenancy sign-up which the landlord recorded on the tenancy profile. The resident has arthritis in her knees and hypertension. Her husband has sciatica and poor circulation.
The resident first complained to the landlord on 8 November 2023. She said:
1. There was a fault with the ASHP and, despite the landlord sending an engineer, the issue was not resolved.
2. She was struggling to warm the house and her heating costs were high. She said she was dreading the winter months.
3. The property had been advertised as having a solid fuel heating system.
4. The landlord should replace the ASHP with an oil-based system.
The landlord did not log a formal complaint but responded by arranging for an engineer to assess the system on 20 November 2023. It attended on a total of 8 occasions between October 2023 and February 2024 in response to the resident’s concerns that the ASHP was not working properly.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 6 March 2024 following a call with the resident on 29 February 2024. The resident:
1. Reiterated her concerns that the ASHP was not working properly, the house was cold, and her energy costs had increased.
2. Explained that due to his health needs, her husband could not be without adequate heating.
3. Said the landlord had not shown her how to run the ASHP efficiently despite her requests.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint and said it:
1. Had explained how the system worked and how to best use it. It said the thermostat should be set at a constant temperature and turned up when required. If the system is turned off or down it takes longer to warm up and costs more.
2. Understood her energy bill was higher in winter but explained the costs in summer would be considerably less than with other heating systems.
3. Would not provide an oil-based heating system as it was committed to reducing its carbon footprint.
4. Would arrange for the manufacturer to assess the system for any faults.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 March 2024. She asked whether the landlord:
1. Intended to replace her neighbours’ oil-based heating systems as part of its carbon reduction strategy. She felt it was discriminatory of it to deny her request while allowing her neighbours to continue using their systems.
2. Had put the correct insulation in place before fitting the heat pump.
3. Would compromise by installing a boiler if she purchased an oil-based heating system.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 25 May 2024 in which it:
1. Confirmed the manufacturer had attended and found issues with the ASHP. It acknowledged it should have identified and resolved these during its previous visits.
2. Acknowledged issues with the system had increased her bills but said the manufacturer did not believe this was by a significant amount.
3. Confirmed it would not replace the ASHP with an oil-based system and said she could raise a further ‘request to improve’ to install a supplementary log burner.
4. Offered her £605 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £480 as a reimbursement for energy costs. This was 50% of the resident’s bills according to the statements she provided it with.
  2. £125 for the impact of its failings.
5. Apologised for its failings and said it had highlighted her experience with its repairs team so it could make sure this did not happen again.
The resident told this Service the issues with her ASHP have continued and the property is not warm enough. She wants the landlord to allow her to install a log burner as a supplementary form of heating.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about the ASHP

Under the terms of tenancy and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and working order. This includes installations for the supply of heating. The landlord also has duties under the Decent Home Standard to ensure its homes provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy in which it sets out timeframes for responding to repairs based on their categorisation. It will attend to emergency repairs in 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 28 days.
In her initial complaint, the resident said the property was advertised as having a wood burning fireplace and she bid for it on this basis. However, when she viewed the property, she saw this had been removed and learned the landlord had fitted an ASHP. She accepted the property as she did not want to be placed at the bottom of the waiting list.
While we do not have a copy of the property advertisement, we do not dispute the resident’s account and understand it would have been disappointing for her to discover the landlord had removed the fireplace. We also accept the resident’s account that the housing officer assured her the heat pump was effective and cost efficient. It was understandably frustrating for the resident that she then experienced issues with the system once she moved in.
However, there is no evidence the landlord aimed to mislead the resident, or that it was even responsible for the property advertisement. Some properties are let through choice-based lettings systems administered by a council or other authority on behalf of a local area. Despite the miscommunication in the property advertisement, the resident understood the property did not have a solid fuel heating system before accepting it and signing the tenancy agreement. On this basis we have found no fault with the landlord.
The resident reported issues with her heating system on 5 occasions between October 2023 and February 2024. She reported concerns with the disinfection cycle which had failed to complete. The thermostat was flashing, had not registered a weather change, and was unresponsive. While there is no indication she was without heating during this period, she explained the system took too long to heat up, the heating was not adequate, and her energy bills were high.
The landlord attended to assess and repair the system on 8 occasions in response to her concerns. On each occasion, it did so within the 28 days for routine repairs under its policy. The job notes suggest its actions included adjusting and resetting the disinfection cycle, cleaning the filter, replacing the contactor and thermostat, re-pressurising the system, and venting the radiators.
While the job notes outline the operatives’ actions, they are technical or brief. While there were faults with the system, it is not clear from the job notes to what extent, and on what occasions, the system was not operating effectively due to these faults, inaccurate settings, or the resident’s lack of familiarity with a new technology.
As part of her complaint, she said the landlord had not shown her how to use the system when she moved in. While it had provided a manual, the resident said it was not in an easy-read format.
The job notes from 3 November 2023 state the operative explained how to use the system. In internal correspondence, the gas team leader said he had also attended and advised the resident how to best use the system. He concluded that some of the issues resulted from the resident using the system as she would a gas boiler which is more responsive to temperature changes. It also advised the resident how to run it in its complaint response. On this basis, the landlord’s response was reasonable. Its gas team leader suggested that it produce an easy-read guide on how to operate and get the best out of the system for the benefit of all residents. We have recommended that it progress this if it has not already done so.
Regardless of issues with how to operate the heat pump, there were faults with the system and how it had been set up which the landlord accepted. The job notes suggest the thermostat and contactor were not working properly, which it replaced. The manufacturer also assessed the system on 2 April 2024 and identified several issues. They identified faults in how the system was wired. They also identified configuration issues with the pump which they said could impact energy costs. They addressed the issues and the resident subsequently reported a reduction in her energy costs.
In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it should have identified these issues sooner. This indicates shortcomings in its operatives’ understanding of the system, or its process for dealing with the repairs. The landlord’s operatives attended on 8 February 2024 and, according to the resident, said the issues were ‘beyond them’ and it would need to recall the manufacturer. On 23 February 2024 she chased the landlord and said she had heard nothing since. It was only after the resident complained in March 2023 that the landlord followed up with the manufacturer.
It was unreasonable that she had to wait so long before it arranged for the manufacturer to inspect the system. It caused her additional frustration and time and trouble in having to chase it throughout February and March 2024. In total, the resident had been reporting issues over a 5-month period. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will be highly productive, fixing most repairs on the first visit. It did not meet this objective to the inconvenience of the resident. She had to facilitate multiple visits and experienced a sub-optimal heating system throughout the winter months, as well as additional energy costs.
The landlord provided appropriate remedy in the form of an apology, and compensation. It followed up with the manufacturer who it said did not consider the financial impact of the faults to be significant, but the resident noted her bills subsequently reduced by half. In any case the landlord acted fairly by rebating half of her energy costs for the period. It also said it would learn from the experience but it has not identified specific learning. It should review its process and ensure it solicits appropriate expertise at an earlier opportunity. It should also consider whether its operatives require further training to be able to identify and resolve issues with the system.
In escalating her complaint, the resident asked whether it had fitted the correct insulation when it installed the ASHP but the landlord did not respond on this point. As the resident identified, it can be more difficult for a heat pump to maintain a comfortable temperature when the insulation is inadequate. Within its internal correspondence, an officer suggested it assess the insulation in December 2023 but there is no evidence it progressed this. We understand that since the resident’s complaint it has assessed the loft insulation and deemed it to be poor. The landlord said it intends to replace or upgrade it later this year.
It was a failure of the landlord that it did not assess the insulation sooner, and that it did not respond to her queries about this as part of her complaint. It missed an opportunity to help her get the best out of her heating system and achieve improved thermal comfort. For this reason, we have found service failure. The landlord should compensate the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to progress this.
The resident informed this Service she is still experiencing issues with the system and the landlord provided records which show engineers have attended to repair and adjust the system on several occasions since the resident’s complaint. The resident said works are also outstanding to repair a leak in the pipework of the heat pump. The landlord’s notes suggest it considers the leak resolved.
The resident also feels the system is not responsive and does not work for them based on their lifestyle. She noted she and her husband work irregular hours and want to be able to turn the heating up and down as they require. She notes her energy bills are higher with the ASHP. We have considered the resident’s request for an alternative heating system below.
We have made several recommendations. The landlord should inspect the system to ensure the leak is resolved and to check the pump is functioning appropriately. It should install the insulation and monitor the impact of this on the property’s ability to retain heat. It should also consider a wider heat loss survey of the property to identify and address any shortcomings in thermal efficiency. It should work with the resident to help her understand how to get the most out of the system based on her and her husband’s lifestyle and routine. Finally, it should also explore whether she would like it to refer her to its money coach for energy billing support if it has not already done so.

Request for alternative heating system

The resident first requested that the landlord install an oil-based heating system in her initial complaint in November 2023. The landlord called her the following day and according to the call notes, told her this was not possible. It is not clear whether it provided an explanation.
In December 2023 the resident requested that it allow her to install a log burner as a supplementary form of heating under the landlord’s ‘right to improve’ procedure. The landlord notes it will not unreasonably withhold consent for requests but will consider the type of improvement requested, the legal rights of the resident, and the effect the improvement may have on the future ‘lettability’ of the property.
We do not have details of the resident’s formal request but the landlord responded and declined this. Initially it stated it could not consider her request on the basis she was on a starter tenancy. However, it followed up and clarified it would be unable to consider any right to improve requests for any solid fuel appliances under its carbon reduction strategy. It explained its policy was not to install, maintain, or allow solid fuel systems. As they became redundant it was replacing them with heat pumps and removing wood burners in the void process. The landlord has also outlined its commitment to carbon reduction and low carbon technologies within its asset management strategy. Ultimately it was clear with the resident about its position, which was reasonable based on its policy.
In its complaint responses the landlord reiterated that it would not install (or allow the resident to install) an oil-based heating system for the same reasons, in line with its carbon reduction strategy.
It did not directly address the resident’s concerns that it had treated her unfairly compared to her neighbours in its response. The resident had queried why the landlord had allowed her neighbours to retain their solid fuel heating systems. She also felt it was unreasonable for it to ‘dictate’ how she kept warm in her home. As discussed, it had provided an explanation of its policy to replace all solid fuel systems as they became redundant in response to her request for a log burner. However, it should have acknowledged and addressed her sense of unfairness in its complaint response. The resident claimed its actions were discriminatory. This was a serious allegation and it should have demonstrated it had considered this.
While the landlord acted in line with its policy, it did not demonstrate consideration of the resident and her partner’s circumstances in how it dealt with the request. The resident had explained her and her husband’s health problems and it had recorded details of these upon tenancy sign up, including her husband’s poor circulation. She had communicated that he was struggling with the temperature in the property and felt the cold intensely. She felt the ASHP was not providing a sufficient degree of warmth for him.
On this basis it could have considered the resident’s request under its ‘accessible services policy’, in line with its duties under the Equalities Act 2010. It is not for this Service to say that it should have granted the request and we note it made ongoing attempts to address issues with the ASHP. While the resident did not directly request a reasonable adjustment, it would have been good practice for it to have explored the household’s needs in more detail, directed the resident to make a request for an adaptation to its policy, or demonstrated that it had considered their needs based on the information it had.
Overall, the landlord acted in line with its policy and provided reasonable explanations for why it would not allow additional or alternative heating systems to be installed. However, it did not demonstrate it had considered the family’s vulnerabilities when denying the request. Nor did it provide a sufficient response to the resident’s concerns it had treated her unfairly. On this basis we have found service failure.
It should apologise to the resident for the shortcomings in its response. It should also compensate her £100 for the distress and frustration caused in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes are in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out standards for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The landlord updated its policy in April 2024 to comply with statutory requirements laid out in the Code and effective from this month.
The resident first complained to the landlord on 8 November 2023. Despite stating that she was “writing to make a complaint”, the landlord did not log or treat this as a complaint.
According to the landlord’s policy at the time, the landlord distinguished a ‘service request’ from a complaint. It defined a service request as an initial request for service or information, such as a repair. It could also ‘de-escalate’ a complaint. This is where staff resolved the complaint satisfactorily at the first point of contact. De-escalations were not treated as formal complaints but were recorded for learning.
The resident had been clear she wished to make a complaint. The landlord has provided no evidence she agreed for it to de-escalate her complaint and it was not appropriate for it do so in line with its policy. While it responded by arranging for its engineer to visit, this did not sufficiently address the multiple concerns she outlined in the complaint.
Had it logged the complaint this would have provided an earlier opportunity for it to consider what it had got wrong and how it could put things right. It also ultimately delayed her bringing her complaint to this Service, causing her inconvenience and frustration.
The resident complained again on 29 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 March 2024. According to its policy from the time, it should have logged the complaint within 2 working days. It did so within 5 working days, which was a small delay. The landlord now has 5 working days to log complaints under its updated policy, in line with the Code. It responded to the complaint after a further 10 working days, on 19 March 2024, which was within the appropriate timeframe.
The resident escalated the complaint on 26 March 2024 and the landlord responded on 24 May 2024. This totalled 40 working days which was double the timeframe specified in its policy and the Code. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 25 April 2024 and told her its response would be delayed. It explained it needed to speak to the various departments involved. It acted fairly by notifying the resident and providing an explanation.
The landlord’s policy allows it to extend the deadline for its response, but it must provide a clear and detailed explanation of when it will respond and this must not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. There is no evidence it managed her expectations about when it would respond and it did not provide a date.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is based on its failure to log and respond to her initial complaint and shortcomings in how it managed her stage 2 complaint. The landlord should pay the resident £120 compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. Figures in this region are appropriate where the landlord’s failings have had an adverse impact on the resident.
In line with its updated policy, the landlord no longer de-escalates complaints but it may treat some concerns as a ‘service recovery’ with similar stipulations. The landlord must resolve the resident’s concerns to their satisfaction during their interaction with it for it to categorise it as a service recovery issue rather than a complaint. The landlord should ensure its staff are clear on its policy and how to distinguish a service request, service recovery, and complaint. It should deliver training based on any knowledge gaps.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the ASHP.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an alternative heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for its failings.
2. Pay the resident a total of £975 compensation comprised of:
  1. £605 that it previously offered as reimbursement for the resident’s energy costs and for failings in how it responded to her concerns about the ASHP. If it has already paid this it can deduct this amount from the total.
  2. £150 for failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the insulation.
  3. £100 for failings in its response to the resident’s concerns it had treated her unfairly.
  4. £120 for failings in its complaint handling.
3. Provide this Service with evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Inspect the resident’s ASHP to ensure the leak is resolved and to check the pump is functioning appropriately. It should also demonstrate how to use the system effectively and efficiently based on her routine and lifestyle.
2. If it has not already done so, consider whether the resident would like a referral to its money coach for energy billing support.
3. Install the insulation and monitor the impact of this on the property’s ability to retain heat. It should also consider a wider heat loss survey of the property to identify and address any shortcomings in thermal efficiency or complete this work in conjunction with its planned retrofit program.
4. Review its process and ensure it solicits appropriate expertise at an early juncture where there are ongoing issues with a heating source.
5. Consider whether its operatives require further training to be able to identify and resolve issues with an ASHP.
6. If it has not already done so, produce an easy-read guide on how to operate and get the best out of an ASHP for the benefit of all residents.
7. Ensure its staff are clear on its complaints policy and how to distinguish a service request, service recovery, and complaint. It should deliver training based on any knowledge gaps.