Your Housing Group Limited (202304570)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304570

Your Housing Group Limited

25 June 2025

 

Our approach

Our 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). We consider the evidence and look 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 us 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:

a.     A lack of heating and hot water (HHW).

b.     Concerns about service charge issues.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a flat in a sheltered housing scheme (the complex) owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. It provides services to residents including providing HHW, ground maintenance (GM), cleaning of the communal areas and window cleaning. Residents pay for these through a service charge.
  2. The resident has lived in the complex for over 5 years. In late 2023, he moved from the property to a different property in the complex (property 2).
  3. On 25 January 2023 there was “a catastrophic component failure to the main heating system pipework”. The landlord attempted to restore HHW but its efforts resulted in leaks from weak points in the pipework. It soon decided that all HHW pipework had to be replaced. It wrote to residents explaining the situation and offered them heaters. The works took several months. The resident contacted his MP, who contacted the landlord on his behalf.
  4. The resident complained formally on 21 March 2023. He said the landlord had:

a.     Provided inadequate GM, window cleaning and bin collection services which residents paid for through service charges.

b.     Provided unclear information on compensation it would offer for the HHW failures. It also failed to offer him a water heater.

c.      Taken too long to restore HHW and failed to offer support to residents.

d.     Failed to ensure that senior managers attended to speak to residents.

  1. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 4 April 2023. It said:

a.     GM had been substandard on occasion but had improved. It would send cleaning schedules so that residents could check whether cleaners were attending on schedule. The council provided bin collection services and it had asked the council for information.

b.     The HHW replacement would be completed by the end of May 2023. It had provided water heaters only to the most vulnerable residents. It could not now get him one before HHW was restored. It apologised for any inconvenience. It would pay him approximately £950 compensation for the cost and inconvenience.

c.      Several managers were on site much of the time.

d.     It apologised for any inconvenience he had suffered.

  1. The landlord corresponded with the MP throughout the summer of 2023 and, following our intervention in November 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 December 2023. It noted the resident’s concerns as:

a.     Its handing of reports of a lack of HHW since January 2023 and a failure to complete boxing of the new pipes.

b.     Its handling of queries about the increase in the service charge.

c.      Its continued failure to provide GM, cleaning and window cleaning to the required standard.

d.     Its failure to respond to a group letter from multiple residents.

e.     Its failure to provide a stage 2 response.

  1. The landlord responded to these points as follows:

a.     HHW was restored on 5 May 2023. The resident moved to property 2 later in 2023. The heating at property 2 was already repaired when he moved in but it did not complete boxing the pipes until November 2023. It said the boxing had taken longer than expected as it carried out required fire safety measures and asbestos checks at the same time. The resident had also complained about a hole in a wall which it had repaired on 4 December 2023.

b.     The resident had confirmed it had sent him a breakdown of service charges. It had already spoken to him about it and told him that the increase in the charge, which covered HHW, was largely driven by an increase in energy prices.

c.      It apologised that its contractor had not removed leaves on the grounds after raking, but found that communal cleaning was meeting the service standards. It had reduced the frequency of some services in order to keep costs down.

d.     It had attended a meeting at the complex to discuss the issues raised by residents in a letter.

  1. In his referral to us the resident said the landlord’s services were still not of the required standard and it had not provided him with enough compensation for the inconvenience and distress he had suffered.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. During 2023 the resident raised various concerns with the landlord on behalf of other residents whom he saw as more vulnerable than himself. We cannot look at those matters because the resident does not have those residents’ permission to act as their representative. Also, we do not have the information that would allow us to do so. In this report, we have only investigated the parts of his complaint which affected the resident personally.

Reports of a lack of HHW

  1. Repairs will become necessary in social housing and it is not automatically a failure on the part of the landlord that they do. When investigating, we assess how a landlord has dealt with reports of repairs and assess whether they followed their policies and good practice in doing so.
  2. The landlord operates a “right first time” repairs policy. It says it aims to repair all faults on its first visit but, “where this is not possible, [it will] aim to ensure works are completed in as few visits as is possible and [will] keep customers informed through all steps of the process”.
  3. The landlord was faced with a sudden and unexpected collapse of the HHW system on 25 January 2025. That day, and for the next 2 days, it tried to repair the system. It wrote to all residents explaining the situation and sent managers to the complex to speak to them. It was a cold time of year and all residents were aged over 55 (some in their 80s). The landlord therefore offered them emergency electric heating.
  4. The landlord’s contractors failed to solve the problem that week. It wrote to residents on 27 January 2023 saying it continued to work on repairs. It understood that residents would be concerned about the increased cost of electrical heating and said it would compensate them for this. It encouraged them to speak to staff about their concerns and apologised for the ongoing disruption. This was a good response to an emergency situation.
  5. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that the HHW system was beyond repair. The landlord wrote to residents every week throughout the period the heating was out of action. It provided up to 3 oil-filled electric radiators per property and water heaters to the most vulnerable residents. This too was good practice and in line with its policy.
  6. The resident did not receive a water heater despite him having a medical condition. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered giving him a water heater and, in the circumstances, it should have done. This was a failure in service.
  7. The landlord held a meeting at the complex on 2 February 2023 to update residents. It then wrote to them on 9 February 2023 explaining that the entire HHW system, including all pipes in communal areas and in the approximately 60 properties, needed replacement. It said this would be a large job and take approximately 4 to 6 weeks. It required notification of the Health and Safety Executive and the creation of a plan of works.
  8. The resident contacted his MP about his concerns in February 2023 and the MP became actively involved in the case. The MP wrote to the landlord on 16 February 2023 saying that residents needed to know the level of compensation on offer and for the landlord to restore HHW.
  9. In an internal email of 16 February 2023, the landlord said it had set the level of compensation payable at £10 per heater per day over the period without HHW to cover the increased costs. However, it did not tell residents about this decision for some time. The resident therefore continued to be concerned about the increase in his heating bills.
  10. The landlord told the resident that it would pay him £960 for the increased energy costs and inconvenience caused by the lack of HHW between 25 January and 14 March 2023. It said it would pay him a further sum to cover the period until they were restored. It is not clear why it took so long to inform him of this figure and it should have done so at an earlier point. This was a failure which led to increased anxiety because of the cost of electrical heating.
  11. In the event, the resident’s HHW were restored on 5 May 2023 and the landlord paid him just under £2,000 in total. The resident says some of this was a rebate provided by the government and was not paid until the end of 2023. Nonetheless, the sum did cover the increased cost of the electricity during this period. It did not, however, offer any recognition of poor communication and the anxiety this caused.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s actions amount to service failure. Normally, our remedies guidance says that a payment of up to £100 is appropriate in cases of service failure. However, in this case, the impact was felt over some time and there were 2 separate failures. For that reason, exceptionally, we find that the correct figure would be £200. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance which says it pays discretionary sums up to £500 where appropriate.
  13. The resident’s HHW were restored on 5 May 2023. The landlord said it would box in new pipes all over the complex. This was a large job as there were approximately 60 properties requiring boxing. It was delayed further because the landlord checked for asbestos and carried out fire safety improvements at the same time. These clearly would have increased the time taken.
  14. Although we accept that it would have been frustrating for the resident not to have the pipes boxed in until November 2023, in the circumstances, this was not an undue delay. The landlord made each property safer and also decorated the boxing in the pre-existing colour scheme. Therefore, the landlord’s response on this point was reasonable.

Reports of concerns about service charge issues.

  1. We cannot make decisions about the reasonableness of service charges and cannot order landlords to reduce any charges residents are required to pay. That is a matter for the First-Tier Tribunal. If the resident seeks reimbursement of perceived unjustified or unreasonable charges, he may wish to consider making an application to the Tribunal. However, we can consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and responded in a reasonable way.
  2. Residents at the complex pay a service charge which covers various services. These include HHW, GM, general cleaning and window cleaning. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 and 2 responses that there had been problems with some of the services provided under the service charge agreement.
  3. The resident complained in March 2023 that the landlord had failed to provide the GM, window cleaning and general cleaning services it was required to. He said the GM and general cleaning were substandard and the amount of cleaning that took place had reduced. The landlord accepted that the GM service had been substandard. It said the level of cleaning had been reduced to keep costs down but it was satisfied the contractor had provided the service it was paid for.
  4. The landlord has provided further evidence from later in 2023 which shows that the GM service continued to be substandard and, in general, did not meet the requirements of the contract. The landlord has said it has since taken steps to improve the service. Given that the landlord acknowledged failings in its GM service and found it necessary to implement measures to improve, it should have considered whether a compensation payment would be appropriate. There is no evidence it did so and this amounts to service failure. In line with our guidance on remedies, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This reflects the fact that the substandard service did not directly affect the property and so would have had a lesser impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:

a.     A lack of HHW.

b.     Concerns about service charge issues

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has paid the resident £250 compensation as follows:

a.     £200 for its handling of reports of a lack of HHW.

b.     £50 for its handling of concerns about service charge issues.