Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peak District Rural Housing Association Limited (202208459)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208459

Peak District Rural Housing Association Limited

11 June 2023

 

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his property’s heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His property is served by an air source heating pump (ASHP), which provides heating and hot water through a hot water cylinder.
  2. The resident first expressed his concerns to the landlord about the efficiency and cost of running the ASHP on 22 December 2021. He said that his energy costs had increased significantly, and the system only provided enough hot water to fill half a bath. The landlord inspected the property on 5 January 2022, and fitted a replacement part on 3 February 2022. It advised the resident that the inspection did not find that the ASHP required replacement.
  3. After the resident corresponded with the landlord on 19 April 2022 about his continued concerns – in which he highlighted that his neighbours were having their ASHPs replaced – he raised a stage one complaint through his MP on 20 May 2022. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 6 June 2022 advised the resident that it was replacing inefficient heating systems on a “worst first” basis. It asserted that the inspection had found that his ASHP was fit for purpose and that it could do nothing about the size of the water cylinder which was part of the original installation.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 June 2022, requesting that his ASHP was re-inspected, and he reiterated that the capacity of his hot water cylinder was no longer adequate for his family. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, in its final response on 21 June 2022, repeating that its inspection had not shown that the system was a priority for replacement currently.
  5. The resident and landlord continued to correspond, and he provided it with the results of a recently completed Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) assessment, which found that the heating and hot water were rated as “poor”. The landlord advised the resident on 12 September 2022 that it had since made a proposal to its board and secured funding to replace his system; this was completed on 16 September 2022.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 1 November 2022 that, despite achieving the resolution he sought, he remained dissatisfied with the time taken and level of effort required of him to achieve this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident states that it “will keep in repair… water heaters, fireplaces, fitted fires and central heating installations”. This confirmed that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the heating system in the resident’s property was fit for purpose and kept in good repair.
  2. During the progress of the complaint, the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that his ASHP differed from his neighbours’ systems and questioned his lower priority for replacement in relation to his neighbours. It provided him with an explanation that those properties’ systems were no longer serviceable due to a lack of parts, and that it was replacing those most in need first. This was a reasonable explanation and there was no evidence to show that this was inaccurate. The main consideration of this investigation is whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns in light of his particular circumstances.
  3. When a resident makes a report of a repair or defect, the landlord would be expected to inspect the issue to satisfy itself of whether work was required to ensure that it upheld its repairing obligation. It is reasonable for it to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors to do this.
  4. The landlord, therefore, responded reasonably to the resident’s initial concerns, raised on 22 December 2021, about the performance of his ASHP. It carried out an inspection on 5 January 2022, and as this only highlighted that a replacement sensor was required, it was reasonable for it to carry out this repair. As the inspection did not find that the ASHP needed replacing, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for replacement. There is no expectation on a landlord to replace a heating system, provided that this can continue to be economically repaired.
  5. On receipt of the resident’s further contact on 19 April 2022, his complaint on 20 May 2022, and his subsequent escalation request on 9 June 2022, the landlord did not carry out any further inspection or assessment of the ASHP. This was unreasonable in light of his continued concerns, particularly that his hot water cylinder did not adequately provide enough water to bathe his children, and that his energy bills were significantly higher than before.
  6. By the time of the investigation of the final stage complaint, given that nearly six months had elapsed since its original, and only, inspection, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a fresh assessment, focusing on the resident’s concerns. This could have prevented the expenditure of excess time and trouble by the resident to pursue the matter.
  7. After the landlord’s final complaint response on 21 June 2022, in response to the resident’s continued concerns, it arranged for a joint visit to the property on 22 July 2022. The resident also provided it with the results of the recently completed EPC on 23 July 2022, which highlighted the poor performance of the ASHP. In light of this, the landlord then acted reasonably in seeking funding for the replacement of his ASHP, which was completed on 16 September 2022.
  8. Throughout the process, the landlord responded reasonably, based on the evidence it had at the time. However, it could have done more to gather this information sooner; it would have been appropriate for it to have carried out a joint visit to the property as part of the investigation of his complaint, rather than afterwards, on 22 July 2022. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear if this would have changed the outcome of the complaint, as the landlord was not in possession of the results of the EPC until after 13 July 2022.
  9. Therefore, while it was unreasonable that the landlord did not carry adequate investigation of the issue during the complaints process, this was mitigated by its actions afterwards. Its continued engagement with the resident demonstrated that it took his concerns seriously and was committed to resolving the matter. The evidence also showed that it communicated with him regularly and within reasonable timescales and the landlord’s subsequent decision to seek funding from its board to replace his ASHP demonstrated that it had considered his individual circumstances.
  10. Where there has been a failing by a landlord, the Ombudsman considers whether any compensation it offered, or any subsequent action it took, ‘put right’ any injustice experienced by the resident. Putting right a failing does not always require an element of monetary compensation. In some cases, a landlord may carry out actions which put right a failure on its part. In this case, the actions taken by the landlord to replace his ASHP after the complaint served to put right its failure to fully investigate his concerns adequately during the complaint. Therefore, it is considered that the landlord provided redress to the resident which was reasonable, and which resolved the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, satisfactorily resolves the complaint concerning its response to his concerns about his property’s heating system.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its repairs procedures to ensure that it takes all of a resident’s concerns into account, through a timely inspection if appropriate, to resolve issues without unnecessary expenditure of effort by that resident.