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

Midland Heart Limited (202002902)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002902

Midland Heart Limited

8 December 2020


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 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 landlords handling of:

  • Repairs to the resident’s boiler and a reported leak.
  • Reports of ASB by the resident.
  • Reports of car park being blocked.
  • The residents request to view a property.

 

Background

 

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2014.

 

  1. The landlord has an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy which sets out how it will handle reports of ASB.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. The resident reported that she had no hot water on 15 August 2019. The landlord arranged for an engineer to attend the next day and replacement parts were diagnosed.

 

  1. The engineer returned on 18 August 2019 to fit parts but found that further parts where needed. Following the attendance, the resident reported that there was now a leak coming from the boiler.

 

  1. An engineer attended on 19 August 2019 and found the leak had damaged the PCB and ordered a replacement.

 

  1. The landlord’s engineer returned on 21 August 2019 and found more parts needed to be replaced and recommended that the boiler be replaced. The engineer drained the boiler.

 

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2019 and requested temporary heaters be provided. (It is not clear to the Ombudsman if these were provided)

 

  1. The landlord fitted the new boiler on 26 August 2019.

 

  1. On 10 September 2019 the resident called the landlord and reported incidents of ASB involving her neighbours. She reported that litter had been dumped into her garden and she believed it was done by the children of her neighbours but said that she had not seen them do it.

 

  1. The landlord said that it told the resident that children playing outside her property was not considered to be ASB and that it would need evidence to support something such as fly tipping.

 

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2019 to complaint about the service she received when her boiler broke down. She believed that the landlord had failed to handle the matter professionally and had dismissed her concerns over the difficulties she and her family experienced having no hot water. She was also unhappy that the compensation of £18.75 offered at the time as she believed it to be ‘paltry’.

 

  1. The resident also complained that she had yet to be rehoused as requested and that she had recently bid on a property but this had been dismissed. She also raised concerns about the parking at her property as her neighbour keeps parking in her space letting visitors park there.

 

  1. The landlord arranged to meet the resident at her property on 22 October 2019 to discuss the issues raised in her complaint.

 

  1. Then landlord has said that during its visit on 22 October 2019 it explained that it was limited in what action it could take against children playing outside her property unless there were criminal damages. It also said that it advised the resident to report any incidents of drug dealing she witnessed in the area to crime stoppers and record vehicle number plates and times to share with the police.

 

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident following the visit and summarised what had been discussed in an action plan and also provided information about her housing options as she had said she wanted to move.

 

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 November 2019 and referred to her letter of 25 September 2019 and a telephone conversation on 13 October 2019. (The Ombudsman has not seen any records in respect of what was discussed in this conversation).

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was without hot water for 11 days when her boiler broke down and that there were two unnecessary visits during this time. It offered £50 compensation for the delay and service failure.

 

  1. The landlord addressed a leak from the resident’s bathroom which she had reported on 28 August 2019 and believed it was due to the boiler being changed. The landlord said that it had spoken to an expert and been advised that the leak was not related to the boiler. However, it said that due to an error on its system it did not address the leak until 9 October 2019 and apologised for this and offered £42 compensation for the delay.

 

  1. In respect of the ASB issues raised, the landlord referred to the action plan completed during its visit on 22 October 2019 and reconfirmed that the resident should keep a record of any activities she sees to share with the police. However, it did not believe there had been any service failure on its part.

 

  1. The landlord also said that it had not received any reports about the car park exits being blocked and suggested that the resident take a photo if it happens again and send it to it. It also said that it had arranged external patrols to take place over night and they had not reported any issues.

 

  1. The landlord explained that the reason the resident had been unable to view a property after being shortlisted was because it was unsuitable for her needs and would not have improved her situation. However, it acknowledged that there had been a communication breakdown and it had passed feedback to the staff involved to learn from the experience.

 

  1. It also acknowledged that there had been a service failure when the resident had contacted it and requested to speak to a team leader as the request was declined. The landlord said it had provided feedback to the relevant staff.

 

  1. The resident responded to the landlord on 24 December 2019 and requested that her complaint be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process. She said that she felt that the issues she had raised did not receive the response deserved and that they were serious failings on the part of the landlord.

 

  1. The resident said that she believed that the landlord had been ‘flippant’ as when she made enquiries after receiving the complaint response, she was told to refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman.

 

  1. The landlord responded to the residents request on 19 February 2020 and said that it had not found any evidence in respect of the ASB, littering, parking and property viewing to show that there had been service failure on its part and therefore the outcome of the complaint was unlikely to change. It said that it had now reached the final stage of its complaints process and that it would not increase its offer of compensation.

 

  1. The resident has now brought the matter to the Housing Ombudsman for determination.

 

Assessment and findings

 

  1. The resident has said that she feels the landlord handled her complaint poorly and failed to investigate the matters correctly. She has said that where the landlord did acknowledge something had gone wrong little was done to improve the service and the compensation offered was low.

 

  1. The resident believes it was unreasonable for the landlord to ask her to monitor and record incidents of ASB and cars blocking the car park entrance and is seeking higher compensation and for it to be sanctioned for its poor service.

 

  1. The landlord believes that it has responded to the residents reports of ASB and parking issues appropriately and inline with its internal policies. It has acknowledged that there was service failure on its part in respect of the boiler repairs, responding to a reported leak and providing a clear explanation regarding the viewing of a property. The landlord has provided compensation in respect of the service failures and said that it has provided feedback to the relevant areas for learning purposes.

 

Repairs to the resident’s boiler and reported leak

  1. The landlord has said that the resident was without hot water for 11 days and that it considered that two of the four visits to attempt a repair were unnecessary. This account has not been disputed by the resident.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord repairs policy which sets out its responsibilities and also states that it includes a 24-hour emergency repair service. However, the policy does not set out any timescales in which it guarantees to resolve an issue.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to attempt to complete a repair where possible before deciding undertake the replacement of a boiler and this service acknowledges that it is not always possible for a repair to be completed on a first attempt. However, the Ombudsman also considers that the landlord should try to ensure that all visits are necessary and productive.

 

  1. In this case, the landlord has identified that two out of the four visits involved in the attempt to repair the resident’s boiler were unnecessary and has apologised for this. The landlord has also offered £50 in respect of the two visits.

 

  1. The resident has said that she does not consider the amount of compensation offered is reasonable. The landlord has provided a copy of how it calculated the compensation offered this shows that it offers 3.75 per day that a resident without hot water which it has entered as eight days and £10 per missed/unnecessary appointments. Having considered this, the Ombudsman considers that the £50 offered is inline with the landlord compensation guidance. The Ombudsman also considers the amount offer to proportionate and inline with what it would have ordered.

 

  1. During the complaint investigation the landlord identified that there was service failure on its part in respect of a leak the resident had reported on 28 August 2019 but failed to address until 9 October 2019. It said this was due to an admin error and offered the resident £42 in respect of the delay in attending to this.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation awarded is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance which shows that it offers £1 per delay in attending. It has calculated the compensation to reflect the number of days it failed to attend and repair the leak as being 42. The Ombudsman has not seen a dispute over the number of days the resident waited.

 

  1. The landlord has said that the resident had isolated the leak themselves in order to avoid it causing damage and the Ombudsman has not seen anything to suggest that the resident has disputed this.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers the total compensation offered in respect of the boiler repairs and leak to be inline with the landlord’s compensation guidance and proportionate to the situation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Reports of ASB by the resident

  1. The resident reported ASB issues to the landlord in respect of litter being dumped in her garden and the side ally and she believed that this was done by the neighbours’ children.

 

  1. The landlord arranged for a visit to discuss the ASB raised by the resident and said that it did not consider children playing outside the property to be ASB as this was a public area. It also said that the litter could have been blown on to her garden as it was open plan. However, it suggested that the resident monitor the situation and record details of an incident she witnessed and then it could look to use these in support of any action taken.

 

  1. The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out it what it considers to be ASB and what its approach would be. The policy states that one of its main goals is to help residents resolve ASB themselves.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy by arranging for a home visit to discuss the situation and set out an action plan with the resident. While the Ombudsman appreciates that ASB can be stressful to residents it considers it reasonable for a landlord to ask a resident to record details of incidents of ASB in order to help support any action direct that it might need to take.

 

  1. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s actions represent a service failure in respect of the reports of ASB.

 

Reports of car park being blocked

  1. The resident has said that there have been incidents where a neighbour has blocked the entrance to the car park, parked in her parking space and encouraged visitors to park in her space. She has also said that her car was previously damaged but did not know who had been involved so she had to arrange the repairs herself.

 

  1. The landlord has said that it has not been made aware of any incidents regarding the car park at the resident’s property. Therefore, it requested that the resident send it evidence of the behaviour as soon as it happens so that it can take appropriate action. It also said that there were external patrols of the property between 6pm and 6am and they had not reported any unusual activity.

 

  1. Having considered the correspondence from the resident, the Ombudsman cannot see any reference to her having reported any incidents involving the car park as they have happened. The Ombudsman has also noted that when the resident has referred to the damage to her car she has not said that this was reported but has said that she did not know how the damage occurred suggesting that she did not witness any incident.

 

  1. In this case, as the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that previous issues have been reported to the landlord, this service considers that it has acted appropriately in requesting that the resident provide evidence of the reported issues as soon as it happens. This would allow it to take appropriate action.

 

  1. The landlord has also said in its complaint response that it was confirming that external patrols were being carried out which suggests that this is something new that has been arranged. The Ombudsman considers that the provision of patrols is also an appropriate action in response to the residents’ concerns regarding the parking at her property.

 

The residents request to view a property

  1. The resident has said that she is seeking to move properties and that she bid on a property she was shortlisted for but was not able to view it.

 

  1. The landlord has said that the resident was not invited to view the property as it was not suitable for her needs and would not have improved her housing situation. The landlord said that due to the resident’s health concerns a bungalow or ground floor flat with adaptions already in place would be more suitable. It apologised that there had been a breakdown in communication and considered this a service failure to which it would feed back to the relevant area to learn from the experience.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers the landlords response to the resident’s concerns about viewing properties to be reasonable as it has accepted that it did not provide her with a clear explanation. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has taken a reasonable approach to the housing matter as it would not be in the resident’s interest to move to a property that did not better her housing situation.

 

  1. One of the main focus’ of the Ombudsman is to help landlords learn from any mistakes and where appropriate make changes to prevent the issues reoccurring. In this case the landlord has said it has feedback to the relevant staff member as a learning experience. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman considers that the landlord made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint in respect of landlord’s handling of Repairs to the resident’s boiler and a reported leak.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no mal-administration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
  • Reports of ASB by the resident.
  • Reports of car park being blocked.
  • The residents request to view a property.

 

 

Reasons

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of the delays in repairing the boiler and leak is inline with its compensation guidance.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered is proportionate to the delays and number of unnecessary visits.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has responded to the residents reports of ASB appropriately and inline with its ASB policy. It arranged for a home visit and explained why the incidents reported were not considered to be ASB. It also provided an action plan for the resident to help it monitor the situation and take action if the situation changed.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to have requested the resident record any incidents of ASB as it would not reasonably be able to take action without such support.

 

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in requesting that the resident provide evidence if and when further incidents occur with the car parking to assist it in any appropriate action. The landlord has said that it had not received any reports of previous incidents and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to dispute this.

 

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a service failure in respect of the resident’s bid on a property and has provided an explanation as to why her bid did not succeed. It also provided a breakdown of the types of property that would be suitable for the resident to help improve housing situation.

 

  1. The landlord has shown that it has learned from the service failure and implemented feedback on the matter. The Ombudsman considers that this reasonably resolved the complaint.