Optivo (202009764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009764

Optivo

3 June 2021

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 handling of the required repair to the hot water system.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

2. On 20 August 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water in the property, which had been the case since 16 August 2020. A landlord operative attended the property on 25 August 2020, but was unable to repair the boiler. The tenant reported this to the landlord. The landlord’s contractor visited later the same day and was also unable to repair the boiler. The contractor advised that an electrician would be required.

 

3. The resident contacted the landlord to chase the issue on both 26 and 28 August 2020. The landlord’s records show internal communication took place on 27 and 28 August 2020 regarding whether it was advisable for an electrician to attend. It said that “apparently our electrician are [sic] not able to fix the fault”, and so an electrician did not attend. As a separate event, all immersion repairs were planned to be outsourced to a new contractor to start the following week. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 August 2020 to advise of the change of contractor. It gave her the new contractor’s contact details so she could arrange an appointment directly.

 

4. The resident called the landlord again on 2 September 2020 to report that she had not been able to make an appointment with the new contractor. She said she had attempted to contact them several times without success. Later the same day, the resident was visited by the new contractor, who was able to ensure she had hot water via the emergency immersion heater. The contractor also attempted to repair the boiler but told the resident she would only find out if it was working the next day because the boiler heated during the night. Also that day, the landlord asked the resident for copies of her electricity bill during the time of using her immersion heater this year and last year to compare costs. It said this would allow it to investigate the possibility of compensation for the additional costs incurred this year, as a result of the boiler being broken.

 

5. On the morning of 3 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say the boiler repair attempt had not worked, and she had no hot water again. She said she had been told by the contractor that they would visit later that day. In the evening, the resident emailed the landlord again to say that the appointment had not been kept and she had not been notified.

 

6. The resident then emailed the landlord on 4 September 2020 to say the contractor had attended and said the parts needed to fix the boiler would not be available until the following week. She asked if the landlord would arrange for her to stay in a local hotel until the boiler was fixed. The landlord replied the same day and stated that, despite sympathising with her situation, it could not do so as it would only do this in emergency situations, such as a flood or total loss of water or electricity. It also confirmed the contractor was sourcing the parts, but there was no guarantee about when they would arrive. It said it was hopeful the parts may arrive on 7 September 2020. The resident replied again later that same day, quoting the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which said a landlord should carry out repairs in a reasonable time, and if the repair was an emergency, the landlord should fix it within 24 hours.

 

7. On 7 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report that there was still no hot water. She said she had been absent from work for three days waiting for boiler repairs, and had not been able to have a bath, shower, or wash her clothes. The landlord replied the same day and apologised for the delay, and advised the resident that the parts were still being sourced. It said it would arrange an appointment once they were obtained.

 

8. The following day, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had been told by the contractor that the boiler repair was now booked for 10 September 2020. She pointed out that this would be another day off work and she could not afford this.

 

9. On 10 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say the contractor again did not keep the appointment. She said they had told her the appointment would now be on the following day.

 

10. The contractor visited the property on 11 September 2020 in the morning to repair the boiler. They left the property and advised the resident it would take an hour to find out if the repair had worked. The resident emailed the landlord an hour later to say she still did not have hot water, and needed to be able to have a bath or shower. She requested another appointment. The landlord replied that same morning to apologise and said it would ask the contractor to contact her again. In the afternoon, the resident emailed the landlord to say the contractor had said the cylinder needed replacing and they would call her back. She said the situation was affecting her mental health.

 

11. On 14 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord the boiler was only working on the emergency immersion, which was very expensive. She asked for an update regarding the boiler repair and the compensation.

 

12. The landlord replied the next day with its compensation policy attached. It apologised but stated that, according to its policy, it was unable to pay compensation. This was because the loss of hot water had taken place outside its specified period of between 31 October and 30 April. The resident replied the same day, asking the landlord to reconsider. She made the following points:

 

1. The loss of hot water was for a significant amount of time.
2. She had lost several days of work.
3. She had to use more electricity than usual.
4. She referred to Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, stating she thought the landlord had failed in its duty of care to her.

 

13. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2020 offering the option to escalate her complaint. It asked for her preferred outcome and the amount of compensation she was seeking. The resident replied the following day confirming she wished the complaint to be escalated. She also stated the contractor had managed to fix the boiler that day and she would seek advice regarding compensation.

 

14. On 17 September 2020, a complaint was raised by the landlord for the resident. Also that day, the landlord’s report from the repair job said that the fault had been traced back to the electrical meter.

 

15. On 30 September 2020, the resident sent a letter to the landlord requesting compensation of £1,500, referring to correspondence with “numerous housing associations”. She reported they had said that £50 compensation per day was due. The resident said that she was without hot water for 34 days but was claiming only for 30 days due to a four-day delay on her part in reporting the problem (30 days x £50 = £1,500). She said the claim was for the following:

 

1. Higher electricity bill than normal due to reliance on the kettle for hot water instead of the boiler

2. Disruption to daily life
3. Time spent waiting for engineers
4. Loss of earnings
5. Anxiety and stress affecting her mental health.

 

16. The landlord issued a formal response to the complaint on 1 October 2020 stating the following:

 

1. It apologised for the repeated problems regarding the lack of hot water.

2. It cited the clause in its compensation policy about not compensating for lack of hot water unless this was between the months of October and April. Nonetheless, it agreed to offer a remedy of £56.24 for the loss of hot water. It calculated this based on 10% of the resident’s net weekly rent during the period 16 August until 17 September 2020. It stated this was in accordance with its compensation policy even though this was normally only applicable between October and April.
3. It also apologised for any financial loss experienced but referred to its compensation policy which said it would not pay for claims for loss of earnings.

 

17. Later that same day, the resident replied to the landlord. She refused the compensation offer and asked for the complaint to be escalated further. In the afternoon, the landlord replied to apologise and requested she complete a Review Panel Request form as the next stage.

 

18. The resident completed the Review Panel Request form on 12 October 2020 and emailed it to the landlord. The form summarised her reasons for requesting a review:

 

1. She felt her case had been dealt with poorly.

2. She considered the level of compensation inadequate and “offensive”.
3. She stated the landlord had failed to prevent her unnecessary distress and anxiety.
4. She had been made redundant, which she believed to be partly due to the number of times she had to take time off work to allow the landlord’s contractor access to the property.

 

19. The outcome she requested on the Review Panel Request form was threefold:

 

1. She wished for the landlord to accept responsibility for its poor service and delays.

2. She asked the landlord to acknowledge her distress, particularly in light of the recent lockdown due to Covid-19.
3. She requested compensation for stress and additional costs incurred.

 

20. On 26 October 2020, the landlord sent the resident a letter stating that it had decided not to escalate the complaint, citing the following reasons:

 

1. It had apologised for the problems with the hot water in its letter dated 1 October 2020.

2. It added an apology within this letter for the length of time taken to resolve the issue.
3. It considered itself unable to take responsibility for the redundancy experienced by the resident as this was a decision made by her employer, a third party.
4. It also added another apology in this letter for any inconvenience or distress the resident had experienced.
5. It reiterated the offer it made in the letter dated 1 October 2020 for £56.24 in recognition of the poor service the resident had received.
6. It also offered a further 2 x £10 for two of the missed appointments, stating this was in line with its compensation policy. The total remedy offered was therefore £76.24.

 

Policies and procedures

 

21. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider missed appointments and failure to repair as reasons for compensation. It states that if it fails to carry out its duty, it will compensate by one or more of the following: apologising, correcting its mistakes and/or making a goodwill gesture. The policy also states it does not accept claims for loss of earnings or annual leave taking, or for any stress experienced following a failure of service. Though it does also say that it will consider a discretionary payment of compensation for service failure.

 

22. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will give a resident a target date for a repair. If the target date is not met, it must offer another date. If it fails to carry out the work by the second date, the compensation is a £10 one-off payment, and then £2 for each day the repair is outstanding after the second target date (up to a maximum of £50). It also says it pays compensation for total loss of hot water for more than 24 hours between 31 October and 30 April. This is calculated at 10% of a resident’s net rent per day/week. Additionally, the compensation procedure says the landlord will pay £10 compensation where its own staff fail to keep an appointment. It states compensation does not apply to appointments missed by the landlord’s contractors, but that a contractor will cover compensation “in line with contractual arrangements”.

 

23. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out works within six hours of a resident reporting an emergency repair to make it safe. Some examples of emergency repairs are: – water leaks; heating loss between 31 October and 30 April; and total loss of electricity supply.

 

24. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that it aims to complete all repairs in one visit, and would want it to take as little time as possible.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

25. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out examples of emergency repairs that it will attend within six hours. Loss of hot water is not included in that list, and so when the resident initially reported that she did not have hot water, the landlord dealt with this as a routine repair. Whilst loss of hot water may not be an emergency, it is reasonable to say that it was still an urgent repair that required the landlord’s attention. Although the landlord dealt with the matter as a routine repair, it still attended within five days of being notified of the problem, which was reasonable.

 

26. After the initial visit, the landlord’s contractor thought an electrician was needed. The landlord decided not to take its contractor’s advice. That is unfortunate, because after a number of attempted (and failed) repairs, the issue was traced to the electrical meter. It is likely an electrician would have established that, had the landlord arranged this in the first place, as its contractor had recommended.

 

27. It may have been the case that the landlord did not wish to accept its contractor’s advice in relation to an electrician, as it was in the process of changing contractors. Though that should not have impacted how it dealt with the resident’s repair. By failing to engage the services of an electrician when it ought to have done, the landlord was responsible for the inconvenience caused to the resident after its initial contractor’s visit.

 

28. The resident has explained how she was impacted by the lack of hot water – being unable to bath or shower, and having to use her kettle in order to have some hot water. She also thought this was impacting her mental health. Furthermore, the resident also had to take time off work so that she could allow the landlord’s contractor access to her property on several occasions.

 

29. The resident also reported two occasions where she had taken time off work to wait for the contractor, only for the contractor not to attend. It is understandable the resident was frustrated by this.

 

30. Although the landlord offered compensation for the lack of hot water in line with its compensation procedure (even though the loss of hot water was outside the stated timeframe of October to April), given that the landlord was responsible for much of the delay and resulting inconvenience to the resident, it would be appropriate for a higher amount of compensation to be paid in these circumstances.

 

31. Though it also needs to be taken into account that, from 2 September 2020, the resident was able to access to hot water through the emergency immersion heater. This was an expensive option in terms of electricity costs, but it did mean that she could use hot water.

 

32. The landlord’s contractor attended on 25 August 2020 and recommended an electrician at that time. As the landlord did not act on that advice, this caused a delay until 17 September 2020 before the boiler was fixed. However, the resident had access to hot water (albeit at a higher cost than normal) from 2 September 2020. Therefore, the landlord caused a delay of around a week where the resident was left without hot water by failing to act on its contractor’s advice.

 

33. The landlord offered to review the resident’s electricity bills for the period where she was using the immersion heater for hot water, and compare it to her previous year’s bills. That seems to have been a reasonable response, and it is unfortunate that the landlord chose not to pursue it.

 

34. The resident says that she was made redundant from her job, and thought this was partly due to the number of times she had to take time off work. She has not provided evidence to support this assertion, however, the landlord’s compensation policy does not cover loss of earnings (as set out in point 23 above). Furthermore, this Service’s remedies guidance explains that this Service does not generally make awards of compensation for time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are being carried out. Although it is recognised these works will cause some inconvenience, residents are required to give a landlord access for repairs to be carried out.

 

35. Having said that, it does need to be recognised that the landlord’s contractor carried out several repair visits, but was unable to resolve the problem. The landlord’s own repairs policy says that it wants to take as little time as possible to carry out a repair, and aims to complete all repairs in one visit. The number of visits carried out by the landlord’s contractor undoubtedly caused the resident inconvenience.

 

36. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it will pay up to £50 compensation if it fails to carry out a repair by its target dates. It is not clear what target dates it gave the resident (if any), but given that it aims to complete all repairs in one visit, it is likely that it did not meet those target dates. It therefore would have been reasonable to make an offer of compensation to account for this too.

 

37. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make an award of £200. This is to recognise that by failing to act on its contractor’s advice to engage an electrician, this left the resident completely without hot water for a week. The resident may have also been reluctant to use hot water through the immersion heater after this time, because of the costs involved.

 

38. It also takes into account the further unnecessary inconvenience caused to the resident because she had to take time off work to allow the landlord’s contractors access to her property for several attempted repairs to the boiler, which of course could have all been avoided if the landlord had engaged the services of an electrician at the outset, as recommended by its contractor.

 

39. The landlord should also review the resident’s electricity bills for the period when she was using the immersion heater, and compare these to the previous year. If the resident’s electricity bills were higher as a result of using the immersion heater, it should compensate her for this.

 

40. The landlord offered the resident 2 x £10 for the missed appointments by its contractors. Although the landlord’s compensation policy says it will not pay compensation for appointments missed by its contractors, it was reasonable for the landlord to still offer this amount to the resident for the missed appointments.

 

Determination (decision)

 

41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the required repair to the hot water system.

 

Reasons

 

42. The landlord’s contractor attended the repair in line with the repairs guidance. The contractor recommended that the landlord arrange for an electrician to attend, but the landlord chose not to act on this advice. Had it done so, it is likely the matter could have been resolved far sooner. This led to several unsuccessful attempted repairs to the boiler, which caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience as she had to take time of work for the appointments. The contractor also missed two appointments, which likely caused the resident further frustration. The resident did have hot water via the immersion heater from 2 September 2020, but this would have likely increased her electricity bills when she was using it.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. In recognition of this service failure, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £220. This can be broken down as:
    1. £200 to reflect the inconvenience, time and distress. This includes the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its contractor’s advice; the subsequent loss of hot water for a week; and the multiple attempted repairs.
    2. £20 for the missed appointments.
44. The landlord should also review the resident’s electricity bills for the period when she was using the immersion heater, and compare these to the previous year. If the resident’s electricity bills were higher as a result of using the immersion heater, it should compensate her for this.
45. The landlord should comply with point 43 within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination. The landlord should also write to the resident to request details of her previous electricity bill, in line with point 44, within six weeks.

Recommendations

46. In future cases, the landlord should be more cognisant of the impact caused by a loss of hot water, and should make every effort to resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity.