Your Housing Limited (202004434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004434

Your Housing Limited

9 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 concerns the level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord following the loss of heating and hot water in her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She has been assisted by a representative throughout her complaint. Both will be referred to jointly as ‘the resident’ throughout this investigation. 
3. The landlord’s repair records show that on 26 February 2020 the resident reported that she had no hot water or heating in her property. A work order was raised to “do temp fix or leave heaters”. A contractor attended the same day and ordered a new part for the boiler. The records also show that on 3 March the resident had temporary heaters, but it is unclear when these were provided. There was a delay waiting for the part to come into stock. The resident called the landlord on 13 March for an update. The records show that the resident explained that the contractors had ordered the wrong part, and so had then ordered a new part. The landlord then arranged for new contractors to attend.
4. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 24 March 2020 to enquire about the resident’s situation.
5. On 25 March 2020 the landlord’s new contractors replaced the boiler in the resident’s property.
6. On 31 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to fix her boiler. She said that she had to empty two “buckets in the bathroom 5 times per day with a chronic back condition” (her later correspondence to the landlord explains that this was because the boiler was leaking). She asked the landlord for compensation to cover what she said it had put her through.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 7 April 2020. It explained that it was aware of its contractor’s under-performance, and had issued them with a “performance improvement notification”. The contractors were then terminated 31 March. It explained that it had learnt several lessons from the resident’s experience. For example, aside from working with new contractors, it reviewed and created a new contract reporting framework to help track all work orders through to completion. It said that it would enhance accountability for those responsible for monitoring work orders, and brief its staff on the lessons learnt from the complaint.
8. The landlord apologised for the resident going without heating and hot water, and offered her £346.00 compensation. This comprised of:
   1. £140.00 (£5 per day for loss of heating and water x 28 days)
   2. £56.00 (£2 per day for use of temporary heaters x 28 days)
   3. £50 for failing to repair within agreed timescale
   4. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
9. The landlord’s records show that on 15 April 2020 the resident called it and explained that she thought its offer of compensation was insufficient due to “her vulnerabilities and the distress she was put through”.
10. The landlord called the resident on 12 May 2020 to discuss her complaint. Its notes from the call show that it offered her an additional discretionary payment of £100 and that this was its “full and final settlement offer”. The resident was dissatisfied with this amount and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
11. The landlord issued its formal stage one complaint response on 18 May 2020. It reiterated what it had previously explained to the MP concerning its contractors, and the lessons it had learnt from her situation. It reiterated its offer of compensation (including the additional £100 offered on 12 May). It provided the resident with a copy of its compensation framework to explain how it had calculated its offer. It said that it believed it had addressed the elements of her complaint, and considered the case to be closed. It concluded by referring the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its offer.

Assessment and findings

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing central heating installations. Its repairs policy states that it will complete repair work to heating systems within 24 hours if it is an emergency repair, three days if it is an urgent repair, or eight days for routine repairs. It defines an emergency repair as one which presents a serious risk to you or your home, an urgent one as being where there is no imminent risk but may create a risk if left too long, and routine ones as posing no immediate threat.
13. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out that if it fails to complete a repair within the timeframes explained above, it can offer the resident up to £50 compensation. When the resident then has a loss of heating and/or hot water due to the landlord’s failure, it will offer £5 per day of loss. It will also offer £2 per day for increased utility costs (when a resident has used a temporary heaters). The recommended amount for goodwill gestures in light of distress and inconvenience is £100.
14. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that there was a delay in repairing the resident’s boiler, as work was completed almost a month after she reported the issue. The landlord therefore did not act in accordance with its repair policy, as it exceeded its target timescales for each type of repair (emergency, urgent, and routine). Nonetheless, the evidence shows that during this period, although there were various setbacks (ordering incorrect parts), the landlord took steps to investigate and resolve the issue. It provided the resident with temporary heaters, and also attended within 24 hours of when the issue was first reported. It then acknowledged its failings, apologised for them, set out what it had learnt from the complaint, and offered £446 compensation.
15. The level of compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure, as explained above. It also offered an additional discretionary compensation after the resident gave more information about how the delay had impacted her personally. Although the landlord did not meet the target timescales set out in its repairs policy, it explained why that had happened, apologised, took steps to ensure that this problem would not occur again by hiring new contractors and improving its procedures. Along with the reasonable compensation offered, these actions were suitable redress for the landlord’s  repair delays and their impact. 

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

17. Despite the understandable frustration and clear inconvenience caused from the delay in repairing the boiler, the steps taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were reasonable and proportionate to the impact its failings had on the resident. It acknowledged its failings, took action to change its contractors, apologised, and offered proportionate compensation.