Wandle Housing Association Limited (202223139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223139

Wandle Housing Association Limited

28 November 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 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 repairs to the radiators in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, occupying a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy started on 3 May 2004. The landlord’s records noted the resident was vulnerable.
3. The resident reported that 2 of the radiators in the property were underheating to the landlord on 5 September 2022. Following the landlord’s attendance, the issues to address were:
   1. defective boiler
   2. 2 radiators had not been warming
   3. thermostat service timer was to be reset.
4. Subsequently, there were 2 further contractor appointments. One attended the resident’s property on 21 September 2022 and the other 4 October 2022. According to the resident, each contractor that attended had agreed that the radiators were underheating. The resident reported that he chased the landlord for an update but did not hear anything back from it. As the matter remained unresolved, he raised a complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2022. In the complaint, he mentioned that that the living room would not get warm and as a result, he was potentially incurring increased costs due to more energy consumption.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 November 2022. It said to him that on the first 2 visits, it found that the radiators did heat up. On the third visit, it said it identified the radiators were not circulating and therefore a power flush was needed. It attributed the fault to have been intermittent and that is why it could not identify the problem in earlier visits. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused and said it intended to learn from the experience. At the time, an appointment for the repairs had not been made. So, it had asked the resident to get in touch to book an appointment so it could carry out the repairs.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so escalated his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 December 2022. It acknowledged that its contractors made errors by not listing what was recommended following the visits to the property. It apologised for its contractors’ service and reassured that his feedback would be taken and learned from. The issues were still unresolved and it urged the resident to try and contact its contractors again to book the repairs.

Assessment and findings

7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
   2. put things right
   3. learn from outcomes.
8. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. It is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, it is to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold is a potential category 1 hazard under HHSRS. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether inefficient heating systems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
10. The tenancy agreement says the landlord must repair and maintain space heating. Under its repairs and maintenance policy, partial heating loss in the winter months is an appointed repair, meaning that it is to be completed in 28 calendar days. It also notes that such repairs may be treated as urgent and completed within 7 calendar days, but it is at the discretion of management. In how it manages responsive repairs, it aims for prompt and accurate diagnosis of repair faults. Furthermore, there is a dedicated section in the policy for vulnerable people, that it will consider increasing the priority of repairs.
11. Following the resident’s initial reports of radiators underheating, the landlord acted promptly, having arranged a contractor visit on 9 September 2022. This Service has received contrasting information regarding the fault diagnosis.
12. From the information received, the resident’s testimony was that the first 3 contractors admitted the radiators were not heating up sufficiently. However, this feedback was not listed on the reports from the initial visits. The landlord’s records shows that the need for power flushing was first noted on 4 October 2022. In its stage 2 response and later in its communication with the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged that the contractors had made an error by not listing the recommendations earlier. Therefore, this Service accepts the resident’s account of events in terms of the diagnosis. Due to the poor communication and record keeping, this led to the matter not being identified at the earliest opportunity. This then led to further inconvenience to the resident as the ability to make a right first time repair was missed.
13. The issue was identified on the landlord’s records 29 calendar days after it first being brought to its attention by the resident. It was not acceptable for it to have taken 29 calendar days to diagnose the fault. By doing so, it had fell short of its standards to ensure prompt and accurate diagnosis.
14. Additionally, the landlord had categorised the resident as vulnerable. Which meant that under its policy, the repairs could have qualified to be prioritised. Also in its policy, the winter period starts from the beginning of November until the end of April and notes that it may provide temporary heating. It does not appear the landlord considered the above factors when handling the reports of underheating. The Service would expect the landlord to have shown clear decision making around the risks to the vulnerable resident and any mitigation or interim measures it may have reasonably made. No evidence or reasoning has been provided to this Service as to why it did not. This was not an appropriate response as it prolonged the length of time the resident endured colder months without sufficient heating in the property.
15. This Service acknowledges the resident had asked the landlord to use a different contractor. It also clarified to him the historical and ongoing relationship with its contractor. Due to the delays he experienced with the repairs, it could have been reasonable for the landlord to have looked at other contractors available to have completed the repairs quicker.
16. From the landlord’s records, it shows the contractor cancelled a repair visit on 17 January 2023. It had not stated why this was the case. Instead, the contractor attended the resident’s property on 23 February 2023 and completed the system flushes. However, it found this did not resolve the issue and a radiator needed replacing as it remained cold at the bottom. At this stage, 99 working days had passed since the power flush necessity was recorded. It should not have taken this long to for it to identify a replacement was required. The system flush should have been attempted within 28 calendar days of its diagnosis. This caused the resident further inconvenience as there had already been a significant delay to repair. He waited for the replacement to be ordered.
17. The new radiator was installed on 29 March 2023. It does not remain disputed that the resident would have had to keep the heaters on for longer, in attempts to warm the rooms. Although the landlord made a distinction in its repairs policy between total loss of heating and partial loss, it still had legal obligations. Yet, the underheating issues were not resolved until 128 working days after its diagnosis and a substantial period through the colder months. This far exceeded its 28 calendar days commitment to appointed repairs. This delay was not appropriate and caused detriment to the resident, who failed to have adequate heating in the living room for a prolonged period.
18. An annual gas service took place on 27 April 2023. In this inspection, the landlord found no issues. Positively, the resident had since confirmed that the underheating radiator issues were fixed.
19. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. While this can be appreciated, there was limited contact throughout the process from it. It is not disputed that the landlord had sent some text messages between September 2022 and November 2022. The messages either notified him of scheduled visits or that he should contact them to book the repairs. It had also asked the resident to get in touch to arrange an appointment in its stage 1 complaint response. Later, in its stage 2 response it said it had not heard from him. As the landlord was aware the radiators needed repair, it would have been reasonable for it to have been more proactive. Overall, from the information provided, its communication with resident were poor and led to unreasonable delays.
20. The landlord had stated some lessons learnt from the complaint. It had taken on feedback from the resident and reminded all contractors the importance of correctly updated information. However, this does not outweigh the adverse effect on the resident, the delay in the completion of the repairs and the poor communication. It needed to have taken more ownership of its failures identified. This Service therefore makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the radiators in the property. Orders to put things right have been made with regards to the delay in repairs and the resident’s experience.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the radiators in the property.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

22. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failures detailed in this report.
23. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of a total of £500 as follows:
    1. £250 for the delays in repairs
    2. £250 for the cumulative distress and inconvenience and the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
24. The landlord, if it has not done so already, to consider compensating the resident for his actual losses incurred by higher energy use. So, it is to assess the kilowatt hours used by him in the affected period and compare this to the same period a year prior. This is subject to him providing evidence of his energy use, but the landlord is to support him doing so.
25. The landlord is to review the case to understand why the communication failures happened and how to avoid them. This is to include, but not limited to:
    1. the landlord’s approach to first time repairs
    2. communication with its contractors
    3. how it communicates with its residents.

A senior level manager must conduct the case review. The findings to result in a written report and to be shared with this Service and the resident.

26. The landlord must confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence it has done so.

Recommendation

27. It is recommended the landlord consider providing procedural documentation and guidance notes to support its frontline staff. Going forward, this should help identify what type of adjustments to make and when it should apply its discretion to prioritise repairs.