Cornwall Housing Limited (202204685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204685

Cornwall Housing Limited

4 July 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:
   1. handling of repairs to the property’s boiler;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow.
3. On Friday 10 December 2021, the resident made an out-of-hours call to the landlord to report that the boiler in the property was not working. The landlord’s internal correspondence and repair logs state that it determined that a specialist part was required. The part would not be available until Monday 13 December 2021, and so the resident should be provided with temporary heating over the weekend. Its logs go on to state that the resident was supplied with a temporary heater on the evening of 10 December 2021, and the boiler was successfully repaired on 13 December 2021.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2021, and raised a complaint about how it was handling the repair. He described the elements of the complaint as follows:
   1. He had received very poor communication from the landlord when he reported the issue.
   2. A scheduled callback to arrange the delivery of temporary heating did not happen, and he had to chase this himself.
5. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 23 December 2021. Following an escalation request by the resident, a panel review was held on 5 April 2022, and then a stage two response was sent on 11 April 2022. Its responses included the following:
   1. In its stage one response, it noted that there had been a delay in the work on the boiler going ahead as the resident had declined access to its operative due to their gender. The landlord had then informed the resident that it did not tolerate any form of harassment or misogynistic treatment.
   2. It advised that the panel review had found that this information was incorrect. It explained that when the resident reported the issue with the boiler on 10 December 2021, the operative it first asked to attend had declined due to an incident that occurred during a previous repair. Another operative was then contacted and asked to deliver a temporary heater.
   3. The panel found that the landlord had responded appropriately to the repair report made on 10 December 2021. He was provided with temporary heating and had the use of an electric shower until the repair was completed on 13 December 2021. The panel was satisfied that the boiler repair was also completed within a reasonable timeframe.
   4. The panel found that the language used by the landlord in its stage one response (accusing the resident of misogyny) was too strong. The panel advised the landlord to review its policies and procedures to ensure appropriate language was used when writing to residents about their behaviour and that any allegations had been properly evidenced.
   5. The panel also found that it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for the resident’s language to be respectful, given the resident’s comments to the landlord’s staff members during previous visits to his property and during telephone conversations.
   6. The landlord included a letter of apology with the stage two complaint response for the delay in responding to his complaint.
6. In referring the case to this service, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint was the length of time it took the landlord to complete the repair to the boiler.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 4 of the tenancy agreement relates to the tenant’s behaviour. It states that the tenant, on signing the tenancy agreement, agrees that they “must not harass, threaten or use violence towards any of [the landlord’s] employees, contractors or agents.”
8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that in cases of total or partial heating failure between 31 October and 1 May each year, it aims to complete repairs within 24 hours. The policy goes on to note that in cases where alternative heating is available, it will complete repairs within three working days.
9. The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that on receipt of a complaint, it will aim to provide a formal response within 10 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with its response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then convene a tenant’s panel which will review the complaint. A stage two response is then sent to the resident with its findings. The policy does not give a timeframe for the panel review. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which is available on our website) states that landlords are expected to respond at the second stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress for service failure when there has been “inconvenience caused by our actions in meeting our responsibilities.” The policy’s payment framework suggests a payment of up to £100 for service failure of “low impact,” up to £250 for service failure of “medium impact,” and up to £500 for service failure of “major impact.”

Boiler repairs

11. On receiving the report from the resident that the boiler had stopped working, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s call and repair logs state that:
    1. It first received a call from the resident on 5:42pm on Friday 10 December 2021, that the boiler was not working. It contacted an engineer to attend the property.
    2. The engineer informed the landlord that due to a previous incident with the resident, they declined to attend.
    3. The resident called again at 7:42pm to chase up temporary heating. The landlord and resident then spoke at 7:49pm. The landlord’s call logs state it explained why the engineer had refused to attend and explained that due to requiring a specialist part, the boiler repair would not be able to be undertaken until Monday 13 December 2021.
    4. The landlord’s repair logs state that a temporary heater was later provided to the resident on 10 December 2021, and that the boiler repair was completed on 13 December 2021.
12. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. It provided the resident with temporary heating within 24 hours and completed repairs to the boiler within three working days. This is in line with its published targets from its repairs policy detailed above and was reasonable in the circumstances.
13. While the decision made by the engineer not to attend did cause a minor delay, the temporary heating was still delivered on the evening the resident reported the fault. This also had no effect on the repair of the boiler, as the specialist part required to complete the repair was not available until 13 December 2021.
14. The landlord has acknowledged that the information it provided in its stage one complaint response about the reasons for the engineer declining to visit the resident was incorrect, and that the issue that occurred between the resident and the engineer was during a previous repair at the property. While it is reasonable for the landlord to expect its tenants to be in compliance with section 4 of the tenancy agreement detailed above and for its staff members to able to work safely in properties, it would also be expected to write to a resident to inform them of any allegations and allow them the opportunity to respond. There is no evidence that this occurred in this case. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to accept the panel’s recommendation to review its policies and procedures in how it writes to residents about their behaviour.

Complaints handling

15. The landlord did not follow the Complaint Handling Code during stage two of the complaint process. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 23 December 2021, and a panel review was held on 5 April 2022. This was 51 working days outside of the Complaint Handling Code’s 20 working day target. While it is noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2021, to acknowledge the escalation and inform him that, due to the holiday period, there would be a delay, it was not until the resident chased the landlord for an update on 15 March 2022, that it started to take steps to arrange the panel review.
16. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an apology letter with the stage two response to recognise this delay and the inconvenience caused to resident. However, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation. This would have been in line with the guidance given in its compensation policy detailed above.
17. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). recommends a payment from £50 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to make a payment of £100 to recognise the 51 working day delay in arranging the stage two panel review and the inconvenience that this caused to the resident. This amount is also in line with the landlord’s payment framework for service failure of low impact.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the property’s boiler.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

20. For the service failure in its complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £100. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this service when payment has been made.