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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (201910658)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910658

Hyde Housing Association Limited

22 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 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 response to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

  1. On 13 September 2019, the resident advised the landlord that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 September 2019, when he replaced the broken thermostat, and the heating system began working again.

 

  1. The resident reported further problems with the boiler on 18 September 2019, but when the contractor attended the same day he found no issues with it. However, on 27 September 2019, the resident advised the landlord that she again had no heating or hot water. The contractor attended and carried out repairs, which resolved the issue. As there were ongoing issues, the landlord arranged for a supervisor to carry out an inspection, which took place on 4 October 2019, and he found that the gas valve was faulty and needed replacing. The relevant part was ordered.

 

  1. The contractor attended on 11 October 2019 to fit the replacement part and found a further issue. This was replaced on 21 October 2019 but a further issue then arose. The contractor spoke with the manufacturer to diagnose the problem, but a reason could not be found for the fault. The contractor recorded that a technical call was needed.

 

  1. The landlord arranged for a supervisor to again attend on 24 October 2019 and it was found that more new parts were required, which were then ordered. These parts were fitted on 28 October 2019, but a further issue was then discovered, which meant that another part was needed. Two days later, the contractor returned to replace the faulty part and was able to repair the boiler. However, at this time, the contractor concluded that a new boiler was needed and this was then installed on 22 November 2019.

 

  1. In the resident’s complaint of 25 November 2019, she said that, between 19 September and 22 November 2019, her family had had no heating. In an effort to find a temporary solution, she had purchased electric heaters, which had significantly increased her electricity bill. She wanted to be reimbursed for her rent during this period; the increased electricity bill; and the loss of income from lost work shifts as a result of the contractor not attending. She included a timeline of events, which included four occasions when the contractor had not attended scheduled appointments. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 December 2019 and advised that a response would be issued by 19 December 2019.

 

  1. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 December 2019, it noted that the resident had first reported heating problems on 13 September 2019 and, as it had been unable to repair her boiler, a new one had been installed on 22 November 2019. It apologised that she had experienced the problems with her boiler, and with the time taken to resolve the matter for her. It noted that two complaints made by the resident concerned the boiler and heating but these were closed as its contractor was aware of the issue and was attending to it. The landlord accepted that it had not kept the resident updated with its findings and actions in respect of those concerns, and it apologised for this.

 

  1. The landlord advised that boiler repairs are not always straightforward, and its contractor was expected to exhaust all avenues before recommending a new boiler. The new parts it had ordered were part of that process, though its contractor then accepted that a new boiler was needed. This decision was put forward for approval, which added to the length of time the resident needed to wait. It outlined the various problems and repairs that had taken place and explained that it was its policy to repair before it replaces. It confirmed that its contractor had carried out its responsibility to repair the boiler before it was deemed not viable to continue repairing. However, it recognised that the resident had gone through a long repair process, and would have been uncomfortable with no heating.

 

  1. As an apology, the landlord offered £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her, and £50 for the time and trouble taken to raise the complaint. It then confirmed that the complaint would be reviewed by a manager, to see if it could improve its service.

 

  1. The resident responded in January 2020 when she said the landlord was required to keep in repair and proper working order the space heating, yet for 10 weeks, no space heating had been provided. Therefore, she thought the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations and rent should not have been debited. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for 10 weeks’ rent, as well as additional electricity costs due to the use of emergency electric heaters. She also still thought the landlord should cover a loss of work income, due to its contractor not attending several times. She requested total compensation of £2,602.80.

 

  1. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 5 February 2020, it increased its offer of compensation to £300, as the resident had experienced a delay in the heating system being repaired, and it had not clearly communicated with her. The award was calculated as: £50 for her time and trouble; £50 for the inconvenience caused by poor communication and the failure to raise her complaint/s at Stage 1 of its process; £100 for distress and inconvenience; and £100 for the delay and not providing her with fan heaters.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had requested a rent rebate from 10 September to 22 November 2019 but, as its contractor had been able to restore the heating and hot water a number of times, there was no evidence to show that the property had been uninhabitable during that period. As the resident had said she had used extra electricity, it would consider reimbursing her for this if she could provide electricity bills for the period when she was without heating, and the same period for the previous year, so that it could compare the costs. Finally, it advised that it would not compensate for loss of earnings for taking time off work.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2020, stating that, because the repairs had to be done a number of times, she was without heating between those repairs. That meant her family were living without central heating for 10 weeks, during a very cold winter period, and had to use electric heaters to keep warm. She reiterated that she should not have to pay rent for the period when she did not have heating.

 

  1. In the landlord’s final response of 25 March 2020 it reviewed its previous complaint responses, and found that it had given the resident a fair reply to her complaint and a fair offer of compensation. It further advised that the resident had not provided any new information about her complaint for it to consider, so it would not change its decision.

 

Policies and procedures

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its objective is to provide an efficient, prompt, transparent and customer focused repairs service ensuring high customer satisfaction. It also has an objective to ensure it is achieving value for money in the delivery of works that it and its contractors undertake.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy says that compensation payments may be paid at its discretion, and may be offered where: – it has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard; in recognition of the time and trouble taken by a resident to make their complaint; in recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident; and to reflect where a resident has suffered a loss because of its service failure. The policy says the landlord does not pay compensation for loss of earnings.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

  1. In accordance with the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the installations in the property for space and water heating. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.

 

  1. For the first three times the resident reported problems with the boiler, the contractor attended and the boiler was repaired/found to be working. However, as the resident had reported a number of issues at that point, the landlord arranged for a supervisor to carry out an inspection and this was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated that the landlord took the reports seriously and was mindful of its obligations to complete the repairs.

 

  1. When the supervisor found a further issue, matters then escalated as, whenever one issue was fixed, another was found. One of the landlord’s objectives under its repairs policy is to achieve value for money, and so it was appropriate for the contractor to attempt to carry out repairs before ordering a new boiler. The Ombudsman encourages social landlords to make the most effective use of their limited resources and so this focus on value for money represented good practice.

 

  1. The contractor decided, on 30 October 2019, that a new boiler was needed. Although the boiler was working at that time, the resident had been without heating intermittently from 13 September 2019, and several repairs had already been carried out. It was, therefore, reasonable for the contractor to conclude at this point that the resident should be provided with a new boiler, rather than take the risk of needing to carry out further repairs, and cause her more inconvenience.

 

  1. Whilst it had been appropriate for the contractor to attempt to repair the boiler, it is clear that the resident was caused inconvenience during the period of the various repairs, not only by the number of visits that were needed but also because her family were intermittently without heating for 10 weeks in total. Given that the landlord was aware that she was without heating during an apparently cold autumn, it could have done more to offer a temporary solution, such as heaters. The landlord’s internal correspondence explains that it is its normal policy to do so, but this Service considers that this approach should be reviewed and that the exercise of its discretion may have been wise in this case. Instead, the resident had to buy temporary heaters herself, and she submits that running those heaters caused her electricity bill to increase.

 

  1. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response, it confirmed that it would reimburse any additional electricity costs incurred as a result of being without central heating. That was an appropriate and proportionate response to the resident’s assertion that she had used additional electricity as a result of being without a working boiler. However, the landlord ought to have also offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of buying the electric heaters, given that it did not offer to provide her with temporary heaters, as it accepts it ought to have done.

 

  1. Once the contactor decided that a new boiler was needed, this had to go through an approval process, which meant that it took until 22 November 2019 for a new boiler to be installed. Given the time of year, and the length of time the resident had already been without heating, this was an unreasonable length of time. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have done more to expedite the order in the interests of bringing the matter to a close.

 

  1. In the resident’s complaint, she made reference to the landlord’s contractor failing to attend scheduled appointments. Whilst this is not reflected in the landlord’s repairs log, this Service accepts the resident’s submissions, as the landlord has not refuted this. As a result, the resident wanted the landlord to compensate her for loss of income due to the missed appointments. However, she has not provided any evidence in support of this claim and the compensation policy is clear that the landlord does not offer compensation for loss of earnings. The landlord’s refusal to compensate for this was, therefore, appropriate and in line with its policy. Despite this, the missed appointments would have led to further frustration on the resident’s part, which was not acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint response.

 

  1. The resident also wanted the landlord to reimburse her for 10 weeks’ rent. In response, the landlord asserted that the property was not uninhabitable at the time, and so it refused to comply with this request. Whilst it is accepted that the resident would have been caused inconvenience by the boiler issues, she did purchase temporary heaters, and so was not completely without heating for the 10-week period. That being the case, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the property was habitable and to decline the resident’s request for reimbursement of the rent she had paid over that period.

 

  1. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer financial compensation for the length of time she was without heating. Its compensation policy does not detail set amounts, but it offered £300 compensation to recognise the time and trouble for bringing the complaint, distress and inconvenience, delays, and for not providing fan heaters. That was a reasonable and proportionate amount for those issues, but it failed to take into account the frustration and inconvenience caused by needing to miss work unnecessarily when the contractor missed appointments. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay a further £50 compensation to recognise this.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident experienced ongoing issues with her boiler over the autumn, which led to the landlord’s contractor needing to attend several times. Whilst the contractor was able to fix the boiler on occasions, there were long periods when it could not and the resident’s family were left without heating. Although it was appropriate for the contractor to attempt to repair the boiler before ordering a new one, the resident was caused a lot of inconvenience because of the number of attempted repairs.

 

  1. The landlord accepted that there had been failings, and that the resident had been caused inconvenience as a result of the number of times it had attempted to repair the boiler, and because she had been intermittently without heating whilst it attempted to do so. It offered her £300 compensation, which was largely reasonable. However, this did not recognise that its contractor had missed appointments and the resident had taken time off work unnecessarily. Although the landlord was correct to say that it does not pay compensation for loss of earnings, it ought to have recognised the frustration that the missed appointments would have caused the resident and compensated her accordingly.

 

  1. Also, the landlord failed to provide the resident with temporary heaters, as it accepts it ought to have done, and so the resident had to purchase these herself. She advised the landlord that she had used extra electricity as a result of having to use the temporary heaters, and so the landlord offered to reimburse her for this, subject to her providing evidence of her additional costs. That was fair, though the landlord should have also offered to reimburse the cost of the heaters themselves.

 

  1. Once the landlord’s contractor decided that a new boiler was needed, it took too long for this to be approved and ordered, which caused further unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.

 

Orders

 

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

 

34.1         pay the resident £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its response to her reports of a faulty boiler. If it has already paid the £300 previously offered, then it will only need to pay the remaining £50;

 

34.2         reimburse the resident for any additional electricity costs she incurred during the relevant period, subject to her providing evidence that her electricity had increased over that time;

 

34.3         reimburse the resident for the cost of the temporary heaters she purchased, subject to the resident providing proof of purchase.