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

Optivo (201913685)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913685

Optivo

17 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 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 a heating system.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2016.
  2. The landlord has a compensation policy which sets out what compensation will be offered to residents and in what circumstances.
  3. The landlord has a complaints policy which sets out a two-stage process which can include a resident attending a review meeting.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident has said that he was without heating in his property from early December 2019 and that the landlord’s engineers failed to attend appointments.
  2. The landlord has provided copies of repair jobs it logged, these show that an engineer attended on 11 December 2019 and reported that a wall needed to be strengthened in order to re-hang a radiator.
  3. The landlord’s records show that a second job was raised on 20 January 2020 due to a leak that was affecting the resident’s neighbour. A third job was raised on 28 January 2020 due to a leak from under the resident’s floorboards.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 February 2020 as an engineer had attended that day to carry out work unrelated to the leak under the floorboards and said that he was still without a working heating system. He was also unhappy that he had been told he needed to arrange further appointments.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 6 February 2020 and said that it would log the matter as a formal complaint and would investigate and respond to the matters raised by 20 February 2020.
  6. On 20 February 2020 the landlord said that it needed to extend the response date to 28 February 2020. Its stage one response was sent on 28 February 2020 and apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced and offered £88.59 compensation. It said this was a 10% rent reduction for the 47 days he had been without heating in line with its compensation policy. It said that the 47 days were 26 December 2019 – 13 February 2020.
  7. The landlord also apologised for a missed appointment on 22 January 2020 due to the engineer being delayed and said that the engineer should have called sooner to advise of this. It offered £10 compensation in respect of this as per its policy. It also apologised that the engineer that attended on 5 February was unaware of the leak and said it had agreed a more efficient process to try to limit this happening in the future.
  8. The landlord noted that an engineer had attended on 18 February 2020 and repaired the leak and rehung the radiator.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord to request that his complaint be escalated (the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this request). The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 5 March 2020 and sent a review request form and asked that he complete and return it.
  10. The resident completed the form and said that the resolution he was seeking was better safeguards to be introduced, prioritisation introduced to the landlord’s responses, contractors to have the necessary skills, 80% reduction in rent for the affected period and an embracing system that reflects customer needs.
  11. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the review form on 25 March 2020. It apologised for a delay in the acknowledgement and said this was due to corona virus and someone needing to be in the office. The landlord said that it had arranged for a review meeting and a response would be issued by 8 April 2020.
  12. The landlord issued a further response on 7 April 2020 and responded to nine points the resident had raised:

(1)  It agreed that the resident had been without hot water for too long and apologised.

(2)  It acknowledged that the resident’s efforts to resolve the issues went unanswered and that it has service standards setting out response times.

(3)  It apologised that communication between its engineers and operatives was not efficient and said that it planned to hold regular management meetings to agree a process to improve its service once the Covid19 crisis was over.

(4)  The landlord said that it had arranged for relevant staff to have access to each other’s systems as a safeguard to avoid future communication issues.

(5)  In response to the resident’s request for prioritisation to be introduced to the landlord’s structure it believed it already had this in place and that the involvement of more than one contractor had extended the repair times in this case. It also felt that the change listed in item 4 would prevent this issue happening again.

(6)  The landlord said that its engineers receive monthly training sessions to ensure that they have the necessary skills and tools.

(7)  The landlord said that its policy did not allow for 80% reduction in rent as compensation for the period the resident was affected. However, it offered a further £100 compensation as a discretionary payment.

(8)  The landlord said that it was open to the resident’s comments about embracing a system to reflect customers’ needs and asked if he had more specific feedback to show how it could improve.

(9)  The landlord apologised for the resident’s calls and emails not being answered in a timely manner as this was unacceptable. It said that in future the resident should use the central email address as it was able to monitor this through its system.

  1. The landlord said that it was not escalating the complaint to the review process as it had addressed the points raised and increased its compensation. It believed that this would not be increased further by a review panel.
  2. The resident has not brought the matter to the Housing Ombudsman for determination as he does not feel the compensation reflected the distress caused to his family.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has said that he does not believe the compensation offered by the landlord reflects the distress he and his family experienced. He has said that he was without heating since early/mid December 2019 and that engineers failed to attend appointments, and at other times attended for something unrelated to the loss of heating. He is seeking an 80% reduction in his rent for the affected period of time as compensation.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that there was service failure and that there were missed appointments and poor communication on its part. It has said that the resident was without hot water for 47 days which was from 26 December 2019 to 13 February 2020. The landlord has offered £88.59 for this and £10 for a missed appointment which it has said is in line with its compensation policy. It has also offered a further £100 compensation as a discretionary payment.
  3. Neither the landlord or the resident has provided the Ombudsman with a detailed breakdown of what happened in December 2019 and January 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said that he was without heating since early December 2019, but the landlords repair records show an attendance on 11 December 2019 but does not mention a breakdown of the heating. However, the resident has not disputed the dates the landlord said he was without heating or its mention of a missed appointment. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s summary correctly reflects the events.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it has apologised for the poor service and proposed changes to try and ensure the same mistakes do not reoccur. The resident has not challenged any of these points and the Ombudsman considers that the suggested changes are reasonable. One of the main aims of the Housing Ombudsman is to help landlords recognise when something has gone wrong and to encourage change to address any underlying issues.
  5. The Ombudsman considers that the proposed changes meet this aim. However, this service has noted that one of the changes was proposed to be implemented after the Covid19 crisis. Given that the response was issued at the beginning of the crisis the Ombudsman considers that this was appropriate. However, as the crisis has gone on for longer than originally hoped, the Ombudsman would recommend that the landlord look to implement the delayed changes, if it has not already done so, in line with the current methods of working
  6. The landlord has said that the compensation it offered is in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman has considered this policy and can see that it has a section for loss of amenities which says it will pay compensation for total loss of heating for more than 24 hours and it will be at 10% of the net rent each day/week.
  7. The resident has said that he believes an 80% reduction would better reflect the distress he and his family experienced. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in applying its compensation policy. This is because the policy ensures that all of its customers are treated the same and the Ombudsman has not seen anything to show that the resident should be treated differently to any other resident that would find themselves in the same situation.
  8. The landlord also offered £10 for a missed appointment and the Ombudsman can see that the compensation policy does provide £10 per missed appointment. The Ombudsman has not seen anything to show that the resident disputes that there was only one missed appointment. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the offer is in line with the policy guidance and is also in line with what this service would expect to see in this type of circumstances.
  9. The landlord has also offered a £100 discretionary payment to the resident. The Ombudsman has noted that this is also set out in the landlord’s policy which says that discretionary payments are usually £50. In this case the landlord has offered an amount which is above what its policy says is usual.
  10. Having considered everything, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation is proportionate to the situation and adequately takes into account the level and extent of service failure.  In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered a reduction in rent totalling £88.59, £100 in compensation and £10 for a missed appointment. The total offer of redress was therefore £198.59.  The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances and notes that it was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and what this service would expect to be offered in similar circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman considers that the landlord made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apologies and suggested changes to its process demonstrate that it recognised the failures in its service in this case and are proportionate to the matter and show that it wants to learn from its mistakes.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation is appropriate to the matter and in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s total offer of £198.59 was reasonable redress and took into account the level and extent of the service failure in this case.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that if it has not already done so, the landlord implement the changes it originally said it was waiting until the Covid19 crisis was over before doing so.