Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202221843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221843

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

7 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident.

Background

The property is a two-bedroom maisonette. The repair logs provided by the landlord show there is a history of issues with the hot water supply, taps and central heating system at the property.
In May 2022, the resident reported an issue with the heating in the property, citing leaking taps and a slow hot water supply. This is marked as completed in the landlord’s June 2022 repair record. The records from around this period reference the resident reporting a related repair to a member of staff.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 October 2022. The resident complained that:
1. The member of staff he had reported a repair to had forgotten to raise it.
2. That he had previously requested the water tank and boiler to be changed and replaced, which had not been done.
3. That the resident had been told this replacement would be carried out in 2020, but this promise was not honoured due to the national lockdowns.
The resident stated that to resolve the complaint, he wanted the water tank removing and the boiler replacing by 31 October 2022.
The landlord replied at stage one on 14 October 2022. The landlord:
1. Apologised if there had been any misunderstanding, but had no record of the resident being told to expect an upgrade to the heating system in 2020;
2. Advised the resident that his property was due for a full upgrade in 2023/2024.
3. Explained that the boiler had been serviced as recently as 10 September 2022 and no issues were present.
4. Provided the resident with instructions to report problems with his boiler if he was experiencing issues.
That same day the resident reported that taps were dripping, and the hot water had been running at “a trickle since early 2020”. He also escalated his complaint.
The landlord completed a repair on 27 October 2022. The plumber raised a further works order on 1 November 2022 to check that the repair was effective. The repair logs note that the repair was attended and marked “complete” on 2 November 2022.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord confirmed that the central heating system was in full working order and maintained its stage one position.
On 14 December 2022, the resident wrote to a senior member of staff of the landlord. The resident gave a detailed account of the problems he was experiencing with his hot water supply, stating that “my hot water rarely has any pressure and filling up a bath takes a long time. It also takes about an hour for my hot water to actually heat up.” The resident explained that he had a number of health conditions and again requested that the water tank be removed, and a combi boiler fitted.
The landlord then began making a number of urgent enquiries on the same day. On 15 December 2022, the landlord explained in an internal email that it had spoken to one of the contractors who attended on 2 November 2022. The contractor had confirmed that there was no issue with the water temperature, but also confirmed the resident’s account of poor water pressure in the bathroom. The contractor explained that this was due to the location of the water tank.
Internal landlord emails show that arrangements were now being made to remove the water tank and replace the central heating system.
The repairs were marked as complete on 26 January 2023. The water cylinder had been removed and a combi boiler installed, as per the resident’s request.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has stated as part of his complaint that the landlord had previously made a commitment to replace the boiler in 2020. There is no evidence available to confirm this. Therefore, the investigation into this element of the complaint has been inconclusive.
The repairs log available to this Service, which dates back to 2020, provides some background information about the issues that the resident was experiencing at the property. However, as the resident did not complain about these at the time, the Ombudsman is not able to explore the handling of any repairs prior to those that were dealt with under the complaints procedure. This is because paragraph 42 (c) sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The logs will however be referenced during this report in the context of information the landlord possessed at the time of the complaint to inform its decision making.

The handling of the repairs to the heating system

In the resident’s first complaint of 8 October 2022, the issues that the resident was experiencing with his hot water were not explained in detail. The complaint focussed on a staff member forgetting to report the repair and the resident’s desire for a full replacement of the central heating system. Nonetheless, this Service would expect some investigation from the landlord into why the resident wanted a new heating system.
The landlord has shown satisfactory evidence that it has done this in its stage one response. The stage one response notes that the boiler was serviced on 10 September 2022 and no issues were found. It said that it had no record of an agreement to replace the heating system and apologised if there had been any misunderstanding. It explained that if the resident was experiencing issues, he should report them as a repair. The response included clear instructions on how to do this. This was an appropriate response based on the information the landlord possessed at this juncture. The resident then reported the repair in greater detail on the same day, using the process which the landlord suggested. The landlord also consulted with the repairs team when issuing this response, who would have been expected to have looked at the repair history at the property. It is unclear whether it did this.
The repairs history suggests a longstanding issue with the hot water supply at the property, which the landlord should have investigated to inform its response to the resident’s complaint. However, when each repair is looked at in isolation, it is understandable why the landlord may not have recognised the true nature of the issue at this time. For example, on multiple occasions a plumber was sent to the property to investigate issues with leaking taps. Issues with the taps were found and fixed, and likely assumed to be the cause of the simultaneous problem with the hot water supply. This led to jobs being marked as “complete” whilst issues persisted. The nature of the issue also meant that the resident did have a good supply of hot water for short periods of up to twenty minutes. On some occasions therefore, contractors attended the property and found no obvious issues and the repairs were again marked as complete. Another job was abandoned due to a lack of access and another it was noted was cancelled by the resident as no longer being required. It is unfortunate that the cause of the issues was not identified sooner, and it is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the repeated problems with his heating system. However, this Service is satisfied that the landlord carried out sufficient investigations into the repairs history when responding to the resident’s complaint.
Because the issue was misidentified as a job for a plumber and not a gas engineer, the water cylinder, which was the main cause of the issue, was not closely scrutinised.
On 27 October 2022 a contractor attended the property again in response to the resident’s report. The repair notes are brief, but suggest that the contractor correctly identified the problem, and sought to solve the issue by fitting a ball valve to the water tank. It is remarked that this repair would be trialled and tested at a later date to ensure that it was effective. The contractor also noted that he enquired with the landlord when the boiler would be replaced. This suggests that the contractor felt this was a temporary fix until the system was due to be replaced the following year.
On 2 November 2022, the contractor reattended in order to test the water pressure. The job was marked as complete, leading the landlord to believe that the issue had been resolved.
On 14 December 2022, the resident again contacted the landlord, complaining about the heating system. This indicated that the fitting of the ball valve had not solved the problem. This was sent to a senior member of staff instead of the complaints or repairs team, and therefore was not raised through the formal complaints procedure. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team before this to inform them that the repair had not held. The resident was clearly distressed, and the issues had now persisted for some time. Therefore, at this point, it was vital that the landlord sought to take effective and permanent action.
By 15 December 2022, internal landlord emails show that the landlord conducted a thorough investigation quickly and effectively. Within 24 hours of receiving the report on 14 December 2022, it had interviewed the contractors who had attended the property. By doing this, it established a picture of the true cause of the issues and what action had been taken by the landlord thus far. It resolved to bring forward the upgrade to the heating system and was able to start the process shortly thereafter. The upgrade was completed on 26 January 2023.
In conclusion, it is understandable that the resident feels frustrated with the length of time for which the issue persisted. The resident raised multiple repairs after suffering issues with his hot water for over two years. The landlord however has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate the issue once it became subject to a complaint and then took appropriate steps to address it. There were a mixture factors present which caused delays to finding an effective repair solution. These factors included:
1. Other issues being present which may have masked the true problem.
2. The nature of the problem being wrongly identified as a plumbing issue as a result of the coinciding issues with the taps.
3. The resident made a request for a new heating system in October 2022 but did not explain what the problem was which required the fitting of a new system. This meant that the landlord did not pick up that there was an outstanding repair present before it issued its stage one response.
4. The temporary measures the landlord installed were ultimately ineffective, which caused delays.
Whilst these factors did not change the adverse effect the resident had clearly experienced, it does show that these factors were largely outside of the landlord’s control. Where they were not, this Service is satisfied that the landlord has tried to do what it could to address the issues. For example, the landlord was right to seek an immediate solution by installing a ball valve and the landlord was right to monitor the effectiveness of this solution. When the repair failed, the landlord sought to upgrade the system as quickly as possible, as per the resident’s request.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that a repair of this description should be completed within 90 days. The landlord was notified that its temporary repair had failed on 14 December 2022. It had concluded all repairs and upgrades as per the resident’s request by 26 January 2023. As a result, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating system.

Complaint Handling and Communication

It is noted that the stage one response issued on 14 October 2022 does not respond to the resident’s complaint that a staff member had forgotten to pass on a repair request. It is likely that the landlord correctly identified the key issue of the complaint being about the replacement of the boiler itself and chose to focus on that element. However, the landlord must ensure it issues all complaint responses in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code stipulates that the landlord should respond to each element of a resident’s complaint. It is important to note however that there was no adverse effect caused to the resident because of this shortcoming in the complaint handling.
There were a number of minor miscommunications between the landlord and the resident regarding these repairs. On the landlord’s part, this included:
1. The landlord not being clear with when contractors would attend.
2. Not properly explaining to the resident what investigations it was carrying out at the property or what repair solutions were being implemented.
3. Not including a detailed breakdown of what had happened as a result of the complaint, or what to do if the issue returned, in the landlord’s stage two response. This was a missed opportunity to use the complaints process to ensure the resident felt listened to and that any resolution would be effective and lasting. It is not clear if the resident knew that a temporary repair had been fitted on 27 October 2022.
This meant that when the repair failed at some point in November or December 2022, the resident was understandably frustrated and felt he had to escalate the issue to a more senior member of staff. Better communication via the complaint responses may have given the resident more confidence in using the formal channels. This may have prevented the resident from feeling the need to ‘go over the heads’ of the relevant teams responsible for complaints and repairs.
On 12 or 13 January 2023, the landlord attended the property unannounced to check the water pressure again in preparation for the upcoming repairs. The resident had been awaiting this visit but had not been told exactly when to expect it. As a result, the resident was unable to facilitate access to the property. The resident wrote to the landlord and explained that he required notice before attending and gave a number of communication preferences to the landlord.
The evidence shows that there was a significant improvement seen in the landlord’s communication with the resident after this point. This saw the landlord adhere to the tailored communication plan to support the resident through the repairs.
In conclusion, the landlord’s communication and complaint handling was imperfect and contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the service he had received. Although it issued its complaint responses based on information it was reasonable to believe was true at the time, it nevertheless wrongly asserted that there was no issue present with the heating system on two occasions. In the stage two response, the landlord did not accurately reflect what had happened as it did not explain that the heating system was in working order only because of the repair it had since implemented. It did not provide context that this repair was temporary or provide instructions of what it would do if the issues reoccurred. The landlord should have expected that the issues may reoccur due to the nature of the fault and the chosen solution. It is unclear if the resident was ever aware that this repair had been done. This caused confusion and frustration for the resident. Therefore, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord however recognised that the situation was becoming increasingly distressing for the resident after his December 2022 correspondence and took effective action to see the issue rectified. There is evidence from internal emails that the landlord reflected on its own actions throughout the process and clearly recognised that the stage two response it issued in December 2022 was “not strong”. It acknowledged that the landlord/resident relationship had been damaged and took proactive steps to repair the relationship and work in cooperation with the resident. This Service recognises that the service failure was minor and that other factors outside of the landlord’s control exacerbated the resident’s poor experience. This Service is also ultimately satisfied that despite what was a delayed resolution, the resident’s requested replacement of his heating system was completed within the 90 days specified in the repairs policy. The landlord was able to effectively correct what had gone wrong and demonstrated that ongoing learning and improvement had taken place. These serve as mitigating factors in deciding an appropriate remedy.

Determination

Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

Orders

To pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the service failure in complaint handling.