Midland Heart Limited (201913078)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913078

Midland Heart Limited

7 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 handling of reports of a lack of hot water.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 23 August 2019.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out timescales within which the landlord aims to attend a repair.
4. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure.  Timescales in which the landlord aims to respond to complaints is within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two.  Where this is not possible, the landlord will speak with the complainant and let them know by when they should expect to hear.

Summary of events

5. On 28 August 2019, the resident reported an issue with the hot water at the property, stating that he had had a shower but when his wife later went to have one, there was no hot water, despite having put the boost on for an hour.
6. Around 19 September 2019, after the resident had returned from holiday, the landlord attended the property.  At the visit, the landlord found no issue with the heating system and it was working as it should.  It was noted that there was an issue with the thermostats, however and this was raised for an electrician to attend and look at the wiring.
7. On 1 October 2019, the landlord’s records state that the issue with the thermostats were completed – “This is completed, the tank thermostats were not set”.
8. Around 14 October 2019, the resident reported that he had been getting only 10 minutes of lukewarm water in the mornings but since the visit, was only getting 5 minutes of lukewarm water. 
9. On 17 October 2019, the landlord’s records state that the resident confirmed that the hot water was back on normally, although the following day, on 18 October 2019, he reported no hot water again.
10. On 22 October 2019, the landlord spoke with the resident about the issue and explained that the boost button would need to be on for 40-60 minutes in order to heat the water up as it acts as an addition to the immersion; it would not heat water up in 10 minutes as the resident had thought.  The landlord could find no fault with the system.
11. On 24 October 2019, the resident reported again that he had no hot water for more than five minutes.  At the visit on the same day, the landlord’s records state that the plumber advised to “replace the cylinder thermostat” and states “I can only assume that there is an issue with the time clock not switching on the lower element, leaving the tenant reliant on the top element on boost mode. Relying solely on the top element would not meet the existing hot water demand”. 
12. On 1 November 2019, in a phone call with the landlord, the resident voiced his dissatisfaction that his heating system only provides a small amount of water before the boost button is needed. 
13. The landlord’s repairs records show that a new thermostat timer was fitted on 6 November 2019.
14. On 13 November 2019, the landlord responded to the complaint under stage one of its complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld.  The landlord explained that it had attended to inspect the hot water system upon notification from the resident that there was a problem with the boost button and having tested it, no defect was found.
15. In response to the resident’s concerns about how much hot water was available, the landlord found that it had acted appropriately in attending to carry out an inspection and having found no issue, replaced the timer, as a precaution. It noted that the resident had said that prior to the timer being changed he could only receive 5 minutes of hot water, but could now receive 12.
16. Finally, the landlord briefly explained how the ‘economy 7’ system worked and referred him to a web link for further instructions.
17. On 18 November 2019, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.  He expressed his dissatisfaction with irregular hot water supply in the property and said that if he had known he would need to use the costly and timely booster button every day in order to get sufficient hot water, he would have not decided to move into the property and referred to an engineer stating that the problem was due to the “unreasonable” size of the tank.
18. The resident felt unheard in his reports and complaint about the lack of hot water and was of the view that the landlord responded to his reports too slowly and that it should also have temporarily housed him elsewhere. As an outcome to his complaint, he wished to be compensated two month’s rent or for two extra months be added to the end of his tenancy.
19. On 19 November 2019, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and his desired outcome.  It said that it would provide a response within 20 working days, in accordance with its policy.
20. On 20 December 2019, the landlord issued its response to the complaint, under stage two of its complaints procedure.  The resident has said that he did not receive the response until 13 January 2020, however, when the landlord emailed it to him.
21. In its response, the landlord included report notes from its engineer.  The landlord did not uphold the complaint, finding that the repair was not classified as an urgent repair because there was hot water in the property and had attended the property within an appropriate period of time, following reports of an issue, on all occasions.  It explained that on no occasion could a technical fault be identified however, the decision was made to replace certain elements of the hot water system in order to eliminate all possible reasons that may have been causing the time period of hot water to reduce.
22. The landlord confirmed that all hot water systems in the building had been fit according to regulatory requirements and that instructions for use had been provided to the resident, as well as explained to him at visits.
23. The landlord explained that it would not have provided temporary accommodation or reimbursed rent because even though it did not meet the resident’s expectations, hot water was available at the property and there was no health or safety risk.

Assessment and findings

24. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. 
25. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify the landlord’s target timescales, although it is clear they exist because the landlord has provided evidence to this Service of its target timescale initially being missed by one of its contractors, which led to it instructing another one. Nonetheless, it is usual for a routine repair to be carried out within around 20 working days.
26. Had the issue in this case been an absence of any hot water, the landlord would be required to treat this not as a routine repair, but as an urgent or emergency repair and attend promptly, usually within 24 hours.  The issue was a lack of hot water, however, with the resident dissatisfied with the amount of hot water available to him without turning the booster button on. This does not constitute an urgent or emergency repair, as there was still hot water available in the property and the resident was able to access bathing facilities. Consequently, the landlord was also not required to provide alternative accommodation.
27. Besides what appears to be a brief initial delay, the landlord attended the property in response to the resident’s reports of issues with the hot water, within a reasonable period of time on each occasion. On no occasion did the landlord leave the resident in the property without hot water.
28. The root cause of a problem is not always obvious and it sometimes takes time to identify what the issue is.  It was appropriate that the landlord carried out inspections and checks in its investigation of the problem.  In doing so, it found that the tank thermostats were not set and that the cylinder thermostat should be replaced; both of which were done.
29. In its complaints responses and communication with the resident, the landlord sought to provide reassurance to him, by explaining how the “economy seven” system worked and referring him to further information, as well as confirming that the system had been fit according to guidance.  The landlord, in so doing, sought to manage the resident’s expectations around the system and the amount of hot water he could expect and how long he would need to wait for more hot water to be available. 
30. No evidence has been provided to this Service of there being an issue with the size of the tank being “unreasonable” and the resident did not continue to report issues with the hot water after the landlord’s inspections, explanations and replacing of the cylinder thermostat, indicating that the issue was resolved and did not require further investigation.
31. Although frustrating for the resident to not have the amount of hot water that he would like readily available and having to wait a period of time before further hot water can be used, there is no indication that the system is malfunctioning or the landlord acted in an inappropriate or unreasonable way.
32. Finally, the landlord responded to the complaint within good time, in accordance with its complaints policy and procedure.  It explained to and reassured the resident, in the ways described, as well as explained how it had investigated the issue and acted non-defensively and transparently in providing him its repair notes. It was not required to decant the resident or provide compensation, as requested for the reasons described; there was no service failure.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Reasons

34. There is no service failure insofar as the landlord responded to the reported issues with the amount of available hot water, within a reasonable period of time and carried out the identified works and recommendation made, also within good time. Further, the landlord sought to explain to and reassure the resident as to his heating system and responded to the complaint appropriately, in accordance with its policy.