Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202003179)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003179

Sanctuary Housing Association

22 February 2021


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 complaint about a leak to the toilet at the property;
  • Response to the resident’s complaint about the boiler at the property, including the level of compensation offered for acknowledged service failures.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 2018. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached property with a lounge, kitchen and downstairs WC on the ground floor, first floor two bedrooms and second floor bedroom and shower room.
  2. The tenancy agreement provides for the landlord to address the resident’s complaints through the Landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure provides for a two stage complaints process which are: a front line resolution and Investigation stage.
  3. The Front Line Resolution is the first stage of the landlord’s complaints process and the policy states that they aim to put things right as soon as possible. The second and final stage is the investigation stage of the complaints process. The policy states that at this stage a complaint will be looked into in more detail by the landlord’s Independent Case Resolution Team who will: Look fairly and honestly at the concerns raised, carefully consider the impact it has had on the resident and family and explain what action can be taken to resolve the complaint. They aim to respond to a complaint at investigation stage within 20 days.
  4. The tenancy agreement further provides for the resident to promptly report to the Landlord any disrepair or defect for which the Landlord is responsible either in the property or the common parts (whether or not caused by the act default or neglect of the Tenant), when it comes to the resident’s attention.
  5. The agreement in addition, provides for the resident to permit the Landlord and its agents, employees, or contractors acting on the Landlord’s behalf, upon giving at least 24 hours’ notice in writing (except in an emergency) to enter the Property at all reasonable times to inspect and repair the Property.

Summary of events

Toilet Leaks

  1. On 15 July 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak to the toilet sink and shower and an appointment was booked for the 31 July 2019 for the repairs to be carried out.
  2. On 31 July 2019 and on attendance, the operative reported that there was no one available to give access. On 1 August 2019 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s customer service centre to explain that she had not been able to arrange access for the appointment and asked to re-arrange. On 23 August 2019, the landlord attended and reported the works as complete.
  3. On 31 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the toilet overflow was constantly leaking. An appointment was arranged for 19  November 2019. On the 19 November 2019, the landlord attended and reported that additional works were required to complete the repair. A further appointment was booked for 18 December 2019 to complete the works required. However when the landlord attended on that date, the operative reported no access.
  4. A further order was raised to complete the works and an appointment was arranged for 27 January 2020. On the 27 of January, all works for the leak were reported as complete.

 

 

          Boiler repair and level of compensation

  1. On the 10 January 2020, the resident reported a fault to the boiler panel. A routine order was raised as the resident confirmed there was heating and hot water. The resident then contacted the landlord on the 11 February 2020 to report that the boiler was making a lot of noise. An emergency 24 hours appointment was booked to resolve the issue. The appointment went ahead and the contractor advised that there were additional works required to fit a part. An earliest available appointment of the 6 March 2020 was booked and agreed with the tenant. The engineer attended and although the repair had left the system in working order, the engineer found a fault with the panel.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on the 13 March 2020 to report that the panel fault was still showing. The landlord attended on the 20 March 2020 and confirmed that the system was in working order however the panel was faulty and required replacement.
  3. On the 11 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord with a copy of a water bill attached and stated that her usage was double what it should be and that this was all due to a leak from the sink and toilet that was never repaired until recently and in addition, the faulty boiler which added debt from a leaking valve and resulted in an increase in her monthly direct debit payments.
  4. On the 23 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to state that the fault was still outstanding and the boiler cover had fallen on both her pregnant daughter and her son. She requested to know when the boiler would be fixed/replaced or made safe.
  5. On the 27 April 2020, The landlord sent an investigation stage response letter and stated that due to the coronavirus pandemic, they had decided to deliver an emergency repairs service only, for the time being. It was further stated that the complaints investigation had been based on events that had occurred commencing on 15 July 2019 and prior to 18 March 2020 when they moved to an Emergency Repairs Service only. The landlord also stated that based on its findings, “there had been no failure in service provided regarding the toilet leaks and were therefore unable to consider the request for compensation during that period from the resident”. The landlord acknowledged that there were still outstanding repairs due as the panel was faulty and required replacement but due to the coronavirus pandemic, all non- urgent works were currently on hold. It also acknowledged that the initial appointment to fix the boiler was arranged outside of the landlord’s timescales and apologized for any inconvenience caused. In light of its findings, it felt an offer of redress would be appropriate under the circumstances and would make an offer once bills were received from the resident. The resident responded with a copy of her bills and stated that it can be seen from the bills that once the water valve was fixed (which had caused the emersion to constantly work, causing the debt) the usage had begun to normalize again.
  6. The landlord sent a further investigation stage response letter on the 14 May 2020 having had the opportunity to review the additional evidence provided by the resident in relation to the compensation element of the complaint. Having reviewed the water bill, the landlord acknowledged that there was an increase of 0.72m3 per day and therefore offered £102 in recognition of this. In relation to the electricity usage, the landlord stated that it was difficult to calculate the exact increase experienced by the resident and used the overview of monthly usage provided by the resident rather than individual bills to calculate the increase. An offer of £291 was made as compensation for the increase in electricity usage. £25 was offered for the initial appointment that was outside of published timescales, £25 also for the inconvenience caused and £50 for the delays. This was a total offer of £493.
  7. The resident rejected the offer stating that her entire normal annual consumption was exceeded in the 5 months of the fault and the boiler was still dangerously exposed from the cover not being on it. She asked the landlord to “go back to the drawing board and come back with a more reasonable and realistic offer of payment towards the debt incurred”.
  8. The landlord sent a further investigation of complaint letter in response, on the 12 June 2020. The landlord stated that it was noted by the resident that the fault was first noticed in November 2019 by her daughter and then by her in December 2019 but first reported to the landlord after the office re-opened, on the 10 January 2020. The landlord confirmed that it was only able to consider the request for compensation from the date the repair was first reported which was the 10 January 2020 up until the repair affecting the usage was completed on 6 March 2020. It stated that the offer of £493 remained the same and that the case had completed the final phase of its internal complaints procedure and the complaint would now be closed.
  9. The landlord then emailed the resident on the 13 July 2020 to state that they had received no response to the email sent on the 12 June 2020, including its final compensation offer of £493. The landlord confirmed that the complaint would now be closed.
  10. The resident responded by stating that she contacted the office last week and rejected the offer of £493. She also stated that she continued to incur costs as the issues remained unresolved. She said that she would not accept the landlord’s compensation offer as a final response since the situation was still ongoing and the debt is still increasing. She further stated that whilst it would be very convenient for the landlord to close the complaint, “it would be extremely inappropriate and unacceptable to do so during the ongoing situation”.
  11. The landlord responded on the 14 July 2020 and confirmed that having reviewed records, it could see that the resident spoke to its Customer Service Centre on 8 July 2020 regarding the outstanding panel replacement but as the call was about a repair and not a response to the letter sent, it was not passed to the Case Resolution Officer. It apologized that the resident was still continuing to see an increase in the electricity bill and asked the resident to send evidence of the continued increase for review. It was happy to leave the complaint open until the panel replacement was completed.
  12. On 22 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord with a copy of her electricity bill and stated that she was being chased for the debt and it was not all hers. The bill was for £3,041.33 and she stated that there was an additional £600 added to the total which she was not responsible for and considered it payable by the landlord, as she held it responsible for these costs. The debt had also now impacted on her credit score.
  13. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2020 confirming that the works to replace the panel were completed on the 12 August 2020. It said that it had not received any further evidence regarding a continued increase of the resident’s utility bill and if they didn’t hear from her within the next 10 working days of the date of the email, the complaint would be closed.
  14. The resident responded on 20 August 2020 with attachments which she stated display the actual effect the fault had on her usage and therefore evidenced the extra charges incurred. She also stated that the complaint is way beyond not being happy waiting for a repair. She wrote that “the stress, anxiety, unreasonable and unacceptable prolonged debt, inconvenience and safety issues are way beyond a simple or normal repair scenario and therefore needs the attention and resolution to reflect this”.
  15. The landlord sent a further investigation stage final response to complaint letter on 24 August 2020 with a copy of the landlord’s Goodwill and Compensation guidance attached. A revised offer of £568 was made consisting of £102 as compensation for the increased water bill, £291 for the increased electricity bill, £25 for the initial appointment outside of published timescales, £50 for inconvenience, £50 for delays, £50 for time and trouble. It stated that this was the final offer in relation to the complaint and the complaint would now be closed.
  16. In a further email on the 24 August 2020 to the resident, the landlord stated that having reviewed the bills provided by the resident in her latest email, there did appear to have still been a significant increase in her usage compared to the previous year. The landlord asked the resident to clarify if the boiler had now returned to the correct mode following the panel replacement. Once it received clarification, it would then be able to include for the period commencing 6 March 2020. The resident responded on the same day that the boiler was still not working properly, there were no auto modes to select and the water was not heating up properly.
  17. In response on the 25 August 2020, the landlord stated that it had asked for the information to be provided to its renewables contractor who was due to attend to the noise issues and panel cover. It had also asked that they check for any leak on the boiler and asked for all feedback. It will then be in a position to review the compensation offer afterwards.
  18. The resident sent an email on the 31 August 2020, to follow up on the water aspect and attached bills again detailing ‘the sudden spike’ and £277.85 additional costs generated by the valve fault.
  19. On the 16 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and stated that they attended to the boiler repair on the 8 September 2020 and its notes advised that the panel was refitted and the system checked and left in working order. It asked the resident to confirm that she was happy that the system is now in working order before the final response to the complaint was drafted.
  20. The resident responded on 16 September 2020 that the system had been checked and the panel was not refitted but ‘shoved back on with the tape previously used’. She was still awaiting the new cover. Other than that, she was ‘relatively happy’. She said that she was currently paying £108 per month for her usage and at the same time in the previous year she was paying £69. She had noted in her email of 11 April to the landlord that £108 was to cover her water usage and additional debt incurred for £605.58 due to a faulty boiler.
  21. The landlord responded on the 17 September 2020 to state that it had contacted the gas team to ensure a follow on has been raised for the cover. It asked the resident to confirm if the boiler was now set in the correct mode as the engineer advised he had not changed this and had not noted any leak found to the boiler.
  22. On the 26 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to state that she was pleased to say that it looked like she was finally back to her normal consumption and billing amount. The current billing of £70 per month reflects where she was at the same time last year before the faults and repairs began. She stated that it had been “the most stressful unnecessary year she had ever experienced for a basic home service in addition to the pandemic and having a heavily pregnant daughter and now a newborn while worrying about heating and hot water”. She further stated that “she was not sure any amount of compensation will ever get back the last 9 months of inconvenience, unreasonable delay of repairs, the threat to their health and mental health or damage to her bank balance and credit”.
  23. The local MP emailed the landlord on the 29 September 2020 and again on 5 October 2020 to state that she had been copied into emails sent to the landlord by the resident and that she noticed that the resident was without heating and hot water, that there was a baby in the property and the temperature had ‘dropped dramatically’. The MP stated that she was rather concerned for the resident and the fact that her energy bill was with a debt collection agency who had added £500 to the bill, which had cost the resident £200 a month instead of £69.
  24. The landlord responded to the local MP on the 13 October 2020 to state that there was an open complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints process with the resident, regarding the breakdown of the boiler and increased running cost during that time. The resident had rejected an offer of compensation and they were working with the resident to resolve the issue.
  25. A further investigation stage response letter was sent to the resident, by the landlord on the 30 September 2020. Based on the findings of the investigation, an increased offer of £1197 was made in recognition of additional utility costs experienced by the resident and for time, trouble and inconvenience. This was made up of £102 for increased water bill from 10 January 2020 to 6 March 2020, £570 for increased electricity bill from 10 January 2020 to 12 August 2020, £25 for the initial appointment outside of published timescales, £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £100 for time to resolve the complaint.
  26. The resident responded on the 3 October 2020 that the revised payment was still not covering or reflecting the true cost, inconvenience, upset and stress caused by the boiler. She also stated that the fault was still continuing.
  27. The landlord responded on 6 October 2020 that they were sorry to learn of the further issue experienced with a breakdown to the boiler. As this was a new issue, they would be unable to review this as part of the investigations. The landlord requested to know what the resident would deem an acceptable offer as a resolution to the complaint.
  28. The resident’s response on 13 October 2020 was that the issue with the boiler was not a new one and that she was only seeking what had been inflicted on her due to the fault over the now 10 months of inconvenience. She stated that the landlord rightly pointed out that she was still paying off her first bill for £1,450 as she had no supplier set up when she first moved in and had the under floor heating on high for months until she was informed by a neighbour how to use the system. She stated that the total cost to her caused by the fault amounted to £2,330 and a figure nearer this was required. She also said that compensation for delays and inconvenience were negotiable aside from this figure.
  29. On the 14 October 2020, the landlord provided feedback from its contractors to the resident stating that they attended on the 7 October 2020 and found the heating turned down by the resident on the thermostat. They adjusted this and carried out operational checks of the system and could not find any faults. They confirmed the system was working but there were a few issues that could be actioned if the landlord would like them to look into it. The landlord stated that it was reviewing the feedback and will address any additional work required. They were unable to consider this as part of their investigation and confirmed the dates the investigation would take into account would be 10  January 2020 to 12 August 2020.
  30. The resident’s response on 14 October 2020 showed that she was not happy with the contractor’s account or the service delivered by the contractor.
  31. The landlord provided a further final response investigation stage letter on the 10 November 2020 stating they may consider a payment up to a maximum of £400 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience experienced which they had offered. They were also able to offer up to £100 for a delay in providing a response to a complaint which they had also offered. £102 was offered for increased water bill from 10 January to 6 March 2020, £570 was offered for increased electricity bill from 10 January 2020 to 12 August 2020 and a total amount of £1197 was offered as compensation. The resident responded by email on the 16 November 2020 accepting the offer.
  32. A complaint was duly made by the resident on the 7 September 2020 to the Housing Ombudsman Service where she confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for repairs to be undertaken at the property and the outstanding bill charges. The case then progressed to formal investigation.

Assessment and findings

Toilet Leaks

  1. The landlord’s obligations under the assured tenancy agreement with the resident, stipulate that the landlord shall maintain and where appropriate keep in proper working order installations for the supply of gas, electricity, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and other common parts including their electrical wiring. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook also states under the repair responsibilities section that it is responsible for “keeping the outside of the property, the structure and items inside such as baths and toilets in good condition”. The Repairs Handbook also states that appointed repairs will be carried out within a timescale of 28 days.
  2. It is evident that upon receiving the complaint from the resident about the leaks to the toilet, sink and shower on the 15 July 2019, the landlord duly accepted its duty to resolve the repair issue and an appointment was booked for the 31 July 2019 to resolve the matter. This is in accordance with the responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and repair handbook as stated above.
  3. However, on the 31 July 2019, the landlord was unable to carry out the repair due to the resident being unavailable to grant access. The appointment was rescheduled for a later date, the 23 August 2019 during which the landlord attended and reported the work as complete.
  4. The resident however contacted the landlord again on the 31 October 2019 to report that the toilet overflow was constantly leaking. The landlord can be seen to have duly accepted its responsibilities to carry out the repair by booking an appointment for the 19 November 2019 within the timescale of 28 days to resolve the complaint. However, a further appointment had to be booked for the 18 December 2019 as additional works were required to complete the repairs but the landlord was unable to gain access.
  5. It is evident from the above that the landlord acted in accordance with the provisions of the tenancy agreement and its policies and procedures in responding to the complaint for the leaks to the toilet, sink and shower. The delays experienced in completing the repairs within a quicker timescale were due to the inability to gain access to the property.
  6. The landlord’s repairs handbook stipulates that “they want to take care of repairs promptly and effectively and they prioritise all repairs based on how urgent they are”. Emergency repairs are made safe within 24 hours, Appointed repairs are carried out within 28 calendar days and planned repairs are carried out as a programme of works.
  7. The repair for the toilet leaks was an appointed repair and it is evident from the first scheduled appointment on 31 July 2019 that this was in accordance with the timeframe in its policy. The repairs could not proceed on the first scheduled date due to the landlord not being able to gain access to the property and the resident confirmed this. There was also another “no access” reported for the appointment booked on 18 December 2019 and this led to a further order being raised by the landlord and the works finally being completed on the re-scheduled date of 27 January 2020.
  8. The resident’s complaint to the landlord focussed substantively on additional utility costs that she said that she had incurred in relation to both the toilet leak issue and the boiler issue. On the basis that no service failure has been identified with respect to the landlord’s response to the toilet leak issue, it is appropriate that no compensation was offered to the resident in this respect.

Boiler repair and level of compensation

  1. The landlord’s obligations under the assured tenancy agreement with the resident also stipulate that the landlord shall maintain and where appropriate keep in proper working order: Heating and water equipment where provided by the landlord. This obligation covers the boiler as a heating and water equipment. It is evident that the landlord accepted its repair responsibilities for the boiler complaint made by the resident on the 10 January 2020. This was treated as an appointed appointment as the resident confirmed that she had heating and hot water upon making her initial report. However it was unable to book the initial appointment within the timeframe stated in its repair policy of 28 days.
  2. The resident then contacted the landlord on the 11 February 2020 to report that the boiler was making a lot of noise. An emergency 24 hour appointment was booked and the landlord attended as an emergency appointment. It completed the appointment during which further works were identified. The landlord’s decision to reclassify the issue as an emergency based on the reports by the resident was reasonable, given that the circumstances had changed.
  3. The resident’s complaint was progressed to the investigation stage of the landlord’s complaints process on 27 March 2020 based on the amount of compensation requested by the resident. The landlord considered the starting point of any compensation for service failure to be the 10 January 2020 when the fault was first reported by the resident, though it noted that the resident stated the issues were first observed in November 2019. The landlord’s consideration of the start point was appropriate as its repair responsibility commences from the date an issue is first reported. The end date for the period of compensation was put as the 6 March 2020 in the initial response letters, the date that the landlord’s operative completed repairs to the boiler.
  4. This period on the final investigation letter and offer was then expanded to include electricity usage up till 12 August 2020, an additional five months. The landlord initially noted the works as complete on the 6 March 2020 however the resident contacted the landlord again on the 13 March 2020 to report that a panel fault was showing. The problem persisted until they were noted as resolved by the landlord on the 12 August 2020. There was an appointment on the 8 September 2020 which was to fit the panel cover and the boiler was  reported to be in working order. The resident also confirmed that other than the cover being “shoved back on” she was relatively happy.
  5. In an email on the 3 October 2020, the resident stated that the problem was still persisting. The landlord however classified this as a new issue which would not be taken into account in its investigation. The resident did not accept this as a new issue and stated it was an ongoing complaint. Based on the evidence, It was reasonable for the landlord to class the repairs to the faulty boiler as complete on the 12 August 2020. This is due to the fact that during a subsequent appointment on the 8 September 2020, the resident stated she was ‘relatively happy’ other than the issue with the fitting of the panel cover.
  6. It was also reasonable that the subsequent complaint made on the 3 October 2020, almost two months after the works were noted as complete, were classed as a new issue by the landlord taking into consideration the time that elapsed between when the work was noted as complete on 12 August 2020 and when the resident mentioned the new issue on 3 October 2020.
  7. The landlord first sent a final investigation response letter on the 27 April 2020 and another letter was sent on the 14 May 2020 where the first offer of compensation was made. A further letter was sent on the 12 June 2020 after the resident rejected the offer of compensation. This was further rejected and further letters were sent on the 24 August, 30 September and then 10 November respectively, when the offer of £1197 was then accepted by the resident.
  8. The landlord’s response of reviewing its offers each time they were rejected by the resident can be seen as an attempt to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction. However, its complaints policy states that where a customer is unhappy with a final offer made at the second stage of the complaints process, the complaint will be closed and the customer advised of their right to refer their complaint to either the Housing Ombudsman Service after eight weeks of the final response or a Designated Person if they wish to progress it before eight weeks have elapsed.
  9. All the final letters issued, mentioned that they were the final response to be issued and noted that the complaint could be referred to the Ombudsman or Designated Person however, they were reviewed several times which prolonged the time of the landlord’s final response from 27 April 2020 when the first letter was issued, up to the 10 November 2020 when the last letter was issued and the offer was accepted by the resident. On the one hand, this made the resolution of the complaint a long drawn out process and causing distress to the resident, as noted from her correspondence during the period. However, the landlord’s continued consideration of the issue resulted in an increased offer of compensation to the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considers it a reasonable exercise of discretion to have continued with its consideration of the issue.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that there was a significant increase in the electricity bills of the resident in its email dated 24 August 2020 and this was reflected in its offer of compensation. The landlord requested evidence from the resident showing that the debt collection charges she had accrued were due to the repair issues at the property. The resident provided copies of her utility bills and based on what was provided, there was no evidence to show that the debt collection charges accrued during the period of the outstanding repairs. The debt showing on one of the bills provided, predates the investigation period of the repairs carried out by the landlord. This was acknowledged by the resident, as debt accrued from her first bill which she was paying off. Evidence of the resident’s contact with the energy provider also suggests that her decision to cancel a direct debit arrangement led to the provider pursuing the full debt on the account.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will take an evidence led approach when offering compensation and will not offer compensation based on the balance of probabilities. The landlord’s complaints policy also provides guidance on how it is to assess compensation regarding costs incurred as a result of its action or inaction. It states that if a customer has incurred costs because of the landlord’s failure to follow a procedure or meet service standards, this may be considered. However, evidence of the costs being claimed for and an explanation of why it is responsible must be provided by the customer. Evidence could include (but is not limited to); receipts as proof of purchase, photographs showing items and any damage, utility bills and invoices where costs have been incurred.
  12. The landlord’s request for evidence to show that the debt accrued was due to the delayed repairs, was reasonable and in line with its guidance as above. The landlord’s offers of compensation to the resident focused on the evidenced increase in utility charges incurred as a result of its acknowledged service failures. This was a reasonable and appropriate approach to its calculation of compensation. There is no evidence that any debt collection fees incurred by the resident were attributable to the landlord’s service failure. 
  13. The landlord in its offer of compensation as detailed in the investigation letter dated the 14 May 2020, offered £102 for the increase in water usage caused by the fault for the period 10 January 2020 to 6 March 2020. The resident stated that her usage was normally around £23 a month which had doubled to £53.64 and which she attributes to the leak from the sink and toilet. The landlord in its response letter, did not find a service failure in its handling of the repairs to the leaks reported on 15 July 2019 and it was reasonable for it not to award compensation from that date. It accepted service failure from the 10 January 2020 when the boiler fault was first reported and calculated the increase in the water bills from that date. This was up to the 6 March 2020 when the repair affecting usage was reported as completed.
  14. The resident however stated on the 24 August 2020, that there was still a problem with her usage after speaking to her water utility provider. She stated that the due to a broken valve being part of the fault reported, this caused water to flood the system for several weeks and her water utility company called to ask why her usage was over £400 in 2 months. She was expecting this amount to be covered by the landlord. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that no additional water usage was attributable to any service failure, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord closed the investigation on the 6 March 2020. The calculation of £102 for 2 months water usage was reasonable in line with the previous monthly spend by the resident for water.
  15. In relation to the electricity usage, the landlord based on internal correspondence also sought clarification from its contractors on the repairs of the works carried out at the property. The response received was that the engineers attended the property on the 22 September 2020 and found no fault on site to the system. The issue the resident highlighted to the engineer was with the hot water running out when they shower and it was explained that if used regularly this was normal. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to class the report made on the 3 October 2020, as a new issue and to end its investigation on the 12 August 2020 when the work was last reported as complete.
  16. The resident on the 20 August 2020 placed the cost incurred due to the fault at £1,400 for electricity and £608.27 for added fees in chasing the debt. The landlord while calculating the compensation for electricity usage in its response letter of the 30 September 2020, compared the usage of the resident when the fault occurred, to the previous year which showed an increase and gave a breakdown for each period as follows:
  • 1 January – 31 March 2019 (90 days) usage was 3715 kwh which was 41.27 kwh per day. 21 January – 23 April 2020 (93 days) usage was 6005 kwh which was 64.56 kwh per day. This showed an increase of 23.29kwh per day.
  • 10 January 2020 to 30 April 2020 = 112 days x 23.29 kwh (daily calculated increase) = 2608.48 kwh. 2608.48 @ 16.85p per kwh for the period totalled £439.52.
  • 23 April – 17 July 2019 (86 days) usage was 1314 kwh resulting in 15.27 kwh per day. 30 April – 31 July 2020 (93 days) usage was 2122 kwh and 22.81 kwh per day. The additional usage in this period was less at 7.54 kwh per day.
  • 20 April 2020 to 12 August 2020 which was 104 days. 104 days x the daily additional usage of 7.54 kwh per day = 781.16 kwh which @ 16.60 per kwh = £130.17.
  • £439.52 + £130.17 totalled £569.69 and a round figure of £570 was awarded as compensation.
  1. It can be seen from the above breakdown that the increased usage in the mainly winter months from January to March, was more than in the spring and summer months from April to August. This is logical and expected in line with normal usage between the seasons. The amount outlined above provided a transparent and evidence calculation of additional costs incurred by the resident for the period of service failure. In addition to this figure, the landlord also offered the maximum amount payable (£400) under its compensation policy for time, trouble and inconvenience, a reasonable decision given the extent to which the resident had outlined the impact on her household. The landlord also paid the resident £100 for complaints handling failures, this was reasonable given the delays experienced in progressing the case through the complaints process.

        Determination (decision)

74. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair issues to the leaks in the toilet.

75.In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its response to the resident’s reports about the boiler at the property.

        Reasons

        Toilet leaks

76. The landlord booked an appointment to repair the leaks to the toilet within the timeframe stipulated in its repair handbook policy. There were however no access outcomes recorded on two occasions which led to the appointments being rebooked for later dates and delays in the problem being resolved. The resident was not able to grant access on the two occasions and the delays were not caused by the landlord.

 

Boiler repair and level of compensation

77. It is evident that the resident experienced considerable delays in obtaining a resolution to the issues with the boiler which resulted in a lot of inconvenience and inflated utility bills. The boiler issue took seven months to fully resolve. The landlord offered the maximum payments permitted under its compensation guidance for inconvenience and time/trouble in pursuing the issue. This was a reasonable outcome in the circumstances, given the extent to which the resident had been inconvenienced during this period. The amount offered for utilities by the landlord was based on the previous year’s usage in comparison with the increased usage due to the fault.