Notting Hill Home Ownership Limited (202004931)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004931

Notting Hill Home Ownership Limited

9 April 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 following issues:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of issues with the heating and hot water system, in particular, its handling of a water outage in January 2020.
   2. The landlord’s handling of heating and hot water issues prior to 2019.
   3. The landlord’s handling of cyclical work.
   4. The landlord’s response to a request for compensation in relation to the heating and hot water issues.
   5. The landlord’s response for a request of a refund of 33% of the management fee form 2012-19.
   6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of experiencing difficulty getting hot water in his property after his engineer adjusted the bypass valve.
   7. The estate losing its dedicated Property Management Officer (PMO).
   8. The landlord’s response to queries about the outstanding works to the heating and hot water system from August 2020 onwards.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The resident’s formal complaint was made in his capacity as a Chair of the Residents and Tenants Association (RTA).  Paragraph 47 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may accept an individual’s complaint as a test case if its facts equally affect others”. As the resident is bringing a group complaint, this investigation has considered the issues in dispute and facts relating to the complaint that are the same for all the residents represented by the RTA; residents who wish to complain about their particular situation should in the first instance raise a formal complaint with the landlord in their own right.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, there are aspects of the complaint that are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.  Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.  Essentially, a landlord must have had the opportunity to resolve a matter within its complaints procedure before this Service can assess its handling of the matter.
5. In this case, the resident raised matters with the landlord after the completion of hot water system.  In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, complaints f, g and h have not been investigated; however, they have been noted in this report to place the complaint in its current context and to inform orders and recommendations.
6. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which, in its opinion, 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 Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a fair and reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred and where relevant, to take steps to put things right. Moreover, as an issue become historic it can be increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
7. In this case there have been reported problems with the heating and hot water system since the estate was built in 2012. However, the resident did not raise a complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure until the complaint of January 2020.  It follows that complaint b, about the landlord’s handling of issues with the system prior to 2019, falls outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to determine in line with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme. The historical issues do provide contextual background to the current complaint and have been summarised in this report; however, in assessing the landlord’s actions, this investigation will focus on matters from July 2019, which is six months prior to the formal complaint made in January 2020.
8. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which, in its opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
9. With regards to a refund of the management fee of 33%, it is noted from the information provided to this Service that the RTA has raised several issues aside from those considered within this complaint, which are the basis for this refund request. Moreover, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the management of the estate has been “reasonable” or provides value for money to leaseholder paying a management charge.  In any event, this aspect of the resident’s case is better dealt with by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).  Unlike this Service, the Tribunal can make a binding determination on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.  Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, complaint e, about the refund of the management fee, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine.

Background and summary of events

10. The resident is a leaseholder, and his property is on a new build, mixed tenure estate built in 2012 consisting of 212 dwellings within 10 blocks (4 leasehold blocks and 6 rented housing blocks on intermediate rent). The estate has a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system in a centralised plant. When the property was constructed, heating and hot water was provided by a two-pipe communal heat network, with twin-plate HIU’s providing hot water and heating to each property.  The HIU’s are demised to the leaseholders. It is not disputed that there have been outages of hot water and heating across the estate since residents moved in, often resulting in leaking from the communal pipework to communal areas of the block.  This is mainly due to the expansion and contraction of joints to the hot water pipes.
11. A heating and hot water outage in March 2015 prompted a compensation request from residents for distress and inconvenience caused by problems with the system.  In a response sent on 29 May 2015 the landlord agreed to allocate a dedicated Property Management Officer (PMO) to the estate until the remedial works were completed and to review compensation when the issues were resolved.
12. On 12 June 2015, the landlord wrote to residents providing a communal heating action plan that was devised after the landlord commissioned two independent reports.  The plan included several “ongoing” items including installing non-return valves to stop water backwashing and flooding the plant room, improving the quality of the heating water by removing debris, changing the clips on the hot water pipes to reduce expansion/contraction which caused leaks, cleaning strainers in the HIU’s and sampling the water quality in each flat then “address as necessary with inhibitors/flush etc”.  On 25 September 2015, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it would be carrying out remedial decorating works to make good damage caused by leaks once works on the connecting joints had been completed in all leaseholder occupied blocks.
13. On 18 December 2015, the landlord in response to the RTA’s claim for compensation made an offer of £750 for each household to cover the period until 15 December 2015.  The offer was made pursuant to Part 36 of Civil Procedure Rules. In total, the landlord paid £159,000.
14. In an email sent on 16 September 2016 the landlord acknowledged that works carried out the previous year had not prevented hot water pipes from leaking as a result of further heating outages and, following advice from consultants, it would open up the ceiling on the second floor of a block to better understand potential causes. As a result, the redecoration of communal areas would be delayed until after the leaking heating pipes had been resolved.  The landlord in a further email sent on 20 October 2016 reiterated that redecoration would only commence when the “on-going leaks issue has been rectified to a satisfactory point that makes the redecoration viable”. It is understood that there were further leaks, and the redecoration works were not completed.
15. Following a complaint by the RTA on 9 July 2018, the landlord sent a response on 10 August 2018.   It provided a breakdown of costs of works carried out since June 2016 to improve the operation of the hot water and heating system. The cost of the work totalled £49,955.73 and had not been recharged to residents.  The landlord also noted the previous award of £750 to all residents (although it incorrectly advised that this covered the period to December 2016).  It stated the works carried out had improved the operation of the system, therefore it would not offer further compensation.
16. In further correspondence that year and following an RTA meeting on 19 September 2018 the resident reported that some residents, including himself, were getting fluctuating hot water, despite on many occasions, servicing the HIU.  In its responses the landlord asked to be informed of incidents and stated that it was considering taking responsibility for the maintenance of the HIU’s. The landlord provided a report with dates of implementation of the action plan formed in 2015 but stated that it was waiting for a written plan from one of the consultants for works to the plant room. On 2 and 30 November 2018, the landlord advised that it would cover the cost of redecoration works to make good water damage.  It confirmed that the cost of the decoration would be separated from other cyclical works and that the sinking fund would be used for the other cyclical works.
17. On 4 February 2019, the landlord provided an update to the resident advising that it had installed twin gas boosters that removed the single point of failure in the plant room.  It noted that there had been no unplanned hot water outages in eight months.  Furthermore, after investigating several individual flats, it did not identify a common theme, and issues were generally related to the HIU which needed to be serviced on an annual basis. With regards to leaks, the landlord advised that there were no faults with the “o-rings” and that it was considering works to the joints similar to that carried out in 2017.   
18. In a further update sent to the resident on 5 April 2019, the landlord reiterated that it would not redecorate the block until it had rolled out a valve replacement programme similar to works carried out in 2017 on a number of joints, and that potentially more areas of damage could be identified after leaks that had occurred in 2018. On 20 August 2019, the landlord stated that the valve replacement programme had now been completed but it was waiting for cladding issues in the leasehold blocks to be resolved. It anticipated redecoration of the rented housing blocks in January 2020 but clarified that redecoration of the leasehold blocks would not necessarily take place at the same time as they had a different budget and there was a need to consult.
19. On 31 August 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the heating and hot water system remained unstable and provided details of all recorded outages from January 2018 to 28 August 2019 (12 incidents, five in 2018 and seven in 2019). The resident noted that the most recent outage and leak had occurred after valve replacement works. In response, on 18 September 2019, the landlord outlined the reasons for each outage.   The landlord noted the most recent incidents related to the pump invertors and advised that to provide a long-term solution to the hot water outages and leaking issues, the invertors and therefore the entire pumps needed to be replaced. The landlord stated it had commissioned consultants to assess the efficiency of the plant. It attached the consultant’s report which was dated 30 August 2019, and which recommended installing three, more efficient, pumps. The landlord also reiterated that redecoration works were not viable until works to resolve the leaks had been resolved.
20. In response to a query from the resident about the poor quality and expensive costs of servicing the HIU’s, the landlord advised on 10 December 2019 that leaseholders should service them annually to ensure efficient performance and because the performance of one could affect the entire system.  The landlord also anticipated that the cyclical decorations would go ahead in 2020 after the replacement of the pumps. The landlord’s purchase order form indicates that the new pumps were installed around November 2019.
21. On 12 January 2020, there was an emergency incident – a leak in the plant room which was reported to the landlord’s Out of Hours service in the early hours.  According to the correspondence on the case, contractors from the landlord and the water board attended and turned off the water supply to the estate to prevent further damage.  Following excavations of the plant room floor, the leak was traced to the pipework below.  The landlord’s contractor re-connected the water supply on 13 January 2020 at around 6.00pm but when a sudden increase in pressure broke another coupling, it had to turn off the water supply again. It arranged a water delivery to residents in the evening.  Later that evening, at around 7.00pm the contractor successfully reconnected the water supply.
22. On 20 January 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint.  He raised concerns about the response time and communication over the incident of 12–13 January 2020.  The resident contended that the landlord had provided contradictory advice over the delivery of water; enquired about how the landlord would prevent and, if need be, deal with future incidents; raised concern that the redecoration works would be delayed again because of the incident; and requested compensation for the period 2016-20 as the situation had not markedly improved and a refund of 33% of the management fees for 2012–19.
23. On 3 February 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint. It outlined the action taken following the report of the incident of 12 January 2020.  It advised that whilst there was a delay with getting contractors to site initially, given the location and nature of the leak, to perform the repair, some outage of the water supply was unavoidable. The landlord further stated that it could not have been aware of the leak in advance and therefore able to prevent it as it occurred below ground level.  The landlord accepted that there was a lack of communication during water deliveries which resulted in residents being incorrectly informed that water would be distributed to each block.  Going forward, in the event of similar incidents, the landlord would reimburse the costs of bottled water.  The landlord also advised that it would investigate issues faced by residents when making reports to the Out of Hours Service which would be provided with more information about the estate so that it would be better placed to respond to large-scale communal issues going forward.
24. With regards to delays in the cyclical works, the landlord advised that it had carried out improvement works to the heating and hot water system, including the installation of three new pumps to replace the original two that were not working adequately. It stated that alerts to the system would remotely notify the contractor before any issue impacted the residents. The landlord also noted that the leak in January 2020 was caused by a leak in the underground pipework not due to a failure in the plant room, therefore, there was no reason to delay the cyclical redecoration works further.  The landlord committed to communicate timings to leaseholders, although the rented housing blocks and leasehold blocks were managed separately and therefore works may not be completed simultaneously.
25. With regards to a request for compensation, the landlord noted that further to the complaint of July 2018, it carried out improvements to the plant room equipment in 2018-19, specifically the installation of a twin gas booster and a side filtration unit, and that cost of the works, £31,515.84, could have been recharged to leaseholders but was not.  Furthermore, in 2019-20, it had installed three new pumps in the plant room to replace the original two, to provide a back-up, at a cost of £55,953.00 which again was not recharged to residents.  The landlord concluded by stating that due to the works carried out and resultant increase in the stability of the plant room, it would not offer further compensation.
26. The resident escalated the complaint.  He noted that the core issue causing the outage of January 2020 was the pipework serving the plant room which was the landlord’s responsibility.  He noted this was the second time the plant room had flooded, and measures taken to have detected the leak did not work, so the matter should be reviewed.   The resident reiterated his request for a 33% management fee refund due to the poor handling of several other issues aside from the supply of water and heating and hot water issues. The resident also contended that the works carried out by the landlord should not be considered to be “improvements” but remedial works completed so that it could meet its obligations under the lease; therefore, the works completed should not affect the residents’ request for compensation for distress and inconvenience.
27. The landlord sent the final response to the complaint on 23 March 2020. It noted the resident had requested compensation for “the recent water outage and hot water and heating issues experienced by residents since the last compensation pay out”. In reply the landlord stated that the response of 3 February 2020 had addressed the incident of 12-13 January 2020.  It stated that the schedule for the cyclical works had not been confirmed but the PMO would confirm timings accordingly. With regards to the resident’s request for compensation the landlord noted that it had offered £750 to all residents in December 2015.  It noted further that it had not recharged leaseholders the cost of remedying and improving the heating and hot water service provided by the plant room which amounted to £137,000 through the service charge.  It advised that it was not feasible to further compensate residents.
28. The landlord rejected the resident’s assertion that the works carried out in the plant room were not “improvements”, but simply “remedial” works.  It stated that a number of components had been replaced and the works that were carried out improved the capacity of the plant room, such as installing three pumps to replace the original two.
29. The landlord also addressed the request for compensation of 33% of the management fee for 2012-19. The landlord understood that the resident had made the request as the outcome of the complaint of July 2018 had not proved to be adequate. The landlord stated that following the complaint response of August 2018, a review of the complaint had not been requested within a reasonable time, 6 months. The landlord stated that it could not, therefore comment further, especially as the heating and hot water works had now been completed.

After the complaints procedure

30. In a letter to the resident’s councillor on 15 July 2020 the landlord reiterated that it would not offer further compensation to residents due to works that it had carried out and the resultant increase in stability of the heating and hot water system.  It confirmed that the PMO was on long-term leave and another member of staff was temporarily managing the estate.
31. Further correspondence was exchanged between the resident, the landlord and the councillor. The resident noted that the redecoration was not completed even after valve replacement works and asked when the works would take place. He has disputed that works identified in 2015 and were completed in full, specifically works to all pipe joints and the sampling of water for debris.   The resident has also noted that the landlord in an email on 23 December 2020 stated it potentially had to carry out further work to the communal heating and hot water system to resolve reliability issues and has asked for clarity on what “legacy issues” require resolving. In this regard, the resident has stated that whilst the landlord had suggested varying the lease to take responsibility for maintaining the HIU’s, this may not resolve all issues if further works were required.   The resident has requested the landlord devise a co-ordinated solution which encompasses the leasehold and rented properties, and which details maintenance and servicing responsibilities. The resident has also requested confirmation that residents would not be charged for “remedial” works to the plant room.
32. The resident has requested a dedicated PMO with management responsibility only for his estate as stated by the landlord in its response of 29 May 2015 to prevent a “bottleneck” of issues until at least the works to the plant room and redecoration had been completed. The landlord has advised a dedicated PMO is not possible due to changes in the structure of the organisation and working practices since 2015, but that the current PMO has a smaller patch than other PMO’s and more support than before.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of issues with the heating system

33. The leasehold agreement confirms at Clause 6.5 that “At all times during the Term the Landlord shall use its best endeavours:
    1. to maintain a reasonable and adequate constant supply of hot water for domestic purposes to the Premises at all times.
    2. to keep the Premises sufficiently and adequately heated between reasonable dates and hours to be determined by the Landlord.”
34. Clause 5.3 of the lease refers to the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, repair, renew and improve “the Service Media, cisterns and tanks and other gas electrical, drainage, ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in under and upon the building”.
35. With regards to the tenants, there is a statutory obligation on the landlord to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water”, and to “to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water”.  The landlord’s Repairs Policy reflects its obligation to tenants stating that it is responsible for “existing central heating, water heaters and fires (where provided by us)”.
36. The resident’s formal complaint focussed on the incident of January 2020.  The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the landlord should “aim to attend (to emergency repairs) within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. All further work also completed within 24 hours within reason”.  In this case, the landlord’s contractor attended on the morning of 12 January 2020 and cut off the water supply which was not restored until the evening of 13 January 2020.  The landlord therefore did not meet its obligation to restore the water supply and heating within 24 hours.
37. The landlord supplies heating and hot water on the estate, and charges a tariff to residents. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that where the landlord is the heat and hot water supplier, if there is “an unplanned continuous interruption of more than 24 hours”, the landlord should offer £30 for each 24-hour period after this time (up to a maximum of £500)”.
38. The Compensation Policy provides the following compensation for tenants:

“If you are a tenant and our failure to carry out repairs we are responsible for results in the loss or severe limitation of use of rooms or services within your property for unreasonable periods we may pay compensation based on the rent that you pay in addition to any other compensation payable:

1. After first 24 hours with – no sanitary provision of any kind, no supply of cold water either from a tank or rising main, no habitable rooms – 100% daily rent.”

39. Residents under the Compensation Policy are not eligible for compensation for loss of heating or hot water in respect of the incident of January 2020 as the repair was completed within 48 hours.  However, notwithstanding the difficulty in tracing and carrying out the repair which was to pipes under the floor, it remains that there was a total loss of the water supply which was not restored within 24 hours.  Therefore under the policy which allowed compensation for situations of “loss or severe limitation of use of rooms or services”, including no cold water supply, tenants were eligible for a refund of a day’s rent.  The landlord accepted that there were delays in the way it dealt with the incident but did not offer compensation outlined in its policy therefore did not offer sufficient redress for the incident..
40. The landlord did not offer compensation for the incident of January 2020 on the basis that it had covered the costs of works to the heating and hot water system that it could have otherwise recharged to leaseholders. It is understood that the landlord has spent a large sum of money on trying to resolve issues within the system and improve its efficiency; however, it does not follow that its decision to cover these costs allowed it to disregard a commitment to reimburse rent under the relevant policy for subsequent issues. In fact, the Compensation Policy states that the landlord should “pay compensation based on the rent that you pay in addition to any other compensation payable”.  The landlord therefore should at least have considered whether a rent reimbursement was due for the water outage.
41. Landlords should have access to and offer residents temporary practical help during a period without heating or hot water, e.g. electric heaters, bottled water (if the water supply is interrupted).  In this case, the landlord provided water to residents.  However, its responses indicate that the water was provided only after the second loss of water, not within 24 hours, and that not all blocks received water.  Therefore, the provision of water was not sufficiently prompt or extensive to mitigate for the lack of compensation offered.
42. For leaseholders, the Compensation Policy states that “If you own your property we will not compensate you for loss of rooms or facilities, although you may still be entitled to other compensation where you experienced service failure in the rectification of issues”.  Therefore, under the Compensation Policy, leaseholders are not specifically eligible for compensation for the loss of water.  However, there was a service failure insofar as the landlord did not meet its obligation to restore the water supply within 24 hours, and as leaseholders were similarly affected by the loss of water, it would be fair for the landlord to offer leaseholders the same compensation as tenants.
43. The resident placed the incident of January 2020 in the context of historical problems with the heating and hot water supply and leaks. This is understandable but as noted above it is not the purpose of this investigation to assess all the actions previously taken to resolve the problems.  However, it is evident that the landlord has taken steps to diagnose problems with the heating and hot water supply through commissioning reports and completing works to prevent the likelihood of outages.  This includes works to install replacement valves and to install a third pump in 2019 and the commissioning the consultant’s report of August 2019. These actions demonstrated its understanding of the level of discomfort caused by the heating and hot water system not working and its intention to find a solution.
44. The resident’s frustration with recurrent heating and hot water problems is understandable, not least because the incident of January 2020 occurred shortly after the installation of the new pumps.  Nonetheless, it should also be acknowledged that it may take a landlord more than one visit to ascertain and remedy a repair and maintenance problem.  It is not unreasonable for a landlord to carry out more than one visit to resolve problems with communal heating where the issues are complex and intermittent, identification of the root cause of problems to some degree depends on “trial and error” and where household specific factors may also apply, as was the situation in this case.  The landlord has also taken steps to keep residents updated initially through sending the action plan of 2015 and then by responding to correspondence and complaints.  However, it is noted that the resident has current queries about whether the plan was completed in full, therefore a recommendation has been made on this point.
45. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that “some defects, such as design, product failure or workmanship faults happen after the liability period but within a 6 or 12 year limitation period. Where it can be demonstrated that it is a latent defect, the original contractor may be liable to carry out remedial works or exercise warranties offered by the NHBC (National House Building Council) to carry out works for some elements”.  In this case, it is not clear that the landlord has considered whether the problems with the heating and hot water system is a result of a latent defect which is still within the limitation period.  It is recommended the landlord provide clarity to the residents on this point.

 

The landlord’s handling of cyclical work

46. With regards to the redecoration works, Clause 5.3 of the lease confirms that the landlord has a responsibility to “redecorate those parts of the Building not the responsibility of the leaseholder…or any other leaseholder…”.  The lease does not specify a timeframe for decorative works nor does the Repairs Policy which simply states that, generally, the landlord “reserves the right to carry out some repairs to communal areas as part of its cyclical works programme, rather than as a responsive repair”.
47. According to the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord first advised the resident on 25 September 2015 that it would be carrying out remedial decorating works to make good damage caused by leaks after it had carried out works to prevent leaks.  This was a reasonable position to take as it would not be an optimal use of resources to carry out decoration works that would be at risk of being damaged again, and which therefore may necessitate more works.  The landlord’s offer to pay for the redecoration works in its correspondence of November 2018 was a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion in favour of the leaseholders liable to pay a service charge. This demonstrated its understanding of distress and inconvenience caused by leaks. However, the landlord missed an opportunity when responding to the formal complaint to confirm that it would still be covering the cost.
48. The landlord did not provide a specific timeframe for the decoration works but it is clear from its position in October 2016 that it was not satisfied that the leaks had been resolved at that time and further works to the heating and hot water system, including the works to replace valves and install pumps, delayed the decorative works further. It is important that this complaint is not looked at with the benefit of hindsight, but is put into context.  Ultimately, given the need to carry out further works to the heating and hot water system, including the hot water pipes, the delay to the redecoration works to after the installation of the pumps 2019 was reasonable.
49. However, the landlord advised that the works could proceed in 2020 and in the complaint response of 3 February 2020 confirmed that the leak of January 2020 should not delay the works as it did not arise from a failure in the plant room. There is no evidence that the works have been completed or that the landlord has met its commitment to communicate timings to either leaseholders or tenants. This delay is unaccounted for and therefore unreasonable.  Compounding this, the landlord has indicated in correspondence sent after the final complaint response that there may be further works required, therefore exacerbating the uncertainty of residents.
50. Due to the passage of time, it may not be clear which redecorations are required due to leaks and which have arisen from regular wear and tear.  The latter works may be liable for a service charge. 

The landlord’s response to a request for compensation in relation to the heating and hot water issues .

51. The resident requested compensation for the period 2016–20 as, in his view, the situation had not markedly improved.  As noted above, this investigation has focussed on matters from 2019 and has referred to prior matters for context only, and has not sought to assess the landlord’s handling of outages prior to 2019.  The landlord’s response of 18 September 2019 indicates that none of the seven outages that year was of a duration that would warrant compensation under the Compensation Policy.  Moreover, it is also not clear that all residents or blocks on the estate were equally affected.  Therefore, there is no ground for the Ombudsman to criticise the landlord’s decision not to award compensation on the basis requested by the resident in the formal complaint. Going forward, it is pertinent to note that individual households can, within a reasonable time, make complaints to the landlord about how they have been affected by service failures so that the landlord can consider the individual circumstances of the resident and respond accordingly.
52. The landlord in its complaint responses justified its decision not to award compensation because it had paid for works to the plant room which improved the stability of the heating and hot water system.  Clause 7.4(m) of the lease provides for the landlord to levy a service charge for “all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the Building” including “the cost of supplying heating and hot water services and the cost of repairing maintaining and renewing the heating and hot water systems”.  Therefore, under the lease, the landlord had the right to levy a service charge to meet the cost of the works.  That it did not do so was to the benefit of residents, therefore it was reasonable that the landlord took the works into account when responding to the compensation request.  The landlord and resident disagree on whether the works should be considered “remedial” or “improvements”, but regardless the landlord had the right to charge for the works.

Determination (decision)

The landlord’s response to reports of issues with heating system.

53. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of cyclical work.

54. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to a request for compensation in relation to the heating and hot water issues .

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

Reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of issues with heating system.

56. With regards to the incident of January 2020, the water supply was not restored within 24 hours, therefore tenants were eligible for a refund of a day’s rent under the Compensation Policy.  The landlord accepted that there were delays in the way it dealt with the incident but did not offer compensation outlined in its policy therefore did not offer sufficient redress for the incident.  It was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation on the basis that it had previously paid for works to the heating and hot water system as the incident of January 2020 should have been considered on the particular facts.  Although the landlord provided water, this was not sufficiently prompt or extensive to mitigate for the lack of compensation offered.

The landlord’s handling of cyclical work.

57. Given the need to carry out further works to the heating and hot water system, including the hot water pipes, the delay to the redecoration works until after the installation of the pumps 2019 was reasonable. However, the landlord advised that the works could proceed in 2020 and in the complaint response of 3 February 2020 confirmed that the leak of January 2020 should not delay the works as it did not arise from a failure in the plant room. There is no evidence that the works have been completed or that the landlord has met its commitment to communicate timings to either leaseholders or tenant. This delay is unaccounted for and therefore unreasonable.

The landlord’s response to a request for compensation in relation to the heating and hot water issues.

58. The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation was reasonable insofar as its decision to carry out works to the plant room and not charge residents was of benefit to the residents, and therefore provided redress.  In any event, within the scope of this investigation, there is no evidence of outages that were of a duration that would warrant compensation under the Compensation Policy.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

59. The landlord pays each household on the estate the equivalent of one day’s rent as compensation for the loss of water for over 24 hours in January 2020.
60. The landlord writes to the RTA confirming what further information is available to its Out of Hours service that will improve its handling of emergency repairs at the estate.  The landlord should also confirm its procedure for dealing with situations where there is a total loss of water on the estate.
61. The landlord writes to each household with an apology for the delay in the carrying in the redecoration works and to confirm when the works are scheduled to take place in both the leasehold blocks and the rented blocks.  The landlord should also make clear the process by which the redecoration works will be identified and separated from other cyclical works.  The landlord should confirm whether it will still cover the cost of the full redecoration works.

Recommendations

62. The landlord writes to the RTA to make clear whether, at this time, there are any further works to be carried out to the heating and hot water system, and if so, whether the works are outstanding from the action plan in 2015 or whether they have been identified since. If there are outstanding works, it is recommended that the landlord provides a new action plan, differentiating between leasehold and rented housing blocks, as necessary.
63. The landlord also writes to the RTA to make clear whether there are any latent defects which are still within the limitation period and which could be resolved through that route.