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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202017302)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017302

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 November 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a faulty boiler.
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 10 February 2021, the resident reported that the pipe connected to the boiler was leaking, meaning she had no heating or hot water; the repairs records show an engineer attended and reported that the boiler was 15 years old and beyond economical repair. The boiler needed to be surveyed in order for it to be replaced (a check of the boiler pipes and other support components that might affect the safe working of a boiler).
  2. On 11 February 2021, the resident submitted an online complaint. She stated that her boiler had broken down on 8 February 2021 (all other evidence, including the resident’s later complaint to the Ombudsman, indicate the leak actually occurred on 10 February 2021). She explained how the issue was impacting upon her day to day life and was causing her discomfort, as temperatures were extremely low at the time. The landlord’s records show the resident called the same day to advise she had bought her own heaters but was still without hot water. The landlord informed the resident an appointment was booked for the boiler survey.
  3. On 12 February 2021 the resident called to express her dissatisfaction that an engineer had not attended the day before. The resident’s records state that the landlord informed her the engineer had up until 2pm that day, as it was a 24 hour call out. The contractor’s notes confirm an engineer attended later that day but reported that a survey had already been booked, so left the appointment. The resident’s records indicate the engineer reset the immersion tank so she would have hot water, which lasted until 10pm that day.
  4. The resident’s records show she asked for the immersion tank to be reset again on 15 February 2021, but she was advised this wasn’t possible as it had corroded (it appears she was informed this by an engineer working on a nearby property).
  5. On 16 February 2021 the resident called to make a further complaint regarding the timeframe for the boiler repair.
  6. The landlord sent a letter acknowledging the complaint on 17 February 2021, stating it would respond within ten working days.
  7. On 18 February 2021, the landlord confirmed an engineer would be attending the following day.
  8. On 19 February 2021, an engineer attended to complete the survey. The landlord called the resident, who explained the impact of having no hot water— she was working in contact with the public and concerned about the implications of Covid-19. The landlord sent an email to confirm the new boiler would be fitted on 20 February 2021.
  9. On 20 February 2021, an engineer attended the property to install a new boiler but had the wrong parts. An internal note stated that this was due to a miscommunication error by the surveyor. The engineer closed the leak and repaired the immersion tank.
  10. On 22 February 2021, the new boiler was installed. The resident’s records state the heating and hot water were returned, but the temperature could not be adjusted, and she was advised an electrician would attend to fit a new temperature gauge. The repairs records show an electrician attended on 24 February 2021 and resolved the issue.
  11. On 24 February 2021, the resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord.
    1. She was unhappy with the timeline of the works as the repairs policy says critical repairs will be fixed “in days”. She was not offered alternative heating during this time.
    2. She highlighted there were temperatures as low as minus five degrees during the period the boiler was not working.
    3. She had been advised to use hot water from the kettle and felt this was an unreasonable suggestion due to her mobility issues.
    4. She was signed off as sick from work with mental health, due to the complaint.
    5. The appointment time frames were vague and had not been adhered to, meaning she needed time off work.
    6. She requested compensation for loss of earnings, additional electricity costs, cost of phone calls, distress, exposure to cold temperatures and inability to wash.
  12. The resident emailed her MP on 3 March 2021 asking her to pursue the complaint on her behalf.
  13. The MP wrote to the landlord on 19 March 2021 explaining the resident wanted to pursue a complaint about the length of time the works took to complete.
  14. The landlord responded to the MP on 25 March 2021 explaining that the new boiler had been installed and it apologised for the delays. It offered the resident £100 as a good will gesture for the “distress and upset” caused and for the length of time it took to resolve the issue. It appears that the landlord later took this letter to be its stage one complaint response.
  15. On 6 May 2021 the resident contacted this Service saying she requested to escalate her complaint in April and had not received a response from the landlord. No copy has been provided and there is no evidence to suggest it was received by the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on the same day asking that it respond to the resident’s escalated complaint within twenty working days.
  16. On 18 June 2021, this Service sent another letter to the landlord requesting that it send a stage two response within five working days.
  17. The landlord sent its stage two response on 25 June 2021.
    1. It acknowledged that it should have communicated better with the resident and made follow up calls, while the repairs were ongoing.
    2. It highlighted the error in the initial boiler replacement date being cancelled due to wrong information being provided.
    3. It offered £272 in compensation; this included £20 for a missed appointment, £32 for 12 days without heating and hot water, £60 for inconvenience, £60 for distress and £100 for time and effort.
    4. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress the issue had caused.
    5. It acknowledged that it would learn from the mistakes made and would work closer with contractors to provide better communication.
  18. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.


Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines the following:
    1. Loss of facilities, including heating and hot water, is a service failure.
    2. If a repair is not completed within statutory target times, it will pay £10 and an additional £2 for each additional day.
    3. Discretionary payments can be made to acknowledge “impact, inconvenience, distress, and time/effort required of the resident.”
    4. It does not cover any loss of earnings due to service failure.
    5. It will pay £20 for any missed appointments when a resident isn’t given at least 24 hours notice.
    6. It will pay £10 for failing to respond to queries within ten working days or failure to respond within complaint times.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy outlines the following:
    1. It is responsible for “all types of heating system so as to ensure that tenants have ready access to space heating and hot water”.
    2. “We want to provide residents with a reliable, modern and effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.”
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one complaint will be responded to within ten working days, and a stage two complaint within 20 working days. If these timeframes can’t be met, “we’ll explain why and write again within a further ten working days”.

The faulty boiler

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repair guide, the landlord is obliged to repair the installations in the property for heating and hot water. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. The landlord showed an appropriate initial response as an engineer attended to the property the same day the issue was reported.
  2. It is wholly understandable that the resident was distressed and frustrated with both the boiler failure, and the time taken to replace it, given the impact on her family’s life, and its timing in winter. It took the landlord 12 days (10 to 22 February) to reinstate the heating and hot water, as the boiler had to be replaced. The usual expected timeframe to respond to a heating and hot water failure in winter is one working day (using the local authority right to repair scheme as a guideline). However, that does not necessarily mean that the fault will be resolved within one day. In some cases, the nature of the fault means that an immediate resolution is not possible. One of those cases is when a boiler needs to be replaced, as happened here. When repair timeframes are exceeded for relevant reasons the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. as soon as possible), arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations.
  3. In this case the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report. It attended the same day, identified the problem, and initiated a solution, i.e. the boiler survey and replacement. The survey was done on 19 February, and, after a failed attempt on 20 February due to the wrong parts being provided, the boiler was replaced on 22 February. The resident had hot water and heating from that point but was unable to change the temperature until final electrical work was done on 24 February. In and of itself, the time taken to replace the system was not unreasonable, although it was extended by the error with the replacement parts. However, nothing in the evidence indicates that the resident was told how long the repair might take, despite her frequent requests for an update and explanations of the impact the matter was having on her family. In that regard, the landlords service was clearly poor.
  4. Part of a landlord’s handling of extended repairs should be a consideration of possible interim actions to mitigate the impact. In a case like this one, that would usually include temporary heating provided by the landlord. The landlord’s records show that the resident informed it that she had bought heaters, so it had no reason to consider further action in that regard.  The landlord made attempts to reset the immersion heater so the resident would have access to hot water; this was only a temporary solution as the immersion tank had corroded. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that its officers had suggested she use the stove or kettle to provide hot water. While she did not find the suggestions practical, these steps show that the landlord considered temporary solutions whilst the resident waited for the boiler to be replaced.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged that its communication and updates to the resident had been poor, and that this had resulted in the resident needing to chase it for information. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress caused to the resident and explained that it would use her complaint to improve the service it and its contractor provided. It also offered £272 compensation, which it broke down and explained how it had calculated. The amount it offered was in line with its compensation policy for the types of failings it had identified, and also with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, for service failures which had an impact on a tenant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
  6. Overall, there is no denying the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to the resident and her family. Nonetheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and remedied the failings in its handling of her faulty boiler.

Complaint’s handling

  1. The resident first formally complained to the landlord about the boiler on 11 February 2021. Regardless of whether that was reasonable, one day after the repair was reported, there is no clear evidence of the landlord acknowledging or responding to the complaint. She complained again on 16 February, which was acknowledged by the landlord the next day, but there is no evidence of a complaint response. The resident followed up her complaint on 24 February with specific information and details about her concerns. Only after the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord with her concerns on 19 March did the landlord respond, on 25 March. Its letter gave no indication that it was anything but a response to the MP’s enquiry and did not address the range of issues the resident had set out in her 24 February letter. It is not apparent if it was even sent to the resident, which it should have been if it was, effectively, the landlord’s stage one response to her complaints.
  2. We cannot know what may have happened to the escalation request the resident told this Service she sent the landlord in April 2021, but we wrote to the landlord on 6 May clearly setting out her outstanding concerns and asking it respond to her. We asked it again on 8 June, and it finally responded to the resident with its final complaint response on 25 June. These timeframes clearly exceeded the landlord’s acknowledgement and response timeframes for stage one and two complaints. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as its policy requires it to do if complaint timeframes are exceeded.
  3. In its final complaint response, the landlord made a reference to the “time it took to resolve your complaint.” It is not clear if that referred to the substantive issue of the boiler, or the resident’s subsequent complaint on the matter. Nonetheless, there is no other acknowledgement of the landlord’s failure to properly acknowledge or respond in good time to the complaints. There is also no clear reference to any part of the compensation offered by the landlord being for its poor complaint handling. Because of that, this aspect of the landlord’s service remains unresolved.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of a fault with the resident’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps to replace the boiler as quickly as possible. There were shortcomings in its efforts, which it recognised, apologised for, and offered appropriate compensation. However, its complaint handling was poor, insofar as it did not acknowledge or respond in good time or in line with its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of the poor complaint handling found in this investigation, and the inconvenience and frustration it will have caused the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £125. This payment must be made within six weeks of this report. Evidence of payment must be provided within that timeframe.
    2. This payment is in addition to the £272 offered by the landlord in its final complaint response, which it should also now pay, if it has not done so already.

Recommendation

  1. Given that the landlord explained in its final complaint response that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint about the boiler replacement, the landlord should consider writing to the resident explaining what changes it has now implemented, and how they will help it provide a better service in the future.