Sovereign Living Limited (202008903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008903

Sovereign Living Limited

29 September 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 handling of boiler repairs at the property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The resident is autistic, and his mother (Ms G) deals with matters on his behalf.
3. In November 2019, the resident reported that the boiler at the property was not working. It is not clear what transpired following the resident’s report. However, on 19 December, the landlord contacted Ms G and advised that it wished to decant the resident while the boiler repair took place. The landlord advised that it was possible that it could consider a permanent move for the resident, if this was something he was interested in, in the coming month. However, it would be necessary to decant the resident to a hotel in the meantime as it did not have an alternative property available at the time.
4. Ms G responded on the same day and advised that the resident could not move to a hotel. She explained that owing to his autism, the resident would not cope in a hotel, and that he would rather live without heating and hot water. Ms G asked the landlord if there were any alternative properties in the centre of town, or a nearby town.
5. In response, the landlord explained that if it was safe for the resident to remain at the property then he could do so – and he would have to wait until a suitable property became available. However, the landlord explained that it was “very limited” on suitable properties in the area, and that the resident may have to wait some time. It added that it may also be able to offer the resident some electric heaters if he was to remain at the property and asked if this was something the resident would be interested in. The landlord also advised that the offer of a temporary decant remained open if the resident changed his mind.
6. On 20 December, the landlord arranged for electric heaters to be provided. The landlord’s Gas Qualifying Supervisor (supervisor) confirmed on 6 January 2020 that no work would commence until a full survey of the property had been completed. He advised the resident’s housing officer that the survey had been booked for 16 January, and that while he had informed Ms G of the plan, he had been unsuccessful in confirming the date with her.
7. The resident’s Housing Officer subsequently contacted him via telephone on 14 January to inform him that a property had become available, and that he may be able to move there on a permanent basis in February. The resident indicated that he may be interested in viewing the property, and this was followed up with an email to Ms G the next day. The landlord provided Ms G with details of the property on 15 January, and in return she advised that she thought it looked good, and asked for further details including when a viewing could take place.
8. On 21 January, the resident’s housing officer emailed Ms G in relation to the works. He advised that it would be unable to conduct the works while the resident was living there, and that it therefore needed to find suitable alternative accommodation. The landlord advised that ordinarily it would offer a temporary decant; however, it had been made clear that this would not work for the resident. The housing officer therefore queried whether the resident was interested in viewing the property which had been discussed the week before.
9. Ms G replied on 10 February to advise that after full consideration they did not think that the alternative property would be suitable. This was on the basis that it was a ground floor property, next to the door. She said that they were concerned that passers-by could tap the window, or see inside if the curtains were open. Ms G advised that as such the property was “totally unsuitable” for someone with autism.
10. The housing officer acknowledged Ms G’s email on the same day. He advised that it was unable to complete works while the resident remained in the property, and it was unsure of how long it would take before something suitable became available. The housing officer advised that in his opinion, the resident would have to consider a temporary decant so that the works could be completed and the property made safe. Ms G replied on the same day to advise that a temporary decant would not be suitable owing to the stress and upset it would cause the resident. She queried whether the local council could assist in the circumstances.
11. The housing officer confirmed that he had forwarded Ms G’s email to the lettings team, and that another housing officer would be assigned to the case following a request that had been made by the resident. The housing officer informed Ms G that someone would be in touch, but if she did not receive any further communication she could make contact herself. The relevant contact details were provided together with a reference number.
12. It is not clear what transpired following the exchange on 10 February. There was an attendance at the property towards the end of April, but a repair could not be completed. On 20 May, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that he wished to complain as he had been without hot water since before Christmas; and despite operatives attending the property the boiler was yet to be repaired. The resident added that he wished to be compensated for the inconvenience he had been caused.
13. Internal correspondence at the landlord shows that it was unable to obtain the necessary parts to complete a repair – owing to the age of the boiler. The only option was to replace the boiler; however, it was not a straightforward replacement. It was noted that staff had attended the property on 20 May, with its installation contractor; however, the resident became “difficult” and they had to leave prior to completing the survey. The maintenance team advised that it needed the property to be vacated for two to three days so that the installation of a new boiler could take place.
14. Landlord staff discussed the possibility of attending the property again on 8 June – with Ms G present so that the survey could take place. It is not clear what transpired following this, and whether a survey did take place. However, on 17 June, Ms G emailed the landlord to advise that she was very unhappy with the situation. The landlord replied on 22 June and advised that the job was going to be bigger than it had originally anticipated. In order to complete the work, it needed the resident to vacate the property for approximately two days. The landlord added that it would offer a hotel or bed and breakfast for the relevant period, and would cover the cost of food. The landlord asked if Ms G could speak with the resident and ask him to confirm whether he agreed for the works to take place while he was in temporary accommodation.
15. Ms G responded to the landlord on 22 June and advised that this had already been explored back in December 2019. She said that owing to the resident’s autism, he was unwilling to move into a hotel. However, Ms G advised that he was happy to say out of the way in his bedroom while the works were taking place. She added that previous occupants were allowed to stay during works even though they had initially been asked to move out temporarily. Ms G also referred to the two alternatives properties which the resident had been offered. She advised that both were unsuitable with the first being above a shop; and the second being a ground floor flat which had previously been vandalised. Ms G added that the resident was willing to move to a property nearby, but he had not been offered anything further.
16. The landlord acknowledged Ms G’s email on the same day. It said that it had been looking at a more permanent move for the resident and it could explore this again if he was willing to move. It was added that the possibility of staying in the property while works were underway needed to be discussed with senior staff given the nature of works that were required. Ms G confirmed that the resident would be prepared to move depending on the area.
17. By the middle of July, the situation remained the same and the landlord was still looking at properties which it could offer the resident as a permanent move. In further correspondence with Ms G, the landlord sought clarification about local areas and asked her to confirm if there were any areas the resident did not wish to move to. Ms G provided confirmation on the same day.
18. On 17 July, the landlord contacted Ms G again and said that it had been trying to speak with the resident. It said that it wished to offer him a stay at a hotel or bed and breakfast as it needed full access to the property for two to three days to complete the works, and a permanent move was likely to “take a while”.
19. Ms G informed the landlord that there was “no way” the resident would move to temporary accommodation as it was cause “undue anxiety and stress”. She added that owing to his autism he would not want people in the property unless he was present to ensure that his belongings were safe. Ms G reiterated that this had been explained several months ago. Ms G queried whether it was possible for the resident to move to an alternative housing association, or to a local authority property if they had something suitable.
20. On 4 September, the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to his complaint. It said:
    1. It had tried unsuccessfully “on a few occasions” to repair the boiler, and it therefore took the decision to install a new boiler “some time ago”.
    2. Since then, it had been working with him to find temporary alternative accommodation while it repaired the boiler, or a permanent move – which was the resident’s preferred option.
    3. While it was continuing to work with the resident, there was the issue of the outstanding formal complaint. It would continue to work with the resident to find a solution; however, in the meantime it wished to offer the resident £200 for the inconvenience that had been caused to him.
    4. The resident could get in touch to accept the offer, or if he remained dissatisfied, it could escalate the complaint to the next stage of the process. It added that if it did not hear from the resident within the next 10 days, it would close the complaint.
21. It is not clear whether the resident contacted the landlord on receipt of the letter. However, on 14 September, Ms G emailed the landlord to complain about the decision to close the complaint. She also complained that the landlord had written to the resident directly, and had not provided her with a copy of the correspondence. Ms G said that her son was not happy for the complaint to be closed as the matter had not been resolved. She said that she had been trying to get her son to agree to leaving the property temporarily, but she had been unsuccessful. Ms G said that she was therefore of the opinion that moving him to a new property was the best option.
22. In response, the landlord advised that it may take “considerable time” for suitable permanent accommodation to come up – and until that time the property would be without heating and hot water. It said that the situation was of concern as the winter was approaching and that temporary electric heating would be provided. The landlord added that it would continue to work with the resident to seek alternative accommodation; and it had sought to resolve the complaint by making an offer of compensation.
23. Communication between the landlord and Ms G continued, and on 21 October 2020, the landlord issued a further response to the complaint. It said:
    1. It was unable to repair the boiler as the parts which were required had become obsolete.
    2. It was unable to renew the boiler safely unless the resident spent a few days away from his home.
    3. The resident had refused its offers of temporary accommodation, and had advised that he preferred to wait for a new home in a location of his choice.
    4. It had been explained that the type of property that was suitable for his needs did not come along very often; however, it would continue to support the resident in this process.
    5. Its last letter offered £200 compensation for the period that the resident had been without hot water, allowing for the use of temporary electrical heating which it had provided.
    6. The resident had contacted its call centre the day before and advised that he wanted £1000 to settle the complaint. While this was noted, it was satisfied that it had offered compensation that was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
    7. It urged the resident to reconsider its offer of temporary accommodation for the few days that it would take to install the boiler. It had also offered to extend the temporary accommodation to a family member – or a trusted friend – to say with him and to assist with the temporary storage of valued personal possessions.
    8. If the resident were to agree, it could arrange and install the new boiler in just a few days which would prepare the property for the colder winter months ahead.
    9. However, if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman Service.
24. The resident, and Ms G, were unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. In communication with this Service, Ms G raised specific concerns about the length of time the boiler had been broken; and that the initial complaint response was sent to the resident only, and not her.

The tenancy agreement, and landlord policies and procedures

25. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in “good repair and proper working order” any installation it provides within the home including water heaters, boilers, fireplaces, fitted fires and radiators.
26. The tenancy agreement also sets out what the resident must do. Section 6.15 provides that residents must allow the landlord’s officers, agents and workmen to enter the property – after it has given 24 hours’ notice – to inspect or carry out work to the property, or an adjoining property.
27. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out the service standards it aims to achieve when carrying out repairs. Emergency repairs include a loss of heating or hot water during the winter month (14 October to 14 March). The policy states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours to ensure that the situation is made safe – and if further works are required, they will be undertaken at an “agreed appointed time”.
28. The landlord’s Complaints policy explains the process that will be followed on receipt of a complaint. It states that as a charitable organisation, it rarely offers compensation unless the customer has suffered financial loss, like damage to their personal belongings or paying for a service they did not have.

Assessment and findings

29. The landlord is obliged, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to keep the boiler in good repair and proper working order. During the course of the complaint, the resident advised that the broken boiler was first reported in November 2019 – approximately a month before Christmas. The date that the landlord was notified of the disrepair is not clear from the evidence that has been provided to this Service.
30. The landlord has provided a copy of its repair logs; however, there is no entry in November – or December – relating to boiler disrepair. This is indicative of poor record keeping. The landlord and Ms G had entered into discussion about temporary accommodation by 19 December 2019. As such, the landlord had been made aware of the disrepair by 19 December at the latest.
31. Following the discussion with Ms G, the landlord arranged for temporary electric heaters to be sent to the property. This was recorded in the repair logs on 21 December 2019. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide temporary heaters in the circumstances. However, the landlord’s records do not contain sufficient detail about any attendances, what the repair issue was deemed to be, and why it was unable to carry out a repair in line with the service standards set out in its repairs policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to record this information so that it had an audit trail of its actions in response to the resident’s report of disrepair. Such an audit trail would have been particularly helpful in this case given that it was unable to carry out the repair in line with its service standards and obligations.
32. By the end of December 2019, conversation had turned to finding the resident permanent alternative accommodation. While it was not inappropriate for the landlord to explore this option, the evidence suggests that no further steps were taken to attempt to carry out the boiler repair in the meantime – or to find a solution that was agreeable to both parties. There is no obligation on the landlord to offer residents a new property in the event of boiler disrepair, but there is an obligation to reinstate heating and hot water. As such, in the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the repair given the lack of suitable available properties and the likely waiting times.
33. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not suggest that there were any developments between February and May 2020.  While it is noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had emerged during this period, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that the landlord was proactively trying to see what action it could take to ensure that the resident had access to heating and hot water. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s obligation in relation to ensuring that the property had space and water heating facilities.
34. The resident subsequently made his formal complaint to the landlord in May 2020. Following receipt of the complaint, the landlord revisited the option of moving the resident to temporary accommodation while the works were carried out. By this time, it had been established that a repair was no longer feasible and that the boiler would need to be replaced. Ms G’s comments as to why temporary accommodation was not an option have been noted. However, the landlord had advised that it had limited properties available in December 2019, and had therefore tried to manage both Ms G and the resident’s expectations in that regard.
35. It is noted that in July 2020, Ms G queried whether her son could move to a property owned by either another housing association or the local authority. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not show that the landlord responded to this specific query. In the circumstances, it may have been reasonable to provide a direct response to this – with an explanation as to what the process would entail and likely timescales. It would also have been reasonable to provide Ms G with some information about how else the resident could move to another property – for example, by mutual exchange with another existing resident given the length of time that the resident had been without a working boiler.
36. When the landlord first responded to the complaint in September 2020, it acknowledged that it had yet to find a solution to ensure that the resident had access to hot water and heating. It explained the measures it had tried to take and offered the resident £200 for the inconvenience he had been caused.
37. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer some compensation, the offer did not demonstrate that the landlord had fully taken into consideration the impact on the resident of being without a working boiler. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a breakdown showing the period of time the resident had been without heating and hot water and to offer a proportionate sum. The breakdown should have also shown what amount was being awarded to account for any increase that the resident may have had in energy bills as a result of using the temporary heaters for a prolonged period. Providing a breakdown of the compensation offer would have helped to demonstrate that the landlord had taken the facts of the complaint, and any mitigating factors, into consideration when making its offer.
38. In correspondence to this Service, Ms G raised concerns that the stage one response was sent to her son only, and that she was not provided with a copy of the letter herself. Ms G says that she deals with the resident’s correspondence and affairs, as he can sometimes become upset and confused when dealing with such matters. Ms G says that the landlord was aware of this, but despite having knowledge of the situation it did not ensure that she was sent the complaint response. It is not clear why the landlord did not copy Ms G into the letter of 4 September. The landlord has been communicating with her directly in relation to the repair and aspects of the complaint prior to September 2020. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this when it issued the final response, and to apologise for any inconvenience caused as a result.
39. When the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, it said that it had extended the offer of temporary accommodation to a family member or friend; and had offered to find storage for the resident’s personal possessions. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of this offer; and as such, it is unclear when it was made. There is no evidence to suggest that this was communicated to either the resident or Ms G much earlier than October 2020 given that there was no reference to it in the stage one response. However, this was a reasonable offer in the circumstances as it demonstrates that the landlord was trying to find a way to ensure that the boiler was replaced while taking into consideration the resident’s autism and how temporarily decanting the property was likely to affect him.
40. The Ombudsman has not seen any explanation as to why Ms G or the resident felt unable to accept this offer. While it is acknowledged that the resident’s preference would be to move to a new permanent property, the landlord has advised that finding a suitable property could take some time. It would be inappropriate for the landlord to leave the property and the resident without a working boiler for an indefinite period. In addition, the resident is obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement to provide access to the property so that essential repairs may be carried out.
41. As such, it was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to try to find a way to carry out the boiler installation. The decision to extend the offer of temporary accommodation to someone close to the resident, and to provide storage for some of his belongings appears to be a pragmatic and reasonable way to progress matters. In the circumstances, it may also be helpful for the landlord and Ms G to draw up an agreement setting out the specific actions that will need to be taken to facilitate the works. For example:
    1. the address of the temporary accommodation.
    2. the time at which the property will need to be vacated.
    3. the location of any storage facility – or where the resident may be able to keep any valued belongings that he does not wish to leave in the property while works are being undertaken.
    4. a designated point of contact who can provide the resident or Ms G with updates as to timescales while the works are underway.
    5. an agreed time for the resident to move back into the property.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair at the property.

Reasons

43. Overall, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with the option of moving to a new property as he did not wish to move to temporary accommodation while works are underway. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that early in the process, the landlord was aware that finding the resident a suitable alternative property would take considerable time. It would have been reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to be more proactive in finding a way to reinstate the heating and hot water supply to the property.
44. When the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint it appropriately acknowledged that he had been inconvenienced as a result of the boiler breaking. It sought to offer the resident a sum of compensation; however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence which shows that the landlord appropriately considered the facts of the complaints when arriving at its figure. It follows that the landlord has not demonstrated that it made a proportionate offer in the circumstances.

Orders

45. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for failing to copy Ms G into the complaint correspondence issued on 4 September.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £480 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the loss of hot water for approximately 96 weeks. This figure is reached on the basis of £5 per week. This is an approximate calculation given that the exact date on which the boiler broke is unknown.
    3. Request a copy of the resident’s energy bills covering:
       1. Three months prior to the temporary heaters were provided (October 2019 to the end of December 2019).
       2. Three months after the temporary heaters were provided (January 2020 to March 2020).

On receipt of this information, the landlord should calculate whether the use of the temporary heaters resulted in increased energy bills. The landlord should then make the resident an offer of compensation taking into consideration the prolonged use of the temporary heaters.

4. Contact Ms G to discuss setting up an agreement to cover the basis on which the property will be vacated so that the boiler installation may take place. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the details of the agreement.

Recommendation

46. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should consider issuing a reminder to staff to ensure that any details relating to repairs are logged and that sufficient information relating to the repair is recorded.