Exeter City Council (202103088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103088

Exeter City Council

9 December 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an alternative contractor.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded.
4. The landlord’s Gas Servicing policy notes tenants can claim compensation for financial loss if a pre-arranged appointment that has been confirmed in writing, is broken by one of its contractors. It will pay the following compensation:
   1. Loss of income up to £75.00 per day (based on average earnings)
   2. Annual leave up to £75.00 per day (based on average earnings). 
   3. Any related expenses directly related to the broken appointment.
5. Tenants must be able to provide evidence of the financial loss, for instance an employer’s declaration.

Summary of events

6. The Omudsman notes that there have been historic breakdowns to the boiler, however this investigation only considers matters that occurred 6 months prior to the formal complaint, and it is noted that the landlord’s contractor observed a defect with the boiler on 2 November 2020. This is the occurrence the Ombudsman has considered.
7. In November the resident had an appointment booked with the landlord’s contractor, to replace the condense pipe as there had been a leak (dripping) from the pipe, however this was missed. The resident raised this with the landlord, as she had spoken to the contractor on the day, and it had confirmed it would be attending but did not. The landlord offered to have an alternative contractor attend. The resident advised given the missed appointment, she had appointed an independent contractor to carry out work and this had been completed. The resident advised she would not be allowing the landlord’s contractor back into her property and would provide the invoice to the landlord to make payment.
8. The landlord  wrote to the resident and apologised for the failure in service. It explained that following its investigations, the contractor was unable to provide clear reasons why it missed the appointment. It explained that it had now established a new procedure whereby the contractor had to log details of cancelled appointments with reasons and a note of when the resident was informed. It noted this would allow it to hold the contractor more accountable and assist in reducing such occurrences.
9. The landlord noted that following an inspection the contractor had highlighted an issue with the boiler but as it missed an appointment, the resident had refused to grant it further access and had engaged an independent contractor to complete the works, but requested that the landlord pay the invoice. It agreed to pay the invoice as a gesture of goodwill, given the contractor’s recent cancellation. It explained however that it had not given the resident permission to instruct a separate contractor. It reminded her of her obligations under the tenancy agreement, noting she was not authorised to use any other contractor to carry out work it was responsible for. It apologised again for the poor service and inconvenience caused.
10. On 2 December 2020 the landlord provided a further response apologising for the cancelled appointment and explaining the steps it had now taken. It reiterated its position in relation to non-appointed contractors and the resident’s tenancy agreement, noting that it had offered to send an alternative contractor. It agreed it would reimburse the resident £90 as a gesture of goodwill.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 December. The landlord requested that she advise it of what she considered suitable resolution.
12. In January 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, it upheld the complaint and provided a further apology whilst reiterating the earlier response provided. It noted that in terms of providing an alternative contractor for gas servicing and repairs, this would not be something it would currently support. It noted it had complied with procurement legislation to secure a contract with the contractor and it would need exceptional reason to deviate from them being the service provider, however, should there be a continued failure on the part of the contractor it would consider alternative options. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She also advised that she expected the landlord to use its judgment to make a goodwill gesture, but she had spent time calling the contractor.
13. On 23 February, the landlord provided its final response in relation to the complaint about the contractor’s poor service, cancelled appointments and lack of response. It reiterated that the service the resident had received was below standard and apologised. It explained it was monitoring all contractor’s performance in order to identify and address any issues. It explained that while the service had been poor this was not an exceptional reason to provide different contractors as it had in the past. It highlighted the resident’s obligation to allow access, under her tenancy agreement. It acknowledged that the leak was resolved, and that it continued to work with the contractor and boiler manufacture to understand the cause.
14. It reiterated it did not expect residents to address issues it was responsible for and confirmed it had reimbursed the resident £90 for the cost of work commissioned by an independent contractor. It noted it was willing to reimburse the resident for any reasonable expenses incurred, but that she had not provided details, so offered £50, but she could propose an amount for it to consider.

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord is obliged to carry out repair works to the boiler. This will be carried out by an appointed contractor. An appointment was booked for the contractor to attend however it failed to do so. Whilst this is the case, once the resident made the landlord aware, it responded immediately offering an alternative contractor to attend, this was reasonable in the circumstances. At no point did the landlord grant permission for the resident to instruct her own contractor. In doing so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise she would need to bear the cost.
16. However, given the landlord’s contractor’s own failure, the landlord took into consideration the impact on the resident and agreed to reimburse the cost of the invoice. This was a reasonable gesture and given that the resident would have been entitled to a payment under the gas servicing policy up to £75, with supporting evidence, the reimbursement was in line with this.
17. Additionally, the landlord’s offer of £50 to also address the failures was reasonable. This is as the repair was raised on 2 November and whilst the resident made calls to the contractor and it subsequently failed to attend, appropriate action was taken by the landlord. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the impact of the nonattendance by the contractor, whilst an inconvenience, did not permanently or significantly impact the resident. As such the additional offer of £50 was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to use its alternative contractor when its main contractor failed to attend, whilst this was the case this did not mean that the landlord was obliged to permanently change contractors. While the resident expected the landlord to permanently appoint alternative contractors, this was not a reasonable request. Landlords are obliged to go through procurement procedures to secure contracts and it cannot readily utilise another contractor without sufficient reasoning.
19. The landlord reasonably considered the failure and sought to resolve the current issue as soon as possible. This does not in itself mean that it would arrange for alternative contractors to attend going forward. The landlord reasonably explained that following the measures in place, should any further issues occur, it would then consider its options. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler, satisfactorily.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an alternative contractor.

Reasons

22. The landlord explained that it had accepted the contractor had not resolved the matter to its satisfaction and it had taken immediate steps to rectify matters, including greater quality control. It offered an alternative contractor to attend and offered suitable redress.
23. The landlord explained the reason it was unable to permanently appoint alternative contractors and explained it would consider this again should further failures occur.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

24. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the £90 offered as a reimbursement alongside the £50 offered as a gesture of good will, if it has not done so already.