London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202113369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113369

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 April 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a fixed term assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2019.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair and in working order all fixtures and fittings for, among other things, space and water heating. The resident must promptly report to the landlord any repairs needed that it is responsible for.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The Home Standard includes ensuring that homes meet the Decent Homes Standard components of which relate to the degree of thermal comfort in a resident’s home as well as the standard of repair. There is also the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including excess cold. The guidance explains that excess cold can be caused by several factors including the absence of central heating/poor inefficient heating systems and one of the preventative measures listed is an appropriate, properly installed heating system.
The landlord’s repairs policy says, for emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within twenty-four hours. For routine day to day repairs, it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action” by the landlord, its colleagues, or those acting on its behalf. It aims to respond to a complaint within ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient and it recognises the impact the service failure has had on the resident. The policy notes that compensation should not be offered until all the issues have been resolved or, where a complaint has been lodged, it has been fully investigated (but that did not apply to reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses). It adds that it may also offer discretionary payment to residents who have suffered undue stress and upset because of its failure to respond to their complaints within specified timescales or done so inadequately. Where customers have rent arrears, it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment or award against the debt (except reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses).
This policy says that, for homeowner (not tenants), where there is:

An emergency defect (including where heating and hot water are not restored within 24 hours from 31 October and 1 May), it will pay homeowners compensation of £10 a day with a maximum of £100 per defect.

An urgent defect (including were heating and hot water are not restored within five working days from 30 April and 1 November), it will pay homeowners compensation of £5 a day with a maximum of £100 per defect.

Summary of events

On 11 June 2019 the resident told the landlord that the heating system (a ground/air source heat pump) was not working properly and she had no hot water. The landlord responded on 27 June 2019 saying that it had logged a repair.
On 8 July 2019 the resident told the landlord that she had not heard anything further about the repair.
Over six months later, on 30 January 2020 the landlord logged that the resident had reported no hot water or heating at the property.
On 31 January 2020 the heating contractor (the contractor) could not gain access to the property as the resident was at work. They noted she had been unaware of the appointment and that the landlord should call her to arrange another visit.
Almost three months later, on 21 April 2020, the contractor carried out a planned maintenance visit to the property. They serviced the heating system and left it in full working order. They also investigated the high running costs and noted that the immersion heater had been staying on constantly which would have led to high running costs. The contractor rectified this and explained to the resident how to run the system most economically.
On 30 June 2020 the resident provided the landlord with evidence of her previously high electricity bills. She said her average monthly bill was £22.37 when it had previously been £110.97. She said it had taken the landlord some nine months to carry out the repairs.
On 28 July 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that she only had had heating and hot water for three months since she had moved into the property. She said she had not had a response following the landlord’s acknowledgement of an earlier complaint on 7 July 2020.
On the following day the landlord responded to the resident saying that it was sorry she had had to go to such lengths to have the heating system issue resolved. It added it understood it had attempted to book an appointment with the resident for a contractor to attend but she was unavailable. The landlord explained it used external contractors for such jobs and, without the resident being present or granting access without her presence, they could not carry out the repair and that was why nothing further was booked in. It said it was taking steps to action her query about her high bills. The landlord also said that this matter had been passed to a manager to investigate further.
In an internal email in August 2020 the landlord noted that the resident’s energy company had advised that from the 31 May 2019 to the 21 April 2020 (327 days and 5744 units) the usage was 18 units a day which was the equivalent of £3.47; since the heating system was fixed from 21 April to the 6 August 2020 (108 days and 423 units) the usage was 4 units a day which was the equivalent of 77p. It noted that the difference in units was 14 units a day (£2.70) and the number of days it took the heating system to be fixed was 327; therefore, the amount to be paid was £882.90 (£2.70 x 327).
On 24 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint informally. It told the resident that the contractor had tried to attend the property but had been unable to gain access on 31 January and 23 March 2020. It said it had offered to reimburse the additional electricity costs of £882.90 along with a goodwill gesture of £150 for the inconvenience that had been caused to her.
On 8 October 2020 the resident told the landlord that she had not been notified of visits to the property on 31 January or 23 March 2020; she said she was home all day on 23 March 2020 and no-one had called.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord told the resident it had no record of any report of a problem with the heating system before 30 January 2020. It asked the resident for evidence of this, which she provided.
On 12 October 2020 the resident asked the landlord to pay the energy provider direct the sum of £882.90 or pay her direct so she could pay them.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord logged no heating or hot water at the property following an email from the resident. The landlord confirmed that a job had been raised as a matter of priority with the contractor.
On the following day the contractor attended the property and found the heating pump was not coming on due to a failed printed circuit board. They noted that they had left the pump switched to manual so that the resident had only hot water until the new part was fitted.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord told the resident that the new part had been ordered and would take up to a week to arrive. It said that, once the part had been received, the contractor would arrange a priority appointment for the repair. The landlord also said it understood the heating was not working and offered electric heaters. The landlord added it would consider compensation once the heating system had been repaired. On the same day the resident confirmed she would like electric heaters.
On 22 October 2020 the resident chased the landlord as she had not heard anything further about the electric heaters. The landlord subsequently asked for these to be delivered that day; however, the evidence does not show that the resident was told about this and she was not at the property as she was staying with a friend due to the cold in the property. The landlord re-offered electric heaters the next day.
On 27 October 2020 the resident told the landlord she was staying on a friend’s sofa until the problem with the heating system had been resolved.
On 6 November 2020 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said that she had been without heating and hot water for seventeen months.
On 9 November 2020 the contactor replaced the printed circuit board and left the heating system in full working order.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord said it would now consider compensation and write to her by 20 November 2020.
On 18 November 2020 the resident told the landlord of the impact the broken heating system had had on her. This included showering at her sister’s home and the gym and she referred to the “emotional, mental and physical drain” the disrepair had caused. She said the disrepair had continued to seventeen months and therefore compensation should be paid at a high level.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 20 and 26 November 2021. On 23 November 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and subsequently told her that it wanted to speak to the contractor before responding to the complaint.
On 4 December 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. It gave the background to the complaint. The main points were:
1. It had failed to log a report from June 2019. It recommended that training was given to all staff on the importance of logging a repair in a timely manner.
2. In January 2020 the contractor was unable to gain access; the contractor had asked the resident to make another appointment. It recommended that, going forward, the contractor would make two attempts to arrange an appointment with residents. If they were not successful after the second attempt, they were to refer the repair to the landlord to book a further appointment.
3. The system was repaired in April 2020 and it was established that the immersion switch was faulty and caused the immersion heater to remain on.
4. In October 2020 the printed circuit board failed. There was a delay in replacing that due to miscommunication between the contractor and the landlord, the part was replaced in November 2020. The landlord noted that the system had been left in fully working order in the meantime.
5. It was unable to determine if the heating system was working properly between June 2019 when the problem was first reported and April 2020 when the first visit took place. It said it had sought technical advice and had been informed that the system would not consume electricity if it was not functioning and it was highly likely that the system was working but not being utilised as per the operating manual. The landlord said it had agreed to pay £882.40 for the extra electricity consumed.
6. An engineer had shown the resident how to use the heating system in April 2020. It had been told that the resident had been increasing the usage costs by turning the system off when it should be left on all the time. It recommended that, going forward, new customers should be better informed on how the system worked and it would review how to do that.
7. In addition to the £882.40 for electricity costs, the landlord offered compensation of £520 made up for £60 for inconvenience; £60 for distress; £200 for the time and effort in pursuing the issue and a goodwill gesture of £200.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 7 December 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident. She was unhappy that the landlord did not recognise that she had been without heating and hot water for seventeen months. On the following day the resident said she would like a review of her complaint but, before doing so, she would like to see the repair records for the property. She subsequently made a subject access request.
Also on 7 December 2020, the resident told the landlord that a heating engineer who happened to be in the building had got the heating system working (which had failed), but by that evening it was not working again. In response, the landlord said it would arrange a repair.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its formal complaints procedure. The landlord gave the background to the issues that led to the complaint and its complaint handling. The main points were:
1. The faulty heating system was not resolved within a timely manner and was delayed for eight months (July 2019 (date resident chased the repair) to January 2020 (the date the repair was raised)).
2. The resident received a poor standard of service; repairs should have been managed more effectively, completed more swiftly, and the heating system problem should have been resolved without the need to complain. The landlord apologised that the service she received fell short of acceptable standards.
3. It offered compensation of £1,822.40 made up of

Inconvenience and distress £250

Time and effort £200

Goodwill gesture £200

Lack of communication £250

Previous offer to cover additional electricity costs £882.40

Delay in response to stage to response £40

The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The repairs log evidences that further problems were reported with the heating system on 19 April 2021 (which the repair log evidences was repaired the following day) and on 24 January 2022.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman in February 2022, she said she believed the landlord had no intention of repairing the issues with the heating and hot water system. She said she had not lived in the property for two months and had been “sofa surfing” with friends and family. She said the landlord had taken no action since she had reported having no heating or hot water in January 2022 and believed the repair order was cancelled.
In March 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that the problems were continuing; that the heating system had been repaired on 25 February 2022 but had failed two hours after the engineer had left. She said the contractor was returning on 5 March 2022 to again replace the printed circuit board.

Assessment and findings

This report has focussed on the issues that led up to the final report dated 12 February 2021. However, it is clear that there have been similar problems with the heating system after that time and it is open to the resident to make a fresh complaint to the landlord. An order has also been at the end of this report to try to resolve this issue.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system

The repairs policy does not class the loss of heating and hot water as an emergency repair (paragraph 5); however, in its compensation guide it notes that it will pay compensation to its leaseholders/shared owners if this matter is not resolved within 24 hours in the colder months and five days in the warmer months (paragraph 8). The Ombudsman takes the view that the lack of heating and hot water should be treated as an emergency repair and should be resolved as soon as possible – especially in winter – due to the effect the lack of these amenities might have on a resident.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the heating system was not appropriate. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to log the repair and there had been a delay of some eight months to resolve it. However, the evidence demonstrates that that delay was over ten months – from 11 June 2019 to 21 April 2020.
The stage one response also acknowledged that there was a delay in repairing the heating system from 15 October to 9 November 2020 due to miscommunication between the contractor and the landlord. The landlord said the part would take a week to order and that it would then be treated as a priority repair; therefore, it would be reasonable to expect the heating system to have been repaired by 23 October 2020. There was therefore a further delay of over two weeks.
The resident has described the impact of the delay in repairing the heating system – sofa surfing to avoid the cold property and showering at a family member’s home. Further inconvenience has been identified in this report including: the landlord did not arrange another repair visit after the failed attempt in January 2020 as the contractor stated would happen; there is no evidence of a visit to the property on 23 March 2020 contrary to the landlord’s assertions; no warning was given about the delivery of electric heaters in October 2020 which meant they did not reach the resident; and the resident had to provide the landlord with evidence of her initial repair request from June 2019.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. The Ombudsman cannot order damages, as that would be for a court to decide on.
The landlord acted appropriately by offering to pay the additional energy costs that the resident had incurred of £882.90. It also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience amounting to £900 caused by the delays in repairing the heating system (based on a delay of eight months).
That sum reasonably reflects the impact the lack of hot water and heating had on the resident over that eight-month period. However, given that the delays were longer than eight months (ten months and then later, two weeks) the compensation should be increased by £350 to £1,250 to better reflect the overall inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the lack of heating and hot water and the failings identified at paragraph 45.

Complaint handling

In its complaints policy, the landlord asserts that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about its standard of service, actions or lack of action. In this case the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was not appropriate because it didn’t deal with her complaint from July 2020 as a formal complaint in line with its policy. While responses were issued to the resident on 29 July and 24 September 2020 and compensation offered, the resident did not receive a stage one response to her complaint until she had submitted a further complaint in November 2020.
It took the landlord over four months to issue a stage one response after receiving the initial complaint at the end of July 2020. That is an unreasonable delay. By deviating from its complaints policy, the landlord extended the overall timeframe of the complaints procedure and effectively hindered the resident escalating her complaint.
The landlord failed to progress the complaint and resolve matters at the earliest opportunity; it also missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/resident relationship. Overall, the time taken to reach a final response was over six months rather than the six weeks set out in the complaints policy (paragraph 6).
The landlord offered the resident £40 for the delay in issuing the stage one response. That sum does not reflect the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the delay in issuing the second response on 24 September 2020 or having to make a further complaint in order to progress matters. Therefore, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, the sum of £150 better reflects the evident inconvenience and frustration to the resident caused by these complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged some lengthy delays in carrying out repairs to the heating system and awarded appropriate compensation. However, this report identified more delays and other failings for which further compensation is appropriate to remedy the impact on the resident.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy. As a result, there was an extensive delay in it issuing the stage one complaint response. While the landlord had offered compensation for that delay, it did not remedy the full inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident and further redress is appropriate.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of:
  1. £1,250 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the delays in repairing the heating system (minus any sums already paid). This sum is made up of the £900 previously offered plus the additional £350 ordered by the Ombudsman at paragraph 48.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the complaint handling failings identified in this report (minus any sums already paid).
3. Carry out training to ensure that all staff members are aware that complaints should be dealt with in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
4. As recent evidence suggests that the problems with the heating system are ongoing, the landlord should ask the contractor to undertake a full inspection of the system to try to ascertain why there are reoccurring problems with it and, if appropriate, take steps to remedy this.