Bristol City Council (202122845)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122845

Bristol City Council

8 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her gas boiler was unsafe and its decision to not replace the boiler.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident’s gas boiler was installed in February 2006. In August 2018 the landlord confirmed that her boiler was due to be replaced in 2021, and that it aimed to replace gas boilers every 15 years.
  3. The resident requested that the landlord replace the gas boiler in the property in June 2021 because she said it was old and did not work properly. The landlord stated that the boiler was not due to be replaced until 2023. A gas-safety engineer conducted a gas-safety inspection on 1 July 2021, which deemed the gas boiler safe and in good working order.
  4. On 31 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the boiler had broken down and was unsafe. The landlord raised an emergency repair request; this was later cancelled because the resident would only accept an appointment to replace the boiler.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint because the landlord refused to replace the gas boiler, which she deemed to be unsafe, and she was unhappy that she had initially been told, in 2018, that the boiler would be replaced in 2021. She contended that the decision to not renew the boiler was unlawful because there was no formal policy devised when extending the renewal period from 15 to 17 years, and also because it goes against industry–standard advice for boiler replacements.
  6. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, explaining that the renewal timeframes for boiler replacements were a guide and the boiler was not unsafe. As such, it said it would not be replacing the resident’s boiler before 2023, unless it was subsequently deemed unsafe or uneconomical to repair.
  7. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the boiler replaced and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as for the time and trouble taken in pursuing an adequate response from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident believed that the gas boiler in the property was not only unsafe but had had a negative impact on the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has not assessed the resident’s comments regarding her health as this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions.

Assessment

  1. A landlord has a legal obligation under Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to ensure that the gas supply and appliances in a property:
    1. Are in a safe condition;
    2. Are fitted or repaired by a Gas Safe registered engineer; and
    3. Have a gas safety check every 12 months by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
  2. In view of the above, the landlord has provided evidence to demonstrate that it has adhered to the above obligations. The landlord has provided gas-safety certificates dated 23 October 2017, 6 September 2018, 7 August 2019, 29 June 2020, and 1 July 2021, all of which concluded that the boiler was safe, in accordance with the Gas Safety Regulations (1988).
  3. That said, issues regarding safety can arise unexpectedly even when the gas-safety checks have been completed. Therefore, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, when a resident reports that their gas boiler is unsafe and/or not working properly, the landlord should conduct an inspection and carry out any necessary repairs within the stipulated timeframes, with the aim to ensure the appliance is operational and in a safe condition. Generally, safety concerns relating to gas installations would constitute an emergency repair.
  4. In this case, on each occasion the resident raised concerns regarding the safety of the gas boiler or reported that it did not work properly, the landlord either attended in a timely manner or attempted to attend but was refused access. For instance, when on 22 June 2021 the resident informed the landlord that her boiler was old and did not work properly, the landlord offered to bring forward the date of the gas-safety check to either 29 June or 1 July 2021. As mentioned above, the inspection was undertaken on 1 July 2021, which was within the 28-day timescale to attend non-emergency repairs, and did conclude that the boiler was safe and in good working condition.
  5. Moreover, when the resident, on 31 August 2021, reported that her boiler had broken down, leaving her without heating, and she was fearful that using the boiler could trigger a fire, the landlord duly raised an emergency repair on 6 September 2021, as it was clearly a safety concern.
  6. This was outside the stipulated timeframe to respond to an emergency repair, which should be completed within one-working day of being reported, as per landlord’s repairs policy. But it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this was not a failing on the landlord’s behalf because the resident reported this via an online submission form rather than via telephone. The resident should have used the published emergency repair contact number, as detailed on the landlord’s website, which was also highlighted to the resident prior to the 31 August 2021 in an email to the resident on 1 July 2021, in which the landlord had informed the resident of the correct process if she had any safety concerns.
  7. The report itself did not necessarily indicate that there was immediate danger to the resident and focussed mainly on her request for the boiler to be replaced; nor was it a loss of heating/hot water between the dates of 31 October and 1 May, which, in accordance with the landlord’s emergency repairs policy, would constitute an emergency.
  8. The resident did not wish to facilitate the landlord’s emergency appointment offer on 6 September 2021 anyhow, refusing the appointment that same day on the basis that, due to the current situation with covid-19, she would only accept a job to replace the gas boiler. She also believed that the landlord had already assessed the boiler – incorrectly, in the resident’s opinion – on 1 July 2021 and was thereby unwarranted. 
  9. Whilst it is understandable that the resident believed that the only solution was to fully replace the gas boiler, and also, due to the coronavirus pandemic, it would seem reasonable to reduce the amount of visits to the property, the landlord would still need the opportunity, first and foremost, to undertake an assessment of the situation before any decision about the safety of the boiler can be made, let alone whether a replacement is needed.
  10. A landlord can only make decisions based on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, which, in this instance, had deemed the boiler safe and operational hitherto the resident reporting on 31 August 2021 that her boiler had broken down. As per the tenancy agreement, the resident should have allowed access to the property so that the landlord could make an informed decision about what actions were needed in regard to the boiler. Because the resident was not forthcoming in this regard, the landlord was not in a position to accurately conclude what the next steps should be.
  11. Similarly, the landlord’s decision to not replace the boiler in 2021 was not a failing on the landlord’s behalf. The Decent Homes Standard provides the component lifetimes, within the disrepair criterion, to assess whether the building components are ‘old’ and thereby in need of replacement. The suggested component lifetime of a gas boiler is stated as 15 years. However, it is important to note that these timeframes are guides and used invariably to help a landlord predict the age at which a component ceases to function effectively and consequently inform the landlord regarding its planned replacement programmes.
  12. In short, a landlord is not obligated to replace a gas boiler just because it is over 15 years old. A landlord’s job therefore would be to ensure that the boiler was safe, which, as detailed above, the landlord did so.
  13. That said, although it is noted that the wording of the landlord’s email in August 2018 is suggested rather than exact – for instance, it states that it ‘aims’ to replace boilers every 15 years, and it states the resident was not due a new boiler until 2021, which is not explicitly confirming this is when the replacement would take place – it nevertheless gave the resident the impression that the boiler would be replaced in 2021 and therefore it would have been helpful if this decision to extend the period from 15 to 17 years had been conveyed to the resident prior to being told via email on 22 June 2021.
  14. The resident was the one proactively seeking an answer as to when the boiler would be renewed, as she was expecting it to be replaced at some point in 2021, as the landlord’s previous communication in 2018 suggested it would. The resident was not formally told of the reason for the extension until the landlord’s email, dated 1 July 2021, which explained that the decision to extend the boiler replacement was made to ensure the landlord was being prudent with its finances. An apology was offered prior to the complaint being made in correspondence dated 1 July 2021, as well as it providing an explanation regarding the previous communication in 2018, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was adequate, albeit not ideal.
  15. Decisions to extend boiler replacements are not unreasonable so long as all repairing obligations have been met. When considering expenditure for repairs and planned maintenance, a landlord has to ensure, on one hand, that it is providing all tenants a good service, and on the other hand that it provides value for money. Social landlords have limited budgets and therefore have to consider all factors collectively in order to make the best decision as an organisation for all parties involved. As a result, this can mean that individual residents could be disappointed with a decision, such as in this case; however, as long as the landlord is satisfied that the gas appliance is safe – which as detailed above was apparent – then the extension of the replacement would not necessarily mean a failing on the landlord’s behalf. In this instance, it is clear that the decision to repair, first of all, rather than replace was reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. As an aside, it is noted that the resident’s reasoning for wanting the replacement went beyond the fact that the boiler was over 15 years old. The resident cited reasons such as boiler efficiency and the landlord’s yearly budgets in correspondence dated 5 August 2021 amongst other queries. The landlord was forthcoming with its information and did answer all the resident’s further concerns clearly, informatively and in detail, which included giving details of what to do if she believed the boiler to be unsafe or was in need of repair, as well as reassurance that it would replace the boiler if it were deemed unsafe.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports that her gas boiler was unsafe and its decision to not replace the boiler.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its standard communication advising tenants of the timescales for boiler replacements, so it is clear that these are guide timeframes and subject to change.