Bromford Housing Association Limited (202014045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014045

Bromford Housing Association Limited

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the boiler and associated decorative repairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident is tenant of the landlord and lives in a three bedroom, three storey town house. On 4 January 2017, the landlord replaced the system boiler and unvented cylinder with a combi boiler. There have been sporadic issues with the boiler since 2017 up until the complaint was submitted in January 2021.
The Ombudsman does not typically consider complaints about matters which have occured more than six months prior to the submission of a formal complaint. Therefore, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the more recent events which were subject to the formal complaint. Any reference to historical issues provides contextual background to the current complaint only.
In this case, the earliest report about the boiler within the six months prior to the complaint was made in November 2020. This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the issues from November 2020 up to the time the complaint finalised the landlord’s complaint on 25 May 2021.

Summary of Events

On 8 November 2020, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. In response the landlord attended the same day and found a part was required. From then up until 3 December 2020, the landlord attended to the boiler on at least four occasions. Within this time, the boiler manufacturer also attended to diagnose the fault with the boiler. The manufacturer carried out repairs, fitted parts and made recommendations for the landlord to inspect for leaking across the pipework from the bathroom. The plumber attended the property on the manufacturer’s recommendation; however, they found no issue with leaking pipework.
During the landlord’s visit to the property on 3 December 2020, the fault reported by the resident was they could only use one hot water tap at a given time. The landlord said it would ask its contractor to call the resident to arrange for work to either upgrade or re-pipe, the hot water pipes, where possible. At the time of the visit, the resident had heating and hot water therefore the landlord explained that this would not be a priority job.
On 9 January 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. They complained that they had recurring issues with their heating and hot water since the boiler was installed in 2017, and these issues were ongoing. They said that the landlord had made holes in the walls during the investigative works and in December 2020, advised that it would look into replumbing the boiler but it had not provided them with any update since then. The resident noted that to replumb the system, the landlord would need to cut holes in the walls and ceilings to run pipework. They asked the landlord to provide a schedule of works for the repairs and confirm if it would address the damage to the decorations once the boiler repair was completed.
The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint and attended a joint visit with the contractor on 14 January 2021. It made a proposal to replace the existing thermostatic shower with an electric shower, supplied directly from the mains, as a way to address the issue the resident had with the hot water flow rate. It acknowledged that its proposed remedy would not necessarily provide a resolution to the loss of water pressure in the remaining water outlets if they were run at the same time.
On 3 February 2021, the resident reported a leak from a radiator. A contractor attended however the appointment did not go ahead due to a confrontation with the resident. Following this, an arrangement was put in place for joint visits to the property only. A joint visit with the landlord and contractor was arranged for the leaking radiator, to take place on 9 February 2021.
On 4 February 2021, the landlord consulted an independent auditor as it was unable to come to agreement on what action to take to resolve the issue with the loss of hot water pressure. The landlord asked the auditor to do a survey and provide its recommendations to resolve the issue. The auditor agreed to attend on 11 February 2021.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint. It advised that from November 2020, there had been reports of issues with the hot water and heating and that it investigated and attended to each report, within its repairs policy timeframe and communicated any follow on works to the resident. It confirmed that in December 2020, it and the boiler manufacturer attended to assess the boiler and found that the issue with the hot water flow rate was due to the system not providing the same flow rate as the former system.
It confirmed that following the visit on 14 January 2021, it proposed to replace the shower but before doing so, it would send an independent auditor to assess the boiler and provide recommendations. The landlord apologised that the resident had experienced multiple issues with the heating and hot water and the impact this had. It agreed to get back to the resident with a plan of action once it received the auditor’s recommendations.
In respect of the decorative damage to the property as result of the investigative works, the landlord agreed to provide an action plan for making this good, once the system was repaired.
On 11 February 2021, the resident notified the landlord that the contractor who attended for the leaking radiator on 9 February 2021, did not resolve the leak and was due to attend that morning but failed to do so. The landlord apologised and informed that the contractor was on its way.
Following the visits by the responsive contractor and independent auditor later that day, the resident informed the landlord that they did not want its responsive contractor to return as they did not wear shoe covers. In addition, the resident notified that they would be claiming for decorating, carpet cleaning costs and, the inconvenience they experienced.
The landlord responded that it was waiting for the report from the auditor and reassured that it would address the decorative damage once the system was repaired. It noted that it was not standard practice for its contractors to wear protective shoes and it would not pay for a carpet clean. It also informed the resident that they could not ban the responsive contractor from attending, but made assurances that the operative who the resident previously had a confrontation with, would not be sent back to the property.
On 15 February 2021, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint and stated that it was their third request to do so. In response, the landlord said that it would not escalate the complaint as it had not completed the recommendations from the stage one complaint. It advised that if and when it did look to complete these, and the resident was still unhappy, they could raise a stage two complaint.
The landlord received the auditor’s report on 16 February 2021. This explained that the reason for the poor hot water flow rate was due to how the pipework was. The auditor recommended an installation of an unvented cylinder on the third floor and a system boiler fitted in the kitchen, as was in place before. It advised the hot water feed would need to supply the outlets from the third floor downwards.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord forwarded the recommendations over to its responsive contractor and asked that it arrange a survey to scope for the work required to implement the recommendations made.
On 27 February 2021, the resident reported that a radiator was leaking and the boiler was losing pressure, resulting in a loss of heating and hot water. The responsive contractor attended the same day and left a no access card. The resident was later notified that the contractor would not attend over the weekend as it did not have the staff resources to accommodate the joint visit agreement in place. The resident notified the landlord of this, and explained that they could not contain the leak while they were asleep due to being on medication. They said that they wished to have their complaint reviewed by a senior manager.
A joint visit with the landlord and contractor was arranged for 5 March 2021, but did not go ahead as the operative left the site before the appointment could go ahead.
By 22 March 2021, the resident notified that they were still without heating and hot water, and the contractor had only carried out a temporary repair to the leak since the report was made. An appointment was arranged for 25 March 2021, for the contractor to fit a part to the boiler and conduct a survey to scope the works recommended by the auditor.
The appointment did not go ahead on the date as the resident refused to allow access unless, the landlord agreed to survey the decorative damage to the property at the same time. The complaint was then escalated.
The appointment was rearranged for 30 March 2021, and included a survey to scope for the decorative works required after the system replacement.
After the appointment on 30 March 2021, the parties were in communication about the works. The landlord asked the resident for images of where access points had been made to investigate the boiler so that it could complete the making good works. It acknowledged that the resident said that they did not want the work to go ahead if the pipework was not concealed, and agreed to review the possibility of installing the system with concealed pipework.
The resident further explained that the pipework for the previous system had been concealed at the bottom of the boiler and not along the wall as the existing pipework was. They explained that if the existing pipework is removed it would leave a hole in the worktop surface and a hole in the kitchen units. They asked the landlord for the pieces of wood that had previously been cut out to accommodate this pipework and if this was not possible, they asked the landlord to replace the cupboard and work surface as well as repairing the holes made elsewhere in the house. The resident asked the landlord to provide a schedule of work for all the repairs.
Ahead of the installation, the landlord’s contractor arranged an appointment to attend on 8 April 2021, to check the wiring for the unvented cylinder to be installed. However, this appointment was not attended to.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 9 April 2021 and within this, confirmed what it intended to do to resolve the complaint. This included a visit to the property ahead of the work, to assess what could be done to revert the pipework to previous configuration before the installation. It asked the resident again to send images of the areas that had been damaged from the investigative work. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment the previous day, and explained that it had asked the contractor to hold off on this appointment until it was able to review the possibility of installing the system with concealed pipework.
The landlord arranged another visit to the property on 13 April 2021. It agreed from there, that it would install the new system and run pipes through the wall instead of the worktop, replace the worktop, repair the kitchen unit under the sink, tile underneath the boiler and complete plastering to the holes made during the investigative works.
The work to replace the system and the associated remedial work to the decorative damage was completed on 21 and 22 April 2021.
On 1 May 2021, the resident reported that the boiler had lost pressure and there was no heating or hot water. The landlord attended on 4 May 2021, to fit a part to the system however, this did not resolve the issue. The resident then asked the landlord to arrange for a specialist painter to paint the areas it had plastered. In addition, the resident showed the landlord a hole underneath the boiler it recently installed and said that they wanted the boiler to be removed and any holes behind this to be filled.
The landlord arranged another appointment to attend on 10 May 2021 with the independent auditor. It found no leaks in the system and could not find evidence of a drop in pressure. However, the auditor recommended a replacement pressure gauge and a new condense pump, as it did not consider the existing one was suitable for the system. The landlord attended to replace the gauge on 19 May 2021.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. It explained that:
1. In respect of the loss of hot water pressure, it had implemented the recommendations made by the independent auditors to resolve this and was satisfied that the hot water pressure was now running well across the property based on feedback it received from its staff and contractors.
2. It also took responsibility for the issue with the boiler pressure dropping by completing the recommendations initially made to replace the system and the second recommendation to change the pressure gauge. It confirmed that it was consulting with the independent auditor in respect of the recommendation to replace the condense pump, as it considered this was suitable for the system. It agreed to follow up with the resident about this.
3. It acknowledged that the resident after the last visit, still believed there was an issue with the boiler pressure and reported that they had been topping up the pressure on the system themselves. It asked the resident to refrain from doing this, so that it could attend and witness the loss of pressure when it occurs.
4. It arranged for an independent third party to assess the system and would attend as a joint visit. It said that if the resident wished to instruct their own contractor to provide a report, it would review any findings to determine if there was a diagnosis that it had failed to find.
5. It had attended numerous visits to the property since 2017 and apologised for the number of visits and the issues the resident experienced including, the loss of hot water and heating.
6. It confirmed that the plastering works were completed and detailed further carpentry works to be carried out the kitchen units. It confirmed that it would address the hole identified underneath the boiler and its contractor would then attend on 14 and 15 June 2021, to complete the painting. But it declined to remove the boiler from the wall and complete plastering behind the boiler as it did not consider this a reasonable request.
7. Regarding the requested work to replace the worktop, tile underneath the boiler and replace the kitchen unit, it confirmed that agreed this as it believed it was fair to put the resident back to the position they were in before the issues arose in 2017, as a way to resolve the complaint.
8. It acknowledged that its contractor had failed to attend on five occasions and apologised for this and advised that it had taken steps internally to address this and ensure that the contractor attend the property within the agreed service standard going forward, regardless of the requirement for two operative visits.
The landlord concluded that it had taken steps to address the heating and hot water issues and agreed to continue to work with the resident on any future breakdowns of the system. It acknowledged that from 2017 to the point the new system was installed, there had been excessive visits which had, at points, left the resident without heating and hot water. It offered the resident £1580 compensation.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service on 1 June 2021. When doing so, they confirmed that there were ongoing issues with the boiler and they remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered. Since the complaint finalised the complaints procedure, the resident has submitted a second complaint to the landlord about its handling of the ongoing repairs.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement

The landlord is responsible for keeping repair and proper working order installations in the property for heating and hot water.

Repairs and Maintenance Policy

The policy explains that it will complete responsive repairs where components fail between scheduled cyclical services or planned renewals. Or if the failure is sufficiently significant that it cannot wait to rectify it at the next cyclical service or planned renewal.
The landlord has the following repair categories:
1. Immediate – This is for repairs which may lead to injury or property damage if left. It will attend within two hours, to make safe as a minimum but will complete a full repair if it is possible.
2. Emergency – This is repairs that pose a risk or significant impact to the safety and or, welfare of the resident and or property. It may attend within the same day. Or, if the repair poses a reduced risk if left unattended for more than two days, it will attend the day following the report.
3. Appointed repair – This is for any other repair where there is no risk of harm or significance inconvenience or impact on the customer. Its timescale for this is dependent on the customers requirement and the availability of its resources.
The evidence provided shows that after the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on 8 November 2020, the landlord initially attended within the same day, in line with its repairs timescales. The records provided confirm that following this visit, it diagnosed a part was required for the boiler and arranged to fit this on 10 November 2020 however, the resident refused this appointment and said that they did not want the contractor to attend to the property.
The part was eventually fitted on 14 November 2020, by the manufacturer. The part was fit outside of the landlord’s urgent repair timeframe however this is not due to a fault on its part as the resident declined the original appointment it offered.
The landlord visit the property approximately four times after the initial visit on the 8 November 2020. This was a significant number of visits however, in this time it did follow through on the manufacturer’s recommendation that it check the pipework.
From the contemporaneous notes provided, it is not clear when the hot water and heating was restored after the resident reported the loss on 8 November 2020, but this was sometime between 8 November and 3 December 2020, as when the landlord attended on 3 December 2020 the resident had heating and hot water.
During the visit on 3 December 2020, the landlord established that there was an issue with the hot water flow and it agreed to look into what work could be carried out to the pipe work to address this issue. At the time of the visit, it found that there was heating and hot water, and it decided not to prioritise the work on this basis.
Its reason not to prioritise the work was justified but there is no evidence that it provided with the resident with any updates on this work for over a month, as by the time the resident had complained on 9 January 2021, it had taken no action on the matter or, given the resident any information as to when it would be doing so.
After it attended on 14 January 2021, it recognised that the proposal it made to replace the shower would not guarantee a resolution to the wider issue of the loss of the hot water flow. It decided to instruct an independent auditor to provide recommendations, which was appropriate as it could not come to an agreement on the best way forward.
It took a month after the visit on 14 January 2021 before the independent auditor visit the property. It is understood that the independent auditor had limited availability however, this was a delay.
Once the recommendations were made by the independent surveyor, there was a delay before the survey to scope the works was carried out. The request was made for the contractor to carry out the survey to scope for the works on 18 February 2021 but an appointment date was not offered to the resident until 18 March 2021, a month later.
In total, it took the landlord four months from the time it identified the issue with the hot water flow in December 2021, to replace the system in order to address the issue with the hot water flow.
This was a lengthy period of time and mostly consisted of avoidable delays by the landlord. There were occasions where the resident was unable to accommodate the appointment dates the landlord offered but overall, the landlord could have taken action to investigate the system, appoint an independent auditor and initiate the start of the recommended works, sooner than it did.
Whilst the landlord was attending to investigate the system, the resident was reporting ongoing issues with a leak from a radiator and the loss of hot water. It attended to the report on the 3 February 2021 within its repair timescales within its repair policy however, this was unsuccessful appointment due to the confrontation between the resident and the operative.
It is not clear when the repair was completed after the report was made on 3 February 2021 but, the resident reported a leak from the radiator again on 27 February 2021. It is evident that the second report, was not resolved until at least 30 March 2021.
It is reasonable that following the confrontation between the resident and the operative, an agreement was put in place and this resulted in some delays in attendances thereafter, due to the contractors inability to source two operatives to attend emergency appointments out of hours appointments particularly. However, there were service failures in its responses to these reports, as the contractor failed to attend at the time agreed on 11 February 2021 and missed a joint appointment that was scheduled on 5 March 2021.
There was therefore, a delay in addressing the repair and this was partly due to the service failures on the landlord’s part but also contributed to by the resident’s refusal to allow access on the appointment date scheduled for 25 March 2021.
It is understood that by this time, there was a breakdown in the relationship between the landlord, its contractor and the resident which contributed to difficulties in arranging the follow up appointments for the repair and the survey for the system replacement.
When the resident expressed a dissatisfaction with the responsive contractor, the landlord responded appropriately and explained why it could not appoint an alternative contractor. To avoid a further confrontation, it was appropriate for it to agree to not send the operative who the resident had a confrontation with, back to the property.
After the landlord had confirmed that it would be replacing the system, it accommodated the resident’s request that the pipe work for the new system be concealed. It took steps to look into the request and while doing so, addressed the concern the resident raised about the damage that had been caused to their worktop and kitchen unit. It provided the resident with a schedule of works it intended to carry out to address the damage caused during the investigative works and followed this through. This was an appropriate offer to resolve the issue as doing so rectified the damage caused, which was an outcome the resident sought to the complaint.
Within a week of the system being replaced, a report was made about a loss of pressure to the boiler resulting in a loss of heating and hot water to the property. The landlord attended to fit a part to the boiler on 4 May 2021, however, was unable to resolve the issue.
Given that the system was newly installed, it is not expected that issues with it would occur so soon after. The landlord arranged for the independent auditor to attend to the property a second time check the newly installed system to diagnose a fault. This was a reasonable decision. It was unable to resolve the issue with its initial fix and promptly engaged an independent specialist to investigate and provide a view as to the issue.
It acted on one of the two recommendations the auditor made, which was to replace the pressure gauge. Regarding the second recommendation made for a replacement condense pump, the landlord explained why this was not carried out to the resident at the time the gauge was replaced but agreed to confirm its position on this at a later date. From the evidence provided, it is not clear however, if and when the landlord followed up on this. Although, this Service is aware that the landlord has since attended to repairs to the system.
In response to the complaint, the landlord recognised that there were delays in it taking the action to complete the works recommended by the independent auditor in February 2020. It also acknowledged the excessive number of visits that it carried out to the property for the boiler during 2020 up until the boiler was replaced.
Moreover, after issues were reported following the installation it attended and carried out part of the recommendations made by the auditor. However, it did not consider any compensation for the period of the loss of heating and hot water or the inconvenience the ongoing issues had on the resident. This is a service failure.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains that when deciding compensation, consideration will be given to:
1. The severity of its mistake.
2. The distress and inconvenience caused to the customer
3. The length of time suffered and;
4. Failures in complaint handling.
It also states that when considering discretionary awards, consideration should be given to the Ombudsman remedies guidance.
It is understood that the resident does not find that the level of compensation is reflective of their experience and notes that their health has been compromised. It is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to determine or assess claims related to personal injury such as injury to health. This investigation is reviewing whether the compensation offered fully reflects the service failures that have occurred and the consequent inconvenience to the resident.
In this case, there were service failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs as there were delays in it taking action to address the ongoing issues with the boiler from when it was reported and further delays in the landlord replacing the system. Alongside this, the landlord’s contractor missed several appointments to attend to repairs the resident had reported for the boiler.
Its decision to replace the system was, however, appropriate and following this it took action to rectify the decorative damage caused to the property as a result of the repairs carried out to the system.
When assessing compensation, the landlord recognised the length of time the matter was ongoing, from 2020 up to when it replaced the system in 2021, the number of visits that were required to the property, missed appointments by its contractors, and the resident’s inconvenience and time and trouble.
It was appropriate for the landlord to compensation as the issues with the boiler was clearly ongoing, and although the resident was not without heating and hot water for the entire time, the fact that the issues were ongoing for a long period of time, caused them a great deal of inconvenience whilst in the property.
Its offer of compensation is that in the region which the Ombudsman would consider in recognition of service failures or maladministration, that have had a ‘significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant’.
However, it failed to take into account in its offer, the fact that the resident continued to experience issues with the new system, causing further inconvenience. It is a service failure that it did not do so and an order of additional compensation has been made, to reflect the inconvenience to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the boiler.

Reasons

The landlord has recognised the shortfalls in its delivery of service. It has taken steps to complete the actions it agreed to replace the system and remedy the decorative damage to the property.
It has offered the resident compensation for the impact its service delivery had, the time taken to resolve the issue and the inconvenience they experienced. However, when considering compensation, it did not take into account the time period that the resident experienced issues with the system after it was replaced in April 2021.

Order

In recognition of the above finding, the landlord is to arrange the payment of £200 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience, as a result of the issue with the system shortly after its installation in April 2021.
The landlord is to arrange for the payment to be made within 28 days of this report and once paid, it is to send confirmation of this to this Service.

Recommendation

If the £1580 compensation offered in the complaints response, has not already been paid to the resident, the landlord is to arrange for this to be paid within 28 days of this report.
If it has already made the payment to the resident, it is to confirm to this Service.