Hyde Housing Association Limited (202105372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105372

Hyde Housing Association Limited

15 September 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s boiler and subsequent offer of compensation.
   2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident was left without a functioning boiler for approximately five months from October 2019 to March 2020. During that period, the landlord’s contractors attended on a number of occasions but were unsuccessful in finding the root cause. A new boiler was eventually installed on 11 March 2020 which restored the heating and hot water to full working order.
4. The resident’s complaint was about her request to be adequately compensated for the delay in repairing her boiler, for the time and trouble spent trying to resolve the issue with the landlord, and for the acknowledgment of the distress and inconvenience caused. Furthermore, she attributed the stress of the boiler situation to her forgetting to renew her parking permit. The resident wanted the landlord to cancel a parking charge she had received due to not having renewed her parking permit.
5. The landlord apologised to the resident for being left without hot water for five months and for the poor customer service received. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation, which was broken down as follows:
   3. £250 for inconvenience caused
   4. £150 for the delays
   5. £150 for the poor complaint handling
6. The resident remains dissatisfied with the compensation offered and feels the landlord should increase the amount, given the length of time it took to resolve the issue. She is also dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, citing delays in providing its responses. The resident would like an apology for the inconvenience caused due to the poor service received and an increased offer of compensation to adequately consider the circumstances she endured.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. It is noted that the resident has attributed the development of her daughter’s asthma with the period her and her family were without the use of the property’s boiler. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her daughter’s medical condition, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this Service can consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident and her family. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her daughter’s health has been affected by its actions or lack thereof. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Policies and Procedures

8. The tenancy agreement stipulates that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the heating and hot water provisions within the property.
9. The landlord’s website describes an emergency repair as repairs which threaten health, safety or security or could cause significant damage to a property including flooding or total loss of electricity or water. If there is no heating and hot water between 1 October and 31 March, this would constitute an emergency repair. Emergency repairs will be repaired within four hours and made safe within twenty-four hours.
10. The website states that if the heating is working in some rooms and a resident still has some hot water provision, this would constitute a routine repair, which should be completed within twenty working days.
11. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy provides for a two-stage complaint process, which states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints as soon as is reasonably possible and not later than twenty working days (four weeks). At stage two, it aims to respond as soon as possible and not later than twenty working days from the complaint escalation date from stage one.
12. It sets out that compensation payments may be offered where:
    1. It has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
    2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint.
    3. In recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.

Repair to the resident’s boiler

13. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord was responsible for the repair to the boiler, as per the tenancy agreement, and it did not respond, for the most part, in accordance with its obligations following the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property. It acknowledged that it did not take ownership of the repair and failed to rectify the issue at the earliest opportunity, which according to the landlord’s complaint response of 9 July 2020, should have been identified during the contractor’s first visit on 10 October 2019.
14. Whilst the landlord’s repair records show that numerous attempts were made to resolve the issue between 10 October 2019 and 11 March 2020 (17 visits in total), it ultimately took the landlord approximately five months to find a permanent solution, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident, both via the lack of heating and hot water, and the numerous attendances to try and resolve this. This was exacerbated by the fact that the loss of the use of the boiler occurred during the winter months.
15. When failings are identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP): to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. In this case, the landlord did put matters right by acknowledging and apologising for its failings in not rectifying the issue in a timely manner. It also put matters right by replacing the boiler on 11 March 2020 and thereby found a permanent resolution to the lack of heating and hot water in the property.
17. Furthermore, it demonstrated some learning via the complaints process by acknowledging where it did not meet its expectations, and implementing further training for staff members involved, to prevent similar situations in the future.
18. However, the omission of a fair and proportionate amount of compensation was a failing on the landlord’s behalf in this instance. In short, the landlord’s final offer of compensation of £400 (£250 for the inconvenience caused and £150 for the delays) was disproportionately low, especially when we take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case.
19. Because the resident reported the loss of heating and hot water between 1 October and 31 March, this should have been addressed as an emergency repair, in line with the landlord’s stipulations detailed on the landlord’s website, which states that the repair should be attended to within four hours and made safe within twenty-four hours. Whilst it is accepted that a repair of this nature cannot always be rectified after one visit, in this case it took the landlord several months to resolve the matter.
20. According to the landlord’s repair records, the contractor attended the property on each occasion the resident reported no heating and hot water, with the boiler being left fully operational for the majority of these visits. Nevertheless, there were extended periods whereby the boiler was left inoperative, such as between 7 November 2019 and 2 December 2019. The resident was provided with two electric fan heaters on 7 November 2019, according to the repair records (although the landlord stated these were provided on 23 November 2019), yet these would only be sufficient over a short period of time as their ability to heat the whole property was limited.
21. Thus, notwithstanding the landlord’s recognition of its failings during the complaint process, the fact that the resident had to endure five months of intermittent heating and hot water in the property, with long periods with only temporary heaters, as well as the requirement to boil water for washing facilities – plus the resident was having to actively contact the landlord on a number of occasions in order to pursue a resolution during that period and endure considerable disruption due to the amount of visits to the property – this should have resulted in a higher amount of compensation in consideration of the impact this would have had on the resident and her family’s living situation.
22. Ultimately, if we consider the fact that the resident was without sufficient heating and hot water for what was almost the entirety of the winter period, and the specific factors the resident experienced, as detailed above, the £250 for inconvenience is an insufficient remedy. Furthermore, £150 for a five-month delay to a repair of this nature was not proportionate.
23. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £650 compensation (£400 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble, plus £250 for the delays in completing the repair) would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified. This is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of between £250 to £700 would be proportionate for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant, for example when a landlord fails, over a considerable period of time to address repairs.
24. In summary, whilst the landlord put some matters right for the resident, the exclusion of a proportionate amount of compensation was a failing on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident, which was disproportionately low when the length of these repair delays, as well as the impact this had on the resident and her family, is considered.

Complaint handling

25. As with the response to the boiler repairs, the landlord also acknowledged failings regarding its complaint handling. In the landlord’s stage two response, dated 15 February 2021, the landlord apologised that the resident had to wait so long for a response and offered £50 for the delay in the complaint being acknowledged, and a further £25 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaint procedure; this was subsequently increased to £150 upon review on 20 July 2021 for the overall complaint handling.
26. At stage two, the landlord should have responded within twenty working days from the complaint escalation date from stage one. In this case, the resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2020 yet she did not receive her stage two complaint response until 15 February 2021, approximately six months later, which is way in excess of the stipulated timescales for a response, causing the resident further frustration. There is evidence on 8 September 2020 of some dialogue between landlord and resident that explained that the lack of response was due to staff absence and she would be contacted as soon as possible. Nevertheless, there was still a further four-month delay following this correspondence.
27. There were also additional failings that were not addressed during the complaint procedure, which should have resulted in further acknowledgement and in turn further compensation. For example, as part of the resident’s complaint, she highlighted the impact on her ability to function, due to the stress of the situation, which meant that she had forgotten to update her parking permit and consequently she had received a parking fine. The landlord responded accordingly in its stage one complaint response of 9 July 2020; but, when the resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2020, this aspect was not addressed in either the stage two response of 15 February 2021, nor in the further response on 20 July 2021.
28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.   A landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. In view of this, the landlord should have addressed this aspect at stage two, even if that meant reiterating its stage-one position on the matter. Ultimately, the resident did not have the opportunity to have this aspect of the complaint reviewed, which was a failing by the landlord.
29. Furthermore, the complaint process was somewhat delayed due to the landlord not providing contact details for this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord’s final decision should include the right to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Because the stage two response of 15 February 2021 did not provide these details, the resident felt that she was being pressured into accepting the landlord’s revised offer of £325. It is only when the resident received the correspondence dated 20 July 2021, with the increased offer of compensation, that the landlord detailed how to escalate the complaint to this Service. However, the delay to the complaint process, plus the undue distress caused in thinking she had to accept the offer of compensation, should be acknowledged and appropriate redress offered.
30. In light of the above failings, the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for complaint handling was inadequate in order to put matters right for the resident, and the landlord should pay an additional £100 compensation. This amount takes into consideration the delay, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing a resolution.
31. The landlord should also provide its final response to the parking aspect of the complaint. A further recommendation will also be made to review its staff training in regard to its complaint handling.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the resident’s boiler and subsequent offer of compensation.
33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £900. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the defective boiler;
    2. £250 for the delays in completing the repair, and;
    3. £250 for the failings in the complaint handling.
35. The above amount is inclusive of the £550 offered by the landlord on 20 July 2021. If this amount has already been paid, the total amount the landlord has to pay would be £350.
36. The landlord is also ordered to write to the resident with its final position on the matter regarding the parking permit.
37. The above orders should be completed within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

38. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies, to seek to prevent a recurrence of the identified service failures.