Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202200447)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200447

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

12 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her hot water being too hot.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 1 December 2021 after reporting that her hot water was too hot. She had received two visits previously to address the issue which had resulted in the operative lowering the temperature of her boiler which was unsatisfactory to her as she was concerned that this could lead to the spread of legionella bacteria. The landlord had inspected the property and proposed to install thermostatic mixer valves (TMV) on her washbasins to reduce the temperature of the hot water. She had also requested on 12 October 2021 for the landlord to carry out a full overhaul of her hot water system.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response noted that she had since had a missed appointment on 8 November 2021 and a repeat visit was required two days after 8 December 2021 when the TMV was installed as it was leaking. It proposed to inspect the hot water again on 15 December 2021 and offered £160 compensation, made up for £75 for time and trouble, £75 for failure of service and £10 for its missed appointment.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 January 2022 as she was unhappy with the TMV, saying it was “tight” and the water was still too hot. The landlord inspected the property on 3 February 2022 and issued its final response to her later that day. In this, it said that it had found no further service failures since the stage one complaint response and confirmed that the hot water system was operating as expected. The landlord added that one TMV had not been installed as planned due to the resident refusing the installation. It proposed to install TMVs on all her hot water outlets to regulate the temperature of the water. The landlord repeated its earlier offer of £160 compensation made in its stage one complaint response.
  5. The resident informed this Service on 7 April 2022 that her hot water continued to be too hot and wanted compensation for her lost income in providing access for repairs. She also disputed that she had refused the installation of the TMV and disputed its assertion that it had attempted to attend to fix the leaking TMV on 9 December 2021. The resident requested that the landlord use a different contractor to fix the hot water temperature and to offer more compensation

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for the provision of space and water heating, and for the provision of sanitation. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2005 to address any potential hazards which may exist in its properties.
  2. The landlord therefore acted appropriately on 13 October 2021 by arranging for an inspection of the property following two attendances by its contractor which did not alleviate the resident’s reports of the hot water being “scalding”. In light of the resident’s concerns that by lowering the water temperature in the boiler to reduce the temperature at the tap, as previous operatives had done, increased the risk of legionella bacteria developing in the water, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose the installation of a TMV to limit the temperature of the water. This also served to enable the resident to maintain the temperature of the boiler at above 60°, inhibiting the growth of legionella.
  3. An appointment for 1 November 2021 was rescheduled by the resident to 8 November. This appointment was not kept by the landlord and it was appropriate for it to offer the resident £10 compensation for this in its complaint responses at both stages. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which specifies that £10 compensation is to be offered for non-attendance of an agreed appointment. It noted in its final response on 3 February 2022 that it had been unable to gain access on 9 December 2021 to fix the leaking TMV and this is disputed by the resident. There is no evidence to corroborate either party’s account of events on this point and therefore it cannot be determined whether a visit was made or not.
  4. After the landlord fitted the TMV on 8 December 2021, it returned on 10 December to address the resident’s report of the tap dripping. In response to her report that the TMV continued to drip and was noisy, it arranged for an inspection on 15 December 2021, which was relayed to her in its stage one complaint response on 14 December 2021. While the landlord did act promptly in response to the resident’s reports, it should have noted the actual temperature of the water on the previous occasions noting whether this was in line with industry practice, it did not and a further inspection was required to further consider whether the hot water was too hot.
  5. The landlord’s inspection on 16 December 2021 noted that only one TMV had been fitted; another which was intended for another washbasin had not been installed. It was noted that the water temperature with the TMV installed was 36.2 degrees, whilst those without were 53 degrees. It recalled the operative to complete this job. This was a failure by the landlord which was acknowledged in its final stage complaint response; however, this response stated that the TMV had not been installed as the resident had refused installation.
  6. In response to a report from the resident on 31 January 2022 that the water continued to be too hot, the landlord attended the property on 3 February to carry out a full inspection of the hot water system. It found that the system was in “perfect working order” and hot water was being stored at, and delivered at, acceptable temperatures. The landlord’s report on this visit recorded that the resident again requested the removal of the TMV, due to noise coming from it, whilst the operative advised this was from the tap, the resident disagreed and again requested the removal. The report also noted that the only other option was to install mixer taps instead of TMVs on the washbasins. Whilst this was a possibility, it was not an obligation on the landlord. The landlord as such reasonably explained in its final response that as the system was found to be in working order and a general needs property, the temperature in which the hot water entered the resident’s property was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that at the time of the complaint the landlord’s position met current industry guidelines. It was also reasonable that it advised that it could still install TMVs on all the resident’s hot water outlets, if she so wished, as again this was over and above its obligations.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation awards of £50 to £250 for cases where there has been a failure resulting in some impact on the resident but which was of short duration and which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Given that the resident’s first report of the water being too hot was made on 16 August 2021 and the landlord’s final position was not made clear until the conclusion of the complaint in February 2022, this period could reasonably be described as more than a short duration. However, this was mitigated by the landlord making efforts to address the hot water issue and attending promptly on all occasions, bar one missed appointment. The actions the landlord took bore in mind the resident’s position, but were also over an above what would be expected of the landlord.
  8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response reasonably reoffered the compensation as set out in its stage one response and clearly set out its position in relation to the hot water. The resident has said that she has lost income due to taking time off from work to provide access for repair appointments. Compensation for lost income is not awarded because, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, she was obligated to provide access for repairs. The compensation awarded by the landlord was in recognition of the likely inconvenience caused to her by the repeated attendances required over a period of six months to address the hot water temperature.
  9. In conclusion, the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by carrying out a full inspection of the heating system, sooner, in accordance with her original request, and informed her earlier that the system was operating as expected. This may have reduced the inconvenience caused to her by the repeated repair and inspection appointments. However, the landlord’s final response clearly set out its position, acknowledging its failures, but identifying that whilst it was not obligated, it would still be willing to install TMVs throughout the property and this was reasonable. Whilst offer has been made, it should be made clear that it is beyond the remit of this Service to order the landlord to use a different contractor to carry this out, this does not make its offer less reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s consideration of the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £160 compensation it already offered her in its stage one complaint response.
    2. Reoffer to install TMVs on in order to regulate the water temperature
    3. Consider giving consent to the resident to install mixer taps herself, if she should so wish.