EMH Housing and Regeneration Limited (202109268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109268

EMH Housing and Regeneration Limited

17 October 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. Reports of repairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy of a two bedroom house, owned by the landlord and managed by one of the landlord’s subsidiaries. The tenancy began 12 October 2020.
During the tenancy sign up, the landlord provided the resident with £100 in vouchers towards the decoration. The resident has said that they did not move into the property until 27 November 2020 due to the condition of the property.
The day after the tenancy start date, the resident raised a request for the gas to be uncapped. The landlord attended the same day, however, could not complete this as there was no credit on the meter.
On 30 October 2020, the resident raised a second request for the gas to be uncapped. On the same day, they also reported the following issues:
1. A light pendant in one of the bedrooms was not working.
2. Rubbish had been left in the car park by the previous resident.
3. A cracked bath panel.
4. A leak from the boiler.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord attended to uncap the gas and repaired the light fitting. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether it addressed the leak during this visit.
It attended again on 6 November 2020, to remove the rubbish and found that the bath panel required replacement. It later replaced the bath panel on 25 November 2020.
On 6 November 2020, the resident reported that the radiator in the living room was leaking and they were unable to turn the valves for all of the radiators. The landlord attended on the 10 November 2020 and follow on works were raised for missing radiator valves to be replaced.
On 22 November 2020, the resident reported that the toilet was blocked in the property. A drainage specialist attended the same day and plunged the toilet but found no blockage to the stack. No follow on works were reported following this visit.
The resident reported on 10 December 2020, that there was no heating to the majority of the rooms in the property. The contractor visit within 24 hours and follow on works were raised for an engineer to fit valves to the radiators, pump valves and a new ball valve to the boiler. The contractor advised that there was either a circulation problem or a blockage to the living room radiator.
The resident chased the repair on 18 December 2020. The landlord enquired with the contractors who attended on 22 December 2020.
The resident reported on 29 December 2020, that they had no heating or hot water. The contractor attended on 31 December 2020, however, was refused access. The resident explained to the landlord that they refused access, because previous engineers could not resolve the issue until the radiator valves had been fitted and the contractor had informed them that this work could not be carried out until 20 January 2021.
The resident advised that when the contractor had attended previously, they turned off the heating to stop the leak from the radiator. They confirmed that they had been provided with two fan heaters but said these were costly to run. The resident also reported that the hot water was intermittent. The landlord offered more heaters however, the resident confirmed that they had sourced a third heater.
On receipt of the resident’s correspondence, the landlord arranged to have the appointment scheduled for 20 January 2021 brought forward to 14 January 2021.
On 4 January 2021, the resident reported a blockage to the toilet again. The contractor attended the following day, cleared the blockage and recommended further work to install a step under the toilet to aid the drainage of the waste.
A contractor attended on 11 January 2021, to complete the recommended work to the toilet however, found the works were not possible due to the position of the pipe work. The contractor asked the landlord to complete an inspection to advise on what works were required.
The gas contractor attended to the appointment on 14 January 2021, to fit new valves to the radiators. Following the appointment, the resident reported that they were still experiencing issues with the boiler and that the contractor had ordered parts again.
On 21 January 2021, the resident reported a leak from the boiler, resulting in the loss of heating and hot water. They noted that the leak affected the kitchen cupboard.
Later the same day, the contractor advised the resident that it wanted to isolate the water to the property over the weekend (three days later) to stop the leak. The resident was not happy with this proposal therefore, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend that day.
During the operative’s visit on 21 January 2021, they cut a pipe from the boiler so that the water could be collected into a bucket. The following day, the resident advised that the water was filling the bucket every three hours and had flooded the kitchen overnight. The gas contractor provided the resident with instructions on how they could stop the leak at night so that it did not flood the kitchen.
In the meantime, follow on works were raised for a new pipework to be fitted to the boiler. An inspection of the damage to the kitchen was also raised.
On 26 January 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested to speak with a senior member of staff as the boiler had still not been fixed. They resident also asked for an update on the follow on works for the toilet. The same day, an order was raised for remedial work to be carried out to the toilet.
The gas contractor attended the property on 29 January 2021, to install the pipes to the boiler. After the visit, the resident remained without heating and hot water and informed the landlord that the contractor had burnt the ceiling and made holes when they carried out the work.
The contractor informed the resident that it would attend to the heating on 30 and 31 January 2021 however, failed to do so. The resident notified the landlord of the missed appointments, on 1 February 2021. On receipt, the landlord asked the contractor to attend that day.
When the contractor attended, the engineer reported back that a new spark generator and spark electrode was required for the boiler. The resident was informed that this work could not be completed until 12 February 2021.
The resident was unhappy with this appointment date and contacted the local authority environmental health department, who served notice on the landlord on 3 February 2021, to reinstate the hot water to the property by 9 February 2021.
The landlord on receipt of the notice, arranged for a repair to the resident’s immersion heater, an electric water heater, within 24 hours. In addition to this, the landlord also raised a formal complaint about its handling of the repair to the boiler.
The landlord attended to the immersion heater on 5 February 2021 however, within three days the immersion heater stopped working. The contractor attended again on 8 February 2021 and restored the hot water.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in addressing the boiler repair and that its service delivery had fallen short. It explained that due to the coronavirus pandemic, its gas contractor had experienced staffing issues which contributed to the delay. It apologised for the impact the delays had on the resident and offered £100 as a gesture of good will in recognition of this.
The resident responded to the landlord on 22 February 2021 with a letter of complaint. In this, they recollected the issues they had experienced with the property since the start of their tenancy. The resident said that:
1. They had to clean and decorate the property themselves. And the decoration vouchers the landlord provided was not enough to cover the works they had to carry out.
2. They did not move into the property until 27 November 2020. Prior to this date, they said that they did not have any heating or hot water and there was a leak from the boiler.
3. They had reported issues with the light fitting in the bedroom, a cracked bath panel and disrepair to the back door, which they believed should have been picked up during the void inspection. They confirmed that these issues had since been addressed.
4. As a result of the toilet blockages, they had been left without a toilet for two days. The follow on works for the toilet had still not been arranged and they expected that the landlord make good any damage from the follow on works that would be carried out.
5. The boiler issue was ongoing and they could not have heating and hot water on simultaneously and the boiler was currently leaking. They said that they were without not heating for over a month and was using fan heaters which were costly. They said that if the pending works to the boiler did not resolve the issues, they wanted a new boiler.
6. That some of the contractor’s staff had been rude and lacked respect for the property. They complained that they had been given confusing information about the work required to the boiler.
7. They had contacted environmental health, who issued a notice on the landlord to rectify the boiler. The same day, someone attended and found that the pipe work was blocked and remedied this. They questioned why this issue was not identified before.
8. They had found evidence that the boiler issues existed before their tenancy but said that the landlord never notified them of this.
9. That they remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered.
The resident explained that to resolve the complaint they wanted the landlord to:
1. Replace the toilet, making good any decorative damage to the bathroom.
2. Compensate for the period they were without heating and for the cost of using the fan heaters. They noted that the landlord had already agreed to do so.
3. Reimburse the rent paid for the period between the 12 October 2020 and 27 November 2020, as they believed the property was uninhabitable during this time.
4. Compensate for the inconvenience, distress and telephone calls they had to make.
5. Redecorate and make good the damage to the kitchen following works carried out to the boiler.
The landlord provided its response to the resident on 3 March 2021. In respect of the issues raised by the resident it said that:
1. The property was let in accordance with its lettable standards. It confirmed that it had spent £7000 on the property and this included a deep clean. It confirmed that the decoration vouchers had been offered as it was acknowledged that the property needed decoration. It said that there was no evidence that what it offered was disputed or deemed insufficient by the resident.
2. It confirmed that it inspects properties before they are let however, there are times where issues are not noticed until the property is let. It apologised that there were some issues that needed addressing before the resident moved in and advised that it attended as soon as it was made aware.
3. Its surveyor would attend to inspect the toilet and recommend what works were required. It also provided information to the resident about the avoidance of blockages to the toilet.
4. During the surveyor’s inspection, they would also inspect the kitchen and feedback the remedial work was required.
5. It apologised that the boiler required several parts. It confirmed it raised repairs as soon as they were raised and chased this on a regular basis to resolve the issues. It accepted that there had been issues with the boiler prior to the tenancy but said that it would not replace the boiler unless parts were obsolete. It acknowledged the impact of the boiler issue and offered the resident £50 for not addressing the boiler in line with its service standard.
6. It also offered the resident £50 as a contribution towards the cost of running the electric fan heaters over an extended period time. It said that if the resident spent more than this on electricity usage, they could provide comparative bills for it to consider.
7. Its total offer of compensation, inclusive of the £100 it offered at stage one was therefore, £200.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and responded to the landlord on 1 April 2021. They questioned why the landlord had not picked up the various repair issues in the property during the void inspection. They also stated that the toilet blockage was noted to be the result of a build-up of limescale, not due to their usage of the toilet. They advised that their main concern, however, was the boiler and that this was not picked up by the landlord during the void inspection. They explained that they remained unhappy with time it took for the landlord to rectify the boiler and said that this resulted in them contacting the environmental health department.
In respect of the landlord’s offer of compensation for the contribution towards running the fan heaters, they said that the landlord had already agreed to pay their bill. They calculated the approximate cost of their usage was £160.
The resident confirmed that the maintenance surveyor attended to the property on 16 March 2021. They confirmed that following this, the toilet had been replaced and the damage to the kitchen had been addressed. In addition, they said that an independent contractor had inspected the boiler on 19 March 2020 and found that a pump needed to be replaced. The independent contractor could not complete this work until four weeks later and the resident asked why they should be expected to wait this long whilst their heating was still not working properly.
The resident also stated that the landlord had not addressed their request for a rent reimbursement during the period they were not living in the property.
The landlord provided a further response to the resident on 13 April 2021. It confirmed that the light fitting was found to be working during the void inspection and that a full lock change had been carried out during the void period. It noted that it had attended to the repair issues reported promptly when they were reported by the resident. It said that it had capped the boiler during the void period as this was the process, and that the delay in the boiler being uncapped was due to a lack of credit on the meter. It said that the toilet was also checked and found to be working during the void inspection and acknowledged that this had now been replaced. It confirmed that the outstanding pump for the boiler would be installed on 28 April 2021.
The landlord revised its offer of compensation towards the energy costs and offered £200 towards the cost of the electricity usage up to 28 April 2021, making the total compensation offered £400.
In relation to the rent reimbursement, it said that this would not be considered as the property was safe and compliant with its lettable standard when it was let and it had already offered compensation for its service delivery.
The resident responded that they did not feel the landlord had recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the household as result of having to report numerous issues. They confirmed that they did not wish to accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and asked that the case be escalated.
The landlord responded confirming that its response of 3 March 2021 was its final repsonse to the complaint.
The appointment for the pump to be fitted to the boiler had to be rescheduled to 11 May 2021, as the electricity supplier was undertaking works that day which affected the electrics in the property. The contractor attended on 11 May 2021, replaced the pump and carried out other works to the boiler including a power flush. This restored the heating to the property.
After approaching this Service with their complaint, the resident confirmed that the boiler was repaired however, they remain dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.

The landlord’s lettable standard explains that the property is to be inspected by the maintenance officer and a void inspection form should be completed. Internally all rooms must be inspected for repair decoration and cleanliness. The void inspection must ensure that doors are sound, weatherproof and secure. Essential works include a gas and electrical safety check, a lock change and work directly relating to an urgent health and safety issue.
The landlord’s lettable standard also confirms that the landlord would not decorate a property however, it may offer a decoration allowance in certain circumstances.
The landlord has provided evidence of the works that it raised to be carried out during the void period. Among the works ordered was an electrical test, various works to the bathroom, the renewal of the locks to the external doors in the property and a property clearance. In addition to this, the landlord ordered for the gas supply to be capped during this void period, which is in line with its lettings standard.
Among the evidence provided, is a signed void inspection form which was completed by the void inspection surveyor on 24 September 2020. Within this, the surveyor confirmed that the works raised during the void period had been post inspected.
The evidence provided by the landlord, therefore, supports that it satisfied itself that the property met its lettable standard when it was let to the resident. During the tenancy sign up the landlord recognised that the property needed decoration. It was reasonable for it to offer the resident a decoration voucher towards this, it is not responsible for decoration however provided a contribution to this as a way to address the poor decorative condition of the property.
Within three weeks of the tenancy start date, the resident raised a number of issues which included the light fitting not working, a cracked bath panel and rubbish that had been left by the previous resident.
During the void process, the landlord is expected to review the condition of the property to ensure that a resident may reasonably be expected to reside in it without extensive additional work. The works the resident raised were not extensive and in the event repairs are raised after the start of a tenancy, the landlord is expected to address them in accordance with its repair timeframes.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that non-emergency/ urgent repairs are to be completed within 28 days of being reported. The landlord completed the repair to the light fitting on 2 November 2020 and renewed the cracked bath on 25 November 2020. Both were within 28 days of being reported and therefore, within the landlord’s standard timeframe.

The landlord’s response to the reported repairs

In circumstances where a toilet is blocked and there is only one toilet in the property, the landlord considers this an emergency repair. Emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours.
When the resident reported the blockage on 22 November 2020 and 4 January 2021, the landlord attended within its service standard on both occasions and cleared the blockage.
However, there was a significant delay in the landlord completing the follow on works required to the toilet. The landlord was notified on 11 January 2021, that it was required to do an inspection to establish the works required to address the issue with the toilet. It did not carry out the inspection within a reasonable time and the resident had to chase it for an update before the inspection was carried out on 16 March 2021, 65 days after it was requested.
When the landlord responded to the complaint initially, it arranged for the inspection to take place which was necessary as it was still outstanding. However, it failed to acknowledge the delay in it doing so, therefore there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to this repair which was not addressed in the complaints process.
The lettings standard confirms that the gas supply is to be uncapped and a gas safety check is to be carried out on the day the resident moves into the property.
Due to the fact that there was no credit on the gas meter, the landlord was unable to uncap the gas after the request was raised on 13 October 2020. After the request was raised on 30 October 2020, it attended two days later to uncap the gas. This was a delay, as in accordance with its lettings standard it is to be attended to the same day.
From the evidence provided, we have not been able to establish when the leak from the boiler, reported on 30 October 2020 was stopped. But as this leak was not reported again when the leak from the radiator occurred on 6 November 2020, it is apparent that the landlord addressed this during its visits to the property between 2 and 6 November 2020.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for addressing a loss of heating and hot water between 1 November and 30 April, within 24 hours.
Between 6 November 2020 and 29 January 2021, the resident made approximately seven reports of a loss to either the heating or both heating and hot water. Due to the unresolved issue with the boiler, they remained without consistent heating and hot water during this period.
The landlord did take some steps to alleviate the inconvenience of the continued issues with the boiler. It provided the resident with temporary heaters and on one occasion, it brought forward the appointment to fit the valves to the radiators by six days. In addition to this the landlord did take steps to try and restore the resident’s hot water after they reported the loss of hot water on 29 January 2021 but it did not do so until 3 February 2021, after it was put on notice by the local authority.
For the most part, the contractor did attend to the property within the 24 hours service standard after the loss of heating and hot water had been reported. However, when it was found parts were required the resident had to wait for prolonged periods of time before the contractor could attend and fit parts.
When the contractor attended to carry out the follow on works to fit various parts on 14 and 29 January 2021, the resident continued to report issues with their heating and hot water. The inconvenience of this was exacerbated by the fact that the resident, experienced two missed appointments by the contractor on 30 and 31 January 2021, which the landlord failed to acknowledge in its complaint response. Moreover, the resident had to resort to contacting the local authority environmental health department, which incurred them further time and trouble trying to get the matter resolved.
It is recognised that boiler faults can often only be diagnosed through a trial and error method. But in this case, there was an excessive number of visits which did not result in the heating and hot water being fully restored. There is no evidence that in the landlord took steps to investigate whether there was a wider fault with the boiler whilst the issues persisted even after parts had been fitted. The resident continued to experience issues with their heating and hot water from the point they reported the leak from the radiator on 6 November 2020, up until the contractor carried out a permanent fix to restore the hot water on 8 February 2021 and the heating on 28 April 2021.
The landlord made an appropriate offer of £200 compensation to the resident in relation to their electricity usage as a result of using the electric fan heaters between November 2020 and April 2020. It offered the resident in excess of the £160 they advised they had approximately spent on electricity. This accounted for the period after its response, when the resident was still required to use the temporary heaters until the heating from the boiler was restored in May 2021.
Following the complaint, the landlord also followed through on its agreement to remedy the damage to the kitchen made during the boiler work.
In the complaint investigation, the landlord recognised that it failed to meet its service standard. Its compensation policy explains that a resident has a right to compensation if it has failed to carry out a repair within its timescales. It can pay compensation at a rate per day, up to a maximum of £50. The policy states that there is no right to compensation if the contractor has attended in time and is waiting parts, has attended and made safe or if the contractor is delayed for a reason outside of its control.
The landlord’s overall offer of compensation in recognition of the service failure in its handling of the repair to the boiler was £200, which exceeded the amount set out in its compensation policy. However, this amount does not reflect the extent of the impact the delay repairing the boiler had on the resident, including the time and trouble they spent getting the matters resolved.
The resident was without consistent heating and hot water for a significant period of time, during the winter months and was living in the property with two young children. In addition to this, the resident had an excessive number of visits, two missed appointments and spent nearly six months in total without consistent heating and hot water during the coldest months of the year.
The Ombudsman, therefore, finds that there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the boiler repair and an order for additional compensation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the repairs.

Reasons

The landlord has provided evidence to confirm that it carried out and post inspected the works to the property, to bring it up to its lettable standard during the void period.
In relation to the repair to the toilet, the landlord failed to acknowledge that there was a delay in it addressing the follow on works required to the toilet.
In relation to the repair to the boiler, the landlord did acknowledge the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident. Its offer of compensation in recognition of the impact the matter had on the resident, however, was not proportionate for the overall time it took to fully restore the boiler.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report, to pay the resident:
1. £100 in recognition of the delay in completing the follow on works to the toilet.
2. £400, inclusive of the £200 it offered in the complaint procedure, in recognition of the time taken to repair the boiler.
The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service once the payment has been made. c