Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202205220)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205220

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

14 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating in the property and the level of redress offered.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2022 to report that she was without heating and hot water, explaining that she was vulnerable. The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 February 2022. After inspecting the boiler, the landlord concluded that it required a part. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to follow this up, and also asked for temporary heaters, which were delivered the same day. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 24 February 2022 and repaired the boiler, without the part that it had previously said was required.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 March 2022, stating that the landlord did not answer her phone call to its 24-hour emergency phone line when she first made contact about the issue. As a result, the resident had to call again the following morning. She also complained that no form of temporary heating was offered initially.
5. In its stage one response, issued on 18 March 2022, the landlord offered compensation of £9 a day for the resident’s loss of heating. The resident declined this in an escalation request, saying that she was without heating for a total of nine days and was dissatisfied with the contractor’s workmanship. She questioned the landlord as to why it was unable to repair the boiler on the first visit when the last contractor advised it was an easy fix. She noted that she made the contractor aware of her health issues and that there was a young child at the property, and that she had not been provided with temporary heaters until she requested these. She said that when they were provided they produced a smell when in use that had set off the smoke detectors. She asked for £2,700 compensation (calculated at £100 per person for each day without heating).
6. In its final response, dated 30 March 2022, the landlord reviewed the complaint and the stage one response. It noted that the complaint had been caused by the failure of its contractor to fully diagnose the issue with the boiler, the initial lack of temporary heating, and a ‘poor attitude’. It acknowledged that its contractor had ‘failed to meet high enough standards regarding customer service’. The landlord informed the resident that her complaint had ‘highlighted a need for training for both its call handlers and front-line engineers’. It said that its contractor would be made aware of the complaint at the next contract review meeting. In recognition of the service failure the landlord offered an additional £100 compensation to the already awarded £81 (£9 a day for nine days).
7. The resident brought this matter to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. In her complaint to this Service the resident explained that she and her family were left without any heating ‘when the weather was bitterly cold’. She explained that she had health issues that made the lack of heating especially impactful, which the landlord was made aware of. In addition, a child lived at the property. The resident seeks £2,700 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

8. The landlord’s repairs policy suggests that a loss of heating should be addressed within 25 hours.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that a fixed payment of £6 a day is to be paid when there is a total loss of heating during 1 November and 30 April. Vulnerable residents may be awarded a discretionary increase of 50% to £9 per day.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should always offer supplementary heaters when there is a total loss of heating.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will generally be considered where it has failed to do something it agreed to do or its service has fallen below what it would expect to deliver.

Scope

12. The Ombudsman notes that the initial repair report was for no heating and hot water. However, the resident’s subsequent complaints to both the landlord and this Service do not refer to a lack of hot water, only heating. The resident has more recently informed this Service that there was no hot water for the period in question. She also explained that there is an immersion heater at the property, but it was not working properly and so could not provide an alternative source of hot water. As neither an issue with the immersion heater or a lack of hot water were raised with the landlord, these are not matters that will be considered in this assessment. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
13. The resident has also raised concerns about the impact the lack of heating had on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, but is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. 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 or inaction. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

The handling of the resident’s reports of no heating in the property and the level of redress offered.

14. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b. put things right, and; 

c. learn from outcomes. 

15. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’ 
16. That there were failings in this case in relation to the repair (which in line with the repairs policy should have been addressed within 24 hours), the provision of temporary heaters, and customer service is not disputed, and was recognised by the landlord in its response to the complaint. The lack of heating would have had an adverse affect on the resident and her family, especially in light of the time of year, and the vulnerabilities that she has described. The additional failings would have added to the resident’s frustration. As such, the landlord needed to take action to ‘put things right’.
17. In it’s response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged the failings, and said that these had highlighted a need for training, and that it would make the contractor aware of the complaint. The landlord acted appropriately here: It treated the resident fairly by acknowledging what had gone wrong, and setting out the learning that had been taken from this.
18. It also offered the resident compensation of £9 for each day she was without heating. This was in line with its compensation policy, including an increase of the usual £6 a day by 50%, which shows it was taking the resident’s vulnerabilities into account. It also offered an additional £100 in recognition of the failure to identify the repair, initially offer temporary heating, and the customer service issues. These offers of compensation demonstrate that the landlord took action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. 
19. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the distress that the situation caused the resident and their request for £2,700, the landlord’s offer of £181 was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. This sets out that amounts of over £100 are appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there had been no permanent impact.
20. Overall, the landlord has taken appropriate action to resolve the complaint.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating in the property and the level of redress offered prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. 

Recommendations

22. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £181 it offered via the formal complaint process, as the finding of ‘reasonable redress’ was made on this basis.