London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202108899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108899

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 January 2023

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 reports about:
1. the immersion heater and loss of hot water.
2. mice issues in the property.
3. a kitchen upgrade.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block and the tenancy commenced in 2009. The information provided advises that at the time of the complaint she reported that she was vulnerable, had mobility issues and was recovering from an accident that impacted her legs, for which she has reportedly had multiple operations.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that:
1. it is responsible for immersion water heaters and cylinders and the hot water supply;
2. it is responsible for the structure of the property, rodent infestations, and blocking and filling holes following pest treatment;
3. it carries out works such as replacement kitchens as planned works, rather than as normal day to day repairs.
The information provided by the landlord advises that lack of hot water at a property was a ‘critical’ repair for which residents would receive an appointment within 24 hours, while the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations advise it should be resolved within one day in winter periods and three days in summer periods.
The repairs policy says that, for repairs reported by vulnerable residents, it will consider whether the defect is putting them at risk because of their physical health, and treat repairs with an escalated priority where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, where it aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. Issues which are over six months old are not normally considered.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises that it:
1. pays compensation where it fails to follow policies, including £10 for failing to respond to complaints or queries within timescales and £20 for missed appointments;
2. pays compensation where it fails to complete repairs to agreed response times, and where repairs qualify under the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations (at £10 plus £2 per extra day a repair is not fixed up to £50);
3. pays compensation where there is a loss of amenities such as hot water;
4. pays compensation to recognise the impact, inconvenience, distress, and time and effort in respect to an issue;
5. considers receipts and pays compensation where costs are incurred due to a service failure.
The policy advises that compensation assessments should consider if a customer has specific needs that were affected by the situation; their difficulties living with the issue and dealing with the landlord; and how they were communicated with.

Summary of events

The information provided advises that the landlord raised a repair for “no hot water – immersion heater is not working” on 19 June 2019. Following this, an electrician attended on 24 June 2019, and reported the top and bottom elements needed to be changed as these had failed, and the issue required a plumber.
On 26 and 28 June 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to query when the plumber would attend and was informed the earliest appointment was 13 August 2019, which she raised concern about. Following this, it was internally flagged that she was reportedly vulnerable and had medical issues; had reportedly sent in medical documents; and had reportedly not been able to wash for over a week. It was internally queried if the repair could be booked in as an emergency and if it could be, “please let me know and will get it raised as a P1.” It was also queried if alternative shower facilities could be provided.
On 3 July 2019, the landlord raised repairs to upgrade a ‘daytime consumer unit’ and an ‘eco7 consumer unit’ at the property, which this investigation understands are fuse boards. The information is not clear if this repair related to the hot water issue. The same day, the resident reported that she had been informed by the landlord’s contractor that they were not allowed to book the hot water repair for 20 days. The landlord liaised with the contractor who advised they would contact the resident to arrange an appointment, which was communicated to her.
On 29 July 2019, the repairs to upgrade the consumer units/fuse boards were completed. On 13 August 2019, an operative then attended for the top and bottom elements that had failed and needed to be changed, as identified by the electrician on 24 June 2019. The landlord’s account however advises that the resident did not want the elements changed, because the hot water had been working since the upgrade of the fuse boards on 29 July 2019. The elements were consequently not changed.
The resident did not make any further reports until 18 October 2019, when a repair was raised for “Whole property- immersion heater- no hot water- the light is not coming on. please check the heating also note-Vulnerable res.” The same day, an operative attended, after which a follow on repair was raised for “a plumber to change top and bottom elements please. And an electrician to disconnect reconnect please.” Following this, the resident contacted the landlord and reported failed attendances, including on 28 October 2019, when it was noted she was freezing and had been without “hot water heating” for a while.
Around 5 November 2019, the landlord has noted that the repair was referred to contractors due to lack of availability of ‘direct maintenance’ staff. On 5 November 2019, the landlord raised a repair to a plumbing contractor for “Plumber to change top and bottom elements on immersion,” and on 7 November 2019, the landlord raised a repair to an electrics contractor for “*P1*- whole property- immersion heater- no hot water or heating.” The information provided advises that contractors attended an agreed appointment on 12 November 2019 but were unable to gain access. The landlord then scheduled an appointment for the afternoon of 18 November 2019, which the resident later reported clashed with a hospital appointment. The landlord asked its contractor if they could attend on 18 November 2019 at a different time, noting the resident had reportedly been without a shower for 25 days, however the contractor said that this was not possible and the appointment was cancelled.
On 18 November 2019, the resident requested attendance that day as previously scheduled, as she was available after all. The contractor advised that this was not possible, and in line with the resident’s next stated availability attended on 9 December 2019, where they reported they were unable to remove the element and needed to install a new immersion cylinder. On 16 December 2019, the evidence advises that the contractors requested a variation to the repair from the landlord.
On 18 December 2019, the resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy that she had reported her boiler was defective on numerous occasions since June 2019; that she still had no hot water; and that she had incurred costs for months by having to wash at friends’ homes and a gym. In other correspondence, she restated her dissatisfaction, queried when her boiler would be operational, and requested compensation for her distress.
On 8 January 2020, after approval of the variation requested by the contractor, a follow on repair was raised and a new immersion cylinder was installed on 15 January 2020.
On 16 January 2020, the landlord then provided a response to the complaint:
1. It noted that it had spoken to the resident, and advised that its investigation showed that after her report of no hot water on 18 October 2019, the hot water was restored on 15 January 2020 when the immersion cylinder was renewed.
2. It apologised that an adequate service had not been provided, and it said that it had identified that the repair was not allocated to the correct department on a few occasions, and the contractor had delayed in completing the repair.
3. It offered £290 in recognition of the service failure and impact, which it broke down as £120 for inconvenience over three months; £120 for distress over three months; and £50 for time and effort.
The resident responded on 22 January 2020 that the landlord had not taken into consideration six months loss of service; the inconvenience and cost of going elsewhere to bathe; her mobility issues which were exacerbated by the issues; the distress caused by its failing to engage with her; and the discomfort, distress and inconvenience caused by the issue occurring in cold weather. She said that she had incurred transport, gym and electricity expenses which would not have been necessary if she had a functioning boiler, and she requested £5,000 compensation.
On 24 January 2020, the resident was noted to report issues with the new immersion cylinder, after which a repair was raised for “Whole property – no hot water – no power to immersion heater – vulnerable resident.” The resident then called to report that a neighbour had shown her how to turn the immersion on and the landlord intended to cancel the repair, however on 7 February 2020 an electrician attended who noted: “Inspected both elements to hot water tank, tenant has off-peak on-peak setup however there is no supply/timer control to match setup. Bottom element is working and tenant has been advised to leave for 2hrs for water to heat up – tested top boost and this is also working.” The landlord has noted that no further issues were reported and no follow on repairs were raised; while the resident has supplied a note from the electrician that seems to suggest modifications to make her setup work more efficiently and cheaply.
On 16 March 2020, the resident chased a lack of response to her 22 January 2020 correspondence, and on 25 March 2020, the landlord responded:
1. It noted the resident had confirmed her hot water was working when speaking over the phone on 28 January 2020.
2. It noted that after a report of hot water not working again, its contractor had attended on 7 February 2020 and reported that the elements were working but there was no timer control and it was advised to wait two hours after the operative’s visit for the hot water to heat up.
3. It advised it had doublechecked the amount of compensation and apologised that it had not offered a hot water allowance. It offered £834 which it broke down as £254, at £2 per day, for the 127 days of no hot water from 19 June to 29 July 2019 and 18 October 2019 to 15 January 2020; £240 for the inconvenience caused by the lack of hot water; £240 for distress; and £100 for time and effort.
On 22 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord for advice on how to raise repairs in respect to kitchen units, and she was advised to report the repairs when normal repairs service resumed after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 13 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about her kitchen being in disrepair, and she was again advised to call when lockdown lifted. The same day, the information provided advises that she also reported a mice infestation, as a repair was raised for “Pest -Kitchen -mice infestation -res advised that she has tried every remedy and is still getting loads of mice H&S issue vulnerable res.”
In July and August 2020, the landlord’s records advise it was provided information about the resident’s circumstances and the reported impact of the mice issue on her. The resident had broken legs and complex health issues; could not physically get down to fill holes herself; and had been issued with antibiotics to prevent any bacterial infection from the mice droppings. The resident’s furniture was also being damaged and her health and sleep was being affected by mice ‘coming in’ throughout the night.
The landlord’s pest contractor subsequently carried out multiple visits. On 28 July 2020 the contractor reported: “Activity found in the form of droppings baits placed, expanding form [sic] used throughout flat needs to be removed and blocked properly” (supplied photos show use of expanding foam at the property). The same day, the landlord noted the resident said she had been informed by the contractor that holes needed to be blocked in the kitchen and bathroom. On 7 August 2020, the contractor reported: “Activity found in the form of bait take baits replenished where necessary proofing works required in kitchen and bathroom.” On 14 August 2020, the contractor reported: “Activity still present holes still need to be blocked in kitchen bathroom and livingroom extra visit required.” On 21 August 2020, the contractor was scheduled to attend, with the outcome unclear.
On 19 August 2020, a carpenter attended to proof the property after an appointment on 11 August 2020 was cancelled due to staff sickness. The carpenter recommended follow on repairs and reported: “this may be allday job because there is form [sic] everywhere and units will need removing to access the holes. two men plumber and carpenter to investigate where holes are in the floor/walls and fill them.” The resident requested for follow on works to take place from 28 September 2020, and the landlord booked two operatives to attend on that date. On 28 September 2020, the landlord noted that the repair had been booked to the wrong operatives, and it re-scheduled the appointment to 16 November 2020.
On 26 October 2020, a representative of the resident complained to the landlord:
1. She said the compensation offered for the lack of hot water did not address her distress and inconvenience or out of pocket expenses such as taking taxis to a gym to shower.
2. She asked for holes being used by mice to enter her property to be blocked and queried when pest contractors would attend.
3. She said an electrician who attended on 7 February 2020 had said previous electrical work was unprofessional. The landlord had installed systems which had caused the electrics to trip; denied her an electricity supply for many months; and connected her to an expensive supply.
4. She said her kitchen had not been refurbished since she moved in and requested for it to be renewed.
On 7 November 2020, the landlord responded that it could only compensate in line with its compensation policy and so could not reimburse the resident for her gym membership. It noted that the electrics, pests and kitchen renewal were not part of the original complaint and queried if the resident wanted a new complaint to be logged, which the representative later confirmed the resident did.
On 16 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the rescheduled appointment and noted that they “removed base unit and blocking the holes behind it moved the plinth looking the house [sic] as well and putting back.” On 18 November 2020, the landlord noted the resident reported works had not been done in her bathroom and living room, and noted the pest contractor’s August 2020 report that “Activity still present holes still need to be blocked in kitchen bathroom and livingroom extra visit required.”
On 24 November 2020, the landlord provided a response to the complaint:
1. It acknowledged that there was a lack of hot water report on 19 June 2019 that was completed on 29 July 2019, and a lack of hot water report on 18 October 2019 that was completed on 15 January 2020. It awarded £1,054 compensation, which it broke down as £254, at £2 per day, for the lack of hot water over 127 days; £400 for the inconvenience caused by the lack of hot water; £300 for distress; and £100 for time and effort in respect to the matter.
2. It advised it raised a pest repair on 13 July 2020, laid traps and bait on 28 July 2020 and 7 August 2020, and blocked mouse access points with foam on 14 August 2020. It advised there were two occasions in this period where there was no access. It advised that a further inspection of mouse access points was arranged for 19 August 2020, where a carpenter reported that kitchen units needed to be removed so that holes behind them could be blocked. It advised that on 16 November 2020 these works were completed and the property was checked for other access points. It advised that a new repair had been raised since the resident reported that she still experienced mouse activity, and its pest contractors would be in contact with her.
3. It noted the kitchen had not been upgraded since the resident had moved in, and that she reported it had been in a poor condition since then. It advised that the kitchen was not due an upgrade that financial year, and it had requested information about when it was due an upgrade. It requested details of repairs required for the kitchen so it could arrange necessary repairs.
4. It advised it had investigated the claim that an electrician reported that previous electrical work was unprofessional, and said there was no evidence to support this on its systems. It detailed the electrician’s report that the resident had an ‘off-peak on-peak’ setup, but there was no supply or timer control to match this; a bottom element was working and the resident was told to leave this for two hours to heat up; and a top boost was tested and found to be working.
5. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced in respect to her repairs.
The same day, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that expanding foam had been used to fill gaps, as this would not stop mice from getting in. The landlord noted that this was standard practice for its operatives and was not something the pest contractor had said should not be done. The landlord raised a further repair to its pest contractor for “Mice – Activity/ seen NOTE: Res called to say that even after we attended to fill the gaps in the flat. She says that mice are still running around.” The information provided indicates that the pest contractor attended on 27 November 2020 and identified that proofing was required under the bath. The landlord’s account then advises that there was a lack of response to attempts to arrange further appointments, and the repair was closed.
In January 2021, a representative of the resident contacted the landlord and requested for the compensation to be increased to £1,500, as this more accurately reflected costs incurred from the lack of heating and hot water. The landlord responded that it had compensated in line with the compensation policy.
In February 2021, the resident and her representative requested escalation of the complaint, stating that there was a lack of heating and hot water over a number of weeks; there was no water for a week; the resident had joined a gym and taken taxis to and from it to shower; the boiler was not on an economical setting; there was an ongoing mouse infestation despite attendance by pest contractors, and entry and exit points had not been found and sealed; she sought £2,500 because of all the issues which had happened for almost a year. The same month, the landlord noted the previous lack of access and raised a new repair to its pest contractor, which attended on 22 February 2021 and noted there were signs of pest activity.
In March 2021, the landlord’s pest contractor attended on two occasions and noted that after leaving bait there was no signs of activity; nothing had been reported by the resident; and no action was required at that point in time.
On 30 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that she was still waiting for the landlord to ‘do’ her kitchen panel and bathroom since pest control had attended. On 1 April 2021, she added that she had broken legs and used a stick. The same day, the landlord responded that action was taken regarding holes on 16 November 2020; that pest control had reported that there were no signs of activity at its three most recent visits; and that no action was required as of 8 March 2021.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord internally noted that the resident reported that works to block holes were still outstanding; the problem was getting worse; she was unable to get away from the pests due to health/mobility issues; she was ‘terrified;’ and would continue to suffer until holes were filled. It was noted the resident reported that the last operative who attended said the job was too big for them and would arrange for someone else to do it, but she had heard nothing since. The same day, the landlord raised a new repair for “PESTS – Mice Infestation” to its pest contractor, who attended on 29 April 2021 and noted: “Signs of bait take in form of fresh droppings. Several bait stations have been put in place with palatable tox bait to rid and monitor the activity.”
On 30 April 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint:
1. It detailed actions in respect to the lack of hot water. It noted that after no heating and hot water was reported on 19 June 2019, an operative identified that two elements had failed and required replacement. It advised that a repair to replace the elements was raised, and another repair was also raised to upgrade a ‘daytime consumer unit’ and an ‘eco7 consumer unit.’ It advised that works for the consumer units were completed on 29 July 2019, and when an operative attended for the elements repair in August 2019, the resident said she had heating and hot water and did not want elements changed.
2. It noted that after no heating and hot water was reported on 18 October 2019, it attended the same day and identified a bottom element had failed and required replacement. It advised that it initially tried to arrange a repair by its own maintenance staff, but due to wait times it arranged for a contractor to attend on 12 November 2019, for which there was no access. It attended on 11 December 2019 (due to resident’s stated availability), then raised a repair to renew a cylinder and pump, after the attendant operative reported they were unable to remove the element. It advised that the works were completed on 15 January 2020, after its contractor had closed for the Christmas break and experienced difficulty sourcing the required cylinder. It noted the resident made some subsequent reports but the boiler worked after she was shown how to use it.
3. It detailed actions taken in respect to pest repairs. It added that it was reported that access points needed to be blocked in pest contractor visits from 28 July 2020 and a repair was raised for this on 29 July 2020, after which it attended on 19 August 2020. It advised that the operative reported that an all day job that involved a plumber and carpenter was required, to remove units and investigate where holes were in floors and walls and fill them. It advised that a subsequent appointment arranged for 28 September 2020 was cancelled after being booked to the wrong operatives, and rebooked to 16 November 2020, where kitchen proofing was completed and no further proofing was reported necessary after an assessment. It noted that its pest contractor laid bait on 27 November 2020 after the resident reported pest activity on 24 November 2020, and the job was closed after a lack of response to an attempt to arrange a further appointment. It noted that the resident reported pest activity on 18 February 2021 and its contractor attended on 22 February 2021, where signs of activity was found in the form of bait placed by the resident. It noted that the contractor attended on two further occasions, the last being 8 March 2021, where there were no signs of activity or further reports from the resident. It noted that the resident had reported pest activity on 16 April 2021 and that attendance by its pest contractor had been arranged for 29 April 2021. It advised that following this visit, a repair would be raised to carry out further proofing works in the bathroom and living room, and the issue would be monitored.
4. It advised that the kitchen was not due an upgrade that financial year, and said the resident would be contacted by the relevant team when they started to arrange a renewal. It explained that its approach was to carry out repairs, and it did not renew items unless they were unrepairable or unfit for purpose. It advised that it would not be able to renew the kitchen at that time, and requested details of required repairs so it could arrange necessary repairs
5. It noted that on 7 February 2020, a contractor attended the day after a report of no power to the immersion, where it was reported the resident had an ‘off-peak on-peak’ setup, but there was no supply or timer control to match this; a bottom element was working which the resident was told to leave for two hours to heat up; and a top boost was also tested and found to be working. It noted that no further issues were reported after this date.
6. It advised that the level of service was not to the standards expected, and repairs should have been managed more effectively and completed more swiftly. It advised that steps had been taken to discuss the case internally and with contractors to improve service.
7. It awarded £1,254 compensation, which it broke down as £78, at £2 per day, for lack of heating and hot water over 39 days; £176, at £2 per day, for lack of heating and hot water over 88 days; £240, at £60 per month, for the inconvenience caused by lack of heating and hot water over four months; £240, at £60 per month, for the distress caused by lack of heating and hot water over four months; £180, at £20 per month, for the inconvenience in respect to the pest issues over nine months; £180, at £20 per month, for the length of time to resolve the pest issues over nine months; £40 for two pest appointments that were rescheduled; £100 for time and effort in respect to the heating and pest issues; and £20 for its delayed response in respect to the pest issue. It noted that it had not made any deductions although the resident had been away from the property for some of the time.

Post complaint

In May 2021, the resident reported that holes in the kitchen and bathroom had not been filled, mice were running everywhere, and she could not open her kitchen door. The landlord’s records advise that its pest contractor attended the property and communal areas, including on 12, 17 and 24 May 2021, and noted signs of rodent activity in the bathroom on each occasion. The same month, the landlord responded to contact from the resident about compensation and asked her to provide invoices and receipts.
In June 2021, the landlord’s records advise that its pest contractor attended and noted: “No signs of any activity and nothing has been reported to me by tennant. Bait stations have been checked and no removed from site. No further action required at this point. Ingress points are under all the kitchen units and under bath. Please proof using wire wool and rodent stop. Poor housekeeping levels.” The landlord subsequently raised repairs for “Kitchen/Bathroom – Fill wholes underneath kitchen units and underneath bath” and “Kitchen – Cupboards – Boards running along the bottom – Wood – Rotten Note: Vulnerable res please fill mice access points.” The resident raised dissatisfaction about works delays and it was noted that the pest contractor said: “No signs of any activity and nothing reported to me by the tennant. Need maintenance team to roof [sic] her flat as recommend it including photographs last week. She does not need pest control to return. She does need builders in but shes upset because she has told me that she has to wait 2 months. No further pest control required.” The following month, the landlord chased updates for the works from its pest contractor, who explained they had previously said the issue required a builder, and the resident was updated that proofing works would take place on 23 August 2021.
On 23 August 2021, the resident’s account advises that a single operative attended and said an inspector needed to attend to see how big the job was. The same day, a supervisor carried out an inspection after which a repair was raised to:
1. “Seal up holes inside bathroom (under bath & behind toilet) and kitchen (under sink) to prevent entry by rodents.
2. Renew front &end bath panels and dispose existing one.
3. Boxing in behind toilet
4. s/f 3 x back panels on to kitchen base units
5. new base – 18 mm plywood on to hallway cupboard”
The landlord’s records advise that the works were raised to an external contractor on 24 November 2021, it is not evident these were completed.
In December 2021, the landlord received communication that the resident still had rodent issues; she was unhappy neighbours had new kitchens; and she was seeking £3,500 compensation. The landlord informed the resident it would carry out a further review of her complaint. The same month, this investigation understands that a solicitor representing the resident issued a letter of claim, and a repair was raised for “*Legal Case* – Please attend and carry out baiting treatment for rats.” The following month, the landlord noted that a legal case for mice and heating issues was being handled by its disrepair department, and it informed the resident that it had closed the complaint.
In May and June 2022, a representative of the resident requested a formal response letter from the landlord to provide to this Service. On 26 June 2022, the landlord responded and summarised the various responses to the resident; enclosed the April 2021 response; and noted the £1,254 previously offered. It acknowledged a delay in providing the requested response and offered £420, comprising £150 for the delayed response and £270 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort, which was issued to the resident via cheque.
The same month, the information provided advises that some works to the resident’s kitchen were due to be completed, but these were then cancelled by the contractors and it was stated they would have to take place in November 2022. It is unclear if these refer to the works identified on 23 August 2021.
In September 2022, the landlord received correspondence from a representative of the resident who queried the status of the complaint, the status of the rodent issue and the date for a kitchen renewal. The landlord summarised its complaint responses, advised that a legal disrepair case superseded the complaints process, and recommended the resident speak to her solicitor. It also noted it was trying to complete kitchen repairs as part of the disrepair case, but there had been access issues. The representative confirmed the information would be passed to the resident.
The resident brought her case to this Service. She raised dissatisfaction with the compensation she was offered and felt £3,000 reflected the distress she experienced. She said that the landlord did not consider her medical needs when she was recovering from an operation; said she had to use hotels and shower at friends’ houses on multiple occasions; and said that it should have prioritised the repairs or offered to decant her.
The landlord informs this Service that its solicitors have had discussions with the resident’s solicitors and that, in October 2022, £2,500 was offered to settle the claim. In January 2023, the landlord advised that it had not received a response to this offer and that it had raised pest treatment and proofing works, which it intends to schedule with the resident in the New Year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation understands that the resident is dissatisfied about an incident that involved water loss at the property. This investigation has not considered this issue, as it is not evident that it was the subject of the original complaint that the resident brought to the landlord or which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
This investigation notes that on occasion repairs logs, complaint responses and correspondence from the resident’s representatives refer to a loss of heating. The focus of the resident’s reports, complaints and repairs reports was the immersion heater (whose function is understood to be to heat water) and the consequent loss of hot water. The loss of hot water is therefore the main focus of the investigation in respect to the immersion heater.
Finally, this investigation understands that around December 2021, the resident issued a housing claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England), but a settlement has not been agreed and court proceedings have not started. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.” This can mean that this Service may not investigate complaints which involve legal disrepair claims, but the Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court. This approach is explained in a recent guidance note. This means that the Ombudsman may continue to assess whether a landlord has fully and fairly investigated issues; taken appropriate and reasonable steps to undertake and address repairs; and considered a resident’s individual circumstances including any vulnerabilities. Considering all of the circumstances of the case, this investigation will therefore go on to consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable, with a focus on its final April 2021 response to all the substantive issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the immersion heater and loss of hot water

The resident reported problems with the immersion heater and hot water at her property in June 2019, which the landlord responded to outside of its 24 hour service standard and slightly in excess of the three working days set out by the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations for loss of hot water. After an operative identified that the top and bottom elements needed to be changed as these had failed, the resident remained without hot water for over a month until consumer units/fuse boards were upgraded, despite the resident’s reports that she was vulnerable and unable to wash. It was inappropriate that the resident remained without hot water for this period, particularly given this falls well outside internal and external service standards for such issues to be resolved.
The resident reported further problems with the immersion heater and hot water at her property in October 2019, which the landlord initially attended in an appropriate timescale. After an operative identified that the top and bottom elements needed to be changed, the resident remained without hot water for three months (although she was away from the property for around 20 days of this). The landlord had issues with operative availability; the contractor had issues being able to accommodate the resident’s availability before it was able to visit and identify it needed to install a new immersion cylinder; and there was a month delay in a new immersion cylinder being installed after the contractor reported this was necessary. It was inappropriate that the resident also remained without hot water for this period, particularly given this again fell well outside the service standards for such issues to be resolved.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the repairs at the final stage of its complaints process in April 2021, it acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It also offered compensation of £784 for the water issues (out of the total £1,254 offered) which it said was intended to recognise the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble in respect to the issue. This reflects the landlord’s policy to compensate £2 per day for loss of such service and to compensate additional amounts to recognise the impact, inconvenience, distress, and time and effort in respect to a particular issue. This demonstrates that the landlord sought to compensate the resident in line with its policy, and that it also sought to be customer focused by not omitting compensation for between November and December 2019 when the second repair was delayed due to the resident travelling. This amount and the £2,500 later offered are within the range that the Ombudsman might recommend for failings such as lengthy delays which have a serious impact on a resident.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord offers suitable redress for acknowledged failings. In this case, while the landlord acknowledged delays and advised that steps had been taken to discuss the case with appropriate parties to improve service, it is not evident that it addressed a number of issues. The landlord therefore does not demonstrate that it has satisfactorily addressed matters, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes in order to avoid similar failings in future.
The resident mentioned vulnerabilities from when she reported the loss of hot water in June 2019, which the landlord made initial internal enquiries about, however it is not evident that it was established if the repair could be raised with a higher priority or alternative shower facilities could be offered, or evident that the resident was informed of the outcome. While the landlord’s response focused on the repair delays, an additional consideration should have been whether repairs were sufficiently prioritised internally or by contractors, who concerningly showed no flexibility despite it being known that the resident was vulnerable and had been without hot water for a lengthy period. It is not satisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate that it reviewed such aspects and took steps for similar reports to be handled differently in future, given that it aims to prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents and does not demonstrate it considered any adjustments on two separate occasions for the hot water issue.
The landlord’s operative identified in June 2019 that elements had failed and needed to be changed, however the landlord has noted that the elements were not changed when its operative attended in August 2019, because the resident did not want this as the hot water was working. This is not entirely satisfactory, as the landlord should be able to demonstrate that the decision not to proceed with the repair was based on the repairs needs of the elements, not the resident’s preference alone. Although the hot water was working at that time, the recurrence of issues in October 2020 were due to failed elements, and the issues between October 2020 and January 2021 were therefore avoidable. The landlord does not demonstrate that it acknowledged this and considered what steps to take to ensure similar situations were handled differently in future.
The landlord’s response to initial reports from the resident that she had incurred extra costs for the loss of hot water was that it did not compensate for these. Here, it failed to correctly apply its compensation policy which advises that compensation may be paid where extra costs because of a service failure can be evidenced. The landlord’s invitation to provide invoices and receipts in May 2021 was 16 months after extra costs were initially raised in December 2019 and was not appropriate. The lack of consideration of the resident’s extra costs was one reason for her continued dissatisfaction and therefore unnecessarily protracted matters. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay an amount to the resident for this aspect, which is not a calculation based on evidenced costs but is to recognise and bring closure to the incurred costs and the handling of these.
The landlord was positive to consider a February 2020 electrician visit in its responses, as this occurred more than six months before the resident complained and so was reasonably outside the complaints procedure. However, the landlord could have demonstrated it did more than restate the electrician’s report and note that no follow on repairs had been raised. The electrician’s report that “tenant has off-peak on-peak setup however there is no supply/timer control to match setup” suggests some issue with the resident’s setup, and could have given cause for further enquiries to check the supply and timer control were appropriate.
The landlord was clearly seeking to put things right with substantial compensation offers, however its approach to compensation comes across as confused at times. This is demonstrated by there being four compensation offers for the hot water issue, and also by the £784 offer for the hot water issue in the final April 2021 response being lower than the £1,054 offer in the November 2020 response, due to the offer for distress, inconvenience and time and effort reducing from £800 to £520. The landlord is entitled to change its mind, however the rationale for this reduction in the compensation offer is unclear, and it should have provided some reasoning and explanation to the resident.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the immersion heater and loss of hot water overall shows that it could learn lessons about how it considers resident vulnerability, appropriately progresses identified repairs, and considers compensation requests in respect to loss of service. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the immersion heater and loss of hot water.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about mice issues in the property

The resident began to report problems with mice in July 2020, which the landlord’s pest contractor initially attended in an appropriate timescale. However, it is not evident that the recommendations identified by the pest contractor to remove expanding foam and fill holes in the kitchen, living room and bathroom were resolved at the point of the landlord’s final response in April 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended on multiple occasions during this time, and the resident reported on multiple occasions that the issue was ongoing due to unfilled holes, and it was therefore inappropriate that the landlord failed to complete the originally recommended works over the course of nine months between July 2020 and April 2021.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the repairs at the final stage of its complaints process in April 2021, it acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It also offered compensation of £460 which it said was intended to recognise the delays, inconvenience, time and trouble and missed appointments in respect to the issue. This demonstrates that the landlord sought to compensate the resident in line with its policy, and this amount and the £2,500 later offered are within the range that the Ombudsman might recommend for failings such as lengthy delays which have a serious impact on a resident.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord offers suitable redress for acknowledged failings. In this case, while the landlord acknowledged delays and advised that steps had been taken to discuss the case with appropriate parties to improve service, it is not evident that it addressed a number of issues. The landlord therefore does not demonstrate that it has satisfactorily addressed matters, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes in order to avoid similar failings in future.
The timeframes seen in the case are inappropriately lengthy, as demonstrated by the 16 month timeframe between July 2020, when the resident reported that bathroom proofing works were recommended, and November 2021, when it is evident such works were first specifically scheduled; and also by the ongoing nature of the mouse issue in the property from July 2020 to the present, a total of 30 months. The landlord offered compensation for the nine months delay at the time of its April 2021 final response, however it is not evident that it did enough to appropriately address the mouse issue in the property, improve service and avoid the ongoing mouse activity, which is not satisfactory.
The resident reported having vulnerabilities when she also reported mice issues in July and August 2020, however it is not evident that the landlord gave this any particular regard or modified its approach. While the landlord focused on the delays to resolve the mice issue, an additional consideration should have been if repairs were given appropriate priority or focus after clear indicators of potential vulnerability such as broken legs, limited mobility and prescription of antibiotics to prevent infection were provided. It is not satisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate that it appropriately reviewed such aspects and took steps for similar reports to be handled differently in future, given that it aims to prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents but does not demonstrate it considered any adjustments.
A lack of appropriate regard to the pest contractor’s recommendations contributed to delay, after they reported that “expanding form used throughout flat needs to be removed and blocked properly” and reported that “holes still need to be blocked in kitchen bathroom and livingroom.” This meant that the landlord did not respond reasonably when, in November 2020, it said use of expanding foam to fill gaps was standard practice for its maintenance operatives and was not something the pest contractor had said should not be done. This led to the resident being provided conflicting information by different parties, which will have undermined her confidence in the handling of the issue. The landlord does not demonstrate that it appropriately acknowledged this and considered what steps it could take to handle similar situations differently in future.
The landlord missed a number of opportunities to resolve the issue earlier, which may arise from shortfalls in processes for pest issues that require more than baiting. These include the booking of the September 2020 works to the wrong operatives; the November 2020 works focus on the kitchen recommendations but not those for the living room and bathroom; the February 2021 noting of a previous lack of access for proofing under the bath, but a lack of any reattempt to rebook these; the lack of meeting the April 2021 final response commitment to raise and monitor the living room and bathroom repairs in a reasonable and timely manner; the July 2021 chasing of pest contractors about works when it had been reported a builder was required; the scheduling of works to August 2021, when they were only catalogued, and their postponement; and ongoing reports from the resident of all holes not being filled.
The postponement of the August 2021 works was not satisfactory, given there were previous opportunities to establish what the works required. The response to the resident’s reports by generally only arranging further pest contractor visits may also not have always been helpful. These would have benefited from more consideration about whether effective action had been taken to fulfil the prior recommendations to address structural access points. The landlord’s account mentions more recent access issues, however it is evident that the landlord/its contractors have had access to the property on many occasions. The landlord does not demonstrate that it appropriately acknowledged these issues and considered how to handle things differently in future.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mouse reports overall shows that it could learn lessons about how it responds to similar reports, including how works recommended by its pest contractors are raised, managed and monitored. The extent and impact of the mouse issue has not always been apparent, but it has clearly caused distress to the resident and this will have increased as time has gone on. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about rodent issues in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a kitchen upgrade

The Decent Homes Standard, a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, advises that properties should have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens. The landlord’s obligations therefore include repair or replacement of old components such as the kitchen where this is considered required. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff and contractors are best qualified to determine whether components such as the kitchen are still functional and fit for purpose and when repairs or replacement are required. However, this investigation can assess whether the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade.
In this case, the landlord reviewed the resident’s request; informed her that the kitchen was not due an upgrade that financial year; said that she would be contacted by the relevant team when it was due for an upgrade; and asked her for details of required repairs so it could arrange necessary repairs.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident about a kitchen upgrade was reasonable, as it reviewed her request and set out a reasonable position based on the evidence. The landlord could have arranged an inspection of the kitchen to be customer focused, however there is no evidence that it was failing its obligations to repair or replace the kitchen, and it not evident that the resident provided any information to the landlord which should have caused it to reconsider its position.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about her reports about the immersion heater and loss of hot water
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about mice issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a kitchen upgrade.

Reasons

While the landlord made a substantial offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not sufficient to remedy the issues identified in the complaint. The landlord does not demonstrate it appropriately considered the resident’s reported vulnerability for her loss of hot water; does not fully demonstrate it based a decision not to proceed with a repair to the immersion heater on repairs needs; and does not demonstrate that it appropriately considered costs reportedly incurred as a result of the loss of hot water.
While the landlord made a substantial offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not sufficient to remedy the issues identified in the complaint. The landlord does not demonstrate it appropriately considered the resident’s reported vulnerability for her mice issues, and while it arranged for pest contractors to attend on many occasions, it does not demonstrate that it gave regard to pest contractor recommendations for the property, which has led to an inappropriately lengthy delay in resolving the ongoing mice issue.
The landlord’s review of the request for a kitchen upgrade, setting out of a position, and commitment to raise repairs on receipt of further information was a reasonable response based on the evidence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to re-offer the resident the £2,500 it has offered.
The landlord to compensate the resident an additional £1,300, which comprises:
1. £400 for the additional failings identified with its response to the reports about the immersion heater and loss of hot water.
2. £600 for the additional failings identified with its response to the reports about mice issues in the property.
3. £300 for the incurred costs in respect to the loss of hot water, which is not a calculation based on evidenced costs, but is to recognise and bring closure to the incurred costs and the handling of these.
The landlord to review the status of works to prevent rodent access to the property and then set out in writing to the resident:
1. its action plan for the works;
2. details and contacts for how to progress them.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of this decision.
The landlord to review processes in respect to pest issues and how pest contractor recommendations are reviewed, actioned and monitored by its housing repairs function. As part of this, the landlord should review:
1. how, after a pest contractor’s recommendation, more complex works are effectively progressed, managed and monitored in a timely manner;
2. how reports that repairs related to pest issues are incomplete are handled.
The landlord to review processes for how vulnerabilities are handled, which should include a review of:
1. how individual circumstances are considered when receiving a service request which mentions potential vulnerability;
2. how repairs for vulnerable residents considered to be a priority are escalated, to ensure that on a practical level these are prioritised and completed by contractors in an expedited timeframe.
The landlord to review its processes and staff training needs in respect to compensation awards. This should include ensuring costs resulting from service failures are considered, and ensuring differences in compensation awards at different stages of the complaints procedure are considered and explained.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within six weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to, if it has not done so already, inspect the kitchen condition and assess whether any repair or renewal is required. The landlord to then set out its position on this in writing to the resident.
The landlord to review records in respect to the 7 February 2020 electrician visit and:
1. take steps to confirm that the supply and timer control is or was appropriate, and that the resident is not being disadvantaged by a lack of action on its part for issues within its responsibility;
2. liaise with the resident and review her note provided by the electrician, in order to confirm that the resident is not being disadvantaged by a lack of action on its part for issues within its responsibility;
3. if it identifies that there is an issue, or that there was a previous issue that has since been resolved, it should consider what practical and financial remedies may be applicable.
The landlord should inform this Service of its intention in respect to the above recommendation within four weeks of this decision.