Sanctuary Housing Association (202108331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108331

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair following an annual gas service.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for his privately hired contractor.
3. The landlord’s response to allegations about the gas engineer contractor who initially attended the appointment.
4. The landlord’s decision not to offer a replacement gas fire.
5. The complaint handling delay.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for his privately hired contractor.
Paragraph 39 (h) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings. The resident and landlord exchanged correspondence in the complaint process about the resident’s costs for privately hiring a contractor to address the boiler (heating and hot water) repair after the landlord’s contractor initially attended in January 2021. The resident set out his justification for hiring the contractor, including that the landlord had not offered a solution said that this would take several weeks to finish.
The landlord initially disputed that it owed the resident the cost of this as it considered that the resident’s contractor had reached the same conclusions as its own contractor about the required repairs. The matter was ultimately settled following a county court claim in September 2021. Accordingly, this element of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It may be referenced in the report as part of the background, but it will not be assessed

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement commenced in April 1992. The resident’s property has a back boiler which is attached to a gas fire appliance.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s repair obligations are to keep in good repair and working order installations for space heating, water heating, supply of water, gas and electricity. This includes water heaters, fire places and fitted fires. The resident is responsible for allowing the landlord access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect or carry out repairs or other works. The landlord shall normally give 24 hours notice in writing of its intention to enter the property but it may be given immediate access in an emergency.
Under the tenancy handbook, the landlord is responsible for undertaking any necessary repairs to the property within the timescales that it promises. The resident is responsible for giving the landlord access to his home when necessary, so that its contractors can undertake essential repairs such as the annual gas safety check.
Under the repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord will:

a) Provide a repair and maintenance service that is cost effective and achieves value for money and complies with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

b) Repair or replace a fixture/fitting/appliance for which it has responsibility.

Under the repair procedure:
1. Heating repairs (where there are no other heaters) during the winter are classed as emergency repairs and should be attended to and made safe within 24 hours.
2. Partial loss of water is considered as a non-emergency appointed repair and the landlord will agree an appointment time with the resident. Such repairs are to be completed within 28 days and at the appointment time agreed with the resident. If a resident fails to keep an appointment, a second appointment will be offered.
3. The landlord may gain access to make safe a repair that poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of the resident or others, or that is likely to cause damage to property. In such cases, it will take all reasonable action to contact the resident.
The landlord operates a two staged complaint process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the amount payable for temporary heating is £4 per heater up to £100 per day between 1 October – 30 April after which evidence will be requested. The amount payable for total loss of hot water is £3 per day.
The landlord’s internal guidance on ‘gas and oil’ (gas fire replacement) states that if a gas fire needs removing, it will not generally replace the fire (especially where there is central heating in the property). If a fire is requested and deemed suitable or necessary, an electric fire will be fitted in its place. The guidance states that the landlord does not replace a gas fire except for ‘very rare occasions’ and ‘unless absolutely necessary’. Once a gas fire is capped, it will not replace this.

Summary of events

On 4 January 2021 there was an annual gas safety check at the property. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported concerns following this on same day; the heating was not working and when the boiler was turned on the pipes were banging loudly. The hot water was recorded as not being affected.
On 5 January 2021 the contractor attended to investigate the heating system and it traced a fault to a leaking main heat exchanger to the back of the boiler unit. The contractor notes refer to work to drain down the heating system and cap off a tank, and it noted that it was unable to locate new parts. It also noted that the resident had temporary heating.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord called the resident. The landlord had considered that the contractor identified that the main heat exchanger was leaking and the parts needed to change this were obsolete, or, given the cost, an uneconomical repair for a 30 year old boiler. It told the resident that it could not obtain parts and needed to fit a new boiler. It also told the resident that a new gas fire could not be fitted and instead it would install a radiator. The landlord’s record states that the resident became unhappy, swore and used derogatory terms and then ended the call. The landlord then considered that it needed access to the property to carry out the installation.
On 6 January 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He said that:
1. On 4 January 2021 the landlord attended the flat to do the annual gas service. There was no problem beforehand with the central heating.
2. The contractor accidentally broke off the heat exchanger which caused the system to drain down and empty of water. This in turn stopped the system from functioning.
3. The resident spoke to the contractor who accepted this and said he needed to get a new heat exchanger; these were available.
4. On 6 January 2021 the landlord called the resident to explain that the cost of the part was too great, so the landlord would not buy it, and the whole system should be changed.
5. The landlord considered that the change in the system would bring it in line with systems in operation in other (of the landlord’s) homes.
6. The resident did not accept this arbitrary change and would arrange to have the work done privately and then bill the landlord for the parts and labour.
7. The resident felt distressed and harassed by the ‘arbitrary bullying behaviour’ of the landlord.
8. He sought for the landlord to change the required part (heat exchanger) and to get the central heating system up and running again as it had been before the appointment of 4 January 2021.
The repair records show that an order for the new boiler was raised on 6 January 2021. Another job was also raised for an asbestos survey. These jobs have not been carried out. The records state that the resident advised that he was in conversation with the landlord about what works were going to be happening at the time.
The resident and landlord exchanged correspondence about the case throughout January 2021.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and conducted internal enquiries. The landlord was advised by its gas engineer that: the boiler was 30 years old, parts were obsolete (the resident had been advised of this), it wanted to change the appliance which meant removing the back boiler and attached gas fire, part availability and economical cost to maintain the current appliance was not viable, the resident would need permission to carry out work himself, the appliance was condemnable and it would be seeking a renewal of the system. The housing team were working on getting access to carry out the repair.
On the same day, the resident added to his complaint that he experienced harassment and he had been in an emergency with no hot water or heating. He told the landlord that the contractor had been instructed to sabotage the system to force him to accept a cheaper alternative (7 January 2021).
On 8 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to iterate his concerns. In his communication to the landlord, the resident explained that after the contractor had left he experienced issues with the hot water getting through to the shower. He could not wash and was vulnerable according to the Covid-19 guidance, however, he managed to privately resolve this within 24 hours. He also notified the landlord of his plan to get his own contractor to resolve the problem, as he explained that the landlord had not offered him a solution while the repair was outstanding.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord told the resident that he may be liable for costs to put back to safe working order any works that he independently arranged.
The resident hired his own contractor (13 and 19 January 2021) and then told the landlord that his contractor confirmed the problem with the system. The resident’s heating to the living room was restored (by the private contractor) and so was an immersion element of the system. The actual boiler had not been replaced. The actual report from the resident’s privately hired contractor was sent to the landlord later in March 2021 as part of the stage two investigation. The private contractor recommended a new boiler (19 January 2012).
There is no evidence that the landlord arranged a safety check on the work that had been carried out.
In further emails to the landlord in January 2021, the resident referred to his concerns of the contractor’s visit of 4 January 2021. The resident told the landlord he was given a ‘pass’ certificate despite the system being unsafe. He reported that he noticed a ‘scorching smell’ when he turned the system on after the contractor left on 4 January 2021. The resident told the landlord that it would have overheated next to a ‘live gas pipe’ had the resident left it on and running.
On 25 January 2021 the resident sent the landlord a detailed email in which he iterated his various concerns, such as those about the landlord’s contractor. He told the landlord that his contractor found parts of the pipe missing, the thermostat had been removed and the system had been drained. He confirmed that he had hot water and the front room was heated, so he would wait to see the options for a new system when the weather became warmer. The resident also sent the landlord the bill, which became part of an ongoing dispute (that is not being investigated by the Ombudsman).
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact and explained that Covid-19 had put constraints on its contractors and staff. It said that it chased relevant departments and management for updates (25 January 2021).
On 26 January 2021 the contractor that visited the resident on 4 January 2021 gave his statement to the landlord about the work that he carried out. This included details of the observations and work carried out, such as the pump making noises when the heating was turned on. On his return the next day, he found a leak on the heat exchanger and he shut down the water supply to the heating system and drained down the system to stop the leak, then capped the water supply to the heating system.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response.
1. The boiler was made safe and not sabotaged.
2. The independently hired contractor had advised the same as the landlord’s contractor.
3. The resident was advised that the appliance required replacing and the landlord was prepared to action this but the resident had refused and hired his own contractor. It followed every process and protocol regarding the property.
4. It was prepared to do the work but the resident needed to agree to let it do the work.
5. It detailed how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 27 January 2021 the resident responded to the landlord with his further reports of dissatisfaction.
1. He disputed that the boiler was made safe. He said that his own contractor had to do this.
2. The system was left ‘live’ on 4 January 2021 when the landlord’s contractor left and handed the resident a certificate saying everything was fine; the resident sent the landlord a copy of this. The system had been drained down and left with no thermostat, and it could have exploded as soon as he turned it on (he turned it off due to this).
3. The resident did not dispute that the boiler needed to be replaced following the damage caused by the landlord’s contractor. He asked the landlord if it denied this damage.
4. He said that the point was that the damage was repairable through getting a part (a replacement heat exchanger) but this was too expensive (according to the landlord), and the new boiler was ‘weeks ahead’ and the new system did not fit in with his flat.
5. The landlord did not offer a solution, though he was left with no heating or hot water after 5 January 2021.
The landlord replied on the same day (27 January 2021) and said that it would review the complaint, but the foremost objective was the non-functioning boiler. It asked the resident to confirm that he was happy to make arrangements for the replacement.
The resident replied regarding the dispute about the cost for his contractor and did not respond to the landlord’s request to confirm if he was happy to make arrangements for the replacement. Specifically, he said that anything else can be addressed ‘in the fullness of time’. The resident further commented on the lack of an apology from the landlord and explained that he felt it was threatening and bullying him.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord offered an apology and explained that it was not trying to bully or intimidate the resident. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the loss of facilities at the annual gas service. It also said that it acted quickly to arrange a replacement boiler. It said it was ready to instruct its contractor to quote a replacement boiler and that there was also an asbestos survey required before installation works. It iterated that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two if still unhappy.
On 1 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He did not respond to the landlord’s offers to progress with the work or address the current status of the outstanding work. The resident continued to discuss the justification for hiring a private contractor (as part of the ongoing dispute about reimbursement) and shared his views about the landlord’s communication (he found it distressing and unpleasant). The landlord replied on the same day and apologised that the resident found its response distressing and unpleasant and said it was not intentional or the desired outcome. It reiterated its offer (£50) and the escalation details. It asked the resident to let it know if he was happy to start the boiler process.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord chased a response from the resident. It asked the resident if he wanted to escalate the complaint or if he was happy to start the new boiler process. The resident’s response focused on the reimbursement dispute.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord escalated the complaint on the basis of the reimbursement dispute. It noted that there was outstanding work.
On 9 February 2021 it updated the resident about the next steps and managed his expectations about delays in its complaint response delays (aimed to respond 8 March 2021).
On 15 – 17 February 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged further email correspondence about progressing the case.
1. The resident said that before the landlord carried out ‘major work’ it needed to pay him back the money owed to him for hiring his own contractor. The landlord said it would review this request.
2. The resident said that someone also needed to talk to him about the options for the new system and any planning that was involved.
3. The landlord replied and said that it would ask the maintenance team to ask if an appropriate person could discuss the boiler replacement with him and try to reach an agreement for the works to go ahead and for the survey.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord liaised with the gas engineer contractor about the resident’s allegations towards their staff.
On 4 March 2021 the resident and landlord spoke about the case. Following this, the landlord posed further allegations to the gas engineer contractor about the conduct of the operative when he visited on 4 January 2021 and the gas contractor responded. The contractor responded to each of the points and gave a copy of the operative’s statement documenting what he had done. It responded to the specific allegations of deliberate damage, such as the resident’s allegation that he had carried out drilling to the thermostat, or that the contractor admitted damaging the thermostat (these had been denied).
The landlord emailed the resident afterwards with its stage two complaint response. In its response (4 March 2021):
1. It outlined the actions that it carried out (5 January 2021).
2. It apologised that the resident found the conversation about the replacement of the system upsetting (6 January 2021).
3. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to know what would happen in the meantime and apologised for not explaining this; a contractor would attend to do a survey for the boiler and that this process for replacement would take 2/3 weeks with temporary heating in the interim.
4. In respect of the resident’s allegations, it said that it found no evidence to support this.
5. The resident’s contractor’s findings concurred with the landlord’s contractor’s findings. The landlord would look into the resident’s claim that its contractor had found that a thermostat had been removed.
6. The resident’s own contractor reinstated the gas to the fire front which was not permitted and it would be the resident’s responsibility should any issues occur.
7. It said that it enquired into the possibility of replacing the gas fire as a gesture of goodwill.
8. It apologised for the inconvenience and delay in its complaint response after this had been raised on 7 January 2021.
9. It offered the resident the £241 redress which it broke down as follows:
  1. £50 for time, trouble and inconvenience
  2. £75 for complaint handling
  3. £32 for partial loss of heating for 21 day period expected from accepting boiler replacement and installation
  4. £84 for temporary heating
In its email to the resident on 4 March 2021 the landlord also told him that it would review any further information which the resident wanted to send as it was aware that this would take some time, and then it would respond to the resident accordingly.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord reviewed the resident’s contractor’s report which had been sent to it.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord supplementary response, as it agreed to do on 4 March 2021 on receipt of the resident’s further evidence.
1. It considered the resident’s further evidence, such as text messages with his privately hired contractor, and compared this to the same contractor’s reports. It also provided feedback from its staff about the resident’s queries. It did not find that the resident’s contractor’s texts were consistent with its report in respect of some of the resident’s allegations, eg the thermostat was considered to be in place by the report (rather than missing) and there was no mention of missing pipework.
2. It highlighted that the resident’s contractor considered that age was an issue with the failure of the boiler. It denied that its contractor sabotaged the system.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 15 March 2021 about the suitability of the radiator for the size and layout of the living room. It would enquire into this.
4. It noted the resident’s complaint about the lack of interim solutions while he was waiting for a boiler and said that the only available measure was to provide a temporary heater which the resident already had.
5. It could not replace the gas fire because ‘the gas fire is attached to the condemned appliance which will be removed as part of the system change; (the landlord) does not fit gas fires and this will be replaced with a radiator’.
6. It said that there was nothing further it could offer for the two or three week period that it would take to replace the boiler. It acknowledged that this was inconvenient and had offered compensation for inconvenience for three weeks plus the cost of running temporary heating for the same period.
7. It agreed that a survey process should have been completed before the replacement would go ahead and it apologised that this had not been done.
8. It said that the boiler replacement contractor was trying to arrange an appointment for the boiler replacement and asked the resident to contact the relevant team to arrange this (with contact details provided).

After the complaint process

There was further communication between the resident and landlord after the complaint process. For reference, the landlord sent a letter to arrange the replacement in November 2021 and at one point it changed its position and offered to replace the boiler but allow the resident to keep the gas fire element (until this broke down, then it would not replace this). The resident explained his continued dissatisfaction with the contractor’s action of January 2021 and the landlord’s updated proposals. There was a further dispute about the next annual gas service (for 2022). The landlord said that it issued a Notice of Seeking Possession in February 2022. The resident received a ‘no access warning notice’ dated 14 February 2022.
The communication exchanged between the resident and landlord and actions after the conclusion complaint process (March 2021) are not within the scope of this investigation. This investigation is only looking at how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and the concerns that were raised therein.

Assessment and findings

When a complaint is duly made to the Ombudsman, it becomes the Ombudsman’s complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider the matter in an adversarial way, as in the resident’s claims versus the landlord’s claims, instead it takes an inquisitorial approach that considers objectively what happened, what should have happened and whether there is evidence to demonstrate that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate (with reference to the relevant policies and procedures).
The Ombudsman is not suitably qualified to make a technical assessment in disputes over expert opinion/repairs and instead considers whether the landlord was reasonable by seeking or relying on expert advice and feedback from its operatives, and if it responded fairly to a dispute such as by assessing the information and providing an explanation of its decision making.

The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair following an annual gas service.

The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and working order the installation for heating and hot water. The landlord is obliged to carry out appointed repairs within 28 days. The resident is responsible for providing access to the landlord or its contractors to carry out repairs or other works (with 24 hours notice or immediately in an emergency).
In the circumstances of this case, the landlord did not dispute its repair responsibility. The landlord identified the need to replace the boiler following its gas engineer’s feedback on 5 and 6 January 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the diagnosis and report of its contractor.
The landlord arranged a schedule of work and surveys to be carried out, however, the repair records state that this had been paused due to the dispute.
The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the need for access from 6 January 2021. When the resident disputed the replacement on the same day, it confirmed that the replacement was necessary on 7 January 2021 during a conversation with its gas engineers.
The evidence shows that the landlord considered the resident’s concern and sought further advice. This was reasonable. It was reasonable for the landlord to then rely on the opinion of the gas engineer (which said that the boiler was old and the parts were obsolete or not economically viable). It was appropriate and in line with its repair policy to take into account factors such as cost effectiveness and value for money in its response to the repair.
It became clear that the resident remained dissatisfied and he did not subsequently respond to the landlord’s invitations for him to agree (with the replacement) or contact its relevant team to arrange an appointment.
On 27 January 2021 in its stage one response, the landlord told the resident that it was prepared to do the work but needed the resident to agree to let it do this.
Following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, the landlord asked him again to confirm that he was happy to make arrangements for the replacement. The resident’s response focused on the reimbursement dispute and he said that the other issues could be addressed ‘in the fullness of time’. He also responded with how he considered the landlord’s communication, for example, he said that he found it to be bullying. On this point the landlord responded reasonably because it addressed this concern and apologised.
Given the lack of progress with the required repair/replacement and unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement with the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate to the resident the necessity under its repair obligations to progress the work and to also highlight the resident’s responsibility in providing access to the work. It did not do this.
The landlord continued to ask the resident to let it know if he was ‘happy’ to start the process. At one stage it asked the resident if he was happy to proceed with the boiler work or to escalate the complaint. It would have been reasonable to separate the repair work from the complaint, where possible, to prevent the repair being stalled due to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. In practice, the landlord attempted to do this during one of the exchanges, for example, it said that the complaint would be reviewed but its foremost objective was to progress the boiler replacement (27 January 2021). However, it did not successfully steer the discussion or action the repair. It focused on the resident’s other points of dissatisfaction and the complaint allegations throughout the rest of January and into February and March.
The evidence shows that there was a lack of engagement by the resident to the landlord’s invitations to book an appointment with the relevant team to progress the work. Having asked at least three times for the resident to engage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have demonstrated an assessment of its available options to gain access, including as stated above communicating with the resident about their respective obligations by way of an explanation about why it was important to complete the repair. Although the resident showed a preference at one stage for resolving the reimbursement dispute before the replacement work, the landlord would be entitled to make its own assessment and rely on appropriately qualified experts to determine the priority of a repair in accordance with its legal and policy obligations.
The delay in completing this repair has been unreasonable. The landlord did not fulfil its repair obligations following its contractor’s diagnosis of the issue in a timely manner. Its records show that it was not disputed that the replacement was necessary but that there were access issues due to the resident’s disagreements. It was evidently a difficult situation to manage, however, the landlord is ultimately responsible for maintaining its repair obligations and could have taken steps to progress this sooner.
The landlord did not evidence an assessment of the resident’s private contractor’s work to establish that this was to a suitable standard and that the gas fire and immersion component had been safely reconnected. It would have been reasonable for it arrange this as soon as it became aware that the system had been reconnected privately (the landlord has since tried to arrange its annual gas check of 2022).
The landlord did not address the additional aspects of the resident’s complaint that the contractor gave a pass certificate for the boiler even though there was a problem and that there had been loss of hot water (for 24 hours). The resident raised this in his emails after the stage one response on 27 January 2021.
In terms of the impact, the contractor attended the next day after issuing the pass certificate on 4 January 2021 and it established the repair issues and this culminated in the boiler being condemned (5 January 2021). The resident explained that he could not wash for 24 hours, and the landlord’s compensation policy for (total) loss of hot water is £3 per day. The resident experienced inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord’s offer of £50 which it offered for the inconvenience, time and trouble was reasonable as it was proportional to the impact of the failures identified by the Ombudsman.
The resident’s contractor had reconnected the gas fire and immersion and had temporary heating (13 and 19 January 2021). The evidence shows that although there has been a failure, there was limited detriment to the resident by the delays as the resident has been clear that he was happy with his existing system. Furthermore, the resident did not engage in the landlord’s invitations to carry out the repair. Therefore, an order has been made to rectify the failure that is focused on the landlord’s obligation to complete the repair work.
The rest of the landlord’s response and the redress that it proposed was also reasonable. The landlord’s offer of redress was £32 for partial loss of heating for the 21 day period that it expected for the time period of ‘accepting boiler replacement and installation’ (ie the repair). It also offered £84 for temporary heating for the same duration, which is in the parameters of its compensation policy (£4 per day for temporary heating if this was during October – April) and therefore reasonable. In the end, the repair did not take place, so it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this in theory as it recognised the potential impact of the repair.

The landlord’s response to allegations about the gas engineer contractor who initially attended the appointment.

The Ombudsman cannot assess or determine complaints about the intentions of landlord staff, such as whether the action by the contractor was carried out deliberately. Instead, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has responded fairly to such allegations. This is assessed by considering whether the landlord has investigated the allegations, spoken to the relevant parties, and explained its finding to the resident.
In this case, the evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint, the contractor provided a statement which detailed the actions which he had taken. The landlord liaised with the gas engineer contractor and posed the resident’s specific allegations, such as that the contractor carried out drilling and that the thermostat was missing. The contractor in turn assessed and responded to the allegations. The landlord addressed the resident’s allegation in its response and explained that there was no evidence of the resident’s allegation.
The landlord’s final response was corroborated by the actions which it took, for example, it explained that it would investigate the claim about the thermostat which it then did by assessing the landlord and the resident’s evidence and also putting the allegation to the contractor. The landlord investigated the claims and evidence and denied the allegations. Its response to this complaint (about intentional sabotage) was reasonable, in so far as the Ombudsman can investigate such complaints.

The landlord’s decision not to offer a replacement gas fire.

Regarding the resident’s dispute about the replacement, this was presented as a disagreement about whether the boiler needed to be replaced or repaired, and then it was presented as a disagreement about the landlord’s decision not to agree to replace the gas fire. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the feedback and advice of its experts and it was transparent with the resident about the reason for the change of the boiler (ie the age, the cost of the parts and so on). The landlord’s decision, during the complaint process and scope of this investigation, was that the gas fire could not be replaced and instead this would be replaced with a radiator. The landlord’s decision has been in line with its internal guidance document which states that the landlord will not usually replace gas fires. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this element of the complaint was reasonable.
The resident explained his concern about the proposed new radiator not fitting in with the decoration of the flat and that it may not be suitable for the living room. He also raised a concern about the lack of a survey. The landlord responded reasonably because it acknowledged this point and said that it would send this concern to the gas engineer, although it is not clear what the outcome of this was. The landlord also agreed and apologised for its error in not raising the survey. This was reasonable.

The complaint handling delay.

In respect of the complaint handling, the resident’s stage one complaint was raised on 6 January 2021 and responded to on 27 January 2021. This was 5 days over the policy timescale and therefore not appropriate. The stage two complaint was escalated on 5 February 2021 and responded to on 4 March 2021. This was in line with the policy timescale, although there was a delay in logging the escalation because the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage one response a week earlier than the date that the landlord recorded this, on 27 January 2021.
In terms of the impact of the delay in escalating the stage two complaint, the landlord continued to correspond with the resident about the outstanding issues informally and asked him if he would like to escalate the complaint. When it became clear that the resident remained dissatisfied, it escalated the complaint formally. The landlord emailed the resident to inform him of potential delays before it issued its stage two response, which was reasonable as it managed his expectations ahead of time. It offered an approximate response date of 8 March 2021 and responded before the deadline on 4 March 2021.
The resident’s further concern about the complaint investigation was that the landlord had spoken to him on 4 March 2021 and issued its response on the same day; the evidence shows that it did indeed do both of these things. However, there is no evidence that this impacted the resident’s complaint. It extended an opportunity for the resident to provide further evidence. When the resident submitted further evidence, the landlord duly assessed this and responded. This was reasonable.
The delay in the complaint handling was appropriately acknowledged and the landlord offered reasonable redress that was resolution focused. This was £75 for inconvenience, time and trouble.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the boiler repair following an annual gas service.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the allegations about the gas engineer contractor who initially attended the appointment.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to offer a replacement gas fire.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling delay.

Reasons

There was an unreasonably protracted delay by the landlord to the boiler repair and a lack of evidence to show that it took reasonable steps to explore its options to carry out the repair following the evident access issues and lack of engagement by the resident. As a result, the boiler replacement has not been completed. The landlord has an obligation to maintain its assets and complete repairs safely and within a reasonable timescale.
The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s staff conduct allegations with the relevant officer. It sought their response to the points which the resident raised and assessed the resident’s evidence with the statement of the contractor whose conduct was in dispute. It did not find evidence to support the resident’s allegation. It also considered the resident’s private contractor’s report and reviewed this in light of its own contractor’s findings. This was resolution focused. It responded to the resident and explained its decision.
The landlord’s internal guidance states that it will not replace gas fires if it has to remove these. It considered the resident’s request and responded to it appropriately.
The landlord’s offer of redress for its accepted service failure in the complaint handling was proportionate to its failures and resolution focused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident and Ombudsman with an update on the plans to replace the boiler.
2. Re-offer the resident £50 for inconvenience, time and trouble (if it has not already paid this).

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to:
1. Confirm that it will re-offer the compensation for loss of heating (£32) and temporary heating (£84) when it begins the replacement work.
2. Re-offer the compensation (£75) for the delay in the complaint handling (if this has not already been paid).