Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110164

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. boiler repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
On 15 September 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he did not have hot water in his bathroom and shower. He said the water was occasionally lukewarm but turned cold after a few minutes. The landlord acknowledged the report later that day and advised that it referred the matter to its repairs team.
The landlord’s records showed that it attended the property on 18 September 2020 but was unable to gain access. It recorded that the loss of hot water was reported again on 21 September 2020 and again, when it attended on the following day, it was unable to access the property.
The landlord attended the property again on 24 September 2020 and the engineer’s note stated that they had no experience with the specific model of boiler and it was too late in the day to contact the manufacturer for advice. It was noted that work was attempted but the engineer was unable to confirm that the problem was resolved. The engineer proposed to contact the resident the following day to check on the repair.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 September 2020 about the handling of the repair to his hot water. He said that, despite several calls to its contractor, an engineer was sent to the property at the wrong time and was unable to resolve the hot water repair. The resident said he was told that the engineer would “not be returning anytime soon”. He said that he had health concerns and wanted an emergency plumber to resolve the repair due to the impact on his health. The landlord replied on 28 September 2020 to advise that it had escalated the issue internally and advised the resident to continue chasing its contractor.
The landlord attended on 30 September 2020 and its records noted that it refilled and reset the boiler which now appeared to be working.
On 26 November 2020, the resident reported a total loss of hot water and heating to the landlord. The landlord attended that day and found that the electrical spur to the boiler had been turned off. This was turned on and the heating and hot water were restored.
In response to a report from the resident on 1 December 2020, the landlord attended the following day to inspect the boiler due to a loss of hot water and heating. As it could not confirm the source of the fault, it attended again on 6 December 2020 and discovered a problem with the electrical wiring. The landlord passed this to its electrician to repair. The landlord called the resident on 8 December 2020 to arrange the supply of temporary heaters but was unable to make contact. On 10 December 2020, it noted that its electrician had restored power to the boiler but the boiler was still exhibiting several faults. The landlord ordered parts on 15 December 2020 and installed a new boiler the following day.
On 3 January 2021, the landlord attempted to attend the property in response to the resident’s report of a loss of heating and hot water that day; it was unable to gain access. This was re-raised the following day and it attended on 5 January 2021. The landlord found that the heating and hot water were working but were “not to the [resident’s] liking”.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 20 December 2020 in which he said he wanted compensation for the inconvenience and loss of earnings he had experienced as a result of the its handling of his boiler repairs since he commenced his tenancy on 26 July 2019. He highlighted that he was diabetic, which he had informed the landlord about, and yet it had not adhered to its 24-hour timeframe for emergency repairs. The resident questioned if this was due to poor recording keeping by the landlord and suggested that an audit of these records may be necessary. He said that he was told that it was his responsibility to chase the landlord to address the electrical issue and to chase the contractor for the boiler fault. The resident said that he expected the landlord to coordinate such matters rather than asking him to do so.
The resident contended that the landlord had been negligent in its duty of care to him by having to be without hot water and heating for several weeks. He said that his request for temporary heating was not addressed until he had already purchased heaters himself. The resident said that the landlord’s heating contractor had attended on a number of occasions without the necessary knowledge to repair the boiler. For the impact on his health and the inconvenience he had experienced, he wanted the landlord to provide him with compensation and for it to detail the changes it would put in place to prevent reoccurrences of the issues he had experienced.
The resident added that, since the installation of the new boiler he had experienced low water pressure and mould due to a leak in the waste pipe of the new boiler. He added that the extractor fans in the bathroom were faulty, leading to a build–up of mould.
The resident reported a fault with the boiler to the landlord on 4 January 2021 which it attended the next day. It found that the boiler was working but hot and cold water pressure was “not to the [customer’s] liking”. This was passed to the landlord’s plumber.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 January 2021 in which it apologised for its delayed response. It said that, although the resident had said that he had been experiencing issues with his boiler since moving in, it did not have a record of any report of heating or hot water issues until 6 December 2020, when it had a report of the electrical issue for the boiler. The landlord relayed that it found on 10 December 2020 that, despite repairing the electrical issue, the boiler did not resume working and it was beyond economical repair. It replaced the boiler on 16 December 2020 and noted that the resident reported that the water pressure was too low. The landlord relayed that this was at odds with the opinion of its heating contractor.
The landlord confirmed that, since the resident’s report of faulty extractor fans, it had found that these were also beyond economical repair and were due to be replaced on 20 January 2021. It offered the resident £530 compensation. This was broken down as:
1. £100 for inconvenience
2. £50 for delayed complaint response
3. £100 in recognition of household vulnerabilities
4. £140 for no heating between 14 December 2020 and 5 January 2021
5. £140 for no hot water between 14 December 2020 and 5 January 2021.
The landlord acknowledged that it had failed in diagnosing and rectifying the boiler issues in a timely manner and in its communication with the resident.
The resident reported to the landlord on 20 January 2021 that the boiler had low pressure and needed repeated topping up with water. It attended on 25 January 2021 and found no faults evident with the boiler which was producing hot water and heating. The landlord passed this to the manufacturer as the appliance was only three weeks old.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord to the final stage on 21 February 2021, stating that he had sought legal advice on the matter. He asserted that he first reported issues with his boiler on 29 September 2020 and he had first raised a complaint on 2 December 2020 which the landlord had not responded to.
The resident said that the compensation the landlord had offered for its delay in repairing the boiler did not reflect the impact on his health; he expected an offer of £500 for this. He said that the electrical safety issue which was discovered was a health and safety issue and expected £100 for this. The resident wanted £50 compensation for the boiler not having been serviced in over a year. He had been told that he would be reimbursed for his purchase of temporary heating but he had yet to receive this.
The resident highlighted that he and his wife were keyworkers and would have preferred for the landlord’s representative to provide access without them needing to be present during repairs. He said he and his wife lost several days’ earnings due to needing to arrange access for appointments which were arranged at short notice. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s performance when attending as the contractors “stayed a few minutes and left” and one resorted to searching the internet for information on how to repair the boiler. He felt that his time had been “genuinely wasted” and it had ignored the impact on his earnings from taking time off from work. The resident wanted the landlord to compensate him £300 for his lost earnings. He wanted a further £200 for it not addressing the correct dates of the issues occurring.
The resident acknowledged that the extractor fans in the property had been replaced and water pressure had been remedied the previous week, which he felt had taken an unsatisfactory length of time. He pointed out that the mould which had formed while there was a lack of heating in the property had not been addressed and questioned if he would need to repeatedly chase it for work to be done on this. The resident repeated his request for the landlord to review its processes to prevent future issues.
The landlord’s records on 1 April 2021 noted that there had been an appointment for 27 March 2021 to carry out a mould wash which had been rescheduled for 14 April 2021.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 8 April 2021. In this, it confirmed that providing access to the property for repairs to be carried out was an obligation under the tenancy agreement, and therefore it did not pay compensation for lost earnings. The landlord also asserted that the resident’s request for compensation for the impact on his health amounted to a personal injury claim and provided information on how may pursue this with its insurance team.
The landlord relayed that records provided from its contractor showed that it attended on 18 and 22 September 2020 and was unable to gain access to the property. On 24 September 2020, it was unable to fix the fault which was eventually fixed on 30 September 2020. It offered £30 compensation for this period.
The landlord confirmed that it attended on 26 November 2020 and remedied the resident’s report of no heating and hot water by turning on the electrical switch. It was unable to repair the boiler after his report 1 December 2020 after three visits and replaced it on 16 December 2020. The landlord noted that, other than leaving a voice mail message on 8 December 2020, no further attempts were made to provide temporary heating to the resident. It therefore offered £55 compensation for the loss of heating between 2 and 13 December 2020, with a further £50 discretionary compensation for its failure to provide temporary heating.
The landlord noted that the resident made a further report of no heating or hot water on 3 January 2021, after the replacement of the boiler. It said that its notes indicated that the boiler was working, but the water pressure was not to his preference. The landlord said this was attended by its plumber on 20 January 2021 but was passed back to its heating contractor on 25 January 2021. On this visit, there was no fault with the boiler and the matter was passed back to the boiler manufacturer to address.
The landlord concluded that it had not deliberately left the resident without heating or hot water but it did not make sufficient effort to provide him with temporary heating, for which it apologised. It acknowledged that there had been repeated visits to repair the boiler and offered £100 discretionary compensation for the inconvenience caused by this. The landlord also noted that its final complaint response had been issued late and offered £50 compensation for this. This brought its compensation offer to £285 in total and was offered in addition to the £530 it already offered him in its stage one complaint response.
On 4 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service, of which his main complaint was the boiler. He said that since moving into the property in July 2020, he did not have reliable heating and hot water until February 2021 and was left without heating and hot water for four weeks in total, including being without heating or hot water in January 2021. The resident contended that the boiler had not been serviced in over a year. He added that the lack of heating had resulted in the formation of mould in the living room, bedroom and bathroom, and that the landlord had replaced the extractor fans in the property.
The resident wanted the landlord to review its repair and maintenance procedures with a view to improving its handling of repairs. He felt that the compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient to recognise the scale of the delay in carrying out the repairs and the impact on his health.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the installations in the property provided for the provision of water and heating. This agreement also specifies that the resident is to provide access to the property for its staff to carry out repairs and safety checks at reasonable times and with reasonable notice. It will provide at least 24 hours’ notice of requiring access except in the case of emergencies.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that emergency repairs are those which present an immediate danger or risk to the resident or others and the landlord should attend these within 24 hours to make the repair safe. For non-emergency repairs, it will offer an appointment that suits the resident within 28 days of the repair report.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that when there is a loss of hot water due to an outstanding repair, it will pay £5 compensation per day after seven days have elapsing after the initial report. This same rate applies when there is a loss of heating except when temporary heating has not been provided, in which case £5 is payable per day after the initial report. The policy also states that compensation is not payable for a resident’s lost earnings in providing access to the property for repairs or when it has not been able to gain access to carry out work.
The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where it is to respond to a complaint at stage one within ten working days and within 20 working days at the final stage.

The landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs

The resident has said that he experienced an impact on his health due to the landlord’s handling of repairs to his boiler, which left him without hot water or heating for a prolonged period. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on his health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury insurance claim if he wishes to pursue this. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman is not an award of ‘damages’ in the way that an insurance claim or legal case might award the resident. It is noted that the landlord has advised the resident of how to make a personal injury claim if he wishes to and this was an appropriate response under the circumstances. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation affecting his property.
The role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its obligations in its handling of the repairs. Where the landlord has offered compensation, the Ombudsman will determine whether the compensation it offered proportionately reflected the likely level of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s errors and whether its offer was in line with its own compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website).
The resident requested the landlord provide compensation for his lost earnings when taking time off from work to provide access for the repairs. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s compensation policy above, it was under no obligation to pay for his lost earnings caused by providing access to the property. However, if the landlord’s access requests were excessive then compensation may be appropriate to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by repeated, unnecessary appointments.
The landlord has a duty to ensure that the resident’s property has working installations for the provision of heating and hot water, as confirmed by the tenancy agreement. While its repairs and maintenance policy above does not specific whether the loss of heating or hot water is an emergency repair, under its obligations under its tenancy and the law, it should have attended within a reasonable period to carry out these repairs. The law does not define what a ‘reasonable’ period is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
While the resident has said that he had experienced unreliable hot water and heating since July 2020, the Ombudsman would expect that a complaint is raised about dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service within six months of the matters arising. This is because, with the passage of time, a determination cannot be reliably made on historical events. Therefore, specific events from June 2020 have been considered in this investigation, this being six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint being raised with the landlord.
The landlord attended the resident’s property within two days or less in response to each of his reports of a loss of hot water or heating. His report on 20 January 2021 was attended after four days, but this report was of low pressure and there was not a total loss of heating or hot water. Likewise, the resident’s report of low boiler pressure on 20 January 2021 was attended after five days. As none of the resident’s reports indicated that the loss of heating or hot water posed an immediate danger, the landlord was not obliged to attend within 24 hours as an emergency. That it did attend on each occasion within two days or less showed that it prioritised the repair appropriately given that the need for heating and hot water was likely to be greater during that time of year. The landlord therefore attended each report within a reasonable time.
The resident was without hot water between 24 and 30 September 2020. As this was less than seven days after the initial report, in accordance with its compensation policy above, the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation for this period, however in its final complaint response it offered £30 compensation in excess of its policy. Between 1 and 16 December 2020, the resident was without heating and hot water for 15 days. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy above, as temporary heating was not provided to the resident, it should have offered £75 compensation for the loss of heating during this time, and £40 compensation for the loss of hot water.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response offered £280 compensation for loss of heating and hot water based on dates inconsistent with events, and its final complaint response only offered £55 for the loss of heating between 1 and 16 December 2020. Given that the compensation offered in the final response was offered in addition to that offered in the stage one response, the total was £365 which was significantly in excess of the £115 due in accordance with its policy. Therefore, the compensation offered for loss of heating and hot water constituted reasonable redress as it was in excess of the landlord’s strict obligations under its repairs policy.
In its stage one complaint response the landlord offered £100 compensation for inconvenience caused to the resident and £100 in recognition of his medical vulnerability. This was a reasonable offer of discretionary compensation as it was offered in addition to its compensation for loss of heating and hot water and was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This guidance provides for offers of compensation between £50 and £250 where there has been a service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
There was a reasonable expectation on the resident’s part that the landlord’s engineer would be suitably qualified and experienced to remedy the fault with the boiler. This offer of £200 suitably addressed the resident’s likely distress and inconvenience caused the inability of the engineer on 24 September 2020 to fix the fault which was then fixed on 30 September 2020 and the three visits required between 1 and 16 December 2020 before the boiler was replaced.
The landlord’s final response offered a further £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the repeated visits to address his boiler and £50 for its failure to provide temporary heating. While, it is disputed whether the landlord agreed to reimburse the £65 spent by the resident on purchasing temporary heating, the purchase was made of his own accord and there was no evidence that he had chased it for provision of temporary heating. Therefore, for the period which he was without heating, in all the circumstances of the case, its offer of £50 was reasonable.
In conclusion, the landlord offered the resident a total of £735 compensation for its handling of repairs to the boiler. This Service’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation in excess of £700 when there have been failures which had a severe long-term impact on the resident. Given that the boiler was replaced, the landlord made efforts to address follow on damp issues caused by the lack of heating by arranging for a mould wash and replacing the extractor fans and that, furthermore, the compensation it offered him was in excess of its obligations, it made a reasonable offer of redress in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord is therefore not required to do anything more to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident 20 working days after he raised his complaint. It issued its final response to him 31 working days after his escalation of the complaint. These timeframes were in excess of those in its complaints policy above and it therefore failed to adhere to its policy.
As mentioned above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 for failures which affected the resident but were of short duration and did not significantly affect the outcome of the complaint. As the delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses were not excessive and were unlikely to have affected the outcome of the complaint, the £50 it offered at stage one and at the final stage of its complaints process for its delays at each stage represented reasonable offers of redress which were broadly in accordance this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning:
1. Its handling of boiler repairs at his property.
2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord offered compensation to the resident which was in excess of its obligation under its policy which proportionately recognised the significant level of inconvenience and distress he experienced as a result of errors in its handling of the boiler repairs. This compensation was in excess of that recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for the failures exhibited by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged its failures at both stages of the complaint to provide its responses in accordance with its policy and offered a reasonable level of compensation in recognition of this.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £835 compensation it offered him in its complaint responses.
2. Liaise with its contractor to ensure that its engineers are suitably trained to work on the appliances in its properties going forward.