Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202208682)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208682

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

14 March 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of boiler repairs.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

2. The resident informed this Service that she sought compensation for the inconvenience of having no heating during the Christmas 2021 period. This was not raised as part of her complaint to the landlord and therefore will not be considered in this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue this matter; however, given the time elapsed since the issues arose, this aspect of the complaint may be out of time.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Besides herself, her household was composed of four children and an adult with a disability. The landlord did not have a record of the health vulnerability on file.
4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 April 2022 to carry out an annual gas safety check. It found that the boiler was dangerous and disabled it. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 27 April 2022 as she was unhappy that, since the boiler was disabled, she was told by the engineer that this would be fixed in the “next few days”, yet it remained inoperative and two appointments for the repair had been missed.
5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 4 June 2022 confirmed that the boiler would be replaced on 7 June 2022 and offered to consider reimbursing her for the cost of ready meals and takeaways she had needed to buy due to being unable to cook at home. It also offered her £210 compensation made up of:
   1. £20 for missed appointments
   2. £40 for poor complaint handling
   3. £150 for her time and trouble.
6. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 and 14 June 2022. She said that the compensation offer was insufficient to cover the inconvenience of no heating for two months, the cost of using the immersion heater, loss of earnings from the missed appointments, having to buy an electric cooker, and damage caused to her blinds during the repair. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 June 2022 to increase its offer of compensation to £410, which she rejected.
7. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 21 July 2022 maintained its previous compensation offer, citing the compensation amount as £360. It referred her to its insurers to claim for the damage to her blinds and the cost of the electric cooker. The landlord argued that the lack of gas used while the boiler was inoperative would have offset the increased electricity use for the immersion heater, but agreed to consider evidence of increased energy costs on receipt of information from the resident.
8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 11 December 2022 that she felt the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient. The landlord advised this Service on 6 February 2023 that the offer of £360 in its final response did not include £50 it had offered for the damage to the resident’s blinds, which she had valued at around £30. It added that it had not received information from the resident about excess energy or meal costs.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of boiler repairs

9. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident states that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for space and water heating. This confirms that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that there was heating and hot water in the property. The tenancy agreement also confirms that the resident is responsible for providing access to the landlord for the purpose of inspecting and performing repairs in the property.
10. The landlord’s “Repairs: a guide for tenants” handbook states that a total loss of heating is an emergency repair which it should complete within 24 hours; although, if parts are required, this may take a further seven days to complete. This guide also states that temporary heating may be provided to the resident if requested.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £10 compensation in the event that it misses an agreed appointment. This policy also provides for reimbursement for damage caused by itself or its contractors, up to a maximum of £300; claims for reimbursement above this should be considered by its insurance team. The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments provides for offers of between £151 and £350 in the event of “repeated failings in the service provided meaning high impact to customer and their standard of living has been impacted”.
12. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to complete the repair to the resident’s boiler within the timeframe specified in its repairs guide for tenants. The boiler was disabled on 11 April 2022 and it did not complete the repair until 7 June 2022; this was a period of approximately two months. While it is noted that this period was outside of the winter months, nevertheless, this was an excessive delay. There was no evidence that the landlord provided temporary heating to the resident. While the repairs guide states that this is provided on request, given that there were several children in the household, the landlord should have been proactive in offering this. This would have been in keeping with its responsibility to ensure that there was a source of heating in the property while the repair was awaiting completion.
13. The landlord’s disabling of the boiler on 11 April 2022 also prevented the resident from using hot water through the boiler. However, it was evident that she had a back-up immersion heater; therefore, she was not completely without access to hot water. In her complaint to the landlord on 27 April 2022, the resident contended that the use of the immersion heater was “costing a fortune”.
14. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 21 July 2022 offered to consider any increase in energy costs upon receipt of evidence. This was a reasonable response which displayed a willingness to put right the detriment the resident experienced in using the immersion heater. It was also a reasonable response from the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for any excess food costs caused by her being unable to use her gas cooker. This again demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to put right the disadvantage experienced by the resident.
15. It should be clarified that the purpose of any compensation awarded by the Ombudsman is not to punish the landlord; nor is it to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might. The purpose of compensation is to put right any detriment and evidenced loss experienced by the resident resulting from the failures exhibited by the landlord. Therefore, when awarding compensation, it is considered whether any offer of compensation already made by the landlord proportionately recognised the level of detriment caused to the resident.
16. The landlord offered £300 compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience, plus £20 for two missed appointments, and £50 for the replacement of blinds damaged by its contractor. These offers were made in accordance with its compensation policy above. The £300 it offered was in the upper range of the amounts specified in the policy where there has been a failure causing a high level of impact on the resident. It was appropriate for it to offer reimbursement for the damaged blinds and refer the resident to its insurers for consideration of reimbursement for her purchase of the electric cooker, as this was again in accordance with its compensation policy.
17. It is noted that the resident sought compensation for her and her partner’s loss of earnings due to the two missed appointments. It was reasonable that the landlord did not offer to compensate for this because, as specified in the tenancy agreement above, it is the resident’s responsibility to provide the landlord access to the property to carry out repairs. When these two appointments were missed, the landlord offered compensation for each appointment missed in accordance with its policy.
18. Therefore, while the resident was left without the use of her boiler for an unreasonable and excessive length of time, the landlord made reasonable efforts to put right the failures identified, by apologising, offering compensation, offering to reimburse her for any excess costs, and completing the repair. The compensation that it offered to her therefore represented an offer of reasonable redress which proportionately recognised the failings it exhibited. The offer was also broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where the landlord’s failings adversely affected the resident, but which may not have had a permanent effect on her.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

19. The landlord’s complaints process provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At the first stage the landlord should provide its stage one complaint response within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes, the landlord should agree a new timeframe with the resident and keep her updated weekly.
20. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued 25 working days after the resident raised her complaint and was in excess of the timeframe specified in its process above. It emailed her on 16 May 2022 to advise it required another ten working days to provide its response; however, this email was sent after the stage one response was already due, which should have been 11 May 2022. The landlord then failed to keep to the new deadline to provide its stage one response; this was issued three working days late on 4 June 2022.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2022 and the landlord provided its final response to her on 21 July 2022, after 34 working days. This was 14 working days in excess of the timeframe specified above, and there was no evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident.
22. While the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling in its stage one complaint response – offering £40 compensation for this – it did not acknowledge the delay in providing its final stage response. Furthermore, the final stage response provided inconsistent information. The final response offered £360 compensation which contradicted the landlord’s previous offer of £410 on 15 June 2022, which included £50 for the replacement of damaged blinds. The final response referred her to its insurers for the reported damage to her blinds, which was at odds with its previous advice.
23. The landlord’s final response did not acknowledge that the response was late, nor did it acknowledge that it had previously offered, in its stage one response, to consider reimbursement of her excess food costs. The delayed final response and the inconsistent information was unreasonable and may have led to frustration and uncertainty for the resident. While the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it was aware of this inconsistency, there was no evidence that it clarified this with the resident.
24. The Landlord informed the Ombudsman that, at the time of the complaint, it was in the process of changing gas contractors, which impacted the standard of service it provided. In accordance with our dispute resolution principles, a landlord would be expected to identify learning from complaints and impart this to residents to improve the landlord/tenant relationship and restore confidence in its standard of service. While the landlord did apologise to the resident for the delayed boiler repair, it was unreasonable that it did not provide any explanation of how the failure had occurred.
25. To address the delayed final stage response and the inconsistency of the information within, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation, inclusive of the £40 it already offered her. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of £50 to £100 when there has been a failure which was of short duration but which the landlord did not fully acknowledge and was likely to have led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning the level of compensation it offered her for its handling of boiler repairs.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

28. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation, inclusive of the £40 it previously offered her, for its failures in the handling of the complaint.
    2. Write to the resident to confirm its total offer of compensation and to request information about her excess food and fuel costs for the consideration of reimbursement.
    3. Review its processes for the handling of gas repairs and confirm to the resident and this Service what steps it will take to ensure that these repairs will be handled appropriately in future.
    4. Review its processes for the handling of complaints and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that complaints are handled promptly, in accordance with its policy, and provide appropriate information.
29. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

30. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £370 compensation it offered her for the handling of her boiler repair, comprised of:
       1. £300 for her distress and inconvenience
       2. £20 for two missed appointments
       3. £50 for the replacement of her damaged blinds.
    2. Provide its insurance details to the resident for consideration of her claim for her electric cooker.