Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Manchester City Council (202127494)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127494

Northwards Housing

31 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 landlord’s handling of a leak from the resident’s boiler and the associated damage.
    2. The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s kitchen floor was sinking.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a terraced house, in which the boiler is situated upstairs above the kitchen.
  2. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports that his kitchen floor was sinking and went through its complaints process in 2018. No major issues were found with the floor but it was determined that in order to fully inspect the floor, the resident needed to remove tiles he had installed, which he was responsible for removing and relaying. As the resident stated he would be replacing the tiles, the landlord asked him to notify it when this would happen so it could arrange a full inspection of the floor before new tiles were laid.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 23 August 2021, asking it to inspect the kitchen floor. On the same day, the resident notified the landlord that he was chasing a repair for his leaking boiler.
  4. An operative attended the property on 26 August 2021, found that a pipe was leaking and ordered a part. The part was fitted on 1 September 2021. The boiler was left working, but the operative identified that a new part was needed, and ordered it.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 1 September 2021, and another on 6 September 2021. He said that he had originally complained on 26 August, and had been told someone would call him. He said nobody had called him, and that the landlord had ruined his upstairs carpet and his kitchen ceiling.
  6. An operative visited the property on 14 September 2021 and fitted the remaining component. The boiler was left working. On 4 October 2021, the resident reported the boiler was leaking again. An operative attended the same day but could not gain access. He returned on 6 October 2021, corrected the issue, and left the boiler working.
  7. An operative attended on 13 October 2021, to inspected the kitchen floor. He advised that he could not do a full inspection until the tiles (laid by the resident) had been removed (this was the same information the resident was given by the landlord in 2018).
  8. On 14 October 2021, the resident reported his boiler was leaking again. An operative attended the same day and could not find a leak. He left it working. On 29 October 2021, the resident told the landlord that the boiler leak was intermittent. The landlord offered to send an operative out that day but the resident was not available. An operative attended on 1 November 2021, and identified two parts needed to be replaced. These parts were ordered and fitted on 3 November 2021, where the boiler was left working and not leaking.
  9. The landlord did not provide a complaint response until 15 November 2021. It apologised for the delay, and explained it was due to staff issues. It explained that it had inspected the kitchen floor on 13 October 2021, and that the same issue had been raised and addressed in 2018. It explained that its position was the same as then i.e. the tiles needed to be moved to allow inspection and the resident was responsible for removing and relaying them. It noted the resident had said he intended to renew the tiles, and suggested he inform it when that was done so it could arrange for a surveyor to attend to inspect the floor. The landlord apologised for the ongoing boiler issue. It said that it had thought that its visit in September 2021, and the subsequent new parts fitted, had addressed the problem. It suggested a visit to re-assess the situation and hopefully find a solution. It acknowledged the resident’s concern that leaks had caused staining to the kitchen ceiling, apologised, and offered £40 towards redecorating the stained areas on the kitchen ceiling. The landlord directed the resident to this Service (indirectly) if he remained dissatisfied.
  10. On 16 November 2021, the resident reported the boiler was leaking again. An operative attended on 23 November 2021, where he checked to ensure all faults had been dealt with and the issue with the boiler itself was resolved.
  11. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the boiler leak and the associated damage, its handling of his reports about the kitchen floor, and its handling of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that he was, in part, seeking compensation for lost income, caused by having to deal with the ongoing boiler leaks. A request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit, and is therefore not something this report can consider.
  2. The resident also listed repairs he wants, such as to a kitchen light and a cupboard. These are repair issues which should be raised with the landlord to respond to and address.
  3. Finally, the resident asked for a new boiler. Any decisions on replacing a boiler are for a landlord to take, and not usually something the Ombudsman would order a landlord to do.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for supplying heating and hot water. The landlord’s home improvement guide states that residents are responsible for removing any flooring they have installed, to facilitate repairs under it.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be attended to within twenty-four hours and non-urgent repairs within five working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and a full response will be made within a further ten working days. When escalated, the escalation will be acknowledged within five working days and will be investigated by one of the senior leadership team. A full response will be made within ten working days. If it is not possible to provide responses within the policy’s timescales, then an explanation will be given as to why there has been a delay.

Repairs to the boiler

  1. The resident reported a leaking boiler on 23 August 2021. An operative attended on 26 August 2021, and identified the need for a new part. This was reasonable because it was inside of the landlord’s repair timescale. When the operative returned on 1 September 2021, he fitted the ordered part and determined more parts were needed to be ordered. These were reasonable actions: attending promptly, identifying what needed to be done, and acting on it.
  2. The operative did not return to fit the second part until 14 September 2021. While a delay due to waiting for parts is sometimes understandable, the resident chased the landlord for an update during this time, but did not receive a response. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, or explained the need to wait for parts. This was unreasonable because managing a tenant’s expectations and updating them about outstanding repairs is an essential aspect of good repair management and customer service.
  3. When the resident reported the boiler was leaking on 4 October 2021, the landlord sent an operative the same day. The resident was not in and the operative returned on 6 October 2021. This was reasonable because an operative attended within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale.
  4. The resident reported another boiler leak on 14 October 2021, an operative attended the same day and found no leak or faults. When the resident reported another leak on 29 October 2021, the landlord offered to send an operative out the same day. As the resident was not available, an operative attended on 1 November 2021 and ordered parts. A new attendance date was agreed with the resident. The ordered parts were fitted on 3 November 2021. A further leak was reported on 16 November, attended on 23 November. These were all reasonable responses, in line with the landlord’s repair time frames.
  5. While the landlord’s response times to the resident’s reports were reasonable, there is no indication in the evidence provided that the landlord considered or investigated why the resident was experiencing so many leaks in such a short time period, which is a fundamental aspect of basic repair management. The landlord’s complaint response in November 2022 further indicates that the issue was not properly considered, because it states that the landlord believed the leak issue had been addressed with the fitting of new parts in September, yet the repair records show that further leaks were reported in October, demonstrating that the problem had not been addressed. These omissions were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  6. The resident reported to the landlord on several occasions that the leaks had caused damage to his home. Usually, such damage would be the subject of an insurance claim on the resident’s home contents insurance. Only if a landlord was seen to be in some way responsible for the cause of the damage would it be expected to consider compensation for it. In this case, it is not clear why the leaks kept happening, because that was not investigated. It stands, then, that the landlord’s action, or inaction, may have contributed to the damage, and that needs to be investigated and addressed. The £40 offered by the landlord towards the redecorating costs does not appear to be proportionate to the scale of the damage alleged by the resident.

Sinking kitchen floor

  1. The resident originally raised a complaint about the floor issue in 2018. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme has a 12-month limit in which a complaint can be investigated after the end of the landlord’s complaint process. As that time has long passed, this investigation cannot consider the original kitchen floor issue raised in 2018, or the landlord’s response. Instead, this investigation considers the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint in 2021.
  2. When the resident re-raised the issue of the kitchen floor to the landlord on 4 October 2021, an operative attended the property on 13 October 2021, and reiterated what he had been told before in 2018. This was reasonable because the operative attended within the landlord’s timescale for non-urgent repairs and explained that the tiles the resident was responsible for still needed to be removed in order for a full inspection to take place. The landlord made it clear that it took the same stance as it did in 2018 when it provided the resident with its complaint response. Its position was in line with its policy on the matter.
  3. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the situation had changed to such an extent that the landlord’s decision to maintain its original position was unreasonable, and the landlord offered a pragmatic solution by explaining its willingness to coordinate its inspection with the resident’s plan to renew the flooring.
  4. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained his concerns about the state of the floor, and about the costs involved in taking up and relaying the flooring. However, those concerns are, at this point, hypothetical, and not ones that can be considered here. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman can only consider actual impacts from a landlord’s actions.

Complaint handling

  1. It is not apparent from the evidence and information provided when exactly the resident made his first complaint to the landlord. Regardless, the landlord logged a complaint on 1 September 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement. This was counter to both the landlord’s policy, and to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident chased his complaint on 4 and 6 October 2021. The landlord sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement on 6 October 2021, saying it would respond within ten working days.
  3. The landlord then provided a complaint response on 15 November 2021. The letter did not explain this, but the landlord’s internal correspondence shows it decided to issue a stage two complaint response because it did not respond to the complaint sooner. In its response the landlord apologised for the delay and explained why it had occurred. Apologising and giving an explanation of the delay was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, avoiding a stage one response was not in line with the Code, which explains that a complaint must be logged at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process, and must only be escalated to stage two once it has completed stage one. This is to expedite the resolution of a complaint, whilst also allowing a resident the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have about the stage one response, before approaching the Ombudsman. Not following this process was a failing.
  4. The resident had to chase the landlord multiple times to get a response, which clearly added to his time and trouble and inconvenience. It took from 1 September 2021 until 15 November 2021 for the resident to get a response to his first complaint. The Code states that when a complaint response is likely to exceed the relevant timeframes (10 days for stage one) landlords can provide an explanation to the resident, along with a new time frame not to exceed 10 extra days, without good reason. There is no evidence of such an explanation to the resident.
  5. The landlord provided detailed and comprehensive information to this Service about its repair actions, its failings and what it had done internally to ensure such failings did not happen again. It would have been helpful for it to have provided this to the resident in its complaints response, and the fact that it wasn’t (when the information was presumably available) is a further failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of the sinking kitchen floor.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the boiler leak. This is inclusive of the £40 already offered.
    2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. Evidence of these payments must be provided to the Ombudsman by the deadline.
  3. The landlord is also ordered to reconsider its handling of the leaks, focusing on whether the number of reports by the resident should have triggered wider investigations into underlying problems. As part of that reconsideration the landlord must assess whether, and how much, its actions or inaction contributed to the damage to the resident’s home, and whether compensation may be due. If relevant, the landlord should also explain to the resident how he can make a claim on its own insurance. A report explaining both how the landlord has reconsidered this matter, and its conclusions, must be shared with the resident and this Service within six weeks of this report.
  4. Also within six weeks, the landlord must review and explain how it has learnt from the complaint handling failings found in this report, especially in regard to time frames, communication, and complying with the Code. This is something the landlord partly did in its response to the Ombudsman’s information request, but should have been included in its complaint response. This review must be shared with the resident and this Service.