LiveWest Homes Limited (202200124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200124

LiveWest Homes Limited

27 April 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 the landlord’s response to repairs to the resident’s oil tank.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant, the tenancy was assigned to the resident in September 2015. The property is a three-bedroom semi-detached house, where the resident lives with her children.
3. The property’s hot water and heating system is fuelled by oil, which is stored in an external oil tank. The landlord supplied the resident with a watchman device for her oil tank. A watchman is a device that measures the level of oil in an oil tank and provides an alert when it detects a sudden drop of fuel in an oil tank.

Policies and procedures

4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states, that a landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of the exterior and structure of the property. This includes installations for the provision of water and heating systems.
5. Section 2 of the Tenancy Agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installation for water, gas, and electricity as well as those for space heating and heating water.
6. The landlord’s complaints policy states financial compensation will be considered where:
   1. it cannot take action to redress an adverse impact on the customer caused by a service failure.
   2. where the customer has incurred financial loss.
   3. where it is under a statutory or contractual obligation to compensate the resident.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
   1. Any payments made under the policy should be proportionate to any shortfall in service to address:
      1. severity of the mistake or failures made.
      2. level of distress, worry, and inconvenience caused.
      3. length of time taken to address the service failure and restore the situation.
      4. any necessary costs incurred by the customer.
      5. number of people affected and their vulnerabilities.
   2. Payments it may choose to make cover:
      1. goodwill gesture payments to say sorry.
      2. recognition of the impact of service failures.
      3. reimbursement of additional incidental costs.
8. The landlord uses an impact analysis to determine the amount of compensation that should be paid to a resident. The policy states, it would make a payment of £200 for a moderate-level issue.
9. The landlord’s Gas and Oil safety procedure states for emergency repairs to the oil system, the landlord would respond within 24 hours for emergency repairs and two to 28 days for non-emergency repairs. If the heating system is left non-functional; a suitable form of temporary heating will be left at the property if required. An operative of the landlords will re-attend the following day to carry out the required repair.

Summary of events

10. On 13 December 2021, the resident reported she had no heating or hot water as she had run out of oil. The landlord arranged for an engineer to drop off temporary heaters to the resident on the same day. The resident told the engineer, her digital watchman was faulty. She explained she had an oil delivery due on 14 December 2021 and asked if the landlord could arrange for an engineer to attend her property on the evening on 14 December 2021, or 15 December 2021 to bleed the oil from the tank to her radiator. The engineer put this information on the landlord’s systems. The request for the follow-on work for the faulty watchman, was not identified by the landlord until 27 July 2022. The landlord reviewed its records, and confirmed on 01 August 2022 no follow-on job was raised following the appointment in December 2021 for the repair of the watchman.
11. On 15 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained she had children and still had no hot water or heating. She also explained that her oil boiler was locked out, and she had been without heating and hot water for two days due to a lack of available oil operatives. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend on the same day and said the appointment would be treated as an emergency appointment. On the same day, following the engineer’s visit, the landlord completed a follow-up call to the resident and told her the boiler was working okay. The heating and hot water were also said to be okay, and a new job was requested by the landlord for a non-urgent repair. The landlord’s records show it was unsure what the follow-up work was for.
12. An engineer attended the resident’s property on 23 December 2021, to conduct a gas safety check on the boiler. This check did not include a check on the watchman.
13. The resident reported to the landlord, her oil was stolen from her oil tank on 23 March 2022. She explained she would be reporting the incident to the police. She then raised her stage one complaint to the landlord on 24 March 2022 and explained:
    1. Her oil had been stolen from the padlocked tank, the external lid was also taken.
    2. The watchman had been left not working in her tank since December 2021.
    3. She stated that had the watchman been working, she would have known the theft was happening.
    4. She believed the battery had stopped in the watchman. She believed the oil had run out in her boiler in December 2021, as the watchman had stopped working and, this was the reason for the landlord’s attendance on 15 December 2021.
    5. She reported she was told the watchman would be replaced.
    6. She reported following the theft of her oil, she was left with no hot water or heating.

On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint, and raised a request for temporary heaters to be provided to the resident.

14. On 25 March 2022, the landlord communicated internally that the resident was reluctant to order more oil until her tank had been secured. It said the resident felt had the watchman been replaced as promised, she would have been alerted to the theft.
15. On 30 March 2022, as part of its investigations, the landlord found that follow-on works were raised following the visit on 15 December 2022, but it was unsure what they were. The landlord stated in its internal communications, if a verbal promise had been made to replace the watchman, it understood why the resident felt the need to make a formal complaint.
16. On 30 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response to the resident. The landlord said:
    1. It investigated its failure to deal with the watchman, pipe, and metal cage in December 2021, which the resident believed resulted in the theft of her oil.
    2. That the job attended in December was a non-urgent job and was unrelated to the watchman.
    3. On 15 December 2021, a responsive maintenance appointment for the oil pump took place. It was identified that the oil pump setting had been tampered with and needed recalibrating to get it fired up again. There were no issues found, notified nor reported at the time of a defective watchman.
    4. The resident had an oil service on 23 December 2021, and there was no mention of a defective watchman.
    5. It had no records of the watchman being reported as broken until the resident raised her formal complaint. The gas supervisor said, the need to return after 15 December 2021, was a proactive visit to replace the oil pump before winter.
    6. That watchmen were a gesture of goodwill, and it had no obligation to replace or maintain them contractually or legislatively.
    7. It had ordered a new oil tank lid, but it usually had a ten-day lead time on being delivered. The landlord said, it was unable to find any service failure and could not uphold the resident’s complaint.
17. On the same day, following the response to the stage one complaint, the landlord received a voicemail from the resident. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s description of the visit by its engineers on 15 December 2021. She reiterated, the oil ran out in December 2021, due to the faulty watchman, and that was the reason for the appointment on 15 December 2021. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and spoke to internal teams who said, they found no evidence to support that the fault to the watchman was the reason for their attendance. They also said there was no requirement for the landlord to supply and maintain the watchman.
18. On 4 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord chasing the repairs and stated that she had not had any heat or hot water for a long time. She reported having temporary heaters which were not sufficient. On the same day, the landlord emailed its parts handler, querying if the required parts were ordered. It informed the resident; it would arrange an appointment as soon as possible once it received a response.
19. The landlord telephoned the resident on 05 April 2022, she informed it that she had contacted the Ombudsman and would like to escalate her complaint to stage two. She also informed the landlord she had CCTV installed in an attempt to keep her oil safe.
20. On 06 April 2022, the landlord confirmed with its part supplier, that the required parts would be available by 07 April 2022. The landlord contacted the resident to book the repairs. The resident said, there was no point in them attending unless they were going to either relocate the tank or fit a cage with a key around the tank. She stated, she would not be replacing the oil until the highlighted works were completed.
21. The landlord wrote to the resident formally acknowledging the resident’s stage two complaint on 12 April 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 April 2022 and confirmed, one of its staff would be visiting the resident’s property on 26 April 2022, to allow the resident the opportunity to discuss her concerns face to face. The landlord provided its stage two response on 27 April 2022. It explained this was its final response and provided the details for the Ombudsman if the resident remained dissatisfied. Within the response, the landlord said it agreed:
    1. To replace the oil tank lid.
    2. To fit a spin secure valve to the top of the tank.
    3. To fit a tank arm.
    4. Check the oil line for any leaks.
    5. Replace the oil pump and a full recommission of the system.
    6. Replace the outside security light.
22. There was further communication between the landlord and resident on 9 May 2022. The resident explained, she had been without heating and hot water for five weeks. She requested an update and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. She explained her children had a variety of skin issues caused by the lack of hot water and heating.
23. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2022, and explained she still had no hot water after seven weeks. She explained, she had been driving 90-mile round trips for her children to shower and she could not afford it anymore. The resident stated, she needed an appointment for when her oil tank could be secured by 16 May 2022. She explained, she did not refuse the appointment in April 2022, she simply said she would not be putting any oil in the tank, until it had been made secure, and she felt she was being made to wait an unreasonable amount of time for another appointment. On the same day, the landlord’s repairs team confirmed an appointment with the resident for 17 May 2022.
24. The landlord fitted a spin-secure internal locking lid and a replacement lockable plastic lid to the resident’s oil tank on 17 May 2022. It also repaired the watchman and took measurements of the tank to see if any other oil tank theft deterrents were available such as a tank arm and acknowledged internally that it needed to return to fit another part to the tank. On 17 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported, its operative found the “halo” which secured the lid to the tank, was the wrong size and could not be fitted. The resident explained, she would like to know when this would be completed as she needed to order some oil and could not do so until the lid was secure.
25. Following this, on 20 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase a further theft deterrent. She reported, she had now been without oil for eight weeks.
26. On 27 May 2022, the landlord confirmed all required works to the oil tank were complete.
27. On 15 July 2022, the resident confirmed with the Ombudsman, she would like to continue with her complaint. She explained, it took 11 and a half weeks before her hot water and heating were restored. She explained the difficulties she had faced because of the situation, and the detrimental impact that this had on her and her family, due to not having access to bathing facilities at home.
28. On 29 July 2022, the landlord provided the resident with a revised stage two response. Within the response, it acknowledged that there had been service failures with the repairs to the resident’s watchman and the oil tank. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £450. This was calculated as:
    1. £50 as a gesture for distress and inconvenience caused related to the delays in checking the watchman.
    2. £200 for delays in fitting the lid or offer an alternative solution for hot water.
    3. £200 as a gesture of goodwill towards travel costs.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to repairs to resident’s oil tank

29.  The ombudsman’s main consideration here is, whether repairs reported have been handled appropriately by the landlord. The resident has explained she experienced a lack of hot water, adequate heating, and inconvenience because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to her oil tank. The landlord has acknowledged service failures and offered compensation of £450. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration, where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
30. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord is responsible for providing heating and hot water. However, the responsibility for the provision of oil to fuel the heating and hot water, falls onto the resident. The landlord provided the resident with an oil tank to store her fuel, which, she must purchase. Although the tank might have been without an external lid following the theft, there is nothing to suggest it was unusable during this time, whilst the resident awaited the works completed on 17 May 2022.
31. Whilst the Ombudsman understands the resident feared filling her oil tank due to the previous theft and was reluctant to refill the tank until it was more secure. The added security of the tank and its ability to store and function, to provide the resident with fuel to heat her water and home are not mutually exclusive.
32. The resident reported the theft of her oil, and the lid to her tank on 23 March 2022. The landlord did not order the relevant part to replace the lid for another seven days. This was detrimental to the resident as she had to give up her time and go to the trouble of chasing progress on the repairs, on three separate occasions, as the landlord did not always keep her informed of progress. It took the landlord 55 days to replace the lid, which is outside the 28 days stated, in its Gas & Oil Safety policy. There is no evidence an explanation was provided to the resident for the delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unreasonable delay to replace the oil tank lid.
33. The landlord’s responsibility for the watchman is not clear based on its actions. The landlord’s stage one communications state that watchman devices were gestures of goodwill, gifted to residents. However, there is no clear communication or policy, stating who takes responsibility for the maintenance or repairs, of the watchman devices it provided to residents. In an email on 25 March 2022, it states, if it did choose to replace the watchman, it would be as a gesture of goodwill. In its stage one response, the landlord then expressed, it was not under a duty to repair the watchman, even if it had provided it to the resident. It then, later, assumed responsibility for it by repairing it on 17 May 2022. There is no clear reason provided why, the landlord decided to repair the watchman, following its previous response to the resident.
34. Although the landlord later acknowledged that it had not identified the follow on work for the watchman, that its engineer had raised in  December 2021, it provided no explanation for the seven-month delay in identifying it to the resident.
35. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, that there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord, in repairing the watchman. It took it 155 days to do so. This is well over the 28 days stated in its policy. The landlord’s approach towards the responsibility for the watchman would have been confusing to the resident, and contributed to the delays in resolving the issue as it did not make it clear who was responsible for the repairs.
36. The resident believes, had the watchman been in working order, she would have been made aware of the theft. The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s belief of this, however the focus of the Ombudsman’s investigation is on the landlord’s response to the request to carry out repairs. This Service is unable to comment on the circumstances surrounding the theft or if any deterrents would have been enough to prevent it.
37. The landlord’s staff queried amongst themselves whether the resident had contents insurance, as this would allow her to recoup the costs of her stolen oil. However, there is no evidence they advised the resident about this. If the landlord did not do so, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it would have been reasonable and best practice for the landlord to have done so.
38. However, it is the ombudsman’s opinion, that the landlord took reasonable steps, to reduce the inconvenience and financial loss to the resident and help prevent future thefts.
39. When the resident’s oil was stolen, the landlord employed good practice and took the following positive steps:
    1. It awarded her a £300 grant to cover the costs towards half a tank of oil.
    2. It gave her information on other potential grants and interest free loans which could assist with fuel costs.
    3. It sought to provide temporary heaters to the resident.
    4. It provided extra security measures for the tank such as a secure lockable lid, spin-lock external lid and a tank arm.
40. In the landlord’s final response to the resident, it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered the resident an increased £450 in compensation. It took the landlord several months to reach this conclusion despite the resident’s reports. The landlord’s response does not make it clear how it arrived at this figure, as it does not appear to fit in with any of the impact assessment categories within its compensation policy of, low, medium, or high impact. However, the amount awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for the level of failure by the landlord.
41. The landlord appropriately identified, and acknowledged, service failings and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made a reasonable redress to the resident in recognition of the delays, time, trouble and inconvenience caused. Its response evidences, it appropriately put things right, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 53b, of the Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds, that the landlord has offered the resident a reasonable redress.

Reasons

43. The level of compensation offered to the resident, acknowledged the landlord’s delays, lack of timescales, extra costs, and, the level of inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s repair failure to the oil tank. It recognised it failings, and the impact these had on the resident, and took action to put these right. In the ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable redress to the resident for the delays, the inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced.

Recommendations

44. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord should consider re-offering its compensation of £450 to the resident if it has not already done so.
    2. The landlord considers reviewing its policy on watchman devices and identify who is responsible, for its maintenance, repairs, and replacement.