Town and Country Housing (202211497)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211497

Town and Country Housing

18 July 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 handling of a repair to the resident’s solar heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has a vulnerable child who is autistic. The child also suffers with urinary complications.
  3. The hot water system at the property was installed in 2008,with solar panels being the primary heating source.
  4. On 17 May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming from the expansion tank at the property. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day but was unable to carry out the repair. The leak was identified as coming from a solar panel. This required a specialist engineer to carry out the repair. Between 17 May 2021 and 7 June 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended the property five times to look at the repair. During these visits, the contractor drained the water system, altered the pipework, and disconnected the solar panel system. During the specialist engineer’s visit on 7 June 2021, they recommended that a new cylinder, as well as new solar panels were required. On 21 July 2021, the contractor attended the property again to reconfirm the part numbers required for the replacement of the solar heating system.
  1. On 9 September 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that since it quoted for the new solar panel system, it had not responded to the resident’s numerous requests for an update on the repair. The resident said she was caused financial hardship through an increase in her electricity bills. This was because the solar panel system had not worked since May 2021. The emersion tank had been locked to the ‘on’ position and was constantly heating her tank. In addition, the resident was concerned as her autistic child often needed to bathe up to three times per day. The resident had taken independent advice from an engineer who told to turn her emersion tank off during the day, to save money. However, the resident said that all of the above was causing her distress and was unsustainable.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response acknowledged its delay in carrying out the repair. It stated that this was due to the contractor awaiting parts. The landlord was also reviewing why a replacement solar panel system had been recommended, rather than a repair. This was because it expected the system to last 20 years. It told the resident that the solar panel system was designed to reduce costs. It then also told the resident that the solar panel system was not her primary source for hot water. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture towards the resident’s electricity bills for its delays to the repair. The resident instructed a representative to act on her behalf in communicating with the landlord going forward, as well as with this service. She disagreed with the landlord’s stage one response, including the accuracy of its findings and requested the escalation of her complaint.
  3. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process on 9 December 2021, it apologised that it needed to extend its time to respond to the resident’s complaint. It accepted that it failed to respond to its stage one response in a timely manner and that its compensation was not reasonable. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the nuisance and inconvenience caused. It also agreed to pay £5 per week for the loss of the use of the solar panel system. This would be paid from the date it became inoperative, until it was repaired or replaced. From August 2022, the landlord increased this to £10 per week.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 August 2022. Her desired outcome was for the repair to be completed, an increase in compensation and for the landlord to learn from its mistakes. The repair was completed on 6 June 2023. On 15 June 2023, the landlord opened a new stage one complaint for its response to this repair. It offered the resident an additional £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It has also offered the resident £42 for the period of time the property was without access to hot water between 19 August 2022 and 26 August 2022. The resident remains dissatisfied with the increase in compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for all fixtures and fittings within the property for water, electricity, and water heating. It provides two categories for its response times to repairs:
    1. Emergency Repairs – Any defect that puts the health and safety of the tenant, or a third party at immediate risk. Or that affects the structure of the building.
    2. By Appointment – Any defect that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance to the resident or third party and can wait to a mutually convenient time.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that will provide statutory compensation under the ‘Right to Repair’ which covers qualifying repairs which cost less than £250. It describes all of these qualifying repairs as urgent. It also awards discretionary compensation. It may pay a goodwill gesture to a maximum of £50 where it states it is not at fault.
  3. The landlord states it expects its contractors to assess works beforehand, to plan to ensure that jobs can be completed, without unnecessary or repeat visits to a property.
  4. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy:
    1. At stage one it will contact the resident within 48 hours of their complaint and provide a response within ten working days.
    2. At stage two it will allocate the complaint to a member of its leadership team who will provide a response within ten working days.

The repair to the solar heating system.

  1. The resident reported the leak to her hot water system on 17 May 2021. The landlord provided a contractor to attend the same day, in an attempt to resolve the issue. Its contractor identified it required a specialist engineer and made attempts to carry out the repair between 17 May 2021 and 7 June 2021. This was an appropriate response from the landlord, and it had acknowledged its responsibility to carrying out the repair.
  2. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 21 July 2021. This was 44 days later to reconfirm the part numbers required to carry out the repair. It then took a further 61 days to provide the landlord with a quote of £7000 to carry out the replacement of the resident’s solar heating system. It took the contractor a total of 105 days to provide the landlord with a quote for the repair. It had not sourced the parts by this time. The landlord is responsible for the works its contractors provide. This is not a reasonable time period to await a quote for works. Whilst the landlord did not have direct control over the time taken by its contractor it could have chased the contractor for updates and/or looked at using a different contractor if it could find one which could complete the repair more quickly. It is not disputed that during this period of time, the landlord also, failed to communicate this delay with the resident. The resident during this time, was seeking updates from the landlord. This is a poor level of communication from the landlord to its resident. It should have identified what was causing the delay in its ability to provide a quote for the works and share this with the resident.
  3. The landlord was concerned about the cost to replace the solar heating system, which it had been informed, should have lasted 20 years. This service understands the importance of the landlord’s need to be financially responsible, towards the repairs it carries out. However, it was not reasonable for the resident to have to wait until January 2022, for the landlord to have obtained its third-party inspection report for the works. The repair was completed on 6 June 2023. This was not a reasonable time period for this repair. During this period of time, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays. This demonstrates poor communication, which this service can understand would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. Especially considering the repair was 11 months on by this time.
  4. The resident was increasingly concerned over the rising energy costs and the continued distress and anxiety, the outstanding repair was having on her family. It was right that the landlord looked for another contractor following the continued delays. But it should have acted sooner in this regard.
  5. On 19 August 2022, the resident reported a further leak to the hot water system. The contractor initially stated this was not a priority repair. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord to raise their concern about this. It was right that the landlord’s contractor changed its position and attended the same day. The resident should not have to complain to get the contractor to respond to the repair. The contractor has then brought with them the wrong tank for the repair. This was a repeat of a previous error by the contractor. The resident and her family, including a vulnerable child were then without hot water for a week, whilst the contractor sourced the correct part for the tank. By this time, the landlord had instructed two contractors and as a result, the resident was being contacted by both of them. This left the resident confused, as she was unsure who was carrying out the repair. This service recognises that this confusion would have exacerbated the distress and anxiety caused to the resident at that time. The landlord should have been clear in its communication for the resident as to who was responsible for the repair. It should have then relayed the correct information to its contractors too.
  6. The delay to the repairs continued whilst both contractors were attempting to source the correct parts, to carry out the repair. The landlord then chose to go with its original contractor as it had informed the landlord that it would be able to carry out the repair sooner. However, the repair the contractor carried out on 30 August 2022, was another temporary fix. This same contractor attended again on 6 and 7 October 2022 to install the new immersion tank but this did not solve the repair. The contractor explained during the visit to the resident that they would be unable to complete the repair of the solar system during that visit. By this time, the repair had been outstanding for 508 days. This is an unacceptable response to this repair by the landlord.
  7. The contractor made the decision to not carry out the installation of the solar panel over the winter of 2022. It did not provide any communication or update over this period. The landlord stated that it advised the contractor to keep the resident updated directly. As previously stated, the landlord is responsible for the service its contractors provide to its residents. This has been unacceptable, and the Ombudsman has taken into consideration the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by this. The works to the solar heating system were completed on 6 January 2023, more than two years after the repair was first reported.
  8. The landlord took 41 days to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint, which it provided on 20 October 2021. This contained inaccurate information about the timeline of events in its response to the repair. This service recognises this would have only added to the frustration of the resident. In its final response the landlord awarded the resident£50 for nuisance and inconvenience. It then agreed to award a weekly payment of £5 per week from the date the solar panel system became inoperative. In August 2022 it agreed to increase this to £10 per week until the solar heating system was repaired. This service is aware that the landlord has paid the resident £690 in total, towards her electricity bills over the lifetime of this repair. The landlord also increased its compensation to the resident offering a further £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. Although the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable to cover the resident’s additional electricity costs, the landlord’s response to this repair and subsequent stage one and two complaint procedure failed to address the vulnerability of the resident’s child. The landlord informed this service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for anyone at the address. Throughout this complaint it was highlighted to the landlord that the resident’s child was autistic and suffered with urinary complications. As a result, the landlord should have recorded this. It should have taken these vulnerabilities into account in its response to the repair. This is because the child’s needs would reasonably mean they were more significantly affected by problems with the hot water system. The landlord should have acted much sooner in its response to the repair. It should have also acknowledged this in its complaints handling, which it did not do. It was right that the landlord has since considered the distress and inconvenience caused by its more recent offer of compensation that included when the resident was without hot water in August 2022 and the increased impact this would have had on her and her family including her child.
  10. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord to put things right, resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  11. In all the circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the repair has taken 750 days to complete. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the solar heating system. This service has taken into consideration the landlord’s newly provided stage one complaint response, dated 15 June 2023. As well as its apology and increased compensation of £750 for distress and inconvenience. The service’s investigation, however, is focused on the landlord’s response to the complaint through stage one and two of its complaint’s procedure. Any offers made after the end of the complaint procedure will not influence the Ombudsman’s overall findings, although we will take into account any offers of compensation when assessing how much compensation to award. In this case the landlord has made an offer of compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Examples of awards in this range include instances where the landlord’s failings had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident or where in its processes, it had failed to properly address the level of its failing had or caused detriment to a resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to the solar heating system.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £792 within 28 days of this report if it has not already done so, as referenced within its new stage one response dated 15 June 2023. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
    1. £750 for distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £42 for the resident being without hot water between 19 and 26 August 2022.
  2. This is in addition to the £690 paid to the resident in support of her electricity bills.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy and make such amendments that carries out its handling of complaints in line with the Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code. (Available to view on the Housing Ombudsman Service website).
  2. The landlord should review its records for the resident’s household and ensure it has accurate records of any vulnerabilities within this household.